U.S. Fiscal Future Won’t Be Like Its Carefree Past

[anatta]

There have been multiple articles written on it but here's one.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...30/trump-legal-immigration-republicans-378041


CIS is the Center For Immigration Studies. They have long wanted reduced legal immigration. The CEO is close with Trumps folks and those in congress

Yet clamping down on family-based migration is a consistent and fundamental pillar of Trump’s immigration demands, and it’s unclear how much he is willing to compromise on cutting off so-called chain migration in his quest for a Dreamer deal. The mixed reaction to Trump’s plan only underscores the divisions within the GOP and the difficulties in reaching a bipartisan agreement on immigration.

^that's chain immigration. what the article fails to mention is there would be a corresponding increase to skill based immigration- at least that is Trump's stance , if not Grahams

 

[archives]

Wow, you just flat out lie Nordberg.

Where did he lie?

Clinton did cut deficits, and Obama had less discretionary spending than his predecessor who ran a typical conservative agenda, which is something considering Obama faced a recession of historical proportions

The "overwhelming strategy" has been mentioned before, haven't you noticed the numbers geek Ryan pushed the tax cut while continuing to question entitlements?

And we all know the last item is 100% accurate, when a Democrat assumes the White House deficits and debt become the conservative's number one priority, but as we've seen with every GOP Administration since 1980 that concern is soon forgotten once a Repbulican is elected President

 

[cawacko]

^that's chain immigration. what the article fails to mention is there would be a corresponding increase to skill based immigration- at least that is Trump's stance , if not Grahams

These guys claim a lot of things. I'm familiar with Tom Cotton and he's a CIS type guy. The rhetoric they use to sell the bill can be very different than what the bill actually does

 

[cawacko]

Where did he lie?

Clinton did cut deficits, and Obama had less discretionary spending than his predecessor who ran a typical conservative agenda, which is something considering Obama faced a recession of historical proportions

The "overwhelming strategy" has been mentioned before, haven't you noticed the numbers geek Ryan pushed the tax cut while continuing to question entitlements?

And we all know the last item is 100% accurate, when a Democrat assumes the White House deficits and debt become the conservative's number one priority, but as we've seen with every GOP Administration since 1980 that concern is soon forgotten once a Repbulican is elected President

Besides the fact of ignoring what the OP is about you conveniently credit or blame whatever fits your agenda when it comes to who is responsible for spending

 

[Irish Exit]

If anointed King I would increase taxes and cut spending until there was no deficit. It would cause a recession, maybe even a world wide recession. But it's the medicine we have to take.
After the books are balanced we'd spend only what we take in adjusted every two yrs.
Of course it would take a king to do this because it's political suicide in a democracy.

If I were Emperor, I would devalue the US dollar to 90% of what China manipulates their currency to be.

 

[anatta]

These guys claim a lot of things. I'm familiar with Tom Cotton and he's a CIS type guy. The rhetoric they use to sell the bill can be very different than what the bill actually does

well the Republicans are like a bunch of cats that need herding even before Trump.which it's why it's worthless even as a party..
I've never seen Trump call for "less immigration" -but I have seen him call for ending illegal immigration and substituting skill based for chain immigration..but thanks for the link,i'll keep it in mind

 

[cawacko]

well the Republicans are like a bunch of cats that need herding even before Trump.which it's why it's worthless even as a party..
I've never seen Trump call for "less immigration" -but I have seen him call for ending illegal immigration and substituting skill based for chain immigration..but thanks for the link,i'll keep it in mind

The big picture, and what the article hits on, is we have less workers supporting retirees. That puts even more pressure on our entitlement programs.

 

[archives]

Besides the fact of ignoring what the OP is about you conveniently credit or blame whatever fits your agenda when it comes to who is responsible for spending

Did you not author "you just flat out lie?"

My inquiry is why do you think he is lying, if your going to label one as a "flat out" liar you should be able to justify your claim

 

[Sirthinksalot]

I guess the republicans didnt learn this when they passed the recent tax cut, or the spending bill, or maybe a massive infrastructure plan.

Yeah, this problem cropped up just in the last year or so. Idiot

 

[Sirthinksalot]

Massively increasing taxes without addressing entitlement growth will do little (other than suffocate our already slow growing economy even more). It will turn us into a western European style country with high youth unemployment and massive liabilities.

Definitely need to curtail the spending on Soc security, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[archives]

The big picture, and what the article hits on, is we have less workers supporting retirees. That puts even more pressure on our entitlement programs.

You can address entitlement programs in a rational way, O'Neil and Reagan did it back in the 1980's, as I mentioned for example means testing or raising the age requirements, but when one drastically cuts revenues coming in and then raises the question of entitlement reform it creates suspicion regarding agendas, immediately undercutting any serious attempt at change

 

[smb]

No ones talking about eliminating S.S. and Medicare. But they are underfunded by trillions of dollars, we will have less people paying into them and people are living longer. This reforms have to be made

Which is why you do away with the FICA and Medicare income caps on payroll taxes. If you make 300,000K a year you pay FICA on 300,000K a year. This will increase revenues enough to pay all benefits going into the near and medium term. Once the baby boomers die off and Gen X is collecting benefits the math will work out again.

 

[cawacko]

You can address entitlement programs in a rational way, O'Neil and Reagan did it back in the 1980's, as I mentioned for example means testing or raising the age requirements, but when one drastically cuts revenues coming in and then raises the question of entitlement reform it creates suspicion regarding agendas, immediately undercutting any serious attempt at change

We're talking about ten, 20, 30 years down the line. We know what the problems are long term. It's bigger than cutting taxes today

 

[cawacko]

Which is why you do away with the FICA and Medicare income caps on payroll taxes. If you make 300,000K a year you pay FICA on 300,000K a year. This will increase revenues enough to pay all benefits going into the near and medium term. Once the baby boomers die off and Gen X is collecting benefits the math will work out again.

You're choosing not to understand the long term math and repercussions on the economy when you jack up tax rates which is what you are proposing

 

[archives]

We're talking about ten, 20, 30 years down the line. We know what the problems are long term. It's bigger than cutting taxes today

But cutting taxes today, especially in the wrong economic environment, continues along the threat coming in ten, twenty, thirty years down the road, the CBO estimates of the recent tax cut have it adding trillion to the debt within ten years.

 

[archives]

You're choosing not to understand the long term math and repercussions on the economy when you jack up tax rates which is what you are proposing

Well, doesn't have to be "jack up," targeted rate increases at select times would be appropriate, and what are the repercussions on the economy for raising tax now?

 

[smb]

You're choosing not to understand the long term math and repercussions on the economy when you jack up tax rates which is what you are proposing

No I understand completely. FICA is a regressive tax. Meaning the less you make the more you pay. It is the only such regressive tax we have and it is very dysfunctional because it is regressive. Getting rid of the payroll caps will limited effect on the economy and make FICA a progressive tax like all other of our taxes.

There is no long term consequence except for solving the Social Security deficit and taking a huge chunk out of the Federal deficit.

 

[cawacko]

Well, doesn't have to be "jack up," targeted rate increases at select times would be appropriate, and what are the repercussions on the economy for raising tax now?

you eliminate FICA caps and raise corporate taxes as he's proposing and at least to me that's jacking up taxes.

 

[smb]

You're choosing not to understand the long term math and repercussions on the economy when you jack up tax rates which is what you are proposing

You are speaking as if raising taxes is known to cause economic stagnation. That simply is not true.

In 1916 we raised taxes and the economy grew without recession.

In 1944 we raised taxes and the economy took off in 50's.

In 1989 we raised taxes and again in 1993 and the economy took off and we ended up with budget surplus.

So the link between raising taxes and tanking the economy is proven to be false.

 

[cawacko]

Which is why you do away with the FICA and Medicare income caps on payroll taxes. If you make 300,000K a year you pay FICA on 300,000K a year. This will increase revenues enough to pay all benefits going into the near and medium term. Once the baby boomers die off and Gen X is collecting benefits the math will work out again.

People still get more out of S.S. than they pay into it. You eliminate income tax then it becomes more a welfare program and much easier to cut. It's why certain progressive groups don't want them removed.

More and more of our debt is going to interest payments. That's only going to continue and interest rates aren't going to stay low forever.