$1,000,000,000,000 WINNING!!!!!!!!!

[PsyOps]

No, we should expect our leaders to make the hard decisions and try to reduce our deficit. You don’t inherit deficit, you inherit debt. Deficit indicates an ongoing issue.

And the only mark you ‘hit’ with respect to selective outrage is yourself. Again you go on about the left and Obama when trump issued the tax cut and signed the spending bills that resulted in this deficit.

I'm not outraged about anything. Despite the deficits and debt, this economy is cruising along. When people are doing well - bigger paychecks, jobs, businesses growing... - their minds aren't on deficits and debt. That's not to say they shouldn't be concerned about it; but that's just how people, in general operate. The tax cuts were a good thing to get this economy back on track.

The debt is tied to deficits. When we are in deficit spending, we must borrow. But, we are in agreement here more than you're willing to admit, that we cannot continue to spend this way. It, like most things, develop a bubble that must eventually burst. We both want this government to reduce the insane spending.

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm not outraged about anything. Despite the deficits and debt, this economy is cruising along. When people are doing well - bigger paychecks, jobs, businesses growing... - their minds aren't on deficits and debt. That's not to say they shouldn't be concerned about it; but that's just how people, in general operate. The tax cuts were a good thing to get this economy back on track.

The debt is tied to deficits. When we are in deficit spending, we must borrow. But, we are in agreement here more than you're willing to admit, that we cannot continue to spend this way. It, like most things, develop a bubble that must eventually burst. We both want this government to reduce the insane spending.

Actually, the economy was already doing just fine. The tax cuts may or may not have had a difference, but most economists at the time thought they were ill advised. It’s inappropriate to cut taxes when you are increasing spending

 

[This_person]

Actually, the economy was already doing just fine. The tax cuts may or may not have had a difference, but most economists at the time thought they were ill advised. It’s inappropriate to cut taxes when you are increasing spending

It's always appropriate to cut taxes. We went over 100 years with no income tax, and could return to that if we just followed the constitution.

Where you're right is that it is inappropriate to have the level of spending we have.

What you and @transporter seem to be upset with is not the spending or the taxes, but rather the fact that people don't want to attack Trump for it. What you fail to see is that even Vrai has attacked Trump - saying she'd never vote for him again if he signed another appropriations bill like he has before. We all hate it, and we've attacked him.

So, we agree the bills passed by Congress were bad, Trump signing them was bad, and the level of spending continues to be bad. We can agree it is all wrong.

Does that help?

 

[PsyOps]

Actually, the economy was already doing just fine. The tax cuts may or may not have had a difference, but most economists at the time thought they were ill advised. It’s inappropriate to cut taxes when you are increasing spending

So, it's appropriate to have higher taxes with deficit spending? The logic of a liberal.

 

[Midnightrider]

So, it's appropriate to have higher taxes with deficit spending? The logic of a liberal.

I didn’t say that. I said it is inappropriate to cut taxes if you are going to spend more than you take in. What is so hard to understand about that?

Would you volunteer to take a reduction in your next pay raise if you were borrowing to pay your current bills?

 

[This_person]

I didn’t say that. I said it is inappropriate to cut taxes if you are going to spend more than you take in. What is so hard to understand about that?

Would you volunteer to take a reduction in your next pay raise if you were borrowing to pay your current bills?

The difference is, of course, pay is based on performance and value provided. Taxes are not "pay" to the government, they are "theft committed by" the government.

A reduction in pay would be stupid unless you had a concurrent reduction in value provided to those paying you.

The problem is not now nor has it ever been that we do not tax enough. The problem is that we spend too much. Significantly, and on unconstitutional things.

So, tax cuts are smart, spending cuts are also required. If we follow the constitution, we could likely get very close to no income tax again.

 

[PsyOps]

I didn’t say that. I said it is inappropriate to cut taxes if you are going to spend more than you take in. What is so hard to understand about that?

Would you volunteer to take a reduction in your next pay raise if you were borrowing to pay your current bills?

Well, if it's inappropriate to cut taxes with deficits, the only other option is higher taxes with deficits, given that we know our government is going to spend in deficits.

The bottom line is, we both want our government to address deficit spending. But the reality is, that's just not going to happen. So, me looking out for me, I am for having more money in my paycheck. With everyone having more in their bank accounts, they are going to spend more. That grows the economy. Growth in the economy means more can be hired. More hired results in a broader tax base. In the long term that could result is lowering deficit spending. That's assuming our government doesn't see that influx as a means to spend even more. We know how this cycle works.

So, I am on the side of side of lower taxes. Higher taxes, lower taxes, we still have deficit spending. So... lower taxes makes more sense to me.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, if it's inappropriate to cut taxes with deficits, the only other option is higher taxes with deficits, given that we know our government is going to spend in deficits.

The bottom line is, we both want our government to address deficit spending. But the reality is, that's just not going to happen. So, me looking out for me, I am for having more money in my paycheck. With everyone having more in their bank accounts, they are going to spend more. That grows the economy. Growth in the economy means more can be hired. More hired results in a broader tax base. In the long term that could result is lowering deficit spending. That's assuming our government doesn't see that influx as a means to spend even more. We know how this cycle works.

So, I am on the side of side of lower taxes. Higher taxes, lower taxes, we still have deficit spending. So... lower taxes makes more sense to me.

It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore reality and put your debt in your children. Otherwise it is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Neither The country nor the economy needed a boost. Those long term ‘coulds’ don’t make a difference when we are running a trillion dollar a year deficit.

 

[PsyOps]

It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore reality and put your debt in your children. Otherwise it is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Neither The country nor the economy needed a boost. Those long term ‘coulds’ don’t make a difference when we are running a trillion dollar a year deficit.

I'm not willing to do anything except recognize the REALITY that 1) deficit spending is a fact of life, and has been for decades, and 2) there's not a damn thing we can do about it. May as well have more money I can invest to pass on to my kids.

 

[This_person]

It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore reality and put your debt in your children. Otherwise it is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. Neither The country nor the economy needed a boost. Those long term ‘coulds’ don’t make a difference when we are running a trillion dollar a year deficit.

Why do folks like you and @transporter focus on the taxes? Why not discuss the debt on our children in terms of the spending instead of the taxes?

 

[Midnightrider]

I'm not willing to do anything except recognize the REALITY that 1) deficit spending is a fact of life, and has been for decades, and 2) there's not a damn thing we can do about it. May as well have more money I can invest to pass on to my kids.

That’s funny, you think there is going to be something to pass on to your kids.... unless we demand that our reps do something we are going to hit the breaking point sooner rather than later.

Do you take out loans you have no intention of paying in order to save money for your retirement too?

 

[PsyOps]

That’s funny, you think there is going to be something to pass on to your kids.... unless we demand that our reps do something we are going to hit the breaking point sooner rather than later.

Do you take out loans you have no intention of paying in order to save money for your retirement too?

Okay, what do you propose we, the people do about it? Come on... give me concretes solution that we - you and I and the rest of the voters in this country - can get control over deficit spending, I mean since you seem to think you're living in "reality"?

 

[Midnightrider]

Okay, what do you propose we, the people do about it? Come on... give me concretes solution that we - you and I and the rest of the voters in this country - can get control over deficit spending, I mean since you seem to think you're living in "reality"?

I already said, we demand that the spending gets reduced and we vote in people who will do it. What we don’t do is revel in having $5 extra in our paychecks while supporting a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[PsyOps]

I already said, we demand that the spending gets reduced and we vote in people who will do it. What we don’t do is revel in having $5 extra in our paychecks while supporting a trillion dollar deficit.

Well, good solution... for someone that doesn't live in reality. But, you just go on and march on up to capitol hill and slam your fist down and demand they cut spending. Let me know how that works out.

Oh, and when they don't, you just vote for people that will. And let me know how that works out.

 

[Midnightrider]

Well, good solution... for someone that doesn't live in reality. But, you just go on and march on up to capitol hill and slam your fist down and demand they cut spending. Let me know how that works out.

Oh, and when they don't, you just vote for people that will. And let me know how that works out.

keep on backing people like trump who will run up the deficit and see where that gets you.

Its really sad that this is what my republican party has become.

 

[PsyOps]

keep on backing people like trump who will run up the deficit and see where that gets you.

Its really sad that this is what my republican party has become.

Tell me who is that person you have in mind, running for president/congress (or in congress now), that will get spending under control?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Tell me who is that person you have in mind, running for president/congress (or in congress now), that will get spending under control?

There were at least two of those candidates last Presidential election. Of course, local, state, etc. elections matter just as much.

You're right though. Your feelings resonate throughout the GOP. The party that used to be about fiscal responsibility is gone. The faction that did care about it (Tea Party) is gone. And the only party that does seem to care isn't one of the major two and is written off because of that. Republicans who do care are faced with voting for someone who runs on the platform of actual fiscal responsibility or voting for their party's nomination.

 

[PsyOps]

There were at least two of those candidates last Presidential election. Of course, local, state, etc. elections matter just as much.

You're right though. Your feelings resonate throughout the GOP. The party that used to be about fiscal responsibility is gone. The faction that did care about it (Tea Party) is gone. And the only party that does seem to care isn't one of the major two and is written off because of that. Republicans who do care are faced with voting for someone who runs on the platform of actual fiscal responsibility or voting for their party's nomination.

And for the record, I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. But thank you for confirmed that it's pointless to dream that we will ever see fiscal responsibility. That was, in large part, why I left the GOP. There could be a candidate that pops up that is adamant about responsible spending, but that would be one among hundreds who just don't give a damn.

So, why would I, under these circumstances reject a tax cut? It's more money in my pocket that I can at least put away for my retirement and give my family some sort of financial security.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And for the record, I didn't vote for Trump in the primary. But thank you for confirmed that it's pointless to dream that we will ever see fiscal responsibility. That was, in large part, why I left the GOP. There could be a candidate that pops up that is adamant about responsible spending, but that would be one among hundreds who just don't give a damn.

So, why would I, under these circumstances reject a tax cut? It's more money in my pocket that I can at least put away for my retirement and give my family some sort of financial security.

There was a candidate who ran on that last time, but voters chose Trump because he can "own the libs", or whatever. That's fine and dandy, but anyone who really cares about fiscal responsibility wasn't voting for Trump. At least, they shouldn't have based on his plans then, and surel;y not now that he's had a few years in office. This is the same guy who just chastised Obama for pumping money (i.e. federal spending) into the economy.

I don't think anyone is arguing rejecting a tax cut. I certainly am not. Let's be honest though, what we saved wasn't enough to do much with anyway. I obviously don't know your personal windfall, but the average was about $1,200 less (or $100 a month). Coupled with the tariffs resulting in increased costs of goods here, I'd argue that what you saved in taxes isn't quite enough to give "financial security" to your family.

Tax cuts are great, but it would be better if we had a President who cared enough about government spending to do/call for less of it. Thus leading to greater tax cuts and an all-around greater future for both our families.

 

[Midnightrider]

There was a candidate who ran on that last time, but voters chose Trump because he can "own the libs", or whatever. That's fine and dandy, but anyone who really cares about fiscal responsibility wasn't voting for Trump. At least, they shouldn't have based on his plans then, and surel;y not now that he's had a few years in office. This is the same guy who just chastised Obama for pumping money (i.e. federal spending) into the economy.

I don't think anyone is arguing rejecting a tax cut. I certainly am not. Let's be honest though, what we saved wasn't enough to do much with anyway. I obviously don't know your personal windfall, but the average was about $1,200 less (or $100 a month). Coupled with the tariffs resulting in increased costs of goods here, I'd argue that what you saved in taxes isn't quite enough to give "financial security" to your family.

Tax cuts are great, but it would be better if we had a President who cared enough about government spending to do/call for less of it. Thus leading to greater tax cuts and an all-around greater future for both our families.

who doesn't like a tax cut. But again, taking one while you are deficit spending to the tune of $1T/year is ridiculous. When trump started talking about it, all I could think of is that the Fed is still paying interest on W's tax rebate checks.

Tell me who is that person you have in mind, running for president/congress (or in congress now), that will get spending under control?

I voted for Johnson in the last election. If you were a conservative you would have too. instead you got in line and cast your vote for the guy with an R after his name despite the fact that Clinton was going to receive all of MD's electoral votes no matter what. You have an opportunity in MD to vote for the right thing and not just along party lines.