Meet the GOP Congressman whoo opposes Trump the most

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Like I said, many of you need to brush up on the difference between discretionary spending and entitlement spending.

there's discretionary spending and there's mandatory spending.

entitlement spending can be in both categories.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

Read this numbuts. Entitlement spending has accounted for more of our debt than the military. It’s just a fact.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...nse-are-drivi/

Read post #73 as well. Entitlements have contribute more than double to our debt than the military and will obviously get worse. They have to reform our entitlement system. Period. Can congress cut military spending? Sure. It’s up to them.

Entitlements are paid for vis payroll taxes. That so far has been in the black.

Your own link says that entitlement spending can not pay out more than what it has accumulated.

So unless the law is changed, it will be impossible for entitlement spending to drive up the debt via more than the taxes that have already been collected.

So it has not driven up the current debt....yes we spend a shit load of money on SS but , so far , it has been paid for by its Trust Fund.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

there's discretionary spending and there's mandatory spending.

entitlement spending can be in both categories.

entitlement spending has already been taxed and is in the black.

Defense spending (discretionary) has not been paid for.

But yes you are starting to understand the difference...I'll give you that.

How about a separate tax for Defense like SS and Medicare have?

that way some of you can understand just where the money is coming from and going.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Entitlements are paid for vis payroll taxes. That so far has been in the black.

Your own link says that entitlement spending can not pay out more than what it has accumulated.

So unless the law is changed, it will be impossible for entitlement spending to drive up the debt via more than the taxes that have already been collected.

So it has not driven up the current debt....yes we spend a shit load of money on SS but , so far , it has been paid for by its Trust Fund.

You’re reading comprehension sucks. Both of my links specifically said entitlements have contributed more to our current debt than the military. Even Politifact, which leans left. Believe what you want to believe. But you’re wrong.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

You’re reading comprehension sucks. Both of my links specifically said entitlements have contributed more to our current debt than the military. Even Politifact, which leans left. Believe what you want to believe. But you’re wrong.

Do you understand that payroll taxes pay for SS?

Next do you understand that Payroll taxes have taken in more than they have paid out?

How can something that has taken in more than it has paid out cause a debt?

It's future liabilities will cause a huge debt without adjustments.

You are confusing the two.

You and many others are trying to blame the current debt on a future debt.

You will never fix the problem doing that.

Say you increase the payroll tax and do nothing with Defense Spending.

all you would have basically done is raise a tax for Defense spending and done nothing to fix the long term future debt of SS.

I know it is complicated for you chicken hawks who think unlimited Defense is in the Constitution but it really is just a simple math problem.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Budman

I believe you are misrepresenting what this graph shows. This is showing the percentage of revenue / spending against the GNP. Since the taxes were cut and the spending was not cut then obviously the percentage would be less thus showing a greater divide between the two. Below is the total tax revenue per year from 1981 to 2012. https://taxfoundation.org/federal-ta...rce-1934-2018/

Fiscal Year Total x 1,000,000.00
1981 $599,272.00
1982 $617,766.00
1983 $600,562.00
1984 $666,438.00
1985 $734,037.00
1986 $769,155.00
1987 $854,288.00
1988 $909,238.00
1989 $991,105.00
1990 $1,031,958.00
1991 $1,054,988.00
1992 $1,091,208.00
1993 $1,154,335.00
1994 $1,258,566.00
1995 $1,351,790.00
1996 $1,453,053.00
1997 $1,579,232.00
1998 $1,721,728.00
1999 $1,827,452.00
2000 $2,025,191.00
2001 $1,991,082.00
2002 $1,853,136.00
2003 $1,782,314.00
2004 $1,880,114.00
2005 $2,153,611.00
2006 $2,406,869.00
2007 $2,567,985.00
2008 $2,523,991.00
2009 $2,104,989.00
2010 $2,162,706.00
2011 $2,303,466.00
2012 $2,450,164.00

Budman , you do realize that total tax revenue doubled in the ten year span on the 1990's in which we had a tax increase?

In fact it stayed about the same.

Now make your argument that tax cuts increase tax revenue.

I have tried to give you data that the increase with the tax cuts was not nearly as much as when we had tax increases.

That did not happen in the ten year span of the next century when we had a tax cut.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Except that the current debt was accumulated by discretionary spending. Of which the military is responsible for around 65% of. Or 12.38 Trillion dollars.

All spending is discretionary. Stop pretending 2/3 of federal spending is off-limits or doesn't exist.


The entitlements programs so far have added nothing to the national debt as they are fully funded.

No, they're not. On an actuarial basis they are under-funded by tens of trillions of dollars. Even on a pay-as-you-go basis, they are currently running deficits.


bambino is correct future outlays will not be enough in our current payroll tax system and they need adjustments.

If adjustments can be made, then by definition you just admitted those programs are as "discretionary" as any other federal spending category.


That does nothing to fix the current problem of discretionary spending.

Like I said, many of you need to brush up on the difference between discretionary spending and entitlement spending.

It's a false distinction created by swamp creatures like you. All spending is discretionary. Congress can change the eligibility or payout formulas any time it finds the balls to do so.


To date entitlement inflow have made the discretionary spending seem like it is a smaller problem than it is because of their SURPLUS.

Get your facts straight. The (pay-as-you-go) surplus is GONE. There is no current surplus in SSI, SSDI, Medicare or Medicaid. (On an actuarial basis, there never was a surplus.)

Buffoonery is rampant in this thread.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you understand that payroll taxes pay for SS?

Next do you understand that Payroll taxes have taken in more than they have paid out?

How can something that has taken in more than it has paid out cause a debt?

It's future liabilities will cause a huge debt without adjustments.

You are confusing the two.

You and many others are trying to blame the current debt on a future debt.

You will never fix the problem doing that.

Say you increase the payroll tax and do nothing with Defense Spending.

all you would have basically done is raise a tax for Defense spending and done nothing to fix the long term future debt of SS.

I know it is complicated for you chicken hawks who think unlimited Defense is in the Constitution but it really is just a simple math problem.

It’s obviously to complicated for you. I never denied that military spending has contributed to the debt. But it’s a necessity. It’s the number 1 priority of the Federal Government. ALL spending has contributed to the debt. No matter what category it came from. Here’s the real issue. GDP. Tax revenues have been constant every year since WWII at 18% of GDP yearly. No matter the POTUS or tax rates. The GDP tanked under Bush’s last year and all of Obama’s. 18% of a 1.5 GDP is half of 18% of a 3 % GDP. Bottom line. Now, if you think that Military spending is solely responsible for our $20 trillion debt you are wrong.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No, they're not. On an actuarial basis they are under-funded by tens of trillions of dollars. Even on a pay-as-you-go basis, they are currently running deficits.


Buffoonery is rampant in this thread.

Why yes it is....the SS Trust fund has not contributed one dime to our current debt. By law, it can not pay out more than it has taken in. Are they underfunded for their future cost? yes....I have not argued that fact. But to say they have contributed to the current debt is asinine.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Social Security
The Social Security program provides workers and their families with retirement, disability, and survivors insurance benefits. Workers earn these benefits by paying into the system during their working years. Over the program's 82-year history, it has collected roughly $19.9 trillion and paid out $17.1 trillion, leaving asset reserves of more than $2.8 trillion at the end of 2016 in its two trust funds.

Medicare
The Medicare program has two separate trust funds, the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund. HI, otherwise known as Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital, home health services following hospital stays, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled. SMI consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled. Part D provides subsidized access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries, as well as premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees.
The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will be depleted in 2029, one year later than projected in last year's report. At that time dedicated revenues will be sufficient to pay 88 percent of HI costs

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

It’s obviously to complicated for you. I never denied that military spending has contributed to the debt. But it’s a necessity. It’s the number 1 priority of the Federal Government. ALL spending has contributed to the debt. No matter what category it came from. Here’s the real issue. GDP. Tax revenues have been constant every year since WWII at 18% of GDP yearly. No matter the POTUS or tax rates. The GDP tanked under Bush’s last year and all of Obama’s. 18% of a 1.5 GDP is half of 18% of a 3 % GDP. Bottom line. Now, if you think that Military spending is solely responsible for our $20 trillion debt you are wrong.

I never said military spending is responsible for all our debt...I have just assigned it its rightful cost.

....were we to do away with the payroll tax and cut all SS and Medicare benefits....we would still be running in the red because the discretionary part of the Federal Government taxes do not take in enough to pay for the discretionary part of the Federal Governments expenses.

Is that to fucking hard for you two dipshits to understand.

Tell me one politician that can sell that plan. ''We will cut all your promised benefits and do away with the payroll tax and then raise your taxes for Military spending.''



.

[lustylad]

Without getting further drawn into this bullshit, I am going to make 4 simple points that even a simple-minded simpleton should be able to grasp.

1. Economic growth is by far the biggest driver behind higher tax revenues. Conversely, economic recessions are the biggest culprit when revenues shrink. The impact of GDP growth on the size of the federal budget deficit is far greater than relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates.

2. Tax cuts are expansionary. They cause the economy to expand faster than it otherwise would. Tax increases are contractionary. They cause the economy to grow more slowly than it otherwise would. That's not my opinion, it's basic Keynesian theory that has been tested and validated numerous times in the 71 years since Keynes died. Keynes was considered a liberal.

3. All tax cuts (and all tax hikes) are NOT created equal. Their impacts will vary in terms of magnitude and which parts of the economy are affected. Economists try to measure and predict such varying impacts using econometrics and regression analysis.

4. It is impossible to "prove" that a change in tax policy "works" because we can't know for certain how the economy would have performed in the absence of the policy change. Economic studies can attempt to separate out the impact from all of the other noise in a dynamic economy such as ours. There may be empirical evidence but there is no absolute proof. This leaves room for moronic buffoons to keep spewing their moronic buffoonery. It's also why economics is so often ridiculed (unfairly) by those who don't understand its underpinnings and limitations.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

I never said military spending is responsible for all our debt...

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Originally Posted by WTF

Military spending handed us this 20 Trillion dollar present liability.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Without getting further drawn into this bullshit, I am going to make 4 simple points that even a simple-minded simpleton should be able to grasp.

1. Economic growth is by far the biggest driver behind higher tax revenues. Conversely, economic recessions are the biggest culprit when revenues shrink. The impact of GDP growth on the size of the federal budget deficit is far greater than relatively minor changes in marginal tax rates.

True

2. Tax cuts are expansionary. They cause the economy to expand faster than it otherwise would. Tax increases are contractionary. They cause the economy to grow more slowly than it otherwise would. That's not my opinion, it's basic Keynesian theory that has been tested and validated many times in the 71 years since Keynes died. Keynes was considered a liberal.

And that is why he advocated increasing taxes during expanding economic growth and to decrease them when the economy was in contraction. Somewhere in the 1980's you loons came up with this notion that the Deficits did not matter as much as tax cuts....that ignorance is catching up to you. Deficits only seem to matter when there is a democrat in office.

3. All tax cuts (and all tax hikes) are NOT created equal. Their impacts will vary in terms of magnitude and which parts of the economy are affected. Economists try to measure and predict such varying impacts using econometrics and regression analysis.

True

4. It is impossible to "prove" that a change in tax policy "works" because we can't know for certain how the economy would have performed in the absence of the policy change. Economic studies can attempt to separate out the impact from all of the other noise in a dynamic economy such as ours. But there is no absolute proof. This allows moronic buffoons to keep spewing their buffoonery. It's also why economics is so often ridiculed (unfairly) by those who don't understand its underpinnings and limitations.

I include you as one of those buffoons...

At the end of the day...buffoons such as you that seem to think that tax cuts will more than pay for themselves do not live in a reality based world when you blame the Deficit on spending yet are not wanting to cut but in fact increase one of the biggest drivers of the debt, Defense Spending!

That is why I started this thread with this congressman's take.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

At the end of the day...buffoons such as you that seem to think that tax cuts will more than pay for themselves do not live in a reality based world when you blame the Deficit on spending yet are not wanting to cut but in fact increase one of the biggest drivers of the debt, Defense Spending!

That is why I started this thread with this congressman's take.

Yeah, spending!!!!! No matter if it’s discretionary or mandatory!!!! Protect the country first. If you don’t, nothing else matters.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

At the end of the day...buffoons such as you that seem to think that tax cuts will more than pay for themselves do not live in a reality based world when you blame the Deficit on spending yet are not wanting to cut but in fact increase one of the biggest drivers of the debt, Defense Spending!

As Ronnie said to Jimmy... "there you go again!"

Find a single post where I claimed "tax cuts will more than pay for themselves" in reference to anything other than capital gains taxes.

After you strike out on that one, find a single post where I have opposed eliminating waste in the defense budget.