Spending is a bipartisan issue, though in the past three decades spending has only fallen 4 times - and only when Democrats have controlled POTUS and the Senate (two of the times they also controlled the House). H/T to TheValuesVoter - https://twitter.com/TheValuesVoter/status/1704280203256643712, who's gone through the data.
I find it hard to take any "budget hawk" seriously when they only propose spending cuts and do not propose tax increases to help pay down our debt.
I agree more and more. I don’t like tax increases, but talk of further tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible. It’s a situation that requires both spending cuts and revenue increases.
I appreciate the link and believe the table is accurate. I'm sure there are a lot of nuances and arguments to be made about the reasons for increases or decreases in the deficit. Timing of legislation, emergency situations, executive orders, bureaucratic rule making, waste, fraud and other factors. The fact is that the national debt has increased every year. Both political parties are to blame, and everyone will assign a degree of culpability to policies they oppose. I personally would penalize Republicans a few extra points of culpability because they can't get their act together before going public with internal strife.
The real reason for an ever-increasing national debt is career politicians who will eventually compromise to give their loudest constituents and biggest donors what they want in order to be reelected. In general, there is enough revenue to fund all federal functions as defined in the Constitution plus entitlements. Occasional, temporary tax increases might be required to retire much of the debt, but revenues should satisfy all required governmental functions. It's the extras that buy votes for reelecting career politicians that increase the debt.
What the heck is Y? Is it X plus governmental inefficiencies? If people want to spend beyond what is needed to fulfill Constitutional responsibilities, they should fund their state governments to do it.
The moderates and McCarthy should go to Matt Gaetz and tell him to shape up or they’ll vote for the D speaker nominee. If he wants to burn it down, let him suffer the consequences. I’d do that, but I’m not addicted to power, so I’d probably lose my next reelection campaign and not care.
Spending is a bipartisan issue, though in the past three decades spending has only fallen 4 times - and only when Democrats have controlled POTUS and the Senate (two of the times they also controlled the House). H/T to TheValuesVoter - https://twitter.com/TheValuesVoter/status/1704280203256643712, who's gone through the data.
I find it hard to take any "budget hawk" seriously when they only propose spending cuts and do not propose tax increases to help pay down our debt.
I agree more and more. I don’t like tax increases, but talk of further tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible. It’s a situation that requires both spending cuts and revenue increases.
I appreciate the link and believe the table is accurate. I'm sure there are a lot of nuances and arguments to be made about the reasons for increases or decreases in the deficit. Timing of legislation, emergency situations, executive orders, bureaucratic rule making, waste, fraud and other factors. The fact is that the national debt has increased every year. Both political parties are to blame, and everyone will assign a degree of culpability to policies they oppose. I personally would penalize Republicans a few extra points of culpability because they can't get their act together before going public with internal strife.
The real reason for an ever-increasing national debt is career politicians who will eventually compromise to give their loudest constituents and biggest donors what they want in order to be reelected. In general, there is enough revenue to fund all federal functions as defined in the Constitution plus entitlements. Occasional, temporary tax increases might be required to retire much of the debt, but revenues should satisfy all required governmental functions. It's the extras that buy votes for reelecting career politicians that increase the debt.
If the people want to spend X, then taxes must be set at Y.
What the heck is Y? Is it X plus governmental inefficiencies? If people want to spend beyond what is needed to fulfill Constitutional responsibilities, they should fund their state governments to do it.
Y is a variable that is equal to the amount required to pay for X: and if the people want that to happen at the Federal level, so be it.
So, you, like Obama, regard the Constitution as a hinderance. No limits on confiscation of property. The 5th. Amendment be damned.
Let me know when a court decides that Congress deciding to put programs in place, spend money, and enforce taxation is found to be unconstitutional.
Until then: you'll have to do the hard work of convincing people and their representatives that it should be otherwise.
The moderates and McCarthy should go to Matt Gaetz and tell him to shape up or they’ll vote for the D speaker nominee. If he wants to burn it down, let him suffer the consequences. I’d do that, but I’m not addicted to power, so I’d probably lose my next reelection campaign and not care.