9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

 

My God.  Those heartless monsters...  Requiring people to actually get out of bed and work as a condition of getting free money...  My money.

 

 

I'm sure it won't be popular with some demographics, but they already vote Blue and always will, as long as they get promised free stuff.

 

Your money, eh?

 

I guess you also make or made 8 figures a year? It's always guys who make maybe $100K a year who beef the loudest about "their tax dollars". They're not even a rounding error.

 

I would prefer people do have something they owe society if society pays them, but the Welfare Mom meme is kind of overblown. I'm going to guess much more Federal money is wasted on all those MAGAs on SSDI in Red States. The top "employer" in KY, TN and WV is SSDI, and all three are Red States.

 

Personally, I don't mind helping the less fortunate. I don't think I need another tax cut, nor do I think Elon is ever going to worry about his Nick Cannon-level of offspring getting their next meal. I think $400 billion is enough. He'll get by without having to play guitar in front of a subway entrance, hat in front.

 

The last tax cut went almost exclusively to those who don't need the money, and the claim that corporate cuts would lead to domestic investment was a shibboleth. Because rates had been zero for years, no corp was starved for funds, so "repatriating overseas profits" was a Repub lie. Corps used the tax cut for stock buybacks and bonusing executives.

 

Corporations are now debt heavy, which doesn't bode well if the economy slows, as it absolutely will do as the Biden Boom ends and the second coming leads to yet another Republican-created Recession.

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Trump's promises during the campaign added about $5.8 trillion to the deficit. Harris's promises added $1.2 trillion.

 

According to who?  The MSM that's lost all credibility, or the paid shills publishing phony "forecasts" in the runup to the election? 

 

Meanwhile, in real numbers that have already happened, the Harris/Biden administration piled on debt twice as fast as the Bad Orange Man administration, excluding the pandemic spending. 

 

That's the problem for Dems when both candidates had a history.  You can compare what they actually accomplished, not their promises.

 

12 hours ago, TedG said:

How much does that yield?   The fact is, the Democrats built a government that we can't afford. 

 

9 hours ago, TedG said:

It’s a fact.  Spending is about 22 percent of the GPD.  When was the last time the government collected over 20 percent of the GDP in revenue?

Not the same 'fact' you claimed earlier.

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

OK. Are you prepared for the crime, increased child poverty, exploitation and disease that will result?

Why not treat all social assistance beneficiaries equally? Reduce Social Security payments, for everyone, including the elderly and the infirm.  Change the income thresholds and copayments for Medicaid/Medicare participation. No more  food stamps. No more  early childhood and pre natal programs. If women miscarry because of illness or malnutrition, charge them with aiding an abortion, which is now illegal in many states.   Change the Veterans  access to medical care. Only military personnel who sustained injuries in active service should qualify.

Eliminate subsidies for small use airports and increase the airport user fees to  fully cover the costs of TSA, ATC and. other operations.  

 

I expect  a few people on this forum would object.

 

 

Of course we need government programs to help people.  But public welfare is different.  Those on public welfare did nothing to deserve it, and are encouraged to continue the lifestyle.

15 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I enjoy listening to Thomas Sowell about how the welfare state as it's currently structured absolutely devastates families, mostly Black families.  Though, I don't know if "enjoy" is an accurate word for being so disheartened by how bad it's been screwed up. 

 

Basically, my takeaway from his books and lectures is that the plight of Black families was improving rapidly in the USA from WW2, until the '60s and then the Great Society took pity on them and turned them into wards of the Gub'ment.

 

It's telling that no one has responded to your post. The liberals don't like the truth. It's time for tough love.

 

11 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I'm entitled

Sounds like it.

unsustainable 

14 hours ago, TedG said:

How much does that yield?   The fact is, the Democrats built a government that we can't afford. 

 

No idea I don't have access to the stats, but don't you believe people earning a reasonably high income can have a hold on additional tax cuts to support the less well off?. I'm sure you're well aware the wealthiest country is the world, USA, in the only G20 country without Universal Health Care - a somewhat ridiculous ideological position.

6 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Do the bottom 50% not also benefit from living in the country? 

 

Not if 40+ million of them cannot afford medical insurance.

3 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Your money, eh?

 

I guess you also make or made 8 figures a year? It's always guys who make maybe $100K a year who beef the loudest about "their tax dollars". They're not even a rounding error.

 You're, once again, deflecting from my issue.  I'll never claim my taxes made a dent in the budget, even when I was in the top 10%, then the top 5% of earners.  But those taxes made a huge difference in the choices and compromises I had to make on a daily basis.

 

3 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Personally, I don't mind helping the less fortunate. I don't think I need another tax cut, nor do I think Elon is ever going to worry about his Nick Cannon-level of offspring getting their next meal. I think $400 billion is enough. He'll get by without having to play guitar in front of a subway entrance, hat in front.

 

Neither do I.  But we have to draw a line under it somewhere.  Not an entire lifetime.  And I do object to subsidizing generations of welfare families.  Partly, that's selfish.  But it's also cruel to them.  The biggest incentive I had to go out and get an engineering degree was cleaning toilets and all the other crap jobs I did in my youth.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

no one that is fit should be getting welfare.

 

There will always be some who are unemployed, no country has zero unemployment - governments should provide a safety net. In Thailand the safety net for the poor is their usually extended family who often are also poor.

19 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

 

The people you describe are a small minority. The reality is that  the people who are collecting social benefits (food, medical, income) are mostly white and over the age of 60.

 

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html

 

 

Great idea, go ahead and cut from the departments that help the people that are the most in need, and use it to pay for massive tax cuts for greedy corporations, and his super wealthy friends. Nobody should be surprised that Trump would engage in this kind of reckless, callous, and horrific policy. 

 

That is just who he is, if you could ever refer to him as the man of the people you'd have to refer to him as the man of the super wealthy people. He cares not one iota for anyone who's not wealthy. 

Simple solution is to cut bureaucratic waste, eliminate the DEI/ woke agenda and stop giving handouts to other countries.

I haven't seen anything proposed in the way of welfare cuts apart for Illegals.

17 hours ago, impulse said:

 

 

My God.  Those heartless monsters...  Requiring people to actually get out of bed and work as a condition of getting free money...  My money.

 

 

I'm sure it won't be popular with some demographics, but they already vote Blue and always will, as long as they get promised free stuff.

 

Er, wasn't the point of the post you are replying to suggesting the complete opposite? That many Goppers are poor, lazy and out of work?

9 minutes ago, sherwood said:

Simple solution is to cut bureaucratic waste, eliminate the DEI/ woke agenda and stop giving handouts to other countries.

I haven't seen anything proposed in the way of welfare cuts apart for Illegals.

What's on the woke agenda?

No taxpayer benefits to anyone who is not a citizen.

21 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

https://www.open-bks.com/tp.gif"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

https://www.open-bks.com/tp.gif"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

https://www.open-bks.com/tp.gif"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

https://www.open-bks.com/tp.gif"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

21 hours ago, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

The GOP ain't cutting jack with a very slim majority in the House of Representatives and both houses need a 2/3 majority.  Good luck with that 

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

According to who?  The MSM that's lost all credibility, or the paid shills publishing phony "forecasts" in the runup to the election? 

 

Meanwhile, in real numbers that have already happened, the Harris/Biden administration piled on debt twice as fast as the Bad Orange Man administration, excluding the pandemic spending. 

 

That's the problem for Dems when both candidates had a history.  You can compare what they actually accomplished, not their promises.

 

According to the candidates themselves.

 

Nobody seems to understand $38 trillion in debt at 5% pa interest is adding on almost $2 trillion every year, it's called compounding. Neither party has a mortgage on the claim of responsible economic managers. Whichever party is in power, they will simply print more money.

I really don't know why people are worried about tax cuts that very likable Steve mnuchin proved in the last trump administration how it pays for its self.

 

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

According to the candidates themselves.

 

Nobody seems to understand $38 trillion in debt at 5% pa interest is adding on almost $2 trillion every year, it's called compounding. Neither party has a mortgage on the claim of responsible economic managers. Whichever party is in power, they will simply print more money.

 

Nobody's disputing that.  I'm responding to the claim that Trump will be worse for the debt than Harris would have.

 

Record Date	Debt Outstanding Amount	Annual	Average
9/30/2024	$          35,464,673,929,172	$ 2,297,339,884,449	$               2,129,820,683,639
9/30/2023	$          33,167,334,044,723	$ 2,238,422,431,416	4 Years of Harris/Biden
9/30/2022	$          30,928,911,613,307	$ 2,499,993,043,258
9/30/2021	$          28,428,918,570,049	$ 1,483,527,375,434
9/30/2020	$          26,945,391,194,615	$ 4,225,989,441,181	Black Swan Event
9/30/2019	$          22,719,401,753,434	$ 1,203,343,570,254	$               1,142,196,021,737
9/30/2018	$          21,516,058,183,180	$ 1,271,158,167,127	First 3 years of Trump
9/30/2017	$          20,244,900,016,054	$    671,455,302,117
9/30/2016	$          19,573,444,713,937	$ 1,422,827,047,452

 

 

Which conveniently forgets the past 8 years, when Harris/Biden added to the debt at almost twice the rate of the Trump years, excluding the pandemic year (2020), when businesses were going belly up and people lost their jobs. 

 

Historical Debt Outstanding | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/

 

Past performance may not guaranty future results, but it's a more reliable indicator than some election year forecast from a partisan source.

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Nobody's disputing that.  I'm responding to the claim that Trump will be worse for the debt than Harris would have.

 

Record Date	Debt Outstanding Amount	Annual	Average
9/30/2024	$          35,464,673,929,172	$ 2,297,339,884,449	$               2,129,820,683,639
9/30/2023	$          33,167,334,044,723	$ 2,238,422,431,416	4 Years of Harris/Biden
9/30/2022	$          30,928,911,613,307	$ 2,499,993,043,258
9/30/2021	$          28,428,918,570,049	$ 1,483,527,375,434
9/30/2020	$          26,945,391,194,615	$ 4,225,989,441,181	Black Swan Event
9/30/2019	$          22,719,401,753,434	$ 1,203,343,570,254	$               1,142,196,021,737
9/30/2018	$          21,516,058,183,180	$ 1,271,158,167,127	First 3 years of Trump
9/30/2017	$          20,244,900,016,054	$    671,455,302,117
9/30/2016	$          19,573,444,713,937	$ 1,422,827,047,452

 

 

Which conveniently forgets the past 8 years, when Harris/Biden added to the debt at almost twice the rate of the Trump years, excluding the pandemic year (2020), when businesses were going belly up and people lost their jobs. 

 

Historical Debt Outstanding | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/

 

Past performance may not guaranty future results, but it's a more reliable indicator than some election year forecast from a partisan source.

 

Past performance is not an indicator as the global  and domestic economic contexts are quite different from what they were pre-Covid. Trump's promises have also been significantly amplified compared to 2016. I guess that Trump didn't recently want to cancel the debt ceiling for no reason.

 

The programs of both candidates were going to increase debt significantly. Of course, it may be that Trump ultimately doesn't applies fully his program, as he made rather unrealistic promises (he has already started backpedaling on them). That's the main margin of error for the projections made and it's probably higher than the margin of error from the calculations themselves.

 

Anyway, it will soon be clarified during the budget discussions.

 

 

3 hours ago, RetiredNavy71 said:

The GOP ain't cutting jack with a very slim majority in the House of Representatives and both houses need a 2/3 majority.  Good luck with that 

two thirds majority for passing welfare cuts?

On 1/12/2025 at 3:31 PM, Isaan sailor said:

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

The biggest bloat on welfare are oil companies, defense contractors and healhcare companies

4 hours ago, John Drake said:

No taxpayer benefits to anyone who is not a citizen.

So you're against Republican tax cuts going to foreign owners of US corporations then?

 

Because that's where US taxpayer dollars go if corporate rates are cut.

 

Sure you are, Cubby.  Sure you are. 🙄

21 hours ago, TedG said:

That's five trillion over 10 years, which is 500 billion annually.  The current deficit is running close to two trillion.  Something needs to be cut.  

Cut the military,over 150 overseas bases, 50,000 people in Okinawa . Is the US that insecure it thinks they need all these. The war has been over 80 years and they still have soldiers in Germany, the Russians went home years ago.

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Nobody's disputing that.  I'm responding to the claim that Trump will be worse for the debt than Harris would have.

 

Record Date	Debt Outstanding Amount	Annual	Average
9/30/2024	$          35,464,673,929,172	$ 2,297,339,884,449	$               2,129,820,683,639
9/30/2023	$          33,167,334,044,723	$ 2,238,422,431,416	4 Years of Harris/Biden
9/30/2022	$          30,928,911,613,307	$ 2,499,993,043,258
9/30/2021	$          28,428,918,570,049	$ 1,483,527,375,434
9/30/2020	$          26,945,391,194,615	$ 4,225,989,441,181	Black Swan Event
9/30/2019	$          22,719,401,753,434	$ 1,203,343,570,254	$               1,142,196,021,737
9/30/2018	$          21,516,058,183,180	$ 1,271,158,167,127	First 3 years of Trump
9/30/2017	$          20,244,900,016,054	$    671,455,302,117
9/30/2016	$          19,573,444,713,937	$ 1,422,827,047,452

 

 

Which conveniently forgets the past 8 years, when Harris/Biden added to the debt at almost twice the rate of the Trump years, excluding the pandemic year (2020), when businesses were going belly up and people lost their jobs. 

 

Historical Debt Outstanding | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/

 

Past performance may not guaranty future results, but it's a more reliable indicator than some election year forecast from a partisan source.

 

That's why there is a move to get away from the US dollar ,not a good deal when one country controls the printing presses and can grab any countries cash sitting in a US bank if they don't like someone's politics.

Yes take it off the poor and needy and give it to the rich and corporations ....they really need more money .

 

regards Worgeordie

14 minutes ago, The Old Bull said:

Cut the military,over 150 overseas bases, 50,000 people in Okinawa . Is the US that insecure it thinks they need all these. The war has been over 80 years and they still have soldiers in Germany, the Russians went home years ago.

IIRC part of Trump's pitch during the campaign was to increase military spending.

22 hours ago, TedG said:

That's five trillion over 10 years, which is 500 billion annually.  The current deficit is running close to two trillion.  Something needs to be cut.  

Let's talk military budget.