Socialism

[C-Mag]

Note
Congress has made no Budget for the Federal Government for the last 10 years.
Ironically coinciding with the end of ear mark spending.

[The Conservative]

Federal revenue isn't a problem.

Do tell, with numbers. Are we in for some "starve the beast"?

For real?

Are you actually unaware that no matter how much the government takes in taxes they still run a deficit?

Maybe you haven’t been exposed to the numbers yet?



It is not the revenue, it’s the spending. America does not produce enough to support it.

The govt’ is in the negative because it’s allowed to spend beyond its means.

If we held it accountable like we are forced to, it be nice for once.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe we should vote harder to hold the government accountable.

[The Conservative]

Maybe we should vote harder to hold the government accountable.

Easier said than done. In states like Mass, the state is solid blue, they haven’t seen a tax they don’t like.

The tax rate is %6.25 even though the people voted to decrease it to 5% four election cycles back.

When the majority of people in a state refuse to hold the states responsible for their actions, how are we expecting to hold the government for the same actions?

[Fife]

Indeed, the federal city doesn't have an income issue. Quite the opposite.

If anyone is interested in reading, here's another decent short piece about the latest offerings of the crack dealers in the district:

The “Green New Deal” Is a Fiscal Fantasy
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is economically illiterate—but what is Paul Krugman’s excuse?

Defending the proposed high marginal tax rate, Krugman displays a graph showing the top tax rate mapped against economic growth—growth being strongest when the top rate was highest. But perhaps that period of high growth was driven by the low effective tax rate on the wealthy during those years of ostensibly high statutory rates. This explanation is as plausible as any other, though Krugman does not discuss how much tax the wealthy actually paid in the 1950s. Nor does he concede that economic growth rates over the last 70 years may have been affected by anything besides the movement in the top statutory tax rate.

[Zlaxer]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-bla ... -communism

“When a landlord tries to push out a tenant by making their home unlivable, a team of inspectors and law enforcement agents will be on the ground to stop it in time,” he said, according to the New York Daily News. “If the fines and the penalties don’t cut it, we will seize their buildings and we will put them in the hands of a community nonprofit that will treat tenants with the respect they deserve.”

Just remember - leftist test their ideas with statements like this before they actually implement them.

Get ready for it comrades - IT WILL BE GLORIOUS.

[Fife]

Federal City is pushing out the good drugs this year.





Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She’s Going to ‘Run Train on the Progressive Agenda’

[DBTrek]

Federal City is pushing out the good drugs this year.





Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She’s Going to ‘Run Train on the Progressive Agenda’

She's channeling Zack De La Rocha:



Hey yo it's just another Bombtrack!
And suckers be thinkin' that they can fake this
But, I'ma drop it at a higher level
'Cause I'm inclined to stoop down, hand out some beat-downs
Cold run a train on punk fools, that think they run the game

[brewster]

Easy Brewster, I know you're anxious to spam all your charts and talking points at once, but you haven't finished the first discussion. Before you segue into how much of everyone elses income you feel entitled to on account of "first worldism" lets check your debt numbers. First off, you're relying on a simple graphic from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), whose primary task is to "provide objective, nonpartisan information that would support the budget process." Who do they answer/report to? " The Congress sets CBO’s priorities".

So instead of taking the numbers that the group tasked with supporting Congressional Budgets, who answers to and takes orders from Congress, let's see what the US Department of Treasury and the US Bureau of Economics say:

End of Fiscal Year | Debt (as of 9/30, in billions) | Debt/ GDP Ratio
1993 | $4.4 trillion | 64%
2001 | $5.8 trillion | 55%
2018 | $21.6 trillion | 99%

You seem confused as to the difference between debt and a budget deficit. The latter adds to the debt, but it is not the same thing. My graph (don't you think data and facts are better than random claims?) was to disprove the statement that the govt never spends less than it takes in taxes. Clinton left GWB a surplus, that he promptly eliminated with tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

The huge increase in debt was obviously due to the bailouts of the 2008 financial crisis, which were started under GWB, even though the GOP likes to make it all Obama's. Was it the only option? Above my paygrade and real economists still argue about it. But given that we did bail the banks out, I wanted to see heads on pikes instead of business as usual. Moodys & S&P should have been federally prosecuted for fraud and shut down like Arthur Anderson.

[DBTrek]

My graph (don't you think data and facts are better than random claims?) was to disprove the statement that the govt never spends less than it takes in taxes. Clinton left GWB a surplus, that he promptly eliminated with tax cuts and unnecessary wars.

Everyone is familiar with the Clinton surplus talking point, which is why I found it odd that you thought it somehow refuted my statement: Are you actually unaware that no matter how much the government takes in taxes they still run a deficit?

"Still run" being present tense, your refutation being 21-years-in-the-past tense.

Perhaps I could've worded my original statement more clearly to avoid confusion. Either way, I've produced copious data from several sources demonstrating that our debt is outstripping our GDP (or on the very cusp of doing so) and you're still talking about who we can tax to solve the issue. This year we can tax everyone at 100% and not solve the issue. So it's apparent to me that taxing isn't the solution.

What sort of disastrous numbers (beyond our current ones) would convince you that taxation isn't the solution?