So say the moronic cons who gave the richest and corporations a huge tax cut.

So how does mitch want to reduce it?

You guessed it - cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...

FYI - The deficit has increased 77 percent since McConnell became majority leader in 2015 - tell us all again how the repubs are fiscally responsible. Y'all have been in charge and this keeps happening... gee, I wonder why?

Federal revenue rose by 0.04 percent in 2018, a nearly 100 percent decrease on last year’s 1.5 percent. In fiscal year 2018, tax receipts on corporate income fell to $205 billion from $297 billion in 2017.

http://www.newsweek.com/deficit-budget-tax-plan-social-security-medicaid-medi...


Hey all you cons nearing (or in) retirement - aren't you just so happy your party is "looking out for you"????

Wages are always the last to go up. I have no problem with corporations keeping more of the money they earn. I figure they'll do better with it that the Federal Goverment would.

But you're right, the deficit is too high. We spend an incredible amount of money; about 10 billion a day I remember reading. But taking more money out of the public's hands and giving it to Uncle Sam who created this problem in the first place can't be the long term answer.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

WebsterMark wrote on 10/17/18 at 06:53:16:


Then you're OK with them cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even though the main reason for the shortfall was the tax cut?

So, you go to lunch with someone and what they order is twice as expensive as what you order, and then you split the bill 50/50??

Then you're OK with them cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even though the main reason for the shortfall was the tax cut?

The main reason for the shortfall is spending, not tax cuts. We've dug ourselves into quite a hole and the solution to get out of it is not to keep taking more and more money from people, is it? What catagories does the US spend the majority of our money in?

So, you go to lunch with someone and what they order is twice as expensive as what you order, and then you split the bill 50/50??
I'm not following your analogy, what are you asking?

Then you're OK with them cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, even though the main reason for the shortfall was the tax cut?

The main reason for the shortfall is spending, not tax cuts.

No, that's not right.  You say you're a salesman, then how can you say that when your clients stop paying you for a product that it's your fault because of your costs?

There is less revenue coming in - the bills are what they are.

Not a perfect analogy but then most analogys aren't. However, within that context, if I continually increase my expenses without adding a corresponding value to my product, I cannot continually increase prices and expect the same level of revenue. The government increases spending year after year, but since it doesn't 'sell' a product, it can only increase revenue by raising 'prices' aka taxes.  "Customers", (US citizens) are objecting to the price increases so expenses have to be cut.

Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll deductions, not "taxes".     That's a tax.

You want to cut programs like entitlements to oil companies?  Fine.  You want to cut the military budget to a realistic number?  Fine.

Anything's on the table, but the reality is the majority of the spending is on mandatory items like SS, Medicare etc...  

Here's a point to consider. I'll be careful here because I don't want to say too much what I do because I would be easy to find, but if I break down into the various cost components of what my product has an impact on, energy cost is 70%. Four other components make up the remaining 30%. If an end user wants to address their overall cost concerns, they’ve got a choice of five components to look at. You could spend an enormous amount of time and money addressing each of the four and perhaps lower them by 5% each. Or you could lower 70% of your total cost by 20%. You lower your cost far more and the energy expended to do so is far less which maximizes your returns.
So sure, everything’s on the table but the bulk of what we spend is in a few areas.

There are no easy answers. We've dug ourselves this hole. Everyone is to blame, some more than others, but we are where we are.

WebsterMark wrote on 10/17/18 at 10:21:17:


I don't think your analogy is sufficient.  However, you are right, everyone is to blame.  But it's guys like mitch that got us in this deep and now, instead of cutting out corporate welfare and putting back taxes to where they should be for the 1%, he's coming after our SS that we already paid for.

I have no problems with cutting spending.  I have a problem with them cutting what's rightfully ours.

How do you not know that SS and Medicare are fully funded?  There is no reason to touch them.

Medicare is most certainly NOT fully funded and the Feds have 'borrowed' from since its beginning, or shortly thereafter if i recall. Not positive about that.

but I don't think that it's fair that my intern pays the same rate as me.

I do. I don't understand the thinking why it should be anything other than that. If you want to explain it away with fairness, then I'd argue you don’t really mean that. The owner of my company is filthy rich. He literally owns an island overseas with 7 houses on it. I’m sure he’s got a crap load of lawyers who figure out a way for him to pay less in taxes than I do.
Do I care? No. He employs over 7,000 people worldwide. The economic trickle down from the cities where our manufacturing plants are located is enormous. I don’t think he owes a thing.