Taxpayer First Budget

[scotchtiger]

Love the concept. Haven't dug into the details, but this is absolutely the right mindset.


"This is the first time that an administration has written a budget through the perspective of the people paying the taxes," Mulvaney told reporters Monday night.

...calls for $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid and a $193 billion reduction in food stamps over the next ten years.

"We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of people on those programs. We're going to measure compassion by how many people we can get off those programs," said Mulvaney, who added that there would be a work requirement for some Americans to continue receiving food stamps.

"If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, then we need you to go to work," Mulvaney said.

 

[Howard's Jock]

just seems to be reversing the increases over the last 8 years and getting back to the baseline so to speak....which is good by me...also increases military spending of course

 

[Ron Munson]

This worked during the 90s and Bill Clinton pushed for it, he even ran his campaign on it.

 

[clemsonpaw00]

just seems to be reversing the increases over the last 8 years and getting back to the baseline so to speak....which is good by me...also increases military spending of course

and you think that's a good thing?

 

[Dackel]

Cutting environmental and education departments should work out well.

 

[TAINT_PAINT]

WE NEED A FAT TAX.

 

[steele-tiger]

Sucks if you are a child and your parent(s) are poor to lower-middle class.

 

[Howard's Jock]

just seems to be reversing the increases over the last 8 years and getting back to the baseline so to speak....which is good by me...also increases military spending of course

and you think that's a good thing?

Nope. Didn't say that.

 

[clemsonfn8]

@clemsonpaw00 its worth every penny if we ever need it.

 

[clemsonpaw00]

here's part of the plan to pay for these tax cuts. it's all worth it, though, if scotchtiger can pay for more salt life apparel and jimmy buffet concerts!

Trump's budget seeks significant cuts to disease prevention and medical research departments

"The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion."

 

[blythewood tigers]

Love the concept. Haven't dug into the details, but this is absolutely the right mindset.


"This is the first time that an administration has written a budget through the perspective of the people paying the taxes," Mulvaney told reporters Monday night.

...calls for $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid and a $193 billion reduction in food stamps over the next ten years.

"We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of people on those programs. We're going to measure compassion by how many people we can get off those programs," said Mulvaney, who added that there would be a work requirement for some Americans to continue receiving food stamps.

"If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, then we need you to go to work," Mulvaney said.

"This is the first time that an administration has written a budget through the perspective of the people paying the taxes, Mulvaney told reporters Monday night."

This is a bold face lie.
There is no current American budget (and hasn't been for decades) for anything that is paid for by taxes. Every facet of our lives is subsidized in some form or fashion, or financed via borrowing from the future prosperity (creating currency). The mindset of creating Ponzi schemes one after another is not a good one, especially for your children/grandchildren.

 

[scotchtiger]

here's part of the plan to pay for these tax cuts. it's all worth it, though, if scotchtiger can pay for more salt life apparel and jimmy buffet concerts!

I call that job creation - even though I don't own any salt life apparel. I tipped the bar staff at the Buffett concert well, paid for 2 Ubers, my tickets paid for some staff, etc. I would rather redistribute wealth that way then through the government.

 

[nmerritt11]

here's part of the plan to pay for these tax cuts. it's all worth it, though, if scotchtiger can pay for more salt life apparel and jimmy buffet concerts!

Trump's budget seeks significant cuts to disease prevention and medical research departments

"The National Cancer Institute would be hit with a $1 billion cut compared to its 2017 budget. The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute would see a $575 million cut, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases would see a reduction of $838 million. The administration would cut the overall National Institutes of Health budget from $31.8 billion to $26 billion."

While I see what you are saying have you ever looked at the salaries of the CEO and executives of these "non-profit" organizations? What percentage actually goes to research for a lot of these organizations?

Maybe it will make them more accountable to where the money actually goes?

 

[scotchtiger]

This worked during the 90s and Bill Clinton pushed for it, he even ran his campaign on it.

Yep, ole Bill got it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Get to work.

 

[Ron Munson]

Spending cuts are needed. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Our budget problems relate to spending, not revenue.

Also, you aren't giving favors to the rich, it is their money, you are just lowering their rates that were jacked up during the last 8 years.

you can't say everyone needs to pay their fare share, then tax one group at 42%, then have 50% of the population not paying anything. that is purely punitive.

 

[scotchtiger]

Spending cuts are needed. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Our budget problems relate to spending, not revenue.

Also, you aren't giving favors to the rich, it is their money, you are just lowering their rates that were jacked up during the last 8 years.

you can't say everyone needs to pay their fare share, then tax one group at 42%, then have 50% of the population not paying anything. that is purely punitive.

Preach.

 

[CUAngler]

Sucks if you are a child and your parent(s) are poor to lower-middle class.

I remember when I used to think people were poor because they were either chose to be or just didn't feel like working hard.

 

[Ron Munson]

Good afternoon.

When I ran for President four years ago, I pledged to end welfare as we know it. I have worked very hard for four years to do just that.

Today the Congress will vote on legislation that gives us a chance to live up to that promise, to transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not a welfare check. It gives us a better chance to give those on welfare what we want for all families in America, the opportunity to succeed at home and at work.

For those reasons, I will sign it into law.

-Bill Clinton

 

[scotchtiger]

Sucks if you are a child and your parent(s) are poor to lower-middle class.

Those kids are still growing up with a very high quality of life compared to any other time in history or most kids around the globe. And it will encourage them to work hard to make a better life for their kids, which is a major motivator for generational ladder climbing.

 

[nmerritt11]

Spending cuts are needed. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Our budget problems relate to spending, not revenue.

Also, you aren't giving favors to the rich, it is their money, you are just lowering their rates that were jacked up during the last 8 years.

you can't say everyone needs to pay their fare share, then tax one group at 42%, then have 50% of the population not paying anything. that is purely punitive.

What people don't realize that if you lower their tax liability and give them more liquid cash, incentives to invest, they will put money back into the economy, creating jobs, and result into economic stimulation.

The top 1% are going to find ways to generate revenue whether it be stateside investment or foreign investment...why not do everything you can to keep the money in the U.S.?

 

[yemassee]

Spending cuts are needed. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Our budget problems relate to spending, not revenue.

Also, you aren't giving favors to the rich, it is their money, you are just lowering their rates that were jacked up during the last 8 years.

you can't say everyone needs to pay their fare share, then tax one group at 42%, then have 50% of the population not paying anything. that is purely punitive.

If you want more of something, then you subsidize it. If you want less of something, then you tax it. Right now, we are giving money to those who do not work, and taking money from those who do, so why is it a mystery that 50% of the population pays nothing?

 

[hopefultiger13]

and you think that's a good thing?

As most of you know, I'm to the left of most of the board (which I think is fair to say is majority VERY conservative). I actually don't have a problem with this. IMHO, you need to spend a certain percentage of your income on defense. Unlike us as Americans personally, there's no "world police" to come to our country's rescue if we are attacked. We have to be strong enough to TCB and we live in a world where the next two strongest countries armed forces are not at all friendly to the US (Russia and China).

Military spending has slipped some and that's on Obama. I feel that somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of our income is reasonable depending on threat level. Spending has dropped below 5% and I believe that this increase will bring it back into line.

 

[johnhugh]

Why is using low tax loopholes smart business but using safety need loopholes to feed your family being a mooch?

 

[clemsonpaw00]

Those kids are still growing up with a very high quality of life compared to any other time in history or most kids around the globe. And it will encourage them to work hard to make a better life for their kids, which is a major motivator for generational ladder climbing.

or social mobility is essentially a myth and it's easy for you to say this because it fits your narrative and helps you justify completely unnecessary tax cuts. you probably still think trickle down economics are a thing, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

 

[vbranno]

As most of you know, I'm to the left of most of the board (which I think is fair to say is majority VERY conservative). I actually don't have a problem with this. IMHO, you need to spend a certain percentage of your income on defense. Unlike us as Americans personally, there's no "world police" to come to our country's rescue if we are attacked. We have to be strong enough to TCB and we live in a world where the next two strongest countries armed forces are not at all friendly to the US (Russia and China).

Military spending has slipped some and that's on Obama. I feel that somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of our income is reasonable depending on threat level. Spending has dropped below 5% and I believe that this increase will bring it back into line.

Military spending also creates jobs. The effects of those jobs are felt in the military, civilian government, and private sector. Military spending also leads to technological advances that find their way into our everyday lives.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Good afternoon.

When I ran for President four years ago, I pledged to end welfare as we know it. I have worked very hard for four years to do just that.

Today the Congress will vote on legislation that gives us a chance to live up to that promise, to transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence to one that emphasizes work and independence, to give people on welfare a chance to draw a paycheck, not a welfare check. It gives us a better chance to give those on welfare what we want for all families in America, the opportunity to succeed at home and at work.

For those reasons, I will sign it into law.

-Bill Clinton

Better words were never spoken. The whole "give a man a fish and he'll eat today, but show a man how to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life" thing works for me. But that doesn't mean drop some line and a hook at his feet and walk away (and it seems to me that some of the more conservative folks think that's fine). You have to actually TEACH and TRAIN. And that's MUCH more expensive in time and money than simply handing over the fish.

"Share your fire with a man and he's warm all night, but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life"

Nicodemus Archleone

 

[C-TeamHOF]

I remember when I used to think people were poor because they were either chose to be or just didn't feel like working hard.

Now you realize its because????

 

[Ron Munson]

Better words were never spoken. The whole "give a man a fish and he'll eat today, but show a man how to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life" thing works for me. But that doesn't mean drop some line and a hook at his feet and walk away (and it seems to me that some of the more conservative folks think that's fine). You have to actually TEACH and TRAIN. And that's MUCH more expensive in time and money than simply handing over the fish.

"Share your fire with a man and he's warm all night, but set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life"

Nicodemus Archleone

A lot of conservatives don't realize how conservative Bill Clinton was, same goes for liberals (signed Omnibus Crime bill which expanded the death penalty, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, signed the Illegal Immigration Reform act and reformed welfare). He would not get elected today as a democrat.

 

[scotchtiger]

or social mobility is essentially a myth and it's easy for you to say this because it fits your narrative and helps you justify completely unnecessary tax cuts. you probably still think trickle down economics are a thing, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

I said generational ladder climbing. That is, work hard to give your kids a chance at a better life than you had. It's what our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents have done - but apparently today we think that the government should do it.

And it's absolutely possible. My great grand-parents were mostly immigrants.

My grandparents either grew up in an orphanage, in a small house with 13 kids, etc. They worked at the shipyard, post office, wrapped presents part time at a local department store, etc.

My dad was the first in his family to go to college. My mom also went to college even though neither of her parents did. Both went to Clemson. They were/are upper-middle class or better depending on the definition. They were able to send me to private school and pay for Clemson.

My wife and I now do well and will be able to give our son every advantage possible. Each generation has worked hard to give their kids the best opportunities in life and as a result, each generation has done better than the last. That's how we do it in America.

 

[Howard's Jock]

or social mobility is essentially a myth and it's easy for you to say this because it fits your narrative and helps you justify completely unnecessary tax cuts. you probably still think trickle down economics are a thing, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

Its not a myth. Or if it has become a myth social programs are to blame more than they help.

 

[C-TeamHOF]

or social mobility is essentially a myth and it's easy for you to say this because it fits your narrative and helps you justify completely unnecessary tax cuts. you probably still think trickle down economics are a thing, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

unnecessary tax cuts???

I cannot disagree more vehemently. I am an anti-federalist. I am for as little government spending as possible. The federal government is completely out of control.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Spending cuts are needed. You can't tax your way out of every problem. Our budget problems relate to spending, not revenue.

Also, you aren't giving favors to the rich, it is their money, you are just lowering their rates that were jacked up during the last 8 years.

you can't say everyone needs to pay their fare share, then tax one group at 42%, then have 50% of the population not paying anything. that is purely punitive.

Ron, you aren't stupid and you know darn well that the rich aren't paying 42%. It's been well documented that some of the uber rich are paying MUCH less in taxes than the middle class.

If someone wants to drop this tax rate to 25-30% and eliminate ALL the loop holes, then I"m down with that. However, any time someone proposes this, there are no takers. Why? B/c the very wealthy don't pay that percentage of their income in taxes now.

I agree that the middle class can use a LOT of help and some of that could come in the form of a tax cut. The middle class has been slowly and steadily shrinking since Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's, shifting the burden off of the very wealthy and onto the middle class. Since then, some of the middle class has moved into the wealthy (and that's good). Some of the middle class have fallen back into poverty (and that's bad), but there's no doubt that the middleclass has shrunk. The wealthy own more and more of the US total assets every year (in other works, they are getting richer and richer) while the middle and poor classes get poorer and poorer.

Now I'm not saying bleed the rich until they aren't rich. Not at all. It's good to be rich, more power to them. We should all aspire to that. What I am saying is that the rich don't need any help right now. They are rich and they are getting richer. Why exactly should we as a country give the group that's doing the best more of a break by taking resources from the groups that need the help?

Personally I see NO NEED to help out the rich right now (see above). If you want to change up the way we do things to help the poor and middle class, I'm all ears. God knows the system we have now could use the help. But trickle down economics DOESN'T WORK (see Kansas and Louisanna, where conservatives got absolutely everything they wanted... where are the jobs those tax breaks on the wealthy were supposed to generate... where's the investment?). There has to be DEMAND before any business is going to do that. Just having extra money is not going to create jobs.

 

[alex24]

I've always said that anyone not disabiled on welfare should at minimum be required to do 20hrs of community service a week. If you can't do that to get a check you and your children should starve to death. It's called natural selection. If you aren't smart enough to figure out how to survive you shouldn't.

 

[scotchtiger]

Ron, you aren't stupid and you know darn well that the rich aren't paying 42%. It's been well documented that some of the uber rich are paying MUCH less in taxes than the middle class.

If someone wants to drop this tax rate to 25-30% and eliminate ALL the loop holes, then I"m down with that. However, any time someone proposes this, there are no takers. Why? B/c the very wealthy don't pay that percentage of their income in taxes now.

I agree that the middle class can use a LOT of help and some of that could come in the form of a tax cut. The middle class has been slowly and steadily shrinking since Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's, shifting the burden off of the very wealthy and onto the middle class. Since then, some of the middle class has moved into the wealthy (and that's good). Some of the middle class have fallen back into poverty (and that's bad), but there's no doubt that the middleclass has shrunk. The wealthy own more and more of the US total assets every year (in other works, they are getting richer and richer) while the middle and poor classes get poorer and poorer.

Now I'm not saying bleed the rich until they aren't rich. Not at all. It's good to be rich, more power to them. We should all aspire to that. What I am saying is that the rich don't need any help right now. They are rich and they are getting richer. Why exactly should we as a country give the group that's doing the best more of a break by taking resources from the groups that need the help?

Personally I see NO NEED to help out the rich right now (see above). If you want to change up the way we do things to help the poor and middle class, I'm all ears. God knows the system we have now could use the help. But trickle down economics DOESN'T WORK (see Kansas and Louisanna, where conservatives got absolutely everything they wanted... where are the jobs those tax breaks on the wealthy were supposed to generate... where's the investment?). There has to be DEMAND before any business is going to do that. Just having extra money is not going to create jobs.

You need to define "rich." I agree that situation that has the Romney's and Buffet's paying 14-15% should be fixed. On the flip side, folks in the hundreds of thousands feel the full weight of the progressive tax scale and don't get loopholes like carried interest or preferred cap gains rates b/c their income is "ordinary." They need big cuts, because they are actually paying over 30% even after taking normal deductions and blending the tiers. It's punitive.

 

[Ron Munson]

Ron, you aren't stupid and you know darn well that the rich aren't paying 42%. It's been well documented that some of the uber rich are paying MUCH less in taxes than the middle class.

If someone wants to drop this tax rate to 25-30% and eliminate ALL the loop holes, then I"m down with that. However, any time someone proposes this, there are no takers. Why? B/c the very wealthy don't pay that percentage of their income in taxes now.

I agree that the middle class can use a LOT of help and some of that could come in the form of a tax cut. The middle class has been slowly and steadily shrinking since Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's, shifting the burden off of the very wealthy and onto the middle class. Since then, some of the middle class has moved into the wealthy (and that's good). Some of the middle class have fallen back into poverty (and that's bad), but there's no doubt that the middleclass has shrunk. The wealthy own more and more of the US total assets every year (in other works, they are getting richer and richer) while the middle and poor classes get poorer and poorer.

Now I'm not saying bleed the rich until they aren't rich. Not at all. It's good to be rich, more power to them. We should all aspire to that. What I am saying is that the rich don't need any help right now. They are rich and they are getting richer. Why exactly should we as a country give the group that's doing the best more of a break by taking resources from the groups that need the help?

Personally I see NO NEED to help out the rich right now (see above). If you want to change up the way we do things to help the poor and middle class, I'm all ears. God knows the system we have now could use the help. But trickle down economics DOESN'T WORK (see Kansas and Louisanna, where conservatives got absolutely everything they wanted... where are the jobs those tax breaks on the wealthy were supposed to generate... where's the investment?). There has to be DEMAND before any business is going to do that. Just having extra money is not going to create jobs.

I agree with what you are saying, and that is why democrats should sign on to Trump's plan. For years they have been harping about loopholes, but never done anything about it.

Lower the rates and do away with deductions and other loopholes.

While it is true that the for the most part, no one pays 42%, they are by no means paying a lower rate than the middle class. Maybe .00001%...but that is just playing identity politics. Democrats love demonizing the wealthy.

Obama was even on record saying his capital gains tax plan was punitive, not revenue generating.

 

[clemsonpaw00]

I said generational ladder climbing. That is, work hard to give your kids a chance at a better life than you had. It's what our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents have done - but apparently today we think that the government should do it.

And it's absolutely possible. My great grand-parents were mostly immigrants.

My grandparents either grew up in an orphanage, in a small house with 13 kids, etc. They worked at the shipyard, post office, wrapped presents part time at a local department store, etc.

My dad was the first in his family to go to college. My mom also went to college even though neither of her parents did. Both went to Clemson. They were/are upper-middle class or better depending on the definition. They were able to send me to private school and pay for Clemson.

My wife and I now do well and will be able to give our son every advantage possible. Each generation has worked hard to give their kids the best opportunities in life and as a result, each generation has done better than the last. That's how we do it in America.

did you even read the article? yes, like half of us have one of those feel good stories about our immigrant great grandparents working hard to provide a better life for the next generation. the point of the study is how that is increasingly rare or even possible in today's post-industrialization society.

In the paper, Carr and Wiemers used earnings data to measure how fluidly people move up and down the income ladder over the course of their careers. “It is increasingly the case that no matter what your educational background is, where you start has become increasingly important for where you end,” Carr told me. “The general amount of movement around the distribution has decreased by a statistically significant amount.”

this is part of what makes trump's claim that he'll "bring back coal jobs" so ridiculous. those jobs aren't coming back. so either that workforce needs to be retrained for other jobs or we need a stronger social net to take care of them. i tend to believe in the latter, because the problem is only going to worsen, which will eventually force this country and others to institute some sort of basic income down the line. or let the lower-middle class and lower class continue to mire in poverty while you decry food stamps and "welfare queens."

 

[blythewood tigers]

What people don't realize that if you lower their tax liability and give them more liquid cash, incentives to invest, they will put money back into the economy, creating jobs, and result into economic stimulation.

The top 1% are going to find ways to generate revenue whether it be stateside investment or foreign investment...why not do everything you can to keep the money in the U.S.?

Spending does NOT create jobs! This is completely backwards thinking. SAVINGS creates jobs.

I hope you are trolling, or else you have been brainwashed into reverse logic.

 

[blythewood tigers]

Ron, you aren't stupid and you know darn well that the rich aren't paying 42%. It's been well documented that some of the uber rich are paying MUCH less in taxes than the middle class.

If someone wants to drop this tax rate to 25-30% and eliminate ALL the loop holes, then I"m down with that. However, any time someone proposes this, there are no takers. Why? B/c the very wealthy don't pay that percentage of their income in taxes now.

I agree that the middle class can use a LOT of help and some of that could come in the form of a tax cut. The middle class has been slowly and steadily shrinking since Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's, shifting the burden off of the very wealthy and onto the middle class. Since then, some of the middle class has moved into the wealthy (and that's good). Some of the middle class have fallen back into poverty (and that's bad), but there's no doubt that the middleclass has shrunk. The wealthy own more and more of the US total assets every year (in other works, they are getting richer and richer) while the middle and poor classes get poorer and poorer.

Now I'm not saying bleed the rich until they aren't rich. Not at all. It's good to be rich, more power to them. We should all aspire to that. What I am saying is that the rich don't need any help right now. They are rich and they are getting richer. Why exactly should we as a country give the group that's doing the best more of a break by taking resources from the groups that need the help?

Personally I see NO NEED to help out the rich right now (see above). If you want to change up the way we do things to help the poor and middle class, I'm all ears. God knows the system we have now could use the help. But trickle down economics DOESN'T WORK (see Kansas and Louisanna, where conservatives got absolutely everything they wanted... where are the jobs those tax breaks on the wealthy were supposed to generate... where's the investment?). There has to be DEMAND before any business is going to do that. Just having extra money is not going to create jobs.

I don't consider myself rich and I pay 42%. That doesn't include all my property taxes, gasoline tax, food tax, etc.. My tax rate is over 50%. The government lets me keep less than 50% of my income, should I be mad? I'm confused.

 

[nytigerfan]

Love the concept. Haven't dug into the details, but this is absolutely the right mindset.


"This is the first time that an administration has written a budget through the perspective of the people paying the taxes," Mulvaney told reporters Monday night.

...calls for $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid and a $193 billion reduction in food stamps over the next ten years.

"We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of people on those programs. We're going to measure compassion by how many people we can get off those programs," said Mulvaney, who added that there would be a work requirement for some Americans to continue receiving food stamps.

"If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, then we need you to go to work," Mulvaney said.

Whoops... looks like there is a $2 trillion math error in trump's budget. Based on his performane to date, I am not surprised.

http://nym.ag/2rwL8yR

 

[hopefultiger13]

A lot of conservatives don't realize how conservative Bill Clinton was, same goes for liberals (signed Omnibus Crime bill which expanded the death penalty, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, signed the Illegal Immigration Reform act and reformed welfare). He would not get elected today as a democrat.

Bill Clinton wasn't conservative, he was a moderate. In addition to the things you mention above, he was also in favor of universal health care. Aside from banging interns with cigars, he and I share a lot of beliefs. I have no problem with the death penalty, limited welfare, and control of our borders. I'm anti gun control. Yet I'm pro choice, don't have a problem with gay folks having rights, and think that it's OK to deny gun ownership to crazy/mentally impaired people. In other words, a moderate.

No moderate can get elected by either party right now b/c the fringe elements of both parties are running the show. There's no desire to compromise or work with each other. Clinton was able to balance the budget b/c he worked with house and senate republicans as well as his own party to get things done. Obama shat the bed in 2009-10 even though he had majorities in both houses b/c he wouldn't work with the other side. Trump is currently shiiting the bed for the same reason.