Journal Community


Explore Group

Would you support higher taxes to ease the federal deficit?


« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    What is the motivation of our politicians? Are they all stupid or don't they care what happens to the country. Is there a third explanation?

    7 Recommendations


    No, no, no!

    Raise the taxes to 100% and I can guarantee you that we will still have a deficit problem!
    The politicians are good at one thing, wasting money and they will have no trouble to waste all!!!

    19 Recommendations

  • The funny irony here is the very same folks that are wasting $trillions and bankrupting the US are passing regulations for the financial services industry. That's like having an arsonist pass fire safety building codes. The funniest part is when they dragged in Jamie Dimond. Hey Congress - how about passing a balanced budget and getting your financial mess cleaned up before you try telling others how to manage theirs?

    22 Recommendations

  • The point most folks are missing is that our leaders are just talking about a slight cut to a very large INCREASE in spending. We all know about waste, fraud and crony capitalism but there are also huge demographic changes happening, like 10,000 "baby boomers" retiring everyday and demanding their SS and Medicare.

    There is not a single projection under any plan that shows we will close our budget shortfalls, let alone start paying back dollar one of our national debt.

    As a nation, we have to live within our means and become productive again. The first part is fairly easy, the second part means shutting down government, the least productive entity in the land.

    17 Recommendations

    • You use the word "Demanding" their SS. If you spent 30 years putting money into a bank should you not have the expectations of that money being there when you wanted to take it out. SS is not an entitlement.

      10 Recommendations



        You do have the right to expect to get back what you put in. Absolutely, and with an appropriate amount of interest besides. What you do not have is the right to draw past that. No one has that right.

        SS is an entitlement because you expect to get out more than you put in. Be honest. It's the entitlement portion of SS that is bankrupting it. Your SS contributions were never banked in your name.

        SS is a Ponzi scheme. The Fed Gov forces almost everyone into it. Go look up who doesn't have to pay into SS. The Fed Gov made promises that were fraudulent when first stated and no one called them to account for their mendacity. So, now you and many others demand what no longer exists or will not exist depending on how you look at it. Carter knew SS was going broke and so did Reagan. Did the Fed Gov step up to the plate and fix it - No. They papered over the problem long enough to kick it down the road but we are now approaching the dead end of that street.

        I understand your mind set, but I believe you have to realize that the Fed Gov lied to you and stole your money. Demanding blood from a stone doesn't make sense. Demanding an honest airing of this theft does. That investigation, if it were done honestly, would prove to the entire country that the politicians in DC are nothing but crooks and presidential elections are nothing but electing a new mafia chief.

        Get angry. But aim at the folks who did the dirty deed. Then set your realistic level of expectation so that you don't rely on what won't be there when you need it.

        5 Recommendations

      • I respectfully disagree.

        First, as a subsequent commenter shared, it is an entitlement to the extent that there is a "guarantee" of a stream of payments that exceed the amount invested and the rate of return.

        Second, Social Security is not at all like putting money into a bank. It is more like putting money into an officially-sanctioned Ponzi-scheme. If people had put their money into a private Ponzi-scheme, many would be less sympathetic. That this scheme is officially sanctioned and involuntary makes it tragic.

        Third, it has been widely known for generations that Social Security was unsustainable. Both the voters and politicians knew that promises regarding the sustainability of SS were empty. Future generations have no moral obligation to keep prior generations' promises of transfer payments.

        6 Recommendations


        @Bill "The Fed Gov made promises that were fraudulent when first stated "

        No, they were true when *first* stated, but when SS started paying out the eligibility age was 62 and average US lifespan was 63. The average US lifespan now is 80 and they've only raised the eligibility age 3 years (plus added a sliding window for gamblers so if they wait longer they stand to make 3 times as much if they live to age 90). They need to raise the eligibility age by a year every other year for the next 30 years to bring the eligibility:lifespan ages back in line to what they were in 1940 when SS started paying retirement benefits... and it needs to start now, not 50 years from now like chicken sheet politicians always say (so they're long gone from office before those changes kick in).

        2 Recommendations


        The money you put into social security was to take care of your parents, not you. You have no right to make demands because your parents were taken care of.



    If we keep sending them money, they'll just spend it. If we don't, they'll just print it and devalue our currency. We are in a no-win situation with the heroin addicts in D.C. The solution is to stop sending them money and throw out as many of these addicts as we can. Otherwise, we are headed to the Weimar Republic. Get your wheelbarrow. You'll need it to buy a loaf of bread.

    3 Recommendations


    Bob Roberts:

    Please see the Social Security Web Site :

    It was designed from the get go to be abused.

    2 Recommendations

  • The correct answer is No. Government must live within its means.

    Cut both tax rates AND spending.

    1 Recommendation


    Surely you jest.

    The gov't spends whatever amount it wants to regardless of taxes. No one in gov't even considers how much tax money has come in or is expected to come in when they decide to spend. It's called deficit spending. It's what has accumulated 16T in real debt. Taxes are solely to keep inflation somewhat in check.

    Letting the tax cuts expire MAY bring in more tax revenue, but it will have absolutely no impact on spending.

    Now if deficit spending were illegal, then they would have to consider raising taxes to over 100% for several years to try to work down the debt. That's how impossible the situation is.



    If the government is willing to cut equal spending then why not. Not all government expenditures are truly important.




      If they cut spending then by definition their need for money is reduced, therefore, using pure logic, there should be fewer taxes.

      If you want to use the excess to pay down the debt, I say to you that the debt was accumulated fraudulently and I personally feel no obligation to repay it. As a practical matter, it ca't be repaid honestly. Either inflation will render the debt paid with worthless script or the debt will be repudiated. Either way it won't be paid in any honest sense.

      Giving gov't money inevitably leads to them needing more money, as is obvious from history. Stop the cycle. Starve the beast.


  • It's easy to spend other people's money. Especially when you can play Santa Claus and ensure reelection.

    1 Recommendation

« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…



Most Active Discussions