DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP debate

Well, theoretically if those making that little don't pay taxes then they have more to spend in the economy and you can't really call it trickle down because it's those making that little that are no longer paying.

About our crumbling infrastructure, wasn't that what the 'shovel ready jobs' (don't remember the actual name of the 'Act') was supposed to take care of?

I don't know where you guys live, but down here in Central Ohio the orange barrels spring up just like flowers every time the weather breaks here.

we have a bunch of barrels around here too.

but rarely, even in the summertime, do they get fixed. a lot of times the potholes and other damage to the roads sit there for months. sometimes years.

once again, cutting taxes has shown that people will simply put that money into the savings account.

the only time people spend more is refund season. but typically people don't really see a drastic change when it comes to tax cuts in their paychecks.

but the state and federal government does. just look at kansas. those tax cuts sure did help, right? no.

The info is out there.

Don't know what you think of the Wall Street Journal, but here's this: http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

Then, there's this: http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0



And this: http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes




So, when you said we can't afford to lose 51% of people paying income tax - it was at best a mis-charactization of who pays taxes.

Only 3% of the income tax is paid by people earning under $36,000.

Not trying to call you out - but look at the info available.

The next GOP Debate has been rescheduled to air on the Springer Show.

Stuff gets fixed down here all the time. It's why I don't live in the area I grew up in (Lorain, Sheffield Lake) anymore.
Down here is the land of opportunity in Ohio.
I don't know what to tell you about the taxes, if someone making that little gets to have something in the bank then that money is going to end up benefiting the economy somehow.
I had a back & forth with a guy on the old board who said that it was a proven fact that (and this discussion was about rich people) 35% of whatever a rich person got back in taxes went into the bank.
That's right, 65% went into the economy. He couldn't wrap his head around that, rather than having 65% going into the economy he'd rather have had all of it doled out by the 'generosity' of the federal government.
I made the numbers easy and said that if they got back $10k, $6,500 would be about what it would cost to paint and pay for materials in a good sized home here. Back then that would've taken care of my bills for a month.
Guy didn't want to hear it though.
Remember when Tom Daschel had that illustrated 'speech' years and years ago about how W's tax cuts would give a rich person enough money to buy a Lexus and a poor person enough to buy a (and he had one with him) muffler?
Well, (I've yet to paint for a rich person that didn't already have a Lexus or equivalent car but) what if the Lexus guy needs to sell a Lexus to make his bills for the month? What if I needed a muffler? When W did that stimulus plan (borrowed money from China and gave us all a check) it was enough money for me to pay what I owed to the paint store.
Enough money to buy a new Lexus is also enough to pay for a high end kitchen remodel! Do you know how many people that would employ?
Right now a rich person is paying me $8,100 + paint to get their lake house ready to sell. If this job hadn't come through when it did February would've been very scary for me, but I prayed hard and here it is. Very big job making a lot of money doing what I do so I can provide for my family.

Priceless!

So let's say those figures are correct.

It still doesn't make any sense. And for me, that leads to even more questions.

Cutting 3 percent of taxes does what? It's not going to stimulate the economy. That's still 3 percent less than that what we are currently taking in.

And for a country that can barely solve its budget problem let alone the national debt, cutting taxes doesn't sound smart.

I'm looking at your figures, and it's not adding up, regardless on how we cut it.

Ted: that's great that your stuff is getting fixed. Up here in the land, it isn't.

Dude, all I'm saying is your statement about losing 51% of the income tax was wrong. That's all.

I didn't say I agree with his tax plan, or disagree with it. I was just pointing out that you, using the "how can we lose 51% of the income tax" thing, was either a misunderstanding on your part, or a mis-characterization on your part.

And yes, the numbers I linked to are correct - unless you want to challenge the sources. If so, have at it.


Now, please understand, I in no way said it's feasible and good. I also in no way said it wasn't feasible.

I simply pointed out that your numbers were misleading.

And I conceded(dunno if that's the right word, somebody please correct my word usage when I screw up, plz) to your point, and all I did was respond to the numbers you posted.

Trying to have a discussion, but for whatever reason you're acting like I'm attacking you.

Sorry you took it that way. Not my intent.

But, you did make it seam like, under this guys tax plan, we'd be losing 51% of the federal tax income. We wouldn't. I'm not for him or against him. I was simply trying to correct your assumption. Take it for what it's worth. The info is out there - look it up - don't take my word for it.

I AM discussing.

I responded to your post with facts. Apparently you don't want to or are unable to understand the fallacy in the numbers you posted, in comparison to what I posted. OR, I didn't make my stance known well enough.

Did I not just admit I was wrong when I said I concede to your point?

This is why I try avoiding discussions with you. I said you was right, yet you keep going on with this narrative that I don't want to admit something. All I said was assuming your numbers were right, it still poses a problem with cruz's tax plan.

Have a good day.

Key Findings:

Senator Cruz’s (R-TX) tax plan would enact a 10 percent flat tax on individual income and replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent “Business Transfer Tax,” or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code.


Senator Cruz’s plan would cut taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $768 billion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital and the much broader tax base due to the new value-added tax.


According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to a 13.9 percent higher GDP over the long term, provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed.


The plan would also lead to a 43.9 percent larger capital stock, 12.2 percent higher wages, and 4.8 million more full-time equivalent jobs.


On a static basis, the plan would cut taxes by 9.2 percent, on average, for all taxpayers.


Accounting for economic growth, all taxpayers would see an increase in after-tax income of at least 14 percent at the end of the decade.

TaxFoundation.org

I guess that's the key, Tulsa.

Appropriately financed.

I wonder how many presidents plan would work if we weren't increasing the budget every year.

I guess you don't know what a discussion is.

You posted your thoughts, I posted facts........yet you want to somehow argue facts.

I never said it DIDN'T pose a problem with Cruz's plan. I simply pointed out the U.S. WON'T be missing 51% of it's income tax revenue. Gees dude, relax.

Okay, now you're getting into some meat and potatoes numbers. Thanks.

First thing that jumped out at me too.

I don't know how much meat and potato's are there with projections and "could".

Trumps economic plan will fix this Country in just two years.
It will make a Huge difference and everyone will love it.
America will once again get back to winning instead of losing.
We will all be proud of such a great economic plan.
Believe me, Trump will fix this with his left hand while wrestling the cheating Chinese with his right.

And if you don't agree, you are having a bad day!

J/C ......

I rewatched the debate. Ugh.

Honestly, I have no idea how anyone who considers himself a conservative could ever support Donald Trump. He has some far left ideals ..... I half expected him to come out and say that he believes that Bush blew up the Twin Towers .........

He changes his positions at the drop of a dime, and them lambastes other candidates for supposedly changing their positions. He lies about what other candidates have done, or supported, and then gets upset when someone honestly states what positions he has taken in the past.

Trump brings up Reagan, but Reagan had a track record of having changed at least some of his positions from the time he was a Democrat, to the time he became a Republican. Reagan had some executive experience as a Governor who had evolved his positions in a lower, but important, political position. Reagan continued to evolve as a President candidate, but there was a track record of his evolution throughout his political career.

Trump just seems to say whatever he thinks will get him votes.

I also have this weird thought ..... with the FBI breathing down the ne ck of his good friend Hillary, and who knows where the investigation goes from there ..... maybe Trump is the emergency plan, to make sure that if people in the Administration need a quick pardon ...... well, there's their boy Trump in the White House.

Given the way Trump just changes positions at the drop of a hat .... any hat ..... his personal behavior ...... and his complete lack of any track record for the positions he now espouses ...... I get the anger people have ...... but this guy is not the one to be President.

I worry that people are going to vote for Trump ..... just like other people voted for Obama ...... because of some very thin "hope and change" type rhetoric, that is completely vacuous.

The latest is that Trump implies that he may run as a 3rd party candidate if he isn't treated as what he sees as fair. This is the guy some people love? I truly don't get it.

Young voters, women, and minorities make up a huge block of the voting populace, YTown. Trump, nor any GOP candidate, stands a fighting chance this election season. I'm willing to make a sig bet on that.

A bet you will lose.

A customer of mine insists that Trump is a closet Democrat only in the race to drain votes from other Republicans and that he was put up to it by the Clintons. LOL

Wow, all the conspiracy......LOL

I am currently laughing my butt off. All the other candidates are spending their hard earned money on commercials to get their messages out but TRUMP has called a Press Conference and is currently answering questions on tv and pushing his platform...

FOR FREE!!!

Trump is having a press conference right now, and man, this guy is an absolute joke.

He says that he believes that he has standing to sue Cruz over his citizenship, and ability to be President ...... and that he will unless Cruz apologizes to him.

Why not just file it anyway, if Cruz is not eligible to be President.

This guy is an absolute joke, but the danger is that this absolute joke might be President.

I thought that the electorate was idiotic for electing Obama, a 1st term Senator without any real leadership experience. I guess I shouldn't be surprised if Trump wins the nomination.

Wow ..... just when I think that this country can't sink any lower .....

because trump the businessman, nobody can argue it.

the guy is a straight up god when it comes to working social media.

he understands that with technology, you can spread your message without so much as spending a dime. Twitter, instagram, FB, youtube, snapchat. it's too easy.

so he's gonna get free TV media because of that.


Dam Dash, the CEO of rockafella ent. said it best "All you need is a laptop and a microphone, and the opportunity is endless".

every last candidate, left or right, hasn't got with the program yet. Trump says his campaign will be self financed. people don't understand that he can say that because he's not gonna spend as much as other people because he's a master at using social media.

You make good points and I gotta say I have never seen anyone play the Press like this guy has. I am used to Republican Candidates getting eaten by the Press but this guy seems to own them!

that's because he's been in front of the camera day one bro.

he was on oprah and such before all this. people forget that.

he is this generations new version of Ronald Reagan, with respects to being a celebrity-turned-politician.

except reagan needed to take steps first. with technology today, Trump can make the jump to business man/reality tv show guy to the top political position in the world.

he gets away with everything he says because he was already talking trash before he tried to run the FIRST time.

everybody was already aware of who he was. one of the big reasons he's the top guy in the republican party is because unlike every other politician standing up there, he didn't change his personality. he's still reality tv trump up there.

and while that's bad for guys like YTown, unconsciously, people love him because that shows a consistency in the political world that we haven't seen in a long long time.

I can agree with some of that but what I really think has elevated Trump to the guy to beat is that he came out swinging by setting the subject matter for this election. He spouted about everything that no one else would talk about like the boarder, the illegals, the Muslim Terrorists etc...

People found it refreshing and real. A guy speaking his mind about things many people in this Country were ticked off about.
They said "Danged Right Guy!" They got behind him and now, every Primary he goes to, he already has 35 percent of the people pulling for him. The others have to build a base like he already has and then pass him out to win. That is if he doesn't add any voters to his 35 Percent while there.

if he wins SC, it's pretty much over. nobody will catch up, unless some really good dirt gets brought up.

cause so far, the dirt they have would ruin other candidates, but he just seems to brush it off.

I really feel your pain Ytown.

I can't bring myself to vote for Cruz, No way, no how. Can't believe that Ben Carson has a chance. Jeb Bush has been destroyed by Trump. I like Rubio to a great extent and Kasich I have some knowledge of being our Gov. But I don't think either has a chance.

So if you feel you are a conservative, you almost have to vote for Trump $#%#*%$))%& GRRRRRR

I can't see me every voting for Hillary.. I like Sanders. He's passionate for sure, but his plan just won't fly.

What I would like to see, just for giggles, is Trump vs Sanders..

Oh man, the country is a mess, but you might as well be entertained as the ship sinks LOL

I don't think he has a chance in SC. I would not be surprised if he finishes third.

I agree that if he did win SC, he may run the table.

I cannot, and will not vote for Trump.


I cannot and will not vote for Bernie or Hillary.

The way it's looking right now, I will not be voting for President. Maybe I'll write in Jesus' name.

I don't know what you're so down on the Bern for, he's promised us extra social security money when we retire. Those whippersnappers will have to work to extra pay for us.

There's almost something poetic about it.

The weird thing is that I would probably be far better off, personally, under Sanders. With my medical condition, and the doctors and medications I have every month, I would probably be far ahead. I had 14 doctor visits and $350 in medication costs in January alone.

If I could have any treatment without cost .... well, I might even find something that would help.

However, would his policies be what's best for this country? They probably would benefit me, at least for now. However, I fear that they would destroy this country in the long run. I know that his policies, as he has outlined them, would destroy jobs, and eliminate capital investment in this country. Why take chances here, when you are going to be punished if you have any success?

Man, I would love to be able to vote for a candidate I felt would do the right things for this country. That candidate has very little chance of winning in today's world, though.

Ytown, my friend...

First, Yes Bernie Sanders is by far the candidate that would act in Your best interest. And I struggle to understand why anyone would vote against their own best interest.

Second, the thinking behind the rhetoric that Bernie's plans will bankrupt the country are pure nonsense. First, he is not trying to end capitalism he just wants it to have a healthier environment to grow in. Capitalism and socialism work hand in hand in every major country in the world. Pure capitalism does not exist, period. Greed sees to that. So some socialism puts a checks and balance system in place to control things like greed and corruption.

Leveling the playing field is all we are really talking about. Reversing the damage done over the last thirty years by "Trickle Down" economics that have failed time and again.

Simple common sense approaches like removing the insurance middle man's cost and forcing big pharma to negotiate prices (like they already do with the rest of the world), to help lower health care cost overall. It's not rocket science. Instead of insurance premiums, there will be a tax that after being offset by the premiums being paid now will be a savings to the average person... money that will be spent in the economy.

Tuition free college means the return of community colleges and reduction in cost of major national colleges. Perhaps even free college across the board, but I doubt it. The advantage here is to force the costs down so that EVERY american can afford to get an education and become a useful and EDUCATED (working and tax paying) productive citizen. This will boost the economy and attract businesses looking for more educated employees, translating to higher paying jobs. Again, not rocket science.

Social security expansion is a human dignity and moral dilemma this country faces. We have over stressed state's economies, charities and services like hospitals by making cuts to basic human needs programs. Every human needs food, shelter, clothing and medical care; nobody can deny that fact but we aren't doing anything to insure them. Bernie's plan to put a tax on wall street (transactions) for this will barely be noticed at the source yet help millions in need and make social security stable for the next fifty plus years.

As for his plans to tax the rich, and break up the banks... well this is simply wealth redistribution. The top 10% and primarily the top 1% have enjoyed 30 years of things being rigged in their favor and have rung trillions out of the middle class. These actions start to reverse that flow of cash back to the middle class in a way that will be used to rebuild the middle class and make it strong again like it was in the fifties. Sure there will be some pain at the top, but right now there is so much pain in the middle and at the bottom that things will begin to blow up soon... that's no good for anyone.

Now some will argue that he will never get his ideas going and why bother, well that's the ruling class whispering in your ear; have you ever seen a candidate that the news refused to cover, or that constantly tells you he can't do this or that??? The media, the ruling class, the powers that be are scared of Bernie's campaign because it means the game that has been rigged in their favor is all but over and change is coming. Will it come all at once? Doubtful, but if he wins this year, the next 4-5 election cycles clearly spell out the end of the rigged system.

And it's laughable when people say well the businesses will just close and move overseas...

A few might, but the US consumer market is the strongest on the planet (we have lost ground here to China lately due to trade policies) and all businesses want part of that action. With some well thought out trade policies, Bernie's plans will bring money back and help keep it in our economy; bad news for China, India and Mexico but good news for us. He and Trump have some similar ideas here.

I could go on and on, but when you forget all the bad stuff you are hearing and dig into, research, and think about his policies and plans, they not only make good economic sense they make good common sense.

not gonna lie, you keep pushing me toward getting behind Bernie.

The tax issue gives concern, but when you think that the majority getting of what you'd taxed for (healthcare, college plan idea, etc) you'd end up paying more for on your own. As much has been explained in numerous studies; Bernie's ideas, despite the tax, end up saving the average American quite a bit of cash.

Plus, he's not bought off by large PACs. He received a few big donations, but he's not serving those who support him.

Sorry this is so long.

I have read Sanders' proposals and policies, and I simply do not see them as being good for this country.

You simply cannot give people everything, and force employers to give people everything, and also tax the heck out of the employers.

We have a world economy today. That is reality. We have to be smarter in our treaties and trade agreements. In this I actually do agree with Trump. We have signed some lousy trade agreements. However when I look at Sanders' stance on issues, I just wonder where the money comes from.

He wants to somehow make income distribution "fair", when there is no way to really do so. Face it,. our economic outlook has gone up and down .... through cycles of difficulty ... and rich people buy when other people panic and sell a the bottom of cycles. There is no way to "equalize" that. Some people buy at, or near, the bottom ..... but there are risks there as well. There are no guarantees that any market would ever respond though. (although it helped when Obama dumped over a trillion dollars of imaginary "support" into the market, buying junk to inflate stock prices. Now that kind of stuff I disagree with.

He wants to make people pay "their fair share" ..... but raising income tax rates really doesn't do mich to accomplish this. If he said "I want to keep rates where they are, but close almost every tax loophole", then I would agree with that. However, that is not what he is saying. I also greatly dislike the standing Democrat fare of pitting one American against another, and Sanders really bears down on this point.

He seems to think that he will end poverty by increasing the minimum wage ..... but all that does is raise prices, and hurts the middle class. If it somehow, magically, allowed the middle class to float higher as well, then prices would inflate, and the bottom would still have difficulties. Businesses are not charities. They are in business to make money, for their owners, employees, and investors. If there is not enough profit, then business expansion ends, and labor charts compress. Where $200 in an hour might have supported having 5 employees at one time, it might only support 3 under Sanders plans. These are things we need to be careful about.

I remember when minimum wage was roughly $5. Raising it to $7.50 was supposed to help people a great deal. It didn't. Further, there have been many cases of people who used the increased minimum wage as an opportunity to cut back their hours, so they don't lose their other benefits by earning too much.

We have the already increased minimum wage. We have this enormous EITC program, where we give refundable "tax credits" to low income people. This program was intended to cover employee taxes for the poor, but it goes way beyond that now. Add in the child tax credit which some want to increase as well) and a person making $10,000 receiving a $6000 tax credit is not out of the question.

He has other things, 12 weeks of "free" paid leave for medical and family issues, paid vacations, and others that, again, eliminate jobs and force prices up. He has admitted that his paid leave program would cost everyone in the form of a tax increase.

As an example, I remember when I went into Wal Mart or Marc's, and I could find an open register right away. I could be in and out in 3 minutes, if I was only grabbing one or 2 items.

Now I go to Wal Mart or Marc's, and there are lines galore. All the time. I went to Wal Mart the other day, and they were very busy. They had 4 registers open. This is one of the "hidden costs". Cashiers are not getting the hours they one received, because the labor charts have compressed. Further, while Wal Mart is paying high wages, they have cut many full time positions, and are hiring part time only. That doesn't help anyone either, especially when they require open availability, even for their part time employees.

These are just a few areas where I see risk in his economic plans. He wants to tax the heck out of the "rich", but these are people who invest in this country's economy. They won't invest in an environment where they are unlikely to make a solid return though. This is just the simple truth. There are other parts of the world where people can invest, and never suffer for it if the economic environment becomes too difficult here at home.

I am, once again, reminded of Warren Buffet, who came out and lamented that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. He said that we needed higher marginal rates to make things "fair". However, in his case, this was a dodge. He paid himself in stock options, where he could buy back stock at a huge discount, instead of taking a pay check. Buffet never once said that we should tax those kinds of transactions, instead saying that we need to raise rates which would never apply to him. People applauded him though, even though he was just trying to distract from the real "reduced tax" methods he used to build his wealth at a lower rate.

That is just his economic policies. Many have emotional "feel good" factors, but they just won't work in reality.

He wants to offer free college education. We have a disaster in the public education system throughout this country right now. Money is misspent, and wasted. We are to assume that it will somehow become so much better with the fed paying the bills? Why? What does the federal government do well today? Not many programs are what can be considered successful. Further, we have a staggering $1.2 trillion in student loan debt in this country right now. What happens to that if college education becomes "free for all"? If everyone takes a free college education, how much does that add to the federal debt? What if only 50% of the eligible people do? How much does that cost? Where does the money come from?

He speaks of getting the money out of politics, but how do you do so in a Constitutional manner? Well, Bernie will do it with yet another litmus test for Supreme Court Justices.

The list just goes on and on with things that might even sound good in passing. There are a lot of high ideals here. However, the reality is that paying for all of this stuff will force wealth out of this country. There are already trillions of dollars overseas, that is not coming back to this country because of penalties and taxes that doing so would incur. It is easier to keep that money overseas, investing overseas, and preventing valuable capital from coming back home.

Bernie wants to create a single payer system for healthcare. He will enforce a new tax on everyone for healthcare. Somehow this is going to be paid for by "fair" increased taxes on certain Americans.

Bernie wants to spend $1.3 trillion to work rebuilding infrastructure. I agree that we should invest in our infrastructure, but man, we cannot just keep printing money. I am of the opinion that new spending should be paid for by cuts. We cannot tax our way to prosperity. It just doesn't work. People use the Clinton era as an example that it can .... but that was the expansion of the dot com economy. We rode that wave up, and then, when the bubble burst, we crashed.

I think that Bernie has some good ideas, but I can say this about almost every candidate. I have seen horrific estimates on what his programs would cost, and somehow, these things always cost more than estimated.

Right now, we spend roughly 60% of the federal budget on Social Security, Medicare I(including Medicaid, CHIP, and Obamacare subsidies) and Safety Net programs. We add another 7 or 8& on interest on the debt. Benefits for federal retirees and veterans is another 8%. This is right around 75% of the budget.

People complain about defense spending, but that is only 18% of the federal budget.

I do not see how we can explode the benefit spending portion of the budget without causing major problems. For all of the talk about Obamacare, it is never going away. It is now entrenched, and will cost us 5-10% of the federal budget forever. Bernie wants to exp-and this spending, and pay for it ..... somehow. He wants to add a 0.02% payroll tax to pay for his plan .... somehow.

I simply see no way that all of this spending adds up to anything except a massive explosion if debt. Would it benefits me? Probably, to an extent. Would it harm the country, and add tons more debt to the bill today's newborn babies will have to pay? Yep.

The federal debt has exploded under Obama. He "paid for" his spending, supposedly. He took over a $10 trillion debt, and he ended 2 wars, yet still will have doubled our debt by the time he leaves office. Imagine what the new spending Sanders wants will do to the federal debt. Imagine if we yank $1 trillion out of the economy just to pay for Bernie's infrastructure plans.

Our GDP was roughly $18 trillion in 2015. We have already crossed the point where we could take every single penny made in this country over the whole year and pay off our debt. We pay hundred of billions of dollars in interest every year. The federal budget is roughly $3.8 trillion per year. We pay almost a quarter of a trillion dollars in interest service on our debt alone, and interest rates are about as low as they can go.

I just don't see that increasing spending, in a massive way, is the solution. People used to complain that China owned us when we hit $9-$10 trillion in debt under Bush. We will have more than doubled that amount by the time Obama leaves office.

Our GDP is roughly $18 trillion. Our budget is roughly $3.8 trillion. Adding to the budget increases the debt we take on. I simply see no way, outside of a fairy tale, that Sanders can realistically pay for his plans with the proposals he has put forth. I just cannot see it. Instead, I see a similar path to the one Obama took, where we are looking for increases on the federal debt limits on a quarterly basis, as the debt grows, and grows, and grows.

I don't have children. If I only cared about myself, I would support Sanders. However, The young people of today don't deserve the disaster we are already leaving them. The children of my nieces and nephews will somehow have to manage the mess we are leaving them, Sooner ior later, with the rest of the world developing economically, we will be called to account for our irresponsibility. Maybe I luck out and leave this earth before that happens, Maybe not. However, I don't think that it's "fair" to leave ever exploding and unfair levels of debt to our children and grandchildren. They are the ones who very well may have to start shoveling out from the disaster we are leaving them.

These infamous tax levels worked just fine under Eisenhower. They can work today.

Using those numbers, he is going to remove $1.5 trillion from the economy as a continuing tax, and over $1.9 trillion from the economy over 10 years.

That means that he is going to supposedly collect an average of roughly $1.7 trillion from the people, each year for 10 years, without stalling the economy. Riiiiiiight.

We have run massive deficits over the past 8 years, Our debt has increased by $10 trillion over 8 years of Obama policies. Some of the most expensive parts of Obamacare have yet to hit.

We ran deficits in excess of $1 trillion for 4 of Obama's 8 years.

It is amazing how, when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate, the deficit suddenly shrunk. (they had the House, and that's where the budget process starts, but the Democrats just ignored the budget while they had both houses of Congress, and Reid pocketed every budget while he had control of the Senate)

Anyway, Sanders wants to take $1.9 trillion more out of the economy in the form of new taxes. He wants to spend $1.3 trillion or so on infrastructure. He wants to give everyone free college, and free healthcare.

If Sanders were to do what he proposes, we would see businesses down to bare bones as far as employees. Investment would stall. Those with the ability to do so would move their money out of the country, to a safe location. You cannot tell me that you are naive enough to think that the rich are just going to strand idly by and say "OK, take all of my money". Do you really believe that? I don't, not for a minute. Those with money will find a way to keep it.

We should be looking at a more flat set of tax brackets, with extremely limited deductions and exemptions. Eliminate the costly tax credit bribery system we have in place. Look at every aspect of federal sending and look for waste, fraud, and abuse. Only then would I even consider more spending.

Sanders is playing the "blame the rich" game, and the "give everyone else everything" game. Man, imagine if we have another economic downturn. Woosh .... there go the tax projections (which are unreasonable to start with, IMHO) but the costs just continue to rise.

Look, I think that we should look at tax policy, and should make the tax system as simple and foolproof as possible. I think that every single person in this country should have to pay a minimum income tax. Everyone who can vote should have some skin in the game, and I don't care if it's only $50. Expand the tax system to include things like discounted options and other ways that Warren Buffet used to get away without paying taxes. Tax them at their full value when they are exercised, sold, or traded. Eliminate most of the deductions we allow today. The problem we have right now is not that the tax rates are too low, it's that there are so many ways to avoid paying taxes.

Cut out the loopholes. Simplify the code. Make income from things like discounted options taxable at their full price when exercised. Eliminate the tax credit system.

The only deductions we should allow are family deductions. Eliminate the home interest deductions, and everything else.

Set 3 levels of tax rates. Heck, to make it easier for those at and near the bottom, allow a $20,000 personal exemption, and a $5000 child exemption. (at least get people above the poverty level before they start paying out a sizable percentage of their income) Enforce the minimum $50 tax on all who do not otherwise need to pay taxes.

The 3 tax rates could be 10% to $60,000, 20% to $250,000, and 30% above $250,000. Without deductions, and with other income producing activity counted as income, tax revenues would almost certainly increase, and people would pay their "fair share".

I would also offer a partial amnesty for all monies held overseas, that is subject to penalty if repatriated. I have seen estimates of in excess of $2 trillion being held off shore so as to avoid heavy taxes. Offer a 1 time tax bargain of 10% to bring that money back home. That would bring in $200 billion to the tax coffers, and do so relatively easily. It would also allow for that money to be used in this country, for building, expansion, and other desirable outcomes.

Cut the corporate tax rate to 15%, and examine the tax codes for small businesses and corporations to look for areas of abuse. I am not an expert on corporate tax code, but I bet that there are some whoppers in there, just as there are in the personal tax code.

I also would not be opposed to a small tariff on imported goods, even goods imported by a US company from a foreign facility they own, operate or sublet for production of their goods. A 5% tariff is not unreasonable. This would have to be worked in through trade negotiations with other countries in some cases, but o be it. We have a lot of bad trade deals that need reworked anyway.

Back to spending, we should hire a professional auditing company to look at every aspect of the things government spends money on, and look for fraud, waste, and abuse. It makes no sense to add more spending on top of existing waste. This is the 1st thing a President YTown would do. I would not authorize or sign for any spending until this process was begun.

Playing the same game we have been playing simply does not work. Dumping more money into the system without some sort of mechanism in place to root out waste, fraud and abuse is idiotic. Playing the "blame the rich" game does not work. We are blaming our fellow Americans for all of the ills of this country, and let's face it, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Taking a wasteful system and almost doubling its spending (and let's face it, Sanders' projections might hold up, but only until the 1st economic downturn) is just plain idiotic. It is almost impossible to find the waste in government spending at the levels we're at today. Imagine trying to do so with bloating a government that was already bloated before.

I think that Sanders has some ideas worth talking about, but not until we get the mess we're in straightened out, and we find a way to legitimate;y pay for new spending before we start spending it. We simply cannot continue on the path we're on, where we spend money like there is no future consequence for doing so. Our national debt is now higher than our GDP. It will only rise based on the proposals Sanders outs forth. He says that his plan is paid for, but I have seen estimate that put the cost in excess of $10 trillion over 10 years, and that's if things go right.

I do agree that we should spend on infrastructure, which is crumbling, That should be addressed before any "free stuff". Getting our fiscal house in order should be job #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Only when this is done do we spend more. Examine the military, and see what they need. Cut the things they don't, even if it impacts a certain Congressional district. We can try to find ways to offset those losses, maybe by helping those companies and facilities produce something the military actually wants and needs. That would be a worthwhile way to reinvest the savings from eliminating unnecessary military equipment manufacturing.

We need to get our house in order before we start any massive new spending programs, IMHO, to do otherwise is irresponsible, and frankly, stupid.