Why don't Conservatives understand how to balance the budget in a balanced way?
Topic: Army business plan
June 16, 2019 / By Felice Question:
It means to raise taxes rates on the rich by a couple of % to Clinton Era revenues.
It means to cut military spending in half. We have one of the biggest military armies in the world. Even if we cut it in half, we will still be #1
It means to provide more stimulus to all areas of the economy.
It means to provide better education and infrastructure to provide small businesses to the tools to grow and expand. We must protect our services to the people and everybody that uses them.
It means to cut taxes on the middle/poor class because they are the consumers by 50%. More money gives more economic growth. Raising taxes on them is always bad.
It means to provide a safety net for the people, who are not lucky. Providing welfare, unemployment benefits, socials security, and medicare provide essential stable state for all.
This growth and tax plan will fuel economic growth.
We must grow our economy first. We can tackle the debts when it is growing.
Obama has a plan, you cons voted ALL of them down!
Best Answers: Why don't Conservatives understand how to balance the budget in a balanced way?
Cortney | 1 day ago
Says the guy that cheers on Obama who has no plan at all to lower the deficit.
Go lecture somewhere else.
👍 130 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Why don't Conservatives understand how to balance the budget in a balanced way?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Army business plan
Originally Answered: Is a law requiring a balanced federal budget unconstitutional?
How would it be unconstitutional if it is a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment?
Now, if your question is does it conflict with section 4 of the 14th, the answer is no. Why would it be in conflict? It forces the federal government to spend less. That does not breach contractural obligations or default on our debt. It MAY rein in some UNCONSTITUTIONAL programs. It certainly would rein in some waste....like spending a half million dollars to watch a shrimp on a treadmill...but it would not cause any conflict with the 14th.
However, NOT balancing the budget guarantees that at some point we would be forced to default as there is NOT enough money to continue to pay rising interest forever.
Luka...raising taxes does NOT equate to more tax dollars...it costs jobs and lowers tax revenues in the long run. But let's PRETEND that they could raise taxes enough to balance the budget and it would not crush the economy. Do you realize what tax rates we would have to see across the board to balance the budget...all the way down to poverty level would have to be taxed at almost 90%...So NO we could NOT raise taxes to balance the budget. We do not have a revenue problem. We have ONE HELL OF A SPENDING PROBLEM.
ADDED: Defense spending in the time of war would OF COURSE be exempted from the balanced budget. But the reality is that our government is INCREDIBLY bloated. There are more unconstitutional federal agencies than there are constitutional ones. If we merely did away with all federal agencies that are not within the Constitutional restraints of the federal government, we would balance the budget and then some overnight.
Your CA scenario did make me laugh. Borrowing is the right of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Fine, bring it to a vote OF THE PEOPLE when the government wants to borrow. See, I can see the usefulness of borrowing in certain instances, I have built and sold 19 businesses and still own 6. I did not do that without borrowing. But whenever possible, I do not use credit. For over 15 years, if there is a net 10 or net 15 or net 30 term where I pay no interest, the bill is paid with no interest. The ONLY time that borrowing makes sense is when the return outweighs the interest. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH OUR GOVERNMENT. Our government is arguably the most inefficient body on the planet. WE MUST REIN IT IN.
brown950...yes, we in the TEA Party love the Constitution. We love the fact that the founders gave the ONE AND ONLY WAY TO AMEND IT, too. They understood the need to change over time, they also understood the need to make those changes VERY difficult in order to preserve the Constitution. If only liberals and activist judges understood that if you do not like the Constitution, you do not ignore it, you amend it.
SteveG...put down the koolaid and slowly back away. Perhaps get a copy of the Paul Ryan plan and READ IT. It did NOT do away with Medicare. That is false propaganda by the left.
1.) Good point; only makes sense the people with more money pay more since they already have way enough to buy whatever they want.
2.) Not that great of an idea; all of that spending is going somewhere to help out the economy. The bullets, guns, technology etc. are usually purchased thorough a private contractor aka the private sector.
3.) You think stimulus spending is good when you forgot we're in debt. How can we spend when we're in debt? If you were in debt would you spend even more money? That would drive you even further into debt.
4.) Poor shouldn't really pay any taxes and you're right we're in a recession; the middle class is suffering.
5.) Again with the spending! We need to take care of our debt before we can buy new roads. Here's the example again if there was a hole in your wall and if you were in debt would you fix it? idk for you but I would wait until I could actually afford it. Education is already great in America, our college system is #1.
6.) I think a safety net and looking after the old is good. What I hate is the proportion of people on welfare who don't even try to get a job so they leach off of our taxpayers money so they can buy steaks, Gucci clothes and ride Cadillacs.
7.) All in all you got some good plans but how can we grow if spending more adds to the debt. Hello we're trillion dollars in debt! If we realized we're in debt in the first place we should have taken a break. When you're in debt you don't spend, spend, spend! You save!
👍 50 | 👎 -4
Look at history....the most taxes can collect has been less than 20% of GDP usually around 18-19%.(cbo.gov)...Obama is spending 25% History shows these numbers never meet no matter how much you raise tax rates the result is 20% of GDP (CBO.gov)and that fact cannot be disputed.....so that fact is historically proven how about controlling the spending and get it down to Tax revenue of 18% of GDP.
What bill number is Obama's Plan? You claim that the GOP has voted it down, so it must have a Bill Number what is it.
👍 50 | 👎 -9
It means expand the number of business regulations to an all-time high, making it much more difficult for private business to compete.
It means engaging in class warfare and placing the blame of the unsustainable federal government debt on 'the rich'.
It means pushing a government take-over of health care. Even though it is recognized that such will lead to less care with more expense and -in the short term- add more than two trillion dollars to the federal debt.
It means providing stimulus funds to only those business with the correct political connections.
It means supporting the further unionization of public education, making sure that US education becomes more costly as it produces fewer graduates.
It means continuing to addict large numbers of individuals to government largess. Individuals who cannot exist except through government support.
👍 50 | 👎 -14
You are just another Lib that states his/her opinion as though it's fact.
Taking money out of the economy ( taxes ) and then putting it back in the economy ( stimulus ) is a waste and nothing more than a ploy for the government to skim .
Either EVERYONE or NO ONE should pay higher taxes . That's a real " Fair Share ".
👍 50 | 👎 -19
Originally Answered: Why do Conservatives still not understand what "unilaterally" means?
As much as this makes me cringe, you are actually kind of forcing me into a position to defend conservatives here (and I will never forgive you for that by the way) but the UN is an external body and I think in the context conservatives are invoking 'unilateralism', they are referring to the official internal US bodies. Obama did not do this from inside a vault on Mars; he actually conferred with generals, security and intelligence advisors but nevertheless, those persons are not 'official' avenues of approval either. Let's not indulge in the same kind of hypocrisy as the conservatives. Technically, when a president acts without the involvement of congress, that is by definition, 'unilateral' but let's focus on the constructive defense: It is arguably NOT unconstitutional for a president to act 'unilaterally', scholars generally agree on this, past presidents have done it a number of times (I believe from memory in triple digits) and Bush (both of them) as well as Reagan certainly did it more than once, so I think the real argument here is that it is hypocritical of conservatives to approve of it when Reagan, Bush, Bush and any other republican does it then suddenly object when the guy they don't like does it.