“ Because that is where the money is”?

@AverageJoe1 said
You are cart before the horse. You speak primarily of the programs themselves. I am speaking of the human being. How much money should you take from a human being of their hard earned income. That is decided, and then to your point, they see how much money that is, and create programs that will cost no more money than that collected.

It is very difficult to impress co ...[text shortened]... ults can think so differently. I think my way is correct especially when you apply the constitution.

@wildgrass said
Absolutely wrong and not a liberal point at all. Taxes should not be levied at lower rates than spending. What the trump administration is currently doing is irresponsible and morally wrong.

@AverageJoe1 said
Your second sentence is an empty suit.

Taxes most certainly CAN be levied at a rate lower than spending. To follow through on your ridiculous statement, you are saying that if the budget is $100,000 , that everyone should pay in a total of $100,000 to pay for all those budgets. Golly, I guess that means there would be nothing set aside for emergencies.
This is so ...[text shortened]... e beach right now because there are some people that are not able to be on the beach.
Not fair!!!

@wildgrass said
I know they CAN be levied at a lower rate, Republicans do it all the time and it has caused tens of trillions in debt.

Tax rates are artificially low.

But if you ask what tax rates should be, the only answer is that it should match spending.

@AverageJoe1 said
Did you say Republicans do it all the time? Please see my link, I am teeing off for the moment..
Then answer, yes, I see your point Joe Democrats raise more taxes and create more social programs then do the Republicans

Short answer: Democrats generally support and propose more—and broader—government-funded social programs than Republicans, so when they are in power, the federal government typically has more social programs to fund.

Democrats generally support and propose more—and broader—government-funded social programs than Republicans, so when they are in power, the federal government typically has more social programs to fund

@wildgrass said

Democrats generally support and propose more—and broader—government-funded social programs than Republicans, so when they are in power, the federal government typically has more social programs to fund

This is false. The only difference between parties is that they support different government funded social programs, not more and not more expensive.

The ...[text shortened]... s, Republicans do spend less but in the end their states receive more federal support to compensate.

@AverageJoe1 said
Really. Find a source that says Republicans spend more money and levy more taxes than Democrats do

@wildgrass said
Not what I wrote. Republicans don't levy more taxes they levy more debt.

The spending is the same.

@AverageJoe1 said
Not worth splitting hairs over.
What is your contention with all of this. Is it that you want all the legislators to meet in January each year, determine how much money they need for all of their programs, and assess all the citizens accordingly to zero out is that what you’re saying? How would you figure in the fact that 1% of the population pays 50% of all taxes collected. I don’t think you can do it.

@wildgrass said
You don't understand tax policy and cannot even cite real numbers. Are you suggesting that people who don't have income should pay income taxes?

The math is really simple. If the government is overspending, then taxes need to go up to pay the bills. If the government decreases spending then taxes can be reduced.

Democrats have been much better at fiscal responsibility in the last 45 years.

@AverageJoe1 said
Let us not do this, all due respects. Impossible to reach any conclusions.. Take this...
Repubs do indeed spend more money on military....thank god that Reagan got that going, so we could now have B-2 Bombers to kill off the Iran nuclear facility.
Repubs spend more money on security, thank god also. Libs do not care about security, inasmuch as they welcome mixing u ...[text shortened]... ars and pandemics drove debt regardless of the party
So, a waste of ink to discuss.

Cheers.

@wildgrass said
Thank you for making my point. Republicans spend money. They don't want anyone to pay for it through taxes, so it's just accumulated as debt.

How much, Bernie? How much should rich people pay? Don't give me your cop-out. It is 37% now, I pay that. If it stays there, what are you going to do when Sonhouse wants free meds?

@AverageJoe1 said
Move along. If y'all take over in 28, you will want to fund many things, same thnking as Mamdani. Free stuff. More revenue comes from taxes.....right? (sue says right a lot, I never get that)
Right now, 1% pay 50% of the taxes. From whom and how much would you get more taxes?
Further, would the 50% who pay NO taxes still get a free ride? Why a free ride? W ...[text shortened]... k it up. A case of not worth writing about, as there is not a matter of opining. It is what it is.

@wildgrass said
Fake numbers are not making your point.

Cut spending or raise taxes. Those are the two options that are fiscally responsible but your party wants to do neither. They are trying to keep their cake and eat their cake and you blame the folks who raise the alarm on debt. Dumb and shortsighted.