Then share the math
Should there be billionaires?
- Thread starter steross
- Start date
Then share the math
The issue is you only say well yeah republicans also after you've been called out. But a dem you all over that. Like the dementia issue. You have said one thing about Trump but you stupid vocal about Biden.
That was donny. The way he talked Biden was in a diaper and could only eat pudding. But Trump who has dedicated on camera a couple of times apparently, well crickets.
I am glad that we agree that amazon and walmart should not have folks on food stamps. I disagree with you on taxes. One can point out that there has been a great deal of wasteful spending and yes, that would be the case. But where was the wasteful spending? As it turns out with all of the DOGE hullabaloo (other than the massive data theft that occurred), there was far less waste than expected. The "cuts" made actually cost us more money than leaving things as is would have. Is there bureaucracy? Of course. Anything that size will have it. But the biggest waste of money have been spent on the military and our forever wars. They cannot pass an audit. They outspend their budget by 40 to 50% regularly. This is not to mention all of the foreign wars for imperialist aims. That in my mind is the primary waste that we see, in money and in lives.
Furthermore cutting taxes just borrows (or steals) from future generations. That has always been the case in our country. And if you think cutting taxes is any part of the solution from here, I question your judgement.
US billionaires were worth $3.2 Trillion. The 2025 US expenditures were $5.5 Trillion. So if we took all the wealth from the ~930 billionaires, it would make a dent on that, wouldn't it? 900 people should never hold that concentration of power and wealth.
Government has been made incompetent because it is the least small d democratic and accountable that it has been in a century or more. Who faces repercussions for bad decisions anymore? As long as they are doing what the donor class wants, they keep their jobs:no matter what they do. We have a president who appears over a million times in the Epstein files, and several cabinet members that are all over the place in them also. Has anyone lost their job yet? Just about every other functioning democracy is removing their people in the files, but not us.
Government is less competent because our politics rotted first. And too many people are ok with it or are unwilling to do something about it.
Edit: Trillions, not billions
Last edited:
Speaking of dementia.....smh
JTOSU
Ranger
You and @steross would make good politicians. The politician motto: “Once an expenditure is approved it is sacrosanct and not only must continue to be paid …it must always have increases.”
Respectfully and seriously, the real question is what federal expenses: 1) MUST continue and have increases greater than inflation; 2) MUST continue, but with increases ~at inflation; 3) MUST continue, but could have spending levels frozen or minor increases/decreases; 4) could be opportunities to adjust spending levels; 5) could be cut or dramatically reduced.
Every expenditure that is NOT in category #1 is an opportunity to slow our rate of spending growth …like successfully occured during the Clinton administration.
And look we already found one potential expenditure (definitely think the below is category #2 or #3).
Yes, yes..I know the above post is incorrect about the DoD overspending their budget, but there are certainly opportunities to reduce expenses and expense growth.
That whole post is a cop-out. You are the one making the claim it should be cut. Simply, tell us what to cut. Don't make claims about us because you can't.
Remember who you’re dealing with.
We agree the govt is incompetent too! The Venn diagram is getting closer all the time.
3.2 T doesn’t make a dent. 24 Dem pres Dem control of legislature 1.8T over spending. 25 Rep pres Rep legislature 1.8T over spending. In less than 2 years any dent would be gone. in the governments hands. We have a spending problem. They don’t fix anything they just throw all the money they can’t fit in their pockets after bad.
When you add it all up I am taxed at over 50% of my income. The government forcibly charges me more of my money than my family gets. There are laws/penalties associated with not paying those. You’re not a free citizen at that point you’re a subject.
JTOSU
Ranger
So you can’t come up with even one item in a $6T budget that isn’t category #1?? Well done congressman.
First thing - item in category #1. But needs change now.
* SS: raise the retirement age. Should have been done 20 years ago. This is the largest single expense and no other choice more important to do.
Items outside of category #1
* Defense spending as stated in posts above
* BEAD, DEAP, NEVI funding
* SNAP eligibility reforms
* Non-defense discretionary: Education grant eligibility, research, foreign aid
All the above are important, but needed to be combined with SS reform and focus on moving to a more balanced budget. Our mandatory spending on Interest is 15% of federal outlays.
———
Now I addressed your question. Can you come up with even one item that you would cut or reduce?
Your first thing is making people work for more years. That tracks. Why not raise the limit first. That seems to be the better thing for people. Oh wait it's more money coming from the rich you can't have that.
So how much does that save? Is it more than the deficit? If not, then your claim is not true. Without the actual math though, this is all bluster.
We're not the one who made the claim, so there's nothing for us to show you. You made the claim, all I'm asking you to do is prove it.
You are not even close. $38 trillion.
JTOSU
Ranger
LOL. This is happening again?
We are talking the “deficit” not the “debt”. We had this discussion two years ago when kept getting those confused.
Your first thing is to force people to work longer to access their money and we pay defense contractors more per year than the next highest country spends on their entire defense budget.
We pay half a trillion per yr to billion dollar defense contractors and that isn’t even in your bucket #1.
You are not a serious person.
JTOSU
Ranger
Why would I put defense spending in category #1 (ie MUST continue and have increases greater than inflation)?
If you think we need to keep increasing defense spending then I disagree with you.
I misunderstood your buckets. My bad
This is an area where I veer hard right (or off on to some weird Z access). The morality that says the government has no business telling consenting adults what they can and can't do in the bedroom or whether anyone has the right to take their own life is the same that say employment is a private agreement between two parties.
When you say companies should not have employee's on food stamps, I understand your take from an ethical perspective: I don't want anyone on food stamps, either. But the company doesn't care about that and honestly they shouldn't care about that. Companies will always pay you less, they are incentivized to pay you less. Individuals are incentivized to want to make more. If able bodied people don't want to be on food stamps then I suggest they not work at a place that puts them below the poverty level. This is also why I support unions - just large groups of people trying to leverage themselves to better salary. Don't want to work for a place that has a union? Good news! You don't have to.
I think the thing a lot of people miss when it comes to setting wages is that anything you do to try to intervene on behalf of the worker will ultimately stratify that job. The free flow of wages and people shifting jobs is the best way to get people off food stamps.
Taxes and wealth are other subjects entirely, but I always feel compelled to speak out on the negative unintended of minimum wage hikes/'livable' wages. You will ultimately hurt the ones you are trying to protect.
Similar threads
