congresswoman spartz threatening to 'consider' resigning as she cannot save the republic all by herself

[butters]

“Spartz Will Consider Resigning Congress if No Debt Commission Passed this Year”:

I’ve done many very difficult things being one woman standing many times with many very long hours and personal sacrifices, but there is a limitation to human capacity. If Congress does not pass a debt commission this year to move the needle on the crushing national debt and inflation, at least at the next debt ceiling increase at the end of 2024, I will not continue sacrificing my children for this circus with a complete absence of leadership, vision, and spine. I cannot save this Republic alone.

carefully worded to give all kinds of wiggle room to not resign, this faux jean d'arc is keen to be seen as a possible martyr

oh well, republican dramas, eh?

 

[Dribble]

Look...I know this will fall on deaf ears of my fellow Democrats...but the Republicans are partially correct. Our Government is spending too much given existing income. A continuation of what has become the norm will result in failure.

This cannot be fixed by taxing more alone. This cannot be fixed by stripping the Budget. The issue is about how increases in non-discretionary spending is eating up the whole. It is unstainable. That means...only Congress can fix this by changing how non-discretionary spending is spent.

Edit: we can remove ALL discretionary spending....every single penny...and in 5 years...be right where we are now. That is the issue

 

[Lazaran]

Look...I know this will fall on deaf ears of my fellow Democrats...but the Republicans are partially correct. Our Government is spending too much given existing income. A continuation of what has become the norm will result in failure.

This cannot be fixed by taxing more alone. This cannot be fixed by stripping the Budget. The issue is about how increases in non-discretionary spending is eating up the whole. It is unstainable. That means...only Congress can fix this by changing how non-discretionary spending is spent.

Edit: we can remove ALL discretionary spending....every single penny...and in 5 years...be right where we are now. That is the issue

Cutting taxes on the rich for 50YEARS (or longer) and the rich not paying their taxes (tax fraud and the slashing of IRS investigators) in the face of known obligations to baby boomers coming due was a planned strategy to deplete government coffers and force baby boomers to accept massive cuts to their benefits.

Will the "republican" working class baby boomers accept those cuts like good little cucks, or will they finally see the truth of what Democrats have been saying and get on board with gutting the rich???

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Cutting taxes on the rich for 50YEARS (or longer) and the rich not paying their taxes (tax fraud and the slashing of IRS investigators) in the face of known obligations to baby boomers coming due was a planned strategy to deplete government coffers and force baby boomers to accept massive cuts to their benefits.

Will the "republican" working class baby boomers accept those cuts like good little cucks, or will they finally see the truth of what Democrats have been saying and get on board with gutting the rich???

The FIRST thing we should do raise the taxes on the rich. Once they're paying their fair share, we can assess how bad the problem really is. We might be able to close the remaining gap just by cutting the defense budget.

 

[Lazaran]

The FIRST thing we should do raise the taxes on the rich. Once they're paying their fair share, we can assess how bad the problem really is. We might be able to close the remaining gap just by cutting the defense budget.

The Biden administration has been going after some of the defense monopolies who have been overcharging. Bernie Sanders’ call to reinstate the World War II era windfall profits tax has my full support,

Geopolitically , it’s a rather dicey time to be short changing national security / defense. Declining enlistment also needs to be addressed by increased pay, which affects defense spending.

Threats from China, Russia, Iran, and even Mexico are all too real.

Bottom line: there cannot continue to be a two tiered economic system that grossly favors the rich, but we also can’t leave ourselves open to opportunistic adversaries.

*nods*

 

[Dribble]

Cutting taxes on the rich for 50YEARS (or longer) and the rich not paying their taxes (tax fraud and the slashing of IRS investigators) in the face of known obligations to baby boomers coming due was a planned strategy to deplete government coffers and force baby boomers to accept massive cuts to their benefits.

Will the "republican" working class baby boomers accept those cuts like good little cucks, or will they finally see the truth of what Democrats have been saying and get on board with gutting the rich???

And your solution? Tax them at 90%. Still won't make a difference. Why? Because the numbers don't work. But thanks for proving my point.

People really need to educate themselves on the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Then they need to look at which one is increasing and why. Then it is just a matter of here is the projected increase...how can it be paid.

 

[Bn2f]

I’m looking at ingrained republican selfishness, their voting numbers and the slim majority they hold. The republican question to Rep. Spartz should be, “Please tell me exactly what you really desire in this the latest attempt at blackmailing McCarthy so he can keep the speakership?”

 

[phrodeau]

This cannot be fixed by taxing more alone.

And your solution? Tax them at 90%. Still won't make a difference. Why? Because the numbers don't work. But thanks for proving my point.

Taxation plus cutting budgets make the numbers work.

 

[Bn2f]

https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/14...ke-and-fedex-avoid-paying-federal-taxes-.html

Can we at least TRY taxation?
If these corporate taxes don’t make a dent then I’m more than open to budgetary cuts.

 

[Dribble]

Taxation plus cutting budgets make the numbers work.

Yes...for a time. But not long-term.

The problem is what accounts for the non-discretionary spending...and the rate it is increasing. Without changes...which can only occur through Congress...that rate of increase will eat it any and all taxes or cuts up. Unless you are telling me somehow...magically...those things accounting for the increase in non-discretionary spending will change from what we have seen in the last 50 years?

 

[Dribble]

https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/14...ke-and-fedex-avoid-paying-federal-taxes-.html

Can we at least TRY taxation?
If these corporate taxes don’t make a dent then I’m more than open to budgetary cuts.

Sure try it...but the Budgetary Dept has been on record for years highlighting the problem. It is simple. Non-discretionary spending is increasing at a given rate...because that is what is required by law. You can tax all you want...it doesn't offset the overall rate of increase. It kicks the can down the road. Same is true if we tax and cut discretionary spending to zero. It isn't enough. That mean...those things contributing to the non-discretionary increase...must be addressesd. That means Medicaid. Social Security. Guaranteed bonds. Choose which one you want gone.

 

[LLCox]

It's over, it will take $17 trillion just to bail out the banks. No one is going to save the US.

 

[Lazaran]

And your solution? Tax them at 90%. Still won't make a difference. Why? Because the numbers don't work. But thanks for proving my point.

People really need to educate themselves on the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. Then they need to look at which one is increasing and why. Then it is just a matter of here is the projected increase...how can it be paid.

“Gutting the rich” involves much more than just taxing them.

*nods*

People who easily acquiesce to "the inevitable” / "unavoidable" need for deep cuts to benefits, are playing directly into the hands of those "trickle down economists" who orchestrated the budgetary shortfalls for the last 50YEARS to manufacture the current "crisis".

*nods*

 

[Dribble]

“Gutting the rich” involves much more than just taxing them.

*nods*

People who easily acquiesce to "the inevitable” / "unavoidable" need for deep cuts to benefits, are playing directly into the hands of those "trickle down economists" who orchestrated the budgetary shortfalls for the last 50YEARS to manufacture the current "crisis".

*nods*

Again...they aren't my numbers....but the Federal Govt numbers. So who do you believe? You? Or those whose job it is to crunch the numbers?

Nods...yep....that's what I thought.

 

[Lazaran]

Again...they aren't my numbers....but the Federal Govt numbers. So who do you believe? You? Or those whose job it is to crunch the numbers?

Nods...yep....that's what I thought.

Non-responsive to any point made in the post you quoted.

The numbers are real because they were manufactured to be so.

There needs to be a consequence for the manufactured budgetary shortfall that is being used to leverage acceptance of deep cuts in benefits.

And if nothing is done, or more revenue reducing tax cuts are implemented, then those benefits will need to be slashed even more. Right???

Inaction on gutting the rich, and easily acquiescing to deep cuts in benefits, are not options imho.

*nods*

 

[Dribble]

73% of the Federal Govt spending is non-discretionary. 50% of that is Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Pretty important programs. But it is also these 3 programs driving our deficit. No one wants to face this fact. So let's assume nothing will be done...and we allow the rate of increase to continue as is.

Now...that leaves 37% non-discretionary spending....which are things like student loans, bonds, Yada Yada Yada. All requiring an act of Congress. They are not increasing the deficit...but they must be paid. So you can not continue those expenditures...but you still must clear the books of what is owed. Law requires it.

So that leaves the discretionary part of our budget. What is half of this? Salaries and benefits for Government employees. Technically...we can cut that totally out...but what happens to those workers? What jobs to they transition to? So basically...that route is a no go too

So here we are....looking at cutting those programs in the 12.7% of Federal spending...Discretionary programs.

So for argument sake...cut them all. Gone. Now comes the fun part...remember the first paragraph...the non-discretionary spending programs increasing at an alarming rate? How many years do we gain by cutting all discretionary spending given the same rate of increase of non-discretionary? Answer: Three...maybe 4 tops.

So you cut all discretionary spending possible...we have 3...maybe 4 years tops and we are right back here again.

So...that means taxes. Who you gonna tax? The rich. Cool. Let's implement a 90% tax...or 50%....or 35%....your choice. Just understand whatever the amount chosen either slows down or increases the payoff accordingly.

How many years taxing at 90% do we have until the rate of increase of non-discretionary spending eats that up? And now add in the 3 or 4 years saved by cutting all discretionary spending...where is the inflection point? About 10 to 12 years down the line....15 years in the most conservative reports. What then?

The problem is the rate of increase of 3 programs favored by the people of the US.

Tax all you want. Cut all you want. The rate of increase in 3 programs will eat that up. This is the problem. Both sides are to blame. No one wants to do the right thing for the country.

 

[ll74]

"Both sides!!!!!!"

 

[Dribble]

"Both sides!!!!!!"

Yes. What is hard about understanding that?

Neither side wants to deal with the 3 programs increasing our deficit. Combined, they are increasing between 8 and 12% a year ( depending on year). Democrats think the strength in our economy can offset that. Yet....that hasn't been the case for going on 50 years. So...they blame Republicans for tax cuts. It was stupid...those tax cuts were ignorant. But all it did was shift forward the inevitable...

 

[ll74]

Yes. What is hard about understanding that?

Neither side wants to deal with the 3 programs increasing our deficit. Combined, they are increasing between 8 and 12% a year ( depending on year). Democrats think the strength in our economy can offset that. Yet....that hasn't been the case for going on 50 years. So...they blame Republicans for tax cuts. It was stupid...those tax cuts were ignorant. But all it did was shift forward the inevitable...

I'm mocking you, not misunderstanding you.

Hope this helps

 

[MajorRewrite]

The spiraling cost of Medicare and Medicaid would be easy to control. Simply put price controls on what doctors and hospitals can charge (which is what all of the other developed countries do). But US politicians won’t even suggest that because the medical industry spends enormous amounts on “campaign contributions” (bribes).

Anyway, it’s interesting that people only get concerned about deficits and the national debt when a Democrat is in the White House. Trump added $7.8 trillion to the national debt. It’s just odd how that works.

 

[bijedi]

73% of the Federal Govt spending is non-discretionary. 50% of that is Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Pretty important programs. But it is also these 3 programs driving our deficit. No one wants to face this fact. So let's assume nothing will be done...and we allow the rate of increase to continue as is.

We'll tackle Social Security separately from Medicaid/Medicare since their implementation is different.

Social Security, by law, cannot add to the federal debt as it can only be paid out of the Social Security trust funds. It would require a legislative action to change this. I know, this is where you point out that Social Security is currently operating at a deficit, and is partly funded by selling US Treasuries. This is true, but also irrelevant where the national debt is concerned. In previous years, the federal government was able to reduce its deficits by borrowing the excess funds collected by Social Security. Now it has having to return those borrowed funds. The net effect on the national debt is zero, we just merely delayed the payments.

Sometime in the next ten to twelve years the trust fund will run out of money and if the program is still running at a deficit (almost certain) then some changes will have to be made. But it won't impact the deficit unless one of those changes is a legislative action that allows Social Security benefits to be paid from the general fund. And that would be an intentional, unnecessary decision. There are other options for dealing with Social Security funding issues.

As for Medicare and Medicaid, they are going to be a problem. But they are part of the much larger issue of healthcare costs in this country. And solutions for those programs are going to have be part of solving that problem.

Tax all you want. Cut all you want. The rate of increase in 3 programs will eat that up. This is the problem. Both sides are to blame. No one wants to do the right thing for the country.

I partly agree with this. Social Security has several relatively straightforward solutions, and I don't think is really a long term issue. Like most things in our government, it will have to get to a crisis point before we are willing to implement those solutions, but they will eventually get done.

Medicare and Medicaid are part of a much larger issue, and the problems surrounding that issue are going to force changes in the way healthcare is handled more than the budgetary issues caused by those particular problems, IMO. It is an open question if our representatives are up to the challenge posed that issue, and so far they have been very disappointing.

 

[Bn2f]

Well, Mr. Bijedi and smartypants MajorRewrite, sounds as if you are learned on this particular matter, but as an independent thinker who listens to both sides, I’m gonna reserve my judgement until I hear from someone with hands on experience with Medicare who also has a plan for Social Security - Senator Rick Scott.

 

[jaF0]

^^ The guy that was involved in one of the largest Medicare fraud cases?

https://marketrealist.com/p/rick-scott-medicare-fraud-explained/

https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-connection-massive-medicare-fraud-scandal-resurfaces-1780279

 

[Bn2f]

^^ The guy that was involved in one of the largest Medicare fraud cases?

https://marketrealist.com/p/rick-scott-medicare-fraud-explained/

https://www.newsweek.com/rick-scotts-connection-massive-medicare-fraud-scandal-resurfaces-1780279

Yes. Guilty. I happen to be a big fan of Medicare fraud jokes and Skeletor.

 

[butters]

is it just me? when the woman stating the yeas and nays says the name, listens to the yes replies and says 'YAY', it sounds like a sarcastic kinda yayyyy! maybe i'm jaded and have seen too many gifs