When Did Trump Make You A Keynesian?

[danielpalos]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



.

A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

.

The Republican tax bill will add to our federal debt. This glaring truth causes the monkeys to slap their hands over their eyes. "We no care bout debt any more!"

Because of PayGo, these deficits caused by the tax bill will have to be paid for by cutting spending on entitlement programs. You know, we have to tear those lazy, shiftless poor people away from their steak and champagne dinners and get them into the fields picking cotton.

But here's a better, saner idea to save our national treasury: Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index them to 9 percent of the US population.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Common sense.

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

 

[Brain357]

It is funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

 

[g5000]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



.

A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

.

The Republican tax bill will add to our federal debt. This glaring truth causes the monkeys to slap their hands over their eyes. "We no care bout debt any more!"

Because of PayGo, these deficits caused by the tax bill will have to be paid for by cutting spending on entitlement programs. You know, we have to tear those lazy, shiftless poor people away from their steak and champagne dinners and get them into the fields picking cotton.

But here's a better, saner idea to save our national treasury: Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index them to 9 percent of the US population.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Common sense.

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

 

[g5000]

It isn’t funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

Precisely.

That's why I started this topic. To jab pseudocons with the fact that Trump has made them into Keynesians. Even worse than Keynesians.

They don't even recognize actual conservatism any more.

I used to say they wandered off the conservative reservation, but the truth is they were never on the reservation to begin with. They don't know conservatism when it kicks them in the balls.

 

[danielpalos]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



.

A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

.

The Republican tax bill will add to our federal debt. This glaring truth causes the monkeys to slap their hands over their eyes. "We no care bout debt any more!"

Because of PayGo, these deficits caused by the tax bill will have to be paid for by cutting spending on entitlement programs. You know, we have to tear those lazy, shiftless poor people away from their steak and champagne dinners and get them into the fields picking cotton.

But here's a better, saner idea to save our national treasury: Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index them to 9 percent of the US population.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Common sense.

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

 

[Brain357]

It isn’t funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

Precisely.

That's why I started this topic. To jab pseudocons with the fact that Trump has made them into Keynesians. Even worse than Keynesians.

They don't even recognize actual conservatism any more.

I used to say they wandered off the conservative reservation, but the truth is they were never on the reservation to begin with. They don't know conservatism when it kicks them in the balls.

And from the responses they just can’t get the OP. They still must think they are small
Gov. The deficits don’t lie.

 

[g5000]

It isn’t funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

Precisely.

That's why I started this topic. To jab pseudocons with the fact that Trump has made them into Keynesians. Even worse than Keynesians.

They don't even recognize actual conservatism any more.

I used to say they wandered off the conservative reservation, but the truth is they were never on the reservation to begin with. They don't know conservatism when it kicks them in the balls.

And from the responses they just can’t get the OP. They still must think they are small
Gov. The deficits don’t lie.

The deficits don't lie. Outstanding.

And I can guarantee you P@triot will continue to claim I am the big government liberal in future topics on this forum. Even though he has been buried under a mountain of truth.

These tards have zero integrity.

 

[Brain357]

It isn’t funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

Precisely.

That's why I started this topic. To jab pseudocons with the fact that Trump has made them into Keynesians. Even worse than Keynesians.

They don't even recognize actual conservatism any more.

I used to say they wandered off the conservative reservation, but the truth is they were never on the reservation to begin with. They don't know conservatism when it kicks them in the balls.

You think they even know who Friedman is?

 

[g5000]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



.

A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

.

The Republican tax bill will add to our federal debt. This glaring truth causes the monkeys to slap their hands over their eyes. "We no care bout debt any more!"

Because of PayGo, these deficits caused by the tax bill will have to be paid for by cutting spending on entitlement programs. You know, we have to tear those lazy, shiftless poor people away from their steak and champagne dinners and get them into the fields picking cotton.

But here's a better, saner idea to save our national treasury: Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index them to 9 percent of the US population.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Common sense.

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

 

[g5000]

It isn’t funny seeing big government trumpers call somebody else big government. Sorry but repubs threw away the small gov label.

Precisely.

That's why I started this topic. To jab pseudocons with the fact that Trump has made them into Keynesians. Even worse than Keynesians.

They don't even recognize actual conservatism any more.

I used to say they wandered off the conservative reservation, but the truth is they were never on the reservation to begin with. They don't know conservatism when it kicks them in the balls.

You think they even know who Friedman is?

Nope.

My reverence of Friedman should have been the dead giveaway of my beliefs right there.

 

[danielpalos]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Raising the retirement age to 70 would back the load down to 9 percent of the population, which is almost on par with 1965.

To get to the 6 percent load of 1935, we would have to raise the retirement age to 75.

When Social Security was enacted, you were not intended to live a long life of retirement on Social Security. Medicare and Social Security were intended as a support, not as a way of life.

We are living longer than our ancestors who gave us Social Security and Medicare. We should be working longer than they did. This is just plain common sense.



.

A single bill to raise the eligibility age to 70 would probably very nearly balance the budget without taking a single other action.

Combined with my plan to eliminate tax expenditures in the first in this series, it would be a very simple matter to be running surpluses that could eliminate our debt.

.

The Republican tax bill will add to our federal debt. This glaring truth causes the monkeys to slap their hands over their eyes. "We no care bout debt any more!"

Because of PayGo, these deficits caused by the tax bill will have to be paid for by cutting spending on entitlement programs. You know, we have to tear those lazy, shiftless poor people away from their steak and champagne dinners and get them into the fields picking cotton.

But here's a better, saner idea to save our national treasury: Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index them to 9 percent of the US population.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Common sense.

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that.

I was referring to "grand-personing" existing program participants.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Way Forward: Raise The Retirement Age

Alllllllllll daaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that.

I was referring to "grand-personing" existing program participants.

Yes, if we can't afford to pay Social Security to retirees for 30 years, the solution is to pay bums like you unemployment benefits for 70 years.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is simpler; existing program participants could have the option of keeping their most cost effective benefits.

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that.

I was referring to "grand-personing" existing program participants.

Yes, if we can't afford to pay Social Security to retirees for 30 years, the solution is to pay bums like you unemployment benefits for 70 years.

Don't believe in Capitalism, right wingers. Simply circulating capital ensures liquidity in our markets and generates a positive multiplier by ensuring taxes can be paid and demand can be created.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll say it again: We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

Common fricking sense.

Because of our longer lifespans, we are drawing from the Treasury far longer than our ancestors did.

We are living longer, we should be contributing longer.

Common fricking sense.

But what do I know. I'm a big spending liberal.

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that.

I was referring to "grand-personing" existing program participants.

Yes, if we can't afford to pay Social Security to retirees for 30 years, the solution is to pay bums like you unemployment benefits for 70 years.

Don't believe in Capitalism, right wingers. Simply circulating capital ensures liquidity in our markets and generates a positive multiplier by ensuring taxes can be paid and demand can be created.

Don't believe in Capitalism, right wingers.

Handing you unemployment benefits for 70 years isn't capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Doesn't matter; we should be promoting fiscal forms of responsibility while promoting the general welfare.

It does matter. It very much matters. If our life expectancy rises to 100, do you really think we can afford to support people on Social Security for a third of their lives?

This is an unsustainable trend, and we need to arrest it yesterday.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves for that.

I was referring to "grand-personing" existing program participants.

Yes, if we can't afford to pay Social Security to retirees for 30 years, the solution is to pay bums like you unemployment benefits for 70 years.

Don't believe in Capitalism, right wingers. Simply circulating capital ensures liquidity in our markets and generates a positive multiplier by ensuring taxes can be paid and demand can be created.

Don't believe in Capitalism, right wingers.

Handing you unemployment benefits for 70 years isn't capitalism.

seventy years of spending money on taxes and demand, is.

 

[DustyInfinity]

g5000, thanks for re-posting your ideas for cutting spending. There are not many suggestions on reducing spending besides gutting the entire military or throwing grandma off the cliff. In this thread, all I saw was opposition to cuts based on some future miracle of reduced spending. I did not realize you gave a plan for spending as well. My apologies. I have little faith our politicians will cut spending. I am sure however that they will go for more revenue. I am glad you do not think we can tax ourselves out of trouble like many major cities. Again, I apologize.

 

[Jerico]

I am curious to know how a retard reads all my posts about wanting to eliminate tax expenditures so we can LOWER TAX RATES FOR EVERYONE AND PAY DOWN THE DEBT AND ACHIEVE A BALANCED BUDGET, and what they hear is, "I'm really into government spending a lot of money and drawing more and more money from the people."

How the FUCK does one get a fucking brain filter that fucking broken?

What thread OP are you reading? The one I read gushed about the positives of government revenue. Ignored the elephant in the room that is spending equates to debt not revenue, and shat on the most libertarian, small government president we've had in over a generation.

 

[Jerico]

My fourth post in this topic:

Actually, every time we take advantage of a tax deduction, credit, or exemption we are helping run up the debt and tax rates. We are stealing from the pockets of other taxpayers and future taxpayers.

I've explained this at least a hundred times on this forum.

My fifth post:

I have made more posts about how to reduce the debt than any other subject on this forum.

That's a fact.

I've probably made THOUSANDS of posts about it.

So speak for yourself.

My sixth post:

Our national debt will be transferred down to future taxpayers.

You clearly know nothing about this subject and have never engaged a single moment's thought to it.

My seventh post:

Without changing spending by even a dime, we could balance the budget just by eliminating tax expenditures.

Not only balance the budget, we would have a surplus.

We could use that surplus to lower the debt and tax rates. Once the debt was paid down we could lower tax rates even more. For everyone.

Will one of you tards please explain how you read all that and decided I like big government and big spending.


This should be a real hoot.

None of that was in your OP, which I specifically was talking about. Further more, none of these follow from your OP. It should also be mentioned that Trump has stated time and again that he WANTS to cut our debt. He can't though because congress writes the tax laws and budgets.

I've read your posts. I took issue with the OP. You then called me an idiot basically for doing so. Your OP is entirely inconsistent. Perhaps that's just a miscommunication on your part and on ours, but don't make this such a holier than thou moment. As OP, you should make your stance quite clear in the first post. Not our fault if you left that ambiguous.

As I said, time and again, I just wanted you to give a consistent answer. You atleast tried so I give you credit there. I sure as shit won't apologize for your own misleading OP though. The vitriol you throw at Trump really doesn't do your argument that you're a fiscal conservative any justice. He's the best we've got. YOu'd achieve your goals faster by supporting the MAGA agenda rather than shitting on it. Whether you're really a fiscal conservative or not, he's the best chance we have to fix the debt issue that you claim to care about so much.

Your OP is 80% bullshit Trump Derangement Syndrome. 15% Clinton ass kissing and 5% fiscally responsible. You're like a Morning Joe type conservative based on your OP. The kind of conservative the media likes to parade around as a pet to show off their idea of what a good conservative should be.

Everything above aside, thank you atleast for giving a break down not only of what you said later, but clarifying where you atleast claim to stand on the issue. That's much better than throwing shit at people who disagree with you.

 

[sparky]

well this is going lovely......~S~

 

[P@triot]

My reverence of Friedman should have been the dead giveaway of my beliefs right there.

You’re reverance for left-wing radicalism is a bigger giveaway. If you had the slightest clue about who Milton Friedman actually was, you wouldn’t be debating with Daniel the best way to provide Social Security. You would be debating why the shit is 100% unconstitutional and why it needs to go away.

You also wouldn’t celebrate every Republican loss and every Dumbocrat win as you do. President Trump has been the most constituitonal President of the past 150 years. Right up there with Ronald Reagan. And yet you whine about him like every little liberal bitch does.

It’s also comical that only person you have a bromance with in this thread is Brain who is as left-wing wackadoo as left-wing wackadoo gets. Oops.