Poor Rubio.

Edited 2/24/2016 02:06:57

@[AOE] JaiBharat909

Its not hard to cut spending, the only problem is that it requires a veto-proof majority in the House of Representatives, Senate, and the President's approval

Yea, so easy.

Donald Trump supporters are Bernie Sanders supporters and vice versa.

Simply not true. I won't spend time explaining why Sanders is better then Trump. But you're right when you say trump will kill the republican party.


About how to have a budget equilibrated. And without cutting social security, which is in fact sustainable right now and lends money to the US gvt.


US deficit was 439 billion dollars in 2015.
=> Cut military spending by half. 25% of the US military spending is wasted, so -25% won't make no harm. Cut another 25% cause you already have an overwelming army and you don't need that much military spending anyway. 598/2 = 299 billion dollars saved
=> Cut corporate subsidies. All of them. Corporate Tax Breaks ~150 billion dollars in 2015. There's other subsidies like farm and diverse energy ones that cost more then 50 billion dollars a year. 200 billion dollars saved.
=> Fix tax evasion. There's actually 2.1 trillion dollars in profit overseas to avoid paying taxes, total tax loss 620 billion dollars + hundred billion dollars in fines. Let's say a 1 trillion dollars check for the US gvt. I'd say fixing the tax evasion for corporations and individuals could give 100 billion dollars (at least) every year for the government.


So, my plan covers the US deficit, and gives a surplus of 160 billion dollars a year. The US debt will also shrink by 1 trillion dollars if the US go after corporate tax evasion. Then just use the GDP growth and your debt in covered a few decades as the debt interest spending also lowers and so do the interest rates. And I've just scratched the surface, there's plenty of other stuff you can cut without touching in welfare.

And after the US debt is paid, you can use that surplus to spend in real welfare (not the one the US gives, it's a joke calling that welfare or socialism) or go for a republican plan and cut taxes.

Donald Trump supporters are Bernie Sanders supporters and vice versa.

Simply not true. I won't spend time explaining why Sanders is better then Trump. But you're right when you say trump will kill the republican party

Subjectivity-rife. They are both good listeners (some folk call this populism), but to different speakers, and they are both extremists who want and get attention.

Bernie's plans are extremists in the US, in Europe they're called common sense. And yea, both are populist, they say what people want to ear.

But they're different, one says the US problem is muslims and mexicans. The other says it's the fact that college and healthcare in the US are the highest on the world and that your fucking gvt wastes money on social programs for corporations.

Edited 2/24/2016 02:45:52

Bernie's plans are extremists in the US

Bernie's not running for Soviet Europe, where such a politician would be welcomed - he's extremist in American relativity (which is what matters).

And yes, they're obviously different in politic direction. One says f--- "them Muslims" and "them 'mmigrants", while the other says "them corporatist pigs" and "100% taxes on top 1%, 1% on bottom 99%, trololol".

Edited 2/24/2016 02:58:21

one says the US problem is muslims and mexicans.

He says much more, but whatever. And it's Islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants, not Muslims and Mexicans. Get your crap together.

Edited 2/24/2016 02:51:08

About how to have a budget equilibrated. And without cutting social security, which is in fact sustainable right now and lends money to the US gvt.

lel wut? Social Security is not sustainable. The baby boomers retirement + lower work force participation + stagnant wages + no means testing = $84 trillion in unfunded liabilities (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/). Using the debt number of $19 trillion is disingenuous because it fails to take into account ongoing expenses the Government is obligated to pay for. Social Security is not solvent for the future - its going to be insolvent in 19 years and will only be able to cover 79% of welfare benefits (that means the government essentially stole the 21% of the the benefits they were supposed to pay out).

US deficit was 439 billion dollars in 2015.
=> Cut military spending by half. 25% of the US military spending is wasted, so -25% won't make no harm. Cut another 25% cause you already have an overwelming army and you don't need that much military spending anyway. 598/2 = 299 billion dollars saved
=> Cut corporate subsidies. All of them. Corporate Tax Breaks ~150 billion dollars in 2015. There's other subsidies like farm and diverse energy ones that cost more then 50 billion dollars a year. 200 billion dollars saved.
=> Fix tax evasion. There's actually 2.1 trillion dollars in profit overseas to avoid paying taxes, total tax loss 620 billion dollars + hundred billion dollars in fines. Let's say a 1 trillion dollars check for the US gvt. I'd say fixing the tax evasion for corporations and individuals could give 100 billion dollars (at least) every year for the government.

1) I'm all for slashing the military budget as a fiscal conservative...but it has to be responsible. Instead of doing arbitrary budget cuts like "cut the defense budget by 50%", I would much rather peg the defense spending to GDP. I think 2% of GDP (around $300 billion) is a fair number because it keeps the military as a viable superpower for the long-term while also maintaining our NATO pledge. Plus I think a lot of the defense contracting waste is due to R&D. Most of the high tech weaponry doesn't even work for asymmetrical combat like in the Middle East and Vietnam. We don't need lasers or super armor.

2) I'm all for slashing corporate subsidies and welfare as a fiscal conservative. Just know that you would be removing subsidies for ethanol (given to the Environmental and Renewable Energy Sector), agricultural products, solar power, SpaceX, and Tesla as well.

3) Okay so tax evasion is a bit tricky. Yes they are acting under a loophole, but even if you close the loophole you won't get the entirety of the $2 trillion back (probably not even half that).

So you managed to come up with a way to get a 160 billion surplus. If you take the unfunded liabilities of 128 trillion dollars...you would pay off all that America owes in 800 years. That's just not a sustainable model to cutting the debt and unfunded liabilities. We need to cut domestic spending. It has to be fair and balanced. Its compromise. You can't just ask one side to make all the cuts.

Edited 2/24/2016 02:53:12

EDIT: I'm a knob.

Edited 2/24/2016 02:56:57

He says much more, but whatever.

The core of his program is the US problem with muslims and mexicans... There's other stuff no one care about, just watch people sleeping during his speeches when he's not talking about muslims and mexicans, and see they sudentely wake up when he goes back to the core.

That's a hell of a program, never thought becoming the republican nominee would be so easy. And you're gonna vote for him because frankly, you're a moron. There's other republican candidates with real programs you can support.

It is fair and balanced, the way you spend originally isn't. South Korea spends less on military, and they live in constant danger (per capita too).

And you're gonna vote for him because frankly, you're a moron.

Screw you, too. Calling you out on your error does not equate to me defending or advocating for anyone.

I'm all for slashing the military budget as a fiscal conservative...but it has to be responsible. Instead of doing arbitrary budget cuts like "cut the defense budget by 50%"

Idk what the hell you're talking about, my military spending is arround your 300 billions. And 50 percent is arbitrary, it's a responsible ammount that keeps the US as the first military power in the world.


About the liabilities, in 30 seconds I found an article dismissing you

The numbers are big, but are lacking a lot of context. This is what is known as “unfunded obligation through the infinite horizon.” According to the Social Security trustees, that amounts to $23.1 trillion for Social Security. And the figure through 2087 — some 75 years from now — is actually just $9.6 trillion.

But a better way to express these numbers is as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. That $23 trillion turns out to be 1.4 percent of GDP, or 4 percent of taxable payroll.

Depending on which economist you consult, this is either manageable or a potential problem. There is certainly a gap, and either payroll taxes or federal individual and corporate income taxes would need to be raised, possibly significantly, in order to close it.

Liabilities are just a spending that will occur in the future. In the actual scenario, social security lengts money to the US gvnt in stupid rates that won't be able to sustain the hole program in the future. Social Security money should have been invested in things that would make it sustainable, and not in the US government.

Just know that you would be removing subsidies for ethanol (given to the Environmental and Renewable Energy Sector), agricultural products, solar power, SpaceX, and Tesla as well.

Yea, I'm not an hippocrite, all subsidies should be cut. If you wanna spend money to search expensive new technologies, spend it yourself, you shouldn't give money to corporations so they can make profit out of it in the future. That's called waste of public funds.

And yea, the tax evasion money comming thing isn't essential for my government cut idea, but it would save some years of debt the US made. The program works in the long run.



@Darth Darth Binks

Screw you, too. Calling you out on your error does not equate to me defending or advocating for anyone.

Seems like I touched a nerve? It's not an error when it's true lol. Trump's program is ridiculous and you're supporting it.

Edited 2/24/2016 03:06:48

Well, you insulted me, spread skewed and/or untrue information around, don't know the difference between defending people and calling out bullsh*t, and think you know who I support. I guess you could say you're not my type.

But a better way to express these numbers is as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the U.S. economy. That $23 trillion turns out to be 1.4 percent of GDP, or 4 percent of taxable payroll.

Can you link the article? Current US GDP is around 15 trillion, so how is $23 trillion 1.4 percent of GDP?

In the actual scenario, social security lengts money to the US gvnt

I would appreciate if you source this. I'm a bit confused by what you mean the Social Security lends money to the government? I thought it was the opposite. Doesn't the government borrow against the Social Security Fund to pay for current liabilities and holes in the deficit?

all subsidies should be cut. If you wanna spend money to search expensive new technologies, spend it yourself, you shouldn't give money to corporations so they can make profit out of it in the future. That's called waste of public funds.

Amen. Couldn't agree more. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Edited 2/24/2016 03:15:25

Trump (if he does what he says) is way better than he is cut out to be. In my opinion (a phrase in which you very often forget to say) Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the pick, since he wants to stop warring every 3rd country, to tone it down (not fully, but noone's going to do it fully), but he's going to wreck American domestic economy. Trump, what's the worst he's going to do? Take over everywhere, and banning abortion? Yeah, that's terrible, but it won't wreck his homeland.

Edited 2/24/2016 03:15:44

I'd rather have an honest man who's already dead than a fake woman that lies on a bed of scandals and almost seems to want to keep a partisan rift.

Also, his secret is that he says mid-level controversial things then has the media twist his words so he can get radicals and normals at the same time.

^That's one thing I can't help but respect about Donald Trump. He's playing the media outlets for a bunch of fools; rather, he's letting them do it themselves, and he profits.

Ummm we'll be finding more and more efficient ways of manafacturing, surveying and extracting oil to keep it a sustainable business.

Remember, business is innovation and petroleum is a huge industry.

@[AOE] JaiBharat909

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/23/does-the-united-states-have-128-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/

About social security, I was a bit mistaken, the social security isn't solvable since 2009, but as wikipedia says:

Current year expenses are paid from current Social Security tax revenues. When revenues exceed expenditures, as they did between 1983 and 2009, the excess is invested in special series, non-marketable U.S. government bonds. Thus, the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances the federal government's general purpose deficit spending. In 2007, the cumulative excess of Social Security taxes and interest received over benefits paid out stood at $2.2 trillion.

Social security money was "borrowed" (more like stolen) by the US treasure. This money should have been invested in more profitable things. The deficit hole in the social security should have appeared latter, maybe in 20-30 years without that current investment in government bonds. Also, if you lift the imposable cap (113,700$ actually) the program can fund itself for a very long time.


@Darth Darth Binks

That's one thing I can't help but respect about Donald Trump. He's playing the media outlets for a bunch of fools; rather, he's letting them do it themselves, and he profits.

Yea, trump is a smart ass. Plus, he doesn't believe in what he says. One more argument for you not to support him.

Edited 2/24/2016 03:54:02