Biden is not serious about getting the debt under control

[bave]

wrong. Now, will one example be okay for your "evidence" ??

Every economics text book and article every written.

You said stats apply to "M&Ms and people alike"------sounds broad enough

Context junior, context.

Yes---context. Not in the dynamics of teaching.. Those who have degrees from Prest. colleges do not make better teachers (yes, we have some)

You don't think that, in any profession, someone who went to Harvard is going to be a higher caliber professional than someone who went to Bloomsburg? You don't think that person is going to be sharper, harder working, and as a result inherently a higher performer in almost anything they do?

rather narrow perspective to rely on a 'degree'..............it does not hurt, i'm sure....

Ok, so you admit that in fields other than education these things matter. Why is it that they don't matter in education? Oh yea, because the unions make damned sure that everyone is treated and paid the same regardless of ability and performance. That's a great way to encourage highly motivated people to stick around. Right there is probably a top reason the best *real* educators go to private institutions where they get less money, less protections, and higher demands. That is what highly motivated and successful people do. They go somewhere their individual accomplishments and merits are appreciated and rewarded, even if higher risk.

 

[mrjurrs]

so predictanle.
"Please don't bother responding that the GOP isn't serious about it either . I've already said that umpteen times."

Equivalent to 'let's talk about the price of gas, but don't bring up the cost associated with its use'. You cannot talk about the growing debt w/o bringing up the R's history of blowing up the deficit while in power, and crying for austerity when they are not.

 

[bave]

Equivalent to 'let's talk about the price of gas, but don't bring up the cost associated with its use'. You cannot talk about the growing debt w/o bringing up the R's history of blowing up the deficit while in power, and crying for austerity when they are not.

There needs to be a balanced budget amendment then, with the exception of times of war. I would have no problem with that.

The biggest problem I have right now is that Biden is throwing *trillions* into the wind. His $2T COVID package was largely just waste to appease his base. That's an enormous figure that was largely pointless. You could have accomplish the actual needs of that bill with a tenth of the spending. Why in the world did we throw billions of dollars at states who actually had no lost revenue? What the holy hell was that about? Why are we talking about expanding entitlement programs when we can't pay for the entitlement programs we already have? SS and Medicare are unsustainable by any metric, but we are just piling more spending programs on top. Why? All about buying votes today and ignoring the problem tomorrow.

 

[Aurora]

lol...suddenly the Right is worried about debt. Newsflash, that fat man you elected jacked up the deficit immediately after the black man you hated slashed it.

The national debt under Obama.

How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?

The U.S. debt increased $9 trillion during the eight years Obama was in office. The ARRA and increased military spending added the most.

www.thebalance.com

 

[calamity]

It's funny watching the Right fall smack on their face in their failed attempt to demonize Joe Biden.

 

[calamity]

The national debt under Obama.

How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?

The U.S. debt increased $9 trillion during the eight years Obama was in office. The ARRA and increased military spending added the most.

www.thebalance.com

I hear he is black too.

 

[mrjurrs]

There needs to be a balanced budget amendment then, with the exception of times of war. I would have no problem with that.

The biggest problem I have right now is that Biden is throwing *trillions* into the wind. His $2T COVID package was largely just waste to appease his base. That's an enormous figure that was largely pointless. You could have accomplish the actual needs of that bill with a tenth of the spending. Why in the world did we throw billions of dollars at states who actually had no lost revenue? What the holy hell was that about? Why are we talking about expanding entitlement programs when we can't pay for the entitlement programs we already have? SS and Medicare are unsustainable by any metric, but we are just piling more spending programs on top. Why? All about buying votes today and ignoring the problem tomorrow.

Balanced budget amendment? Worst idea ever.
Covid relief was a waste? And you imagine that economic recovery just happened?

Don't remember you crying about the 2 trillion tax cut after ten years of a growth economy in the last administration.

 

[bave]

Balanced budget amendment? Worst idea ever.
Covid relief was a waste? And you imagine that economic recovery just happened?

Don't remember you crying about the 2 trillion tax cut after ten years of a growth economy in the last administration.

I didn't say all COVID relief. The first bills in early 2020 were necessary evils, no argument there. I am talking about the money tornado that started during the election cycle and ended in Biden throwing $2T into the wood chipper. Like I said, some of that was helpful, the vast majority was entirely unnecessary. Why are we giving bonus checks to people who are being made more than whole on unemployment? Why are we giving states chunks of cash when their revenue wasn't lost after all?

I believe TJACA was a ~700B cut in tax revenue projections over a 10 year window, no?

Not sure what the Obama years have to do with anything on topic?

 

[Aurora]

I hear he is black too.

Half black but you can have him.

 

[tshade]

Ok, show me the curriculum.



No, you can't communicate. If that is representative of educators then it speaks volumes.

When an educ. speaks with you, let me know.............

Again, poor communication. How would I know what specifically?

Does one need to spell it all out ??? Good grief. Point to me on this one

So, now it isn't about the education spending and teacher compensation?

no----never was, really. At least not by the school. Families, yes....

Which experience matters? Hunter has none in any of the relevant fields. He has no education or background in the relevant fields. He has no background or experience in the countries in question. He has zero qualifications for either job, both of which would normally be highly competitive with highly skilled individuals with excellent CVs. More importantly, he had several *disqualifications*.

Tom Edison had none either.....sp what is your point?

Getting help from your family is normal and generally fine. However when your father is providing that help because of the power he holds in public office, you have a problem. That's called corruption.

no, normal. Who cares about Hunter?

It isn't biased to say Hunter is a trashcan of a human being. The guy is a criminal, who was banging his deceased brother's wife before his body was cold, and is constantly in trouble with stupid racist comments and underhanded deals. What would you call someone who can't keep a job, even when your father is one of the most powerful people in the most powerful nation in the world, and in his spare times bangs his brother's widow?

Sounds like a Trumper, but in this case, who knows....?

A quote, about a quote, that the article even suggests was taken out of context and misinterpreted? LOL. That's some solid work kid.

 

[tshade]

Every economics text book and article every written.

Can't answer a simple challenge? I win the point.

Context junior, context.



You don't think that, in any profession, someone who went to Harvard is going to be a higher caliber professional than someone who went to Bloomsburg? You don't think that person is going to be sharper, harder working, and as a result inherently a higher performer in almost anything they do?

We have teachers who went to top colleges. Your point doesn't hold up. Let me ask you this: If teachers were required to go to top colleges and "work" 50 hours a week, would you approve of 6-figure incomes???

Ok, so you admit that in fields other than education these things matter. Why is it that they don't matter in education? Oh yea, because the unions make damned sure that everyone is treated and paid the same regardless of ability and performance. That's a great way to encourage highly motivated people to stick around. Right there is probably a top reason the best *real* educators go to private institutions where they get less money, less protections, and higher demands. That is what highly motivated and successful people do. They go somewhere their individual accomplishments and merits are appreciated and rewarded, even if higher risk.

teaching is a calling. Big Diff. Private schools don't reward with money----your thinking on this is mixed up. Lack of experience is showing. Point to me.

 

[KLATTU]

Equivalent to 'let's talk about the price of gas, but don't bring up the cost associated with its use'. You cannot talk about the growing debt w/o bringing up the R's history of blowing up the deficit while in power, and crying for austerity when they are not.

I most certainly can because I don't care who does it. It's not a good thing.Unlike you ,I'm not on a team

 

[bave]

When an educ. speaks with you, let me know.............

What?

no----never was, really. At least not by the school. Families, yes....

Good, then we can get rid of teachers unions since we agree they do nothing but drive up the cost and the results are primarily driven by families.

Tom Edison had none either.....sp what is your point?

Thomas Edison accomplished a thing or two, Hunter managed to screw up every single thing in the world he touches.

no, normal. Who cares about Hunter?

Oh, so it's normal to have a politician exert the influence of their office in an effort to put their children into powerful places in exchange for favors? Got it.

Can't answer a simple challenge? I win the point.

Pick up any book or article on the economics of labor, it is in every one of them.

We have teachers who went to top colleges. Your point doesn't hold up. Let me ask you this: If teachers were required to go to top colleges and "work" 50 hours a week, would you approve of 6-figure incomes???

I would certainly be far more amenable to the idea.

teaching is a calling. Big Diff. Private schools don't reward with money----your thinking on this is mixed up. Lack of experience is showing. Point to me.

Ah, so teaching is a calling but it doesn't matter about education. Most people say medicine is a calling, but we both previously agreed education and training matters greatly there. You are consistently inconsistent.

I have never seen such a poor example of an educator. Your ability, or lack thereof, to communicate, write, and work with basic analytical thinking is simply astonishing.

 

[tshade]

What?



Good, then we can get rid of teachers unions since we agree they do nothing but drive up the cost and the results are primarily driven by families.

We could, yes.

Thomas Edison accomplished a thing or two, Hunter managed to screw up every single thing in the world he touches.



Oh, so it's normal to have a politician exert the influence of their office in an effort to put their children into powerful places in exchange for favors? Got it.

well, yeah......?

Pick up any book or article on the economics of labor, it is in every one of them.



I would certainly be far more amenable to the idea.

Good. Now, the question would be then, would young people be better educated if that were the case.??

Ah, so teaching is a calling but it doesn't matter about education. Most people say medicine is a calling, but we both previously agreed education and training matters greatly there. You are consistently inconsistent.

both are callings with different training, etc

I have never seen such a poor example of an educator. Your ability, or lack thereof, to communicate, write, and work with basic analytical thinking is simply astonishing.

Good thing I was not an educator, although I DID teach rifle/pistol for the NRA. Hey----I won more debates points than you, so.....

 

[mrjurrs]

I didn't say all COVID relief. The first bills in early 2020 were necessary evils, no argument there. I am talking about the money tornado that started during the election cycle and ended in Biden throwing $2T into the wood chipper. Like I said, some of that was helpful, the vast majority was entirely unnecessary. Why are we giving bonus checks to people who are being made more than whole on unemployment? Why are we giving states chunks of cash when their revenue wasn't lost after all?

I believe TJACA was a ~700B cut in tax revenue projections over a 10 year window, no?

Not sure what the Obama years have to do with anything on topic?

Totally unnecessary? Which economists agree with you?

Referring to the tax cut during the last administration.

 

[bave]

Totally unnecessary? Which economists agree with you?

Referring to the tax cut during the last administration.

I'm sorry, I don't follow your question specifically. Are you asking about the Biden COVID stimulus or the TJACA?

To be clear, I never said economist thought the TJACA was necessary. There are aspects of it which were helpful in our position for global competitiveness, but necessity is a whole other level.

 

[mrjurrs]

I'm sorry, I don't follow your question specifically. Are you asking about the Biden COVID stimulus or the TJACA?

To be clear, I never said economist thought the TJACA was necessary. There are aspects of it which were helpful in our position for global competitiveness, but necessity is a whole other level.

My first comment had to do with your claim that the "...the vast majority was entirely unnecessary" regarding the Covid Relief. My second comment was on TCJA.

 

[post]

lol...suddenly the Right is worried about debt. Newsflash, that fat man you elected jacked up the deficit immediately after the black man you hated slashed it.

Trump party tax cuts for the rich passed and signed into law, wealthiest ten percent own 88 percent of corporate stock
shares, their tax cut included 88 percent of all positive financial effect of corporate tax cuts, in edition to personal tax cut effect.

Immediately, rate of national debt increase nearly doubled:

 

[bave]

Trump party tax cuts for the rich passed and signed into law, wealthiest ten percent own 88 percent of corporate stock
shares, their tax cut included 88 percent of all positive financial effect of corporate tax cuts, in edition to personal tax cut effect.

The rich always get the vast majority of the tax benefits, they pay the vast majority of the taxes. Law of proportionality.

 

[post]

The rich always get the vast majority of the tax benefits, they pay the vast majority of the taxes. Law of proportionality.

Trump and party presented an utter BS description of the tax cut resulting in broad benefit to American people. Before Reagan the country had a long consensus for progressive taxation, which is disproportionate. The recent scheme heaps per capita debt on at least 165 million residents who receive no appreciable benefit from tax cut legislation such as in 2017.

Some residents benefited both from the personal and the corporate tax cuts, most did not, but everyone shares the per capita national debt increase that will bankrupt the grandchildren of all but the top few percent wealthiest, while the sheep are herded into fretting over
CRT. LOL!

Wealth gap grows as rising corporate profits boost stock ...

Wealth gap grows as rising corporate profits boost stock holdings controlled by richest households

Two Federal Reserve economists have recently examined the evidence and concluded the gap is getting even wider.

www.cnbc.com

Aug 27, 2020 "A separate Federal Reserve report indicates the top 10% of households by net worth control 87.2% of the equities in this country at the end of the first quarter."

The majority of Trump supporters line up to throw away their vote on Trump and Trump party congressional representatives paid by the wealthiest RWE Trump party donors to bankrupt the grandchildren of the majority of the voters they've conned!

Everybody is burdened on the debt increase, per capita, but the increased money owed by the government went somewhere...

Where the money represented in the national debt increase, ended up.:
Run mouse cursor over the top line of the chart to display the individual quarterly stats of household wealth distribution, (2 images below)

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

 

[bave]

Trump and party presented an utter BS description of the tax cut resulting in broad benefit to American people. Before Reagan the country had a long consensus for progressive taxation, which is disproportionate. The recent scheme heaps per capita debt on at least 165 million residents who receive no appreciable benefit from tax cut legislation such as in 2017.

You could make a cogent argument for TJACA resulting in an increase in economic growth, job growth, and especially hourly wages being broadly beneficial. Tax revenue also increased the following years. It is difficult to provide tax relief to the half of the population that pays nothing or near nothing in federal income taxes. The US income tax code has become more progressive over time, not less, and is currently the most progressive tax code in the developed world.

Some residents benefited both from the personal and the corporate tax cuts, most did not, but everyone shares the per capita national debt increase that will bankrupt the grandchildren of all but the top few percent wealthiest, while the sheep are herded into fretting over
CRT. LOL!

It is difficult to compare anything based on a per-capita share of national debt, unless you are assuming we are all equally responsible and liable for it. The reason I say that is what does the average household really care? They have no skin in the game since they pay almost nothing in federal income taxes yet they collect from federal programs just the same.

Aug 27, 2020 "A separate Federal Reserve report indicates the top 10% of households by net worth control 87.2% of the equities in this country at the end of the first quarter."

Why is that surprising? The top 10% own something like 80% of the wealth in the US. The wealth inequality is worse in places like Sweden, despite their incredibly progressive government structuring.

The majority of Trump supporters line up to throw away their vote on Trump and Trump party congressional representatives paid by the wealthiest RWE Trump party donors to bankrupt the grandchildren of the majority of the voters they've conned!

The driving force behind national debt is entitlement programs, no matter how you slice it. How would you propose getting the national debt under control?

Everybody is burdened on the debt increase, per capita, but the increased money owed by the government went somewhere...

Correct me if I am wrong, but that chart is simply showing creation of wealth, not distribution of federal largesse? Not sure how you are correlating the two.

 

[post]

You could make a cogent argument for TJACA resulting in an increase in economic growth, job growth, and especially hourly wages being broadly beneficial. Tax revenue also increased the following years. It is difficult to provide tax relief to the half of the population that pays nothing or near nothing in federal income taxes. The US income tax code has become more progressive over time, not less, and is currently the most progressive tax code in the developed world.



It is difficult to compare anything based on a per-capita share of national debt, unless you are assuming we are all equally responsible and liable for it. The reason I say that is what does the average household really care? They have no skin in the game since they pay almost nothing in federal income taxes yet they collect from federal programs just the same.



Why is that surprising? The top 10% own something like 80% of the wealth in the US. The wealth inequality is worse in places like Sweden, despite their incredibly progressive government structuring.



The driving force behind national debt is entitlement programs, no matter how you slice it. How would you propose getting the national debt under control?



Correct me if I am wrong, but that chart is simply showing creation of wealth, not distribution of federal largesse? Not sure how you are correlating the two.

"federal largesse"?
The U.S. has ended up with the most acute wealth concentration of any overdeveloped country in the world. The bottom
20 percent of households have negative wealth. Wages have been stagnant since 1970, no federal minimum wage legislation in
13 years, wealthiest paying historically low percentage of income in taxation, IRS compliance efforts were gutted.

The wealthiest right wing extremist political donors succeeded in dismantling progressive taxation and IRS enforcement but
have done nothing to address spending. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Sen. Capito (R-WV) represent two of the poorest states.
Both adamantly refuse to consider any tax increase whatsoever on the wealthiest or on the corporations owned by the wealthiest.
The 2017 tax cutting actually resulted in decreased capital investment and record level spending on stock buybacks.

The money necessary for the U.S. to completely repair existing infrastructure, modernize power grid, transition to and promotion of
green energy must come from federal legislation. In addition, the daycare business down the street from my location is out of business and the building is for sale. IOW, more such businesses have closed or downsized than before pandemic and traditional long term care facilities for the elderly have certainly not prospered.

Neither care sectors will meet demand with an aging population and rising cost pressures. Federal spending in these two areas are necessary to free up care givers staying home since the pandemic began. Needed labor in an expansionary environment with an aging workforce will not be sourced from immigrants in this intentionally poisoned political environment. The money has to come from
somewhere, the most likely source is in the first quarter, 2021 household wealth survey image in my last post.

A 43 percent capital gains tax is reasonable on the wealthiest half percent of households, a lower percentage increase on the next 4-1/2 percent. The wealthiest purchased the present political dynamic. Now, the majority must break it. The alternatives are stark, unnecessary, and profoundly detrimental to all U.S. residents.

 

[bave]

"federal largesse"?
The U.S. has ended up with the most acute wealth concentration of any overdeveloped country in the world.

Largely because of how rich the rich have become, but not because the poor and middle class have become poorer.

The bottom
20 percent of households have negative wealth.

Despite having a higher real median income.

Wages have been stagnant since 1970, no federal minimum wage legislation in
13 years, wealthiest paying historically low percentage of income in taxation, IRS compliance efforts were gutted.

Real median household income is up since they began tracking in in the late 70's, discretionary spending is up, home ownership rate is up. In the 1980's 24% of workers made minimum wage, today it is less than 2%, entirely tipped workers. The real average hourly wage is up over the past 40 years. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1, 2, and 10% is about 2-3% lower than it was on average of the last 50 years. the effective rate for the median household has plummeted over the same time, creating the most progressive tax code in the world.

The money necessary for the U.S. to completely repair existing infrastructure, modernize power grid, transition to and promotion of
green energy must come from federal legislation. In addition, the daycare business down the street from my location is out of business and the building is for sale. IOW, more such businesses have closed or downsized than before pandemic and traditional long term care facilities for the elderly have certainly not prospered.

Yea, who needs daycare when everyone is getting paid to stay home, right? Who can run a long term care facility based on medicare/medicaid rates? Two excellent examples of government programs.

Neither care sectors will meet demand with an aging population and rising cost pressures. Federal spending in these two areas are necessary to free up care givers staying home since the pandemic began. Needed labor in an expansionary environment with an aging workforce will not be sourced from immigrants in this intentionally poisoned political environment. The money has to come from
somewhere, the most likely source is in the first quarter, 2021 household wealth survey image in my last post.

If you *seized* all the earnings of the top 2% you still couldn't close the *deficit* let alone add new programs or pay down the debt.

A 43 percent capital gains tax is reasonable on the wealthiest half percent of households, a lower percentage increase on the next 4-1/2 percent. The wealthiest purchased the present political dynamic. Now, the majority must break it. The alternatives are stark, unnecessary, and profoundly detrimental to all U.S. residents.

Welcome to capital flight. A 43% federal rate + state/local rates gets you to ~60% in many places. People will just leave, you will never see the money, you will hamstring the economy and screw everyone over. This has played out in France, Belgium, UK and Sweden, they all reversed course.

 

[bave]

Opinion | It’s the Entitlements, Stupid

The guaranteed nature of Biden’s spending is the real threat to America’s economic future.

www.wsj.com

 

[weaver2]

In a collection of essays hunter, ecologist and bio-ethicist Aldo Leopold talked about " the death of a she-wolf killed by his party during a time when conservationists were operating under the assumption that elimination of top predators would make game more plentiful. The essay provides a non-technical characterization of the trophic cascade where the removal of single species carries serious implications for the rest of the ecosystem."

He explores ironies of conservation: in order to promote wider appreciation of wild nature one encourages recreational usage of wilderness that ultimately destroys wilderness.
The book ends with Leopold saying that land is not a commodity to be possessed; rather, humans must have mutual respect for Earth in order not to destroy it. "Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land." He philosophizes that humans will cease to be free if they have no wild spaces in which to roam.

In the last essay he discusses the need for a "land ethic" in order to make intelligent decisions about land use. He says,
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

The book is "Sand County Almanac" but it could also be a book on preserving capitalism because what Aldo Leopold says about the environment applies to capitalism.

Substitute capital or capitalists for conservation, wilderness, earth or environment ........... Try it!

"The current idea that "elimination of top predators (read capitalists) would make game (read: resources or money) plentiful (for everybody else.) The essay provides a non-technical characterization of the trophic cascade where the removal of single species (read: capitalist) carries serious implications for the rest of the ecosystem (read: economy)."

"The ironies of conservation(read:capitalism): in order to promote wider appreciation of wild nature (read capitalism) one encourages recreational usage (read reverence for) of wilderness (read capitalism) that ultimately destroys wilderness (read: economy)"

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community (read: economy). It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

" Land (read: wealth) is not a commodity to be possessed; rather, humans must have mutual respect for Earth (read: wealth) in order not to destroy it. Humans will cease to be free (economically free) if they have no wild spaces (read: opportunity to explore and create wealth) in which to roam.(read: "

"Conservation (read capitalism) is a state of harmony between men and land.(read: the economy)"

A land ethic, how man relates to the land in order to preserve it for everyone is similar to an economic ethic how man relates to the economy in order to preserve it(read: capitalism) for everyone.