• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Explaining Why Federal Deficits Are Needed[W:5330]

Maybe worthless is too strong of a word but I can't think of another word to describe the many people who aren't even worth one dollar per hour.

So you want American workers to be paid like Chinese workers?
 
. I don't need to provide logic that cutting taxes on the wealthy caused wages to stagnate because that's exactly what happened. Why is it that wage growth suddenly stopped around 1980, and despite a brief period in the 90's post-tax hike when incomes did grow, for most workers while wages for those at the very top didn't see any slowdown in their wage growth and actually saw it get bigger? The answer is obviously because of the tax cuts and the trickle-down theory that George H.W. Bush called "voodoo economics". Wages only started stagnating when taxes were cut. It's almost as if employers use the tax cut as an excuse not to pay workers more, since their net pay is increasing and it acts as a defacto raise, even though it starves revenue needed to fund basic operations of government programs..

Yeah.. no you have to provide logic for how wages did not grow because of tax cuts. How does taxing me more.. make me pay my employees more.

You have not provided ANY mechanism for that. You have a correlation (look wages are stagnant so it must be taxes). But no causational logic.

now.. the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs? Outsourcing? The decline in unions and bargaining power?, the influx of illegal immigration. Globalization and competition from foreign countries? All of that have a logical effect on decreasing wages.

Not taxes. And the fact is that the increase in income for the wealthy is PRE TAX. Its before taxes were taken out.

so no sir.. you have to provide some logic that wage stagnation is due to lower taxes.

But we were told that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. And you continue to harp on the historical average, which we've already established varies wildly

no.. we have established that it DOES NOT vary widely. Not over 35 years has it. Only having a few years where it was lower than the average of 18%.

I'm glad you're now finally admitting that tax cuts reduce revenue

not all tax cuts reduce revenue. In the cases of the combined bush tax cuts and ARRA tax cuts.. yes.. that reduced revenue for about 3 years. that's it.

And a 6% swing in revenues-as-percentage of GDP is significant. On a $20T economy, that is $1.2T.

not over 35 years its not.

Yes, I know. Which is why I've been advocating for a single payer system since before Obama
.

Which will feed right into the hands of the insurance companies. they will love single payer. Do you know who currently ADMINISTERS medicare? PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. that's right.. and its widely profitable for them. Oh and they administer Medicaid as well.

So.. the poor and middle class will have crappy insurance like Medicaid.. and the insurance companies will make bank on administering it. then they will offer supplemental policies to the upper middle class to cover what the crappy insurance doesn't at a huge profit.. and they will offer top notch private insurance to the rich.

And everyones insurance will be worse than it is now. insurance companies will make great profit.. and we will have people like Michelle bachman, and Pence.. running your healthcare.

never said that, I just said that high rev-to-GDP seems to correspond with high economic growth

Not at all.. heck.. we had high economic growth in the low to mid 2000's after the Bush tax cuts.. there was high growth then. as well.

Thing is when the tax rates on the wealthy were higher (90% during the 50's and 60's, 70% from the 60's to 1981), there was more economic expansion than when they were lower. That's just the facts.[/QUOTE
that doesn't mean is causal. We also had more economic expansion when he had unions, when we had a strong manufacturing base and little foreign competition, when we were far more educated than most of the undeveloped world.. like china. and most of asia.

those are mechanisms for growth. You will have to explain how taxing me more.. will cause me to expand my companies.
 
Yeah.. no you have to provide logic for how wages did not grow because of tax cuts. How does taxing me more.. make me pay my employees more.

The more you are taxed, the less that the workers have to spend on things like health care and education because that's what you spend the tax revenues paying for. Since they no longer have to spend ridiculous amounts of their income on education and health care (if both are fully funded), they can then spend their money in the consumer economy which is 70% of the total economy. More consumer spending means increased consumer demand. Increased consumer demand means more labor is needed to fill that demand. More demand for labor puts the pressure on wages upward in order to compete for the best labor. That's how it works, dude. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.


Not taxes. And the fact is that the increase in income for the wealthy is PRE TAX. Its before taxes were taken out.

No duh...

no.. we have established that it DOES NOT vary widely. Not over 35 years has it. Only having a few years where it was lower than the average of 18%.

According to your source, most of the years over the last 35 were below the "average" of 18%. So I don't know why you are so fixated on this thing when it's not even supportive of the arguments you're making.


Not all tax cuts reduce revenue.

A tax cut will always reduce revenues. That's just math.


Which will feed right into the hands of the insurance companies. they will love single payer. Do you know who currently ADMINISTERS medicare? PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. that's right.. and its widely profitable for them. Oh and they administer Medicaid as well.

The Department of Health and Human Services Administers Medicare. Furthermore, the entire purpose of single payer is to eliminate multiple payers (insurance companies) and instead have one single payer that reimburses providers from one pool in which everyone is enrolled. The larger the pool, the lower the premiums. Again, math.


So.. the poor and middle class will have crappy insurance like Medicaid.. and the insurance companies will make bank on administering it. then they will offer supplemental policies to the upper middle class to cover what the crappy insurance doesn't at a huge profit.. and they will offer top notch private insurance to the rich.

Insurance companies don't administer Medicare now. The Centers for Medicare Services does. I don't know where you get the idea that private insurance administers Medicare. Are you talking about supplemental plans? In a single payer system, there wouldn't be supplemental plans like Part B and D. There would be no need. Do you even know what single payer health care is?


And everyones insurance will be worse than it is now. insurance companies will make great profit.. and we will have people like Michelle bachman, and Pence.. running your healthcare.

How health care providers are reimbursed has nothing to do with how good or bad your health care is.


Not at all.. heck.. we had high economic growth in the low to mid 2000's after the Bush tax cuts.. there was high growth then. as well.

Because of the housing bubble. Prior to 2004, growth was poor and Bush lost over 800,000 private sector jobs.


that doesn't mean is causal. We also had more economic expansion when he had unions, when we had a strong manufacturing base and little foreign competition, when we were far more educated than most of the undeveloped world.. like china. and most of asia.

And all that seemed to change right around 1981. Before, if you count Nixon and Ford urging American businesses to set up shop in China in the early 70's.


You will have to explain how taxing me more.. will cause me to expand my companies.

I already told you how. Many times. It's not my fault that you aren't getting the answer you want.
 
Yes.. that would be right. My bad.

I was erroneously thinking of Bernie Sanders and his quote regarding "when rates were 90%).

Which would have been on those making as a couple 400,000 which is the equivalent of roughly 3.4 million today.

Still wrong .... $400,000 in 1970 is $2.5M today.

CPI Inflation Calculator


And, back in 1963 rates were 90% on an individual earning just $150,000, or just $1.2M in today's dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator
 
Last edited:
So you want American workers to be paid like Chinese workers?

I totally agree with you that workers should be paid what they are worth. But, this also includes the worthless workers. If they are only worth a dollar an hour then they should not be forced to be employed by anyone for $15 per hour. Jobs are lost for those that can't cut the mustard at $15 per hour when they might have been employed by someone for $7.25 per hour and welfare rolls are increased by these people, actually increasing income disparity.
 
The more you are taxed, the less that the workers have to spend on things like health care and education because that's what you spend the tax revenues paying for. Since they no longer have to spend ridiculous amounts of their income on education and health care (if both are fully funded), they can then spend their money in the consumer economy which is 70% of the total economy. More consumer spending means increased consumer demand. Increased consumer demand means more labor is needed to fill that demand. More demand for labor puts the pressure on wages upward in order to compete for the best labor. That's how it works, dude. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.




No duh...



According to your source, most of the years over the last 35 were below the "average" of 18%. So I don't know why you are so fixated on this thing when it's not even supportive of the arguments you're making.




A tax cut will always reduce revenues. That's just math.




The Department of Health and Human Services Administers Medicare. Furthermore, the entire purpose of single payer is to eliminate multiple payers (insurance companies) and instead have one single payer that reimburses providers from one pool in which everyone is enrolled. The larger the pool, the lower the premiums. Again, math.




Insurance companies don't administer Medicare now. The Centers for Medicare Services does. I don't know where you get the idea that private insurance administers Medicare. Are you talking about supplemental plans? In a single payer system, there wouldn't be supplemental plans like Part B and D. There would be no need. Do you even know what single payer health care is?




How health care providers are reimbursed has nothing to do with how good or bad your health care is.




Because of the housing bubble. Prior to 2004, growth was poor and Bush lost over 800,000 private sector jobs.




And all that seemed to change right around 1981. Before, if you count Nixon and Ford urging American businesses to set up shop in China in the early 70's.




I already told you how. Many times. It's not my fault that you aren't getting the answer you want.

Sounds like the left's version of trickle down economics to me.
 
I totally agree with you that workers should be paid what they are worth. But, this also includes the worthless workers. If they are only worth a dollar an hour then they should not be forced to be employed by anyone for $15 per hour. Jobs are lost for those that can't cut the mustard at $15 per hour when they might have been employed by someone for $7.25 per hour and welfare rolls are increased by these people, actually increasing income disparity.

OK, but you said most who makes minimum wage are "worthless". Who determines what their worth is? You seem to think an authoritarian should decide that. So how are you any different from a fascist in that regard?
 
By campaigning on the "Ownership Society", by passing things like the American Dream Downpayment Act, which gave 40,000 low-income people free downpayments on their first homes. .

Crap... that ownership society thing started well before Bush. Heck the FNMA was set up in 1938 to promote home ownership. Heck.. subprime mortgages themselves started before Clinton. they expanded greatly though in the late nineties.

Heck.. Clinton loosened fannie mae standards..



Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


By STEVEN A. HOLMES SEPT. 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Sorry sir but the "its Bush's fault" simply doesn't fly with the facts.

It's more than that. It seems to change almost every year. But whatever.

Not substantially.. no it doesn't.

First of all, we didn't have to reduce spending. We only did so because we were sold a bunch of lies by Conservatives about austerity that they passed off as conventional wisdom. Why anyone would believe them after they caused the economic collapse in the first place is beyond me, but whatever...some people just don't want to admit they're wrong. Spending on State and Local levels was severely reduced as a result of the economic collapse and the austerity solution to the collapse.

Yeah.. first you are going to have to explain how your link... about a PAPER WRITTEN IN 2010. Is a bunch of lies that were told during 2005-2006. I need some help on that.

Second.. you have to detail exactly what DECREASE in spending occurred by "conservatives"..

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 12.5 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 53 percent

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

Well, no, we're still paying for those wars and they are definitely not pretty much over. Orr current deficit, it should be noted, is lower than Bush's last two deficits and about equal to his third. Obamacare is paid for by taxes on the wealthy
.

Too funny. I actually already pointed out that fact a while ago. however.. Obama has reduced deficits in part yes because of letting tax cuts expire... but also by reducing spending.

It's unlikely that President Obama will ever shake his reputation among Republicans as a big spender. But a key fact counters that rap.

As a share of the economy, spending on domestic and defense programs has been on the decline since 2010, and is on track to reach the lowest level in more than 50 years by 2023.

At its height in 2010, "discretionary spending" under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983

As far as Medicaid... Medicaid is still a cost to the federal government and does potentially increase the deficit.
 
I totally agree with you that workers should be paid what they are worth. But, this also includes the worthless workers. If they are only worth a dollar an hour then they should not be forced to be employed by anyone for $15 per hour. Jobs are lost for those that can't cut the mustard at $15 per hour when they might have been employed by someone for $7.25 per hour and welfare rolls are increased by these people, actually increasing income disparity.

The Earth did not form in 1963. It is about 5 billion years old.

Go home, MR, you're drunk.


:D
 
Still wrong .... $400,000 in 1970 is $2.5M today.

CPI Inflation Calculator


And, back in 1963 rates were 90% on an individual earning just $150,000, or just $1.2M in today's dollars.

CPI Inflation Calculator

Whatever..

We turned to the Tax Foundation’s federal income tax rates history, which documents figures going all the way back to 1913, when the income tax began with the ratification of the 16th Amendment.

During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)

What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals making $200,000 or more per year or couples making $400,000 and above per year.

In 2015 dollars, that's roughly $1.7 million for an individual and $3.4 million for a couple.

Income tax rates were 90 percent under Eisenhower, Sanders says | PolitiFact

Take it up with politifact.
 
Crap... that ownership society thing started well before Bush. Heck the FNMA was set up in 1938 to promote home ownership. Heck.. subprime mortgages themselves started before Clinton. they expanded greatly though in the late nineties.

Ah, but did so responsibly and steadily. From 1993-2003, there were 1.1 million subprimes issued with default rates between 5-7%. From 2004-2006, there were 800,000 subprimes issued with default rates between 20-23%. So yes, Clinton expanded the housing market, but did so carefully and responsibly. It wasn't until 2003-4 that the Bush Tax Cuts were looking like the economic failure they always were that Bush and the Conservatives had to do something to make it look like the economy was growing. So that's when they did all their shenanigans and let the dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for subprime loans commence, in addition to protecting predatory lenders, handing out 40,000 free downpayments to low-income, first-time homeowners, and turning a blind eye to the whole thing.


Sorry sir but the "its Bush's fault" simply doesn't fly with the facts.

It sure does and the above is proof.


Yeah.. first you are going to have to explain how your link... about a PAPER WRITTEN IN 2010. Is a bunch of lies that were told during 2005-2006. I need some help on that.

Huh? What are you talking about? Did you lose track of the thread? I was saying how austerity as the response to the Great Bush Recession (caused by the Bush Housing Bubble which hit its peak in 2005-6) was a pack of lies sold to us to justify spending cuts.


Second.. you have to detail exactly what DECREASE in spending occurred by "conservatives"..

When? What time period are you talking about? Since you saw fit to obfuscate what I was talking about earlier with regard to austerity, I now feel compelled to make sure you are specific with your questions so I can best answer them. Conservatives forced through a spending cut of $85B in the Sequester. According to GMU, that cost the economy about $160B.


Too funny. I actually already pointed out that fact a while ago. however.. Obama has reduced deficits in part yes because of letting tax cuts expire... but also by reducing spending.

Reducing spending where? The Sequester was $85B, yet the deficit dropped by $400B from 2012-13. Spending cuts had a negative impact because they reduced GDP by $160B. So here we have you saying that letting tax cuts expire produces revenue which shrinks deficits. Yet, you've been arguing against the tax cuts' impact on the budget with me this entire time. The reason we even have a deficit and debt today is because of the Bush Tax Cuts. If Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code, the debt could have been paid off by 2010. But Conservatives couldn't even do nothing right. So why should we even listen to them anymore? I'm serious, why should we listen to a thing they say? I don't know the answer to that question.


As far as Medicaid... Medicaid is still a cost to the federal government and does potentially increase the deficit.

Medicaid expansion saves States and patients money.
 
OK, but you said most who makes minimum wage are "worthless". Who determines what their worth is? You seem to think an authoritarian should decide that. So how are you any different from a fascist in that regard?

I don't believe I said that most who make minimum wage are "worthless". I said that many who make minimum wage are "worthless". There are lots and lots of them but I wouldn't say most. I would say that most earning $7.25 per hour are not worth $15 per hour. Employers decide if employees are worth what they are paid or not. In the interview and hiring process employers will not be hiring anyone for $15 per hour that is only worth $7.25 per hour or less. And, if they should get hired, they will be let go much faster if they are not worth $15.
 
Which would be just normal, regular economics because trickle-down is a joke.

I also believe that trickle is a joke, both from the right and the left. They both have opposing views that wind up being the exact same trickle theory. The right believes in trickle down economics while the left believes in trickle up economics. I oppose both.
 
I totally agree with you that workers should be paid what they are worth. But, this also includes the worthless workers. If they are only worth a dollar an hour then they should not be forced to be employed by anyone for $15 per hour. Jobs are lost for those that can't cut the mustard at $15 per hour when they might have been employed by someone for $7.25 per hour and welfare rolls are increased by these people, actually increasing income disparity.

What the **** are you talking about ?

You think paying people less will work against income disparity ? Do you understand what income disparity is ?
 
I don't believe I said that most who make minimum wage are "worthless". I said that many who make minimum wage are "worthless". There are lots and lots of them but I wouldn't say most. I would say that most earning $7.25 per hour are not worth $15 per hour. Employers decide if employees are worth what they are paid or not. In the interview and hiring process employers will not be hiring anyone for $15 per hour that is only worth $7.25 per hour or less. And, if they should get hired, they will be let go much faster if they are not worth $15.

"Many", "most"...you're playing a semantic game at this point. Furthermore, it's not employers who decide what employees are worth, it's demand that does that. If there is a demand for labor, then the labor market determines the wage, not the employer. You keep trying to peg wage to character...and that's kind of a sh*tty thing to do.
 
I also believe that trickle is a joke, both from the right and the left. They both have opposing views that wind up being the exact same trickle theory. The right believes in trickle down economics while the left believes in trickle up economics. I oppose both.

So you oppose the regular, normal economics of supply and demand? Because that's what "trickle up" is all about. Creating demand through higher wages.
 
It is very sequitur. Lefties believe everything starts in 1963. That's even worse than the bible thumpers who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

You're not serious, are you?
 
Go home, MR, you're drunk.


:D

Oh come on. There is a lot of proof that employers don't and will not hire those for increased wages that are not worth it. Large increases to the minimum wage devastate those on the very bottom of the totem poll who are then banished from the job force to collect welfare. I don't know why you also quoted that second post of mine. Are you saying that you believe the Earth really was created in 1963?
 
The more you are taxed, the less that the workers have to spend on things like health care and education because that's what you spend the tax revenues paying for. .

Ahhh.. right.. the mythical unicorn where when you tax me more.... that money just magically goes to "things like healthcare and education".

Even though we have just established and you admitted that taxes haven;t even been going toward infrastructure.

And whats funny is this. You keep going back to the 1970's. Do you realize that we have MORE subsidized healthcare NOW then we did then? According to you.. and your premise that greater subsidization of healthcare leads to economic boom... we should be booming NOW. And for a number of years (since we increased healthcare subsidization back in the early 2000's).

According to your source, most of the years over the last 35 were below the "average" of 18%. So I don't know why you are so fixated on this thing when it's not even supportive of the arguments you're making.

Yeah.. says the guy that's fixated on a three year outlier .....come now.

A tax cut will always reduce revenues. That's just math.

that's simply not true... because some taxes have a negative impact on business. And a tax cut on those taxes can increase business income and thus increase revenue..

Insurance companies don't administer Medicare now. The Centers for Medicare Services does. I don't know where you get the idea that private insurance administers Medicare.

You sir need to get a bit more educated before talking:



What is a MAC



What is a MAC and what do they do?

A Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) is a private health care insurer that has been awarded a geographic jurisdiction to process Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) medical claims or Durable Medical Equipment (DME) claims for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries. CMS relies on a network of MACs to serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare FFS program and the health care providers enrolled in the program. MACs are multi-state, regional contractors responsible for administering both Medicare Part A and Medicare Part B claims. MACs perform many activities including:
•Process Medicare FFS claims
•Make and account for Medicare FFS payments
•Enroll providers in the Medicare FFS program
•Handle provider reimbursement services and audit institutional provider cost reports
•Handle redetermination requests (1st stage appeals process)
•Respond to provider inquiries
•Educate providers about Medicare FFS billing requirements
•Establish local coverage determinations (LCD’s)
•Review medical records for selected claims
•Coordinate with CMS and other FFS contractors

Section 911 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 directed CMS to replace the Part A Fiscal Intermediaries (FIs) and Part B carriers with MACs.

https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Contracting/Medicare-Administrative-Contractors/What-is-a-MAC.html

Do I know what single payer is? Why certainly.. having worked, and studied in countries that have single payer.

Many of them have supplemental plans.. and in many cases they have two systems... a private high end medical system for the rich..and a lesser quality separate public system for the have nots.

How health care providers are reimbursed has nothing to do with how good or bad your health care is.

It has everything to do with how good or bad your care is. Reimbursement is the primary determiner on the quality of your healthcare.

Because of the housing bubble. Prior to 2004, growth was poor and Bush lost over 800,000 private sector jobs.

right.. and in the late 1990's it was the tech bubble.

And all that seemed to change right around 1981. Before, if you count Nixon and Ford urging American businesses to set up shop in China in the early 70's.

No it was beginning to change years earlier as European nations got out from under rebuilding their infrastructure.. as former their world countries began able to compete on a manufacturing level with the US.


I already told you how. Many times. It's not my fault that you aren't getting the answer you want.

No you haven't. You told me about some unicorn that comes and suddenly my tax dollars go magically toward infrastructure and education...

Right after you acknowledge that our tax dollars haven't been going to infrastructure that much.

You have had no logical answer in exactly what mechanism of taxing me more.. directly causes me to expand my company
 
Back
Top Bottom