Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

[Individual]

I agree it should never leave the state BUT it will never fly because as soon as some of the poorer red states figure out they won't be getting money back from the fed. money that came from blue states and they would have to raise their state taxes to cover what they have now or cut their state benefits
and they are not going to go for that as long as they can get the Blue states to keep funding their state budget they will
Have a nice day

So how can we get the Blue States to provide their fair share to prop up the Red States to a point where everyone becomes more equal?

 

[Visbek]

I'm a fiscal hawk and I agree with what you say here.

Why?

We've had decades of increasing debt, and the ones who claim to want to reduce the debts are the ones who pile it on. And yet, the impending doom predicted by the deficit hawks never happens. Even after spending ridiculous amounts of money, the US is nowhere near defaulting. Businesses have plenty of credit. It is COVID, not federal debt, that is hurting employment.

We haven't had a single recession caused by federal debt. Not one.

When Reagan was predicting Deficit Doom in 1980, did he say it would take more than 40 years for the harm to manifest? How many more decades is this going to take?

I think Biden's stimulus bill is wayyy too much for our country to absorb unless their is major belt tightening...in particulate the bloated military.

And yet, the nation has absorbed it, and would be much worse off without it. Austerity does not work, as we so clearly saw in Europe after the 2008 crisis. Oh, and it didn't take 40+ years for the hypothetical harms of austerity to show up, it was apparent in just a few years.

Remember, all deficit spending ends up in the hands of the monetary elite. Always has and always will.

Or... Not.

After both the 2008 crisis and with the 2020-2021 stimulus acts. a significant portion of that spending went directly to the bottom 80%. Some corporations did pull a fast one with the PPP, but that still wasn't the majority of the spending.

Tax policy, not spending on extended unemployment benefits or direct stimulus checks, that is a key factor in the increase of income inequality since the 70s.

 

[Individual]

I'm a fiscal hawk and I agree with what you say here. The only time deficit spending should be utilized is during war time or a national emergency that threatens our nation. Unfortunately. the country has been decimated economically due to Trump's malfeasance in handling the pandemic. And all the aggregate economic damage that incurred as a direct result.

I think Biden's stimulus bill is wayyy too much for our country to absorb unless their is major belt tightening...in particulate the bloated military.

Would also like to see a huge wealth tax implemented on the mega wealthy, who collectively profited dearly during the pandemic. Remember, all deficit spending ends up in the hands of the monetary elite. Always has and always will.

Regardless of the political system, spending flows from the consumer to the producer.
Neither political party is changing anything for the better, and if anything at all is moving us closer to accepting a one world, 2 class, form of government.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Regardless of the political system, spending flows from the consumer to the producer.
Neither political party is changing anything for the better, and if anything at all is moving us closer to accepting a one world, 2 class, form of government.

Lotta truth to what you say here pard.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Why?

We've had decades of increasing debt, and the ones who claim to want to reduce the debts are the ones who pile it on. And yet, the impending doom predicted by the deficit hawks never happens. Even after spending ridiculous amounts of money, the US is nowhere near defaulting. Businesses have plenty of credit. It is COVID, not federal debt, that is hurting employment.

We haven't had a single recession caused by federal debt. Not one.

When Reagan was predicting Deficit Doom in 1980, did he say it would take more than 40 years for the harm to manifest? How many more decades is this going to take?



And yet, the nation has absorbed it, and would be much worse off without it. Austerity does not work, as we so clearly saw in Europe after the 2008 crisis. Oh, and it didn't take 40+ years for the hypothetical harms of austerity to show up, it was apparent in just a few years.



Or... Not.

After both the 2008 crisis and with the 2020-2021 stimulus acts. a significant portion of that spending went directly to the bottom 80%. Some corporations did pull a fast one with the PPP, but that still wasn't the majority of the spending.

Tax policy, not spending on extended unemployment benefits or direct stimulus checks, that is a key factor in the increase of income inequality since the 70s.

I vehemently disagree with virtually all of what you say here. I'm not going to go line by line, but if you somehow think a n.d. of 30 trill doesn't have significant deleterious effects you are delusional. Keynesian economics was not designed as a status quo form of monetary/fiscal policy. Never was.

We now run off of fiat currency. Much of our debt is owned by foreigners. That could be a national security issue. There is a laundry list of future problems on the horizon with that type of debt. What is the country gonna do when social security goes belly up? Medicare as well. You can't continue to run this type of ponzi scheme...it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

I could write pages. bit I'll stop here.

 

[Tbird19482]

So how can we get the Blue States to provide their fair share to prop up the Red States to a point where everyone becomes more equal?

Blue states ARE the ones paying more in then they get back already and it is the RED states that get back WAY MORE then thy pay in.
IT is the BLUE states that are getting screwed NOT the Red states
Have a nice day

 

[Tbird19482]

I'm a fiscal hawk and I agree with what you say here. The only time deficit spending should be utilized is during war time or a national emergency that threatens our nation. Unfortunately. the country has been decimated economically due to Trump's malfeasance in handling the pandemic. And all the aggregate economic damage that incurred as a direct result.

I think Biden's stimulus bill is wayyy too much for our country to absorb unless their is major belt tightening...in particulate the bloated military.

Would also like to see a huge wealth tax implemented on the mega wealthy, who collectively profited dearly during the pandemic. Remember, all deficit spending ends up in the hands of the monetary elite. Always has and always will.

I would also like to see a MIN. income Tax on large Corps making over a Million dollars a year in US profits
as it is now something like 65% of all corps making over a million dollars a year in US profits do NOT pay even 1 cent in US income tax
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

Blue states ARE the ones paying more in then they get back already and it is the RED states that get back WAY MORE then thy pay in.
IT is the BLUE states that are getting screwed NOT the Red states
Have a nice day

And you want to continue doing that?

 

[Individual]

I vehemently disagree with virtually all of what you say here. I'm not going to go line by line, but if you somehow think a n.d. of 30 trill doesn't have significant deleterious effects you are delusional. Keynesian economics was not designed as a status quo form of monetary/fiscal policy. Never was.

We now run off of fiat currency. Much of our debt is owned by foreigners. That could be a national security issue. There is a laundry list of future problems on the horizon with that type of debt. What is the country gonna do when social security goes belly up? Medicare as well. You can't continue to run this type of ponzi scheme...it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

I could write pages. bit I'll stop here.

Owned by or Owed to?

 

[Tbird19482]

And you want to continue doing that?

NO
That is what I said before IF the states keep the money and only send in what the Fed. needs to run and NO more and can keep the rest for their state instead of the Fed. sending it back I would be for it,
the Red states like KY that get about 65% of their state budget from the Fed, in money sent to the state would have to raise their state income tax and states like NY who pay more in then they get back would be getting more money and they might be able to lower their state taxes
That is why I said I don't think any thing that has been suggested here would get passed because the Red states would not want it because they wouldn't be getting as much money back from the Fed and would have to raise their state taxes to cover the money the Blue states are sending in and the Red states get
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

NO
That is what I said before IF the states keep the money and only send in what the Fed. needs to run and NO more and can keep the rest for their state instead of the Fed. sending it back I would be for it,
the Red states like KY that get about 65% of their state budget from the Fed, in money sent to the state would have to raise their state income tax and states like NY who pay more in then they get back would be getting more money and they might be able to lower their state taxes
That is why I said I don't think any thing that has been suggested here would get passed because the Red states would not want it because they wouldn't be getting as much money back from the Fed and would have to raise their state taxes to cover the money the Blue states are sending in and the Red states get
Have a nice night

If only we could put effort into looking at accurate data instead of bringing up parties and politicians in a thread, we might be able to reach a bipartisan consensus on what changes we could demand of each elected representative to begin fixing problems.
Perhaps if we were to work out a plan, we could then see if States would go for it.
Someone, somewhere has to initiate change for any to happen, and I don't expect it to come about from elected politicians who are more intent on being reelected with the aid of their party and campaign contributors.

 

[skeptic llc]

Holy crap! Biden wants borrowed spending? The Republicans of 1979 will be so unhappy! (Also, all the Republicans in the last 42 years will pretend to be displeased because it's a D instead of an R doing it.)

 

[jonny5]

Holy crap! Biden wants borrowed spending? The Republicans of 1979 will be so unhappy! (Also, all the Republicans in the last 42 years will pretend to be displeased because it's a D instead of an R doing it.)

Oh wow another hypocrasy talking point! So original like the last 87 people who posted the same tired argument. How about actually having an original thought on the topic?

 

[Visbek]

I vehemently disagree with virtually all of what you say here. I'm not going to go line by line, but if you somehow think a n.d. of 30 trill doesn't have significant deleterious effects you are delusional.

I'm "delusional," because I can see how 40 years of rising federal debt hasn't had any negative effect whatsoever on the economy? How laws barring states from running deficits has in some cases hampered their ability to respond to a pandemic? How there hasn't been a single US recession caused by federal debt? How the federal government is nowhere near defaulting? How an influential paper claiming that a high debt-to-GDP ratio hurts the economy turned out to be fundamentally flawed? How people around the world are practically begging to lend money to the federal government, at low interest rates? How austerity backfired on numerous nations after 2008?

We now run off of fiat currency. Much of our debt is owned by foreigners. That could be a national security issue.

Lol, no, it isn't. What are they going to do? It's not like China can use those foreign debt holdings against the US, without shooting itself in the foot. It already tried that in 2014 and 2016, selling off $600 billion in Treasuries. Instead of causing yields to increase (which would potentially harm the US economy, by making lending more expensive), they continued to decline.

What is the country gonna do when social security goes belly up? Medicare as well. You can't continue to run this type of ponzi scheme...it is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

sigh

Social Security and Medicare aren't businesses, and they won't "go belly up." What we've done is segregate one type of tax revenue to fund SS and Medicare. However, the sneaky little secret that is right out in the open is that taxes are taxes are taxes. Payroll taxes were directed to SS specifically to fool people, like you, into thinking it's like a giant 401(k). If payroll taxes can't fully fund SS, then all we have to do fill the gap with.. wait for it... other tax revenues, and/or borrow, and/or cut benefits. And guess what? If borrowing isn't a big problem, then borrowing to fill in the SS gap... wait for it... isn't a big problem.

You're just begging the question, or assuming that somehow we'll be completely incapable of borrowing in just 10 years. Seriously?

There is a laundry list of future problems on the horizon with that type of debt.

Then why can you only name two things, that turn out to be wrong? You can't take two minutes to type up a list, just like the one I did at the start of this post...?

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Owned by or Owed to?

Same. A lot of the US debt is owned by foreign entities and the US owes money to these entities. Now the US can default, which at this point appears inevitable, but that's when the threats of war starts.

People like the above poster really don't understand what 30 trillion dollars really is. There is a real threat of the global commerce system collapsing. The US owns a ton of physical assets that act as collateral. But what happens when the markers are called home? What will the US look like when foreigners own the property deeds here in the US? That shit is coming.

The late former mayor of Cleveland, George Voinovich discussed the subject at seminars. Paul Kasich, another Ohioan did the same.

I'm "delusional," because I can see how 40 years of rising federal debt hasn't had any negative effect whatsoever on the economy? How laws barring states from running deficits has in some cases hampered their ability to respond to a pandemic? How there hasn't been a single US recession caused by federal debt? How the federal government is nowhere near defaulting? How an influential paper claiming that a high debt-to-GDP ratio hurts the economy turned out to be fundamentally flawed? How people around the world are practically begging to lend money to the federal government, at low interest rates? How austerity backfired on numerous nations after 2008?



Lol, no, it isn't. What are they going to do? It's not like China can use those foreign debt holdings against the US, without shooting itself in the foot. It already tried that in 2014 and 2016, selling off $600 billion in Treasuries. Instead of causing yields to increase (which would potentially harm the US economy, by making lending more expensive), they continued to decline.



sigh

Social Security and Medicare aren't businesses, and they won't "go belly up." What we've done is segregate one type of tax revenue to fund SS and Medicare. However, the sneaky little secret that is right out in the open is that taxes are taxes are taxes. Payroll taxes were directed to SS specifically to fool people, like you, into thinking it's like a giant 401(k). If payroll taxes can't fully fund SS, then all we have to do fill the gap with.. wait for it... other tax revenues, and/or borrow, and/or cut benefits. And guess what? If borrowing isn't a big problem, then borrowing to fill in the SS gap... wait for it... isn't a big problem.

You're just begging the question, or assuming that somehow we'll be completely incapable of borrowing in just 10 years. Seriously?



Then why can you only name two things, that turn out to be wrong? You can't take two minutes to type up a list, just like the one I did at the start of this post...?

You are delusional. PERIOD. I listed several reasons explaining exactly why running unbridled increases of the national debt is a HUGE problem. I provided a partial list, the actual list is a lot longer. Your statement that "no recession has ever happened when the fed employs deficit spending" is the dumbest post I ever read here. If I max out all my personal credit cards, am I gong to see the immediate results of being poorer? Are you really that crazy? Not going to debate someone who has zero understanding and has no clue on how the money supply system works in global capitalism. Just not going to do it.

 

[Individual]

Same. A lot of the US debt is owned by foreign entities and the US owes money to these entities. Now the US can default, which at this point appears inevitable, but that's when the threats of war starts.

People like the above poster really don't understand what 30 trillion dollars really is. There is a real threat of the global commerce system collapsing. The US owns a ton of physical assets that act as collateral. But what happens when the markers are called home? What will the US look like when foreigners own the property deeds here in the US? That shit is coming.

The late former mayor of Cleveland, George Voinovich discussed the subject at seminars. Paul Kasich, another Ohioan did the same.
You are delusional. PERIOD. I listed several reasons explaining exactly why running unbridled increases of the national debt is a HUGE problem. I provided a partial list, the actual list is a lot longer. Your statement that "no recession has ever happened when the fed employs deficit spending" is the dumbest post I ever read here. If I max out all my personal credit cards, am I gong to see the immediate results of being poorer? Are you really that crazy? Not going to debate someone who has zero understanding and has no clue on how the money supply system works in global capitalism. Just not going to do it.

Democrats are in power now so they'll fix this problem.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

Democrats are in power now so they'll fix this problem.

No they will not. Neither party will fix the problem.

 

[Tbird19482]

If only we could put effort into looking at accurate data instead of bringing up parties and politicians in a thread, we might be able to reach a bipartisan consensus on what changes we could demand of each elected representative to begin fixing problems.
Perhaps if we were to work out a plan, we could then see if States would go for it.
Someone, somewhere has to initiate change for any to happen, and I don't expect it to come about from elected politicians who are more intent on being reelected with the aid of their party and campaign contributors.

It would not matter what party is in control of the states that receive more money then they send into the Fed. they would still want as much back if not more money from the Fed so they wouldn't have to raise their state taxes to cover what they have now
I agree with most of your plan , but like I said the states that get more back then they send in won't like it or go for it
Have a nice evening

 

[Tbird19482]

Same. A lot of the US debt is owned by foreign entities and the US owes money to these entities. Now the US can default, which at this point appears inevitable, but that's when the threats of war starts.

People like the above poster really don't understand what 30 trillion dollars really is. There is a real threat of the global commerce system collapsing. The US owns a ton of physical assets that act as collateral. But what happens when the markers are called home? What will the US look like when foreigners own the property deeds here in the US? That shit is coming.

The late former mayor of Cleveland, George Voinovich discussed the subject at seminars. Paul Kasich, another Ohioan did the same.
You are delusional. PERIOD. I listed several reasons explaining exactly why running unbridled increases of the national debt is a HUGE problem. I provided a partial list, the actual list is a lot longer. Your statement that "no recession has ever happened when the fed employs deficit spending" is the dumbest post I ever read here. If I max out all my personal credit cards, am I gong to see the immediate results of being poorer? Are you really that crazy? Not going to debate someone who has zero understanding and has no clue on how the money supply system works in global capitalism. Just not going to do it.

One problem if we default on payment of the debt, the SS system holds the largest amount of our debt . and if we default on it we would not be able to pay people that are on it for very long ,
the SS system holds over 2.7 Trillion of our debt so far we haven't had to use any of it to pay the benefits for people who are on it but that could change around in a few years then what do we do, cut benefits , raise the FICA tax
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

It would not matter what party is in control of the states that receive more money then they send into the Fed. they would still want as much back if not more money from the Fed so they wouldn't have to raise their state taxes to cover what they have now
I agree with most of your plan , but like I said the states that get more back then they send in won't like it or go for it
Have a nice evening

If no one is interested in trying to fix anything, then it sounds like the ONLY and BEST solution is total collapse.

 

[Individual]

No they will not. Neither party will fix the problem.

From what I have seen on this and several other political forums, the majority of people really have no interest in fixing anything. And our elections seem to confirm that to be true nation wide.

 

[Tbird19482]

If no one is interested in trying to fix anything, then it sounds like the ONLY and BEST solution is total collapse.

I know there are a lot of people in some of the high tax states that pay a lot more in to the fed then they get back that would like to see it changed
they are tired of funding other states with their tax money
but again there are too many states that get a lot more back then they pay in and they like it that somebody from another state is funding their state
Have a nice night

 

[Individual]

I know there are a lot of people in some of the high tax states that pay a lot more in to the fed then they get back that would like to see it changed
they are tired of funding other states with their tax money
but again there are too many states that get a lot more back then they pay in and they like it that somebody from another state is funding their state
Have a nice night

Just FYI, I live in Asia so it's early morning Thursday, April 8th, here.
I'm sure there are many people who pay more taxes than what they get in return from government, and there are also many who pay much more than what government spends per person that get back in one form or another much more than their cost in taxes as a result of increased profits or resulting from inflation increasing the value of their wealth.
I take advantage of the opportunities poor governance produces.

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

One problem if we default on payment of the debt, the SS system holds the largest amount of our debt . and if we default on it we would not be able to pay people that are on it for very long ,
the SS system holds over 2.7 Trillion of our debt so far we haven't had to use any of it to pay the benefits for people who are on it but that could change around in a few years then what do we do, cut benefits , raise the FICA tax
Have a nice night

Spot on man. The national debt at 30 trillion is a serious problem and unfortunately. there is no solution in sight.

 

[Visbek]

People like the above poster really don't understand what 30 trillion dollars really is.

lol

I'm well aware of what that "really is." I also know that the net interest in 2019 was $375 billion, and revenues were $3.5 trillion. So yeah, we can easily handle the debt payments. Figure it out.

There is a real threat of the global commerce system collapsing. The US owns a ton of physical assets that act as collateral. But what happens when the markers are called home?

LOL

Are you even trying to be serious? "Collateral?!?" You think the federal government puts up collateral when it issues securities? What, you think that if the US defaults on a debt payment, China will be able to repo Yosemite?!?

Am I really supposed to take you seriously?

You are delusional. PERIOD. I listed several reasons explaining exactly why running unbridled increases of the national debt is a HUGE problem.

And I shot them both down. I guess you missed that part.

Your statement that "no recession has ever happened when the fed employs deficit spending" is the dumbest post I ever read here. If I max out all my personal credit cards, am I gong to see the immediate results of being poorer?

LOL

No, what I said was "there hasn't been a single US recession caused by federal debt." I have no idea what you're quoting, or what you think it means. As to my point....

Was the 2020 recession caused specifically by federal debt? Nope, that was because of COVID.
2008? Nope, that was a real estate bubble and associated financial crisis.
2001? Nope, that was the Dot Com bubble bursting.
1991? Nope, that was side effects from problems abroad.
1981? Nope, that was oil prices, and Volcker raising interest rates to get inflation under control.

Before 1981, the debt-to-GDP ratio was around 30, meaning it would make even less sense for federal debt to cause a recession.

Let me know when you're willing to face a few facts, kthx.