• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
One problem if we default on payment of the debt, the SS system holds the largest amount of our debt....
sigh

Those intragovernmental holdings for SS are, again, just another smokescreen. As we draw more from the SS Trust Fund, those holdings will get smaller and smaller. There is also no chance whatsoever that the federal government will default on SS payments.


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
I already pointed that out. When the Trust Fund is depleted, we will have to cut benefits and/or raise taxes and/or use general tax revenues and/or borrow to pay benefits.

And hey guess what? We've been through this already. Reagan implemented taxes on Social Security income (which amounts to a significant benefit cut), increased payroll taxes a little bit, and bumped up the retirement age a little bit. All of that extended the solvency of SS, and surprise! it didn't cause the US economy to melt down.

Seriously, after 40 years of deficit hawks screaming about the evils of the debt, then doing nothing or increasing the debt, and not seeing any economic harms, and seeing harms when governments pursue austerity, I'm over it.
 

Tbird19482

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Spot on man. The national debt at 30 trillion is a serious problem and unfortunately. there is no solution in sight.
well as I have said several times first thing we have to do is get spending under control
and that could be done with a Balanced Budget Admen. with some real teeth in it ,
flat out you can NOT spend more then you take in , the people in Congress will have to deal with that, the ONLY time we could spend more then we take in would be a national emergency , like a war ( like WWII ) or a deep deep recession / depression that is IT
and if you want to spend more figure out how to increase the revenues they take in
taking and passing a MIN. income tax for the 65% of all corps making over a million dollars in US profits and NOT paying a cent in FIT now would help bring in some revenue, some of these corps use programs funded by FIT to help make their profits they should help pay for them.
then we could have a 1% sales tax on EVERYTHING no exceptions , not for any body not Corps NObody
and have it where when the debt is paid off that 1% sales tax would be suspended and could only be put back on if we had to run a debt because of a national emergency
I know people will cry that it hurts the poor , if needed we could rebate some of it back to people making less then 40,000 or something like that if we needed to
I believe everybody got some benefit out of running the debt up everybody should help pay it off
Have a nice night
 

The Hairy Fiddler

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
932
Reaction score
660
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
well as I have said several times first thing we have to do is get spending under control
and that could be done with a Balanced Budget Admen. with some real teeth in it ,
flat out you can NOT spend more then you take in , the people in Congress will have to deal with that, the ONLY time we could spend more then we take in would be a national emergency , like a war ( like WWII ) or a deep deep recession / depression that is IT
and if you want to spend more figure out how to increase the revenues they take in
taking and passing a MIN. income tax for the 65% of all corps making over a million dollars in US profits and NOT paying a cent in FIT now would help bring in some revenue, some of these corps use programs funded by FIT to help make their profits they should help pay for them.
then we could have a 1% sales tax on EVERYTHING no exceptions , not for any body not Corps NObody
and have it where when the debt is paid off that 1% sales tax would be suspended and could only be put back on if we had to run a debt because of a national emergency
I know people will cry that it hurts the poor , if needed we could rebate some of it back to people making less then 40,000 or something like that if we needed to
I believe everybody got some benefit out of running the debt up everybody should help pay it off
Have a nice night

Not gonna happen. I applaud your attempt at dealing with this, but there is no backbone in Congress to pass a bal budget ammendment. And even if they did, the interest on 30 trillion is mind boggling. The bloated military needs to be sliced 50% and then a wealth tax needs to be implemented. Corporates tax rates need to significantly increased and then I like your federal sales tax idea as well.
 

The Hairy Fiddler

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
932
Reaction score
660
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.



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?



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



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.
Not gonna debate assininity, dude. The national debt is higher than our gross domestic product. And after social security becomes insolvent, not to mention medicare, the civil unrest will follow. China taking over Yosemite? China and other creditors will take over a lot more than just national parks. A LOT MORE.

Interest payment that you posted is grossly inaccurate...not even remotely close to reality. Again, you have no idea what 30 trillion dollars is. None, nada, nihil.

Google "problems with the US unsustainable national debt" and you will find hundreds of economists that confirm unbridled Keynesian monetary/fiscal policy is a recipe for disaster, a complete economic collapse.



How many ponzi schemes have you fallen for? 10? 20? lol dude.

I won't be around when it happens, but unless drastic measures are implemented, the US will become a shithole country.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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?
Sounds like 88 people saw the same screaming hypocrisy. Perhaps you should focus on that, instead of on so many people pointing it out.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
21,037
Reaction score
3,045
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sounds like 88 people saw the same screaming hypocrisy. Perhaps you should focus on that, instead of on so many people pointing it out.

No need because 8000 people already did. Maybe we could have a new debate instead where we actually talk about the topic. Whats your opinion on level of taxation and spending and debt for example?
 

Tbird19482

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not gonna happen. I applaud your attempt at dealing with this, but there is no backbone in Congress to pass a bal budget ammendment. And even if they did, the interest on 30 trillion is mind boggling. The bloated military needs to be sliced 50% and then a wealth tax needs to be implemented. Corporates tax rates need to significantly increased and then I like your federal sales tax idea as well.
That is the big problem nobody has any Balls in Congress
If they did we would have a BB admen. and cuts in spending and the Sales tax to get this under control
Have a nice day
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not gonna debate assininity, dude.
I see no sign that you're debating at all. 🤷‍♂️


The national debt is higher than our gross domestic product.
So what? Japan has been over 200% for more than a decade. Their economy hasn't cratered, their pension system hasn't melted down, there aren't daily riots in the streets.

You haven't proven that debt is actually a bad thing. You just scream "DEBT!!!" and we're all supposed to be terrified? No. You're just begging the question.


And after social security becomes insolvent, not to mention medicare, the civil unrest will follow.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Social Security isn't a bank, it's an entitlement program, funded by payroll taxes. But as I said, there is no magic to payroll taxes! If we want to pay part of Social Security out of general tax revenues, all we have to do is pass a law.

The fact that payroll taxes won't be enough to fund SS doesn't mean that the entire SS system will fail. All that will happen is there will be a shortfall. So, we will raise more taxes and/or cut benefits. And do you really not understand that in the worst case scenario

"Civil unrest?" Do you think that a bunch of 75 year olds will riot in the streets, because we need to cut SS benefits by 5%?


China taking over Yosemite? China and other creditors will take over a lot more than just national parks. A LOT MORE.
lol

You are completely and utterly clueless. There is no "collateral" with government debt, that's not how it works. When a government defaults on its debts, it doesn't hold a fire sale on public assets. It restructures the debt, which results in the debtors taking a haircut, and makes it harder and more expensive to borrow. Usually, there's a bit of economic pain because *cough* the government cuts spending *cough* but in a few years, they start borrowing again.

I mean, really. Do you think Greece had to sell the Parthenon to deal with its debt crisis? Get a clue.


Interest payment that you posted is grossly inaccurate...not even remotely close to reality.
No, dude. It is literally the amount the US paid for interest in 2019. How much do you think the federal government paid in interest in 2019?

Screen Shot 2021-04-08 at 9.30.59 AM.png


Google "problems with the US unsustainable national debt" and you will find hundreds of economists that confirm unbridled Keynesian monetary/fiscal policy is a recipe for disaster, a complete economic collapse.
LOL

One minute you've got hundreds of reasons why the debt is bad. Now I have to do a Google search, to read a bunch of zombie economists? Shut the front door.

Yet again, you have not even come CLOSE to proving that government debt, even massive debts, are harmful. You're just posing hypotheticals that have no basis in reality.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That is the big problem nobody has any Balls in Congress
If they did we would have a BB admen. and cuts in spending and the Sales tax to get this under control
Uh huh

Okay then. In 2019, the federal deficit was $900 billion. What do you want to cut?

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and Interest on the debt is around $3.3 trillion, or 77% of the 2019 federal expenditures. Hmmm.

We could cut Social Security benefits and defense spending in half, that will close the gap. Sound good to you?

Probably not. I also doubt that Americans will actually want to completely shut down NASA, farm subsidies, the FDA, maintenance of nuclear weapons, food stamps, the SEC, the Consumer Protection Bureau, the courts, the FBI, the DEA, Border Patrol, all federal education spending, and tons of other things that people have demanded for decades.

An "across the board 25% cut" isn't likely to go down well either. That means an immediate 25% cut to SS and defense and Medicaid and Medicare. (Actually a little more, since we can't cut interest payments.) Since the SS shortfall will be around 25% anyway, you are literally just creating the problem you hope to solve by slashing spending.

Well, that doesn't sound like it's gonna work, huh? Oh wait, I know, we can raise taxes! Tax revenues were around $3.5 trillion, so all we have to do is increase tax revenues by 25%. That sound good to you?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that putting the kibosh on $900 billion in spending will, in and of itself, create a recession -- one, I might add, that the government by law can't spend its way out of!

That also means that if we have a war, or face a pandemic, our only option is to either fail to spend (in which case, we will lose) or to tax the crap out of the public (good luck with that, especially during a pandemic-induced recession).

While I agree that borrowing often pushes off the costs for a later day, the reality is that it is an extremely useful tool for governments, and we all benefit. All the screeching about debt is either a massive misunderstanding of debt, or just an excuse to try to cut social benefit programs. Take your pick.
 

Tbird19482

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Uh huh

Okay then. In 2019, the federal deficit was $900 billion. What do you want to cut?

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and Interest on the debt is around $3.3 trillion, or 77% of the 2019 federal expenditures. Hmmm.

We could cut Social Security benefits and defense spending in half, that will close the gap. Sound good to you?

Probably not. I also doubt that Americans will actually want to completely shut down NASA, farm subsidies, the FDA, maintenance of nuclear weapons, food stamps, the SEC, the Consumer Protection Bureau, the courts, the FBI, the DEA, Border Patrol, all federal education spending, and tons of other things that people have demanded for decades.

An "across the board 25% cut" isn't likely to go down well either. That means an immediate 25% cut to SS and defense and Medicaid and Medicare. (Actually a little more, since we can't cut interest payments.) Since the SS shortfall will be around 25% anyway, you are literally just creating the problem you hope to solve by slashing spending.

Well, that doesn't sound like it's gonna work, huh? Oh wait, I know, we can raise taxes! Tax revenues were around $3.5 trillion, so all we have to do is increase tax revenues by 25%. That sound good to you?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that putting the kibosh on $900 billion in spending will, in and of itself, create a recession -- one, I might add, that the government by law can't spend its way out of!

That also means that if we have a war, or face a pandemic, our only option is to either fail to spend (in which case, we will lose) or to tax the crap out of the public (good luck with that, especially during a pandemic-induced recession).

While I agree that borrowing often pushes off the costs for a later day, the reality is that it is an extremely useful tool for governments, and we all benefit. All the screeching about debt is either a massive misunderstanding of debt, or just an excuse to try to cut social benefit programs. Take your pick.
Yes there isn't too much we can cut . most of what the total revenue we take in so as I said we should have a min. FIT for large Corps that are making millions and Billions and not paying one cent in FIT.
and we will have to raise other taxes
there are things we are spending money on now that we shouldn't be , one is on these illegals send them back with nothing except maybe a meal and do away with the Republican passed law making it illegal to send kids under 18 back
that is BS send all of them back if they want in then do it the right way and don't think you are going to get special treatment
Have a nice night
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
there are things we are spending money on now that we shouldn't be , one is on these illegals send them back with nothing except maybe a meal....
Yeah, here's the thing. There are roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, and... yeah, they actually pay taxes. It's estimated that in a year, they pay $11 billion in state and local taxes, and another $9 billion in federal taxes -- mostly payroll taxes, and they will never qualify for SS or Medicare. Again, you are exacerbating a problem you say you want to solve.

And of course, more immigration enforcement is going to cost more, so let's say that's going to soar to $10 billion. (And that's a conservative estimate.)

The most absurdly xenophobic estimates of the costs of undocumented immigrants $100 billion a year; minus lost taxes and more enforcement, that's $80 billion in "savings" on the federal level. Just another $820 billion to go!!!

This just sounds like another excuse to use the non-crisis of the budget as a means to justify an unrelated draconian policy.
 

Individual

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,021
Reaction score
943
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes there isn't too much we can cut . most of what the total revenue we take in so as I said we should have a min. FIT for large Corps that are making millions and Billions and not paying one cent in FIT.
and we will have to raise other taxes
there are things we are spending money on now that we shouldn't be , one is on these illegals send them back with nothing except maybe a meal and do away with the Republican passed law making it illegal to send kids under 18 back
that is BS send all of them back if they want in then do it the right way and don't think you are going to get special treatment
Have a nice night
IMO, the pie chart in post #308 is explained better below:
2019taxspending.png
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No need because 8000 people already did. Maybe we could have a new debate instead where we actually talk about the topic. Whats your opinion on level of taxation and spending and debt for example?
IS that a serious question? I'll act like it is. Debt level should be zero, outside of temporary legitimate emergencies like WWII. Taxation level is too high. Spending level is too high. Liberals promote convenient spending because it is unpopular for any pol to oppose it, then they look to soaking wealthy people to cover their spending; conservatives look to preventing rich folk from paying taxes and just borrow instead; everyone wins short term and the country gets screwed, particularly young and unborn people who don't deserve to inherit a debt that is 100% attributable to current Americans' selfishness. That's my view, if it matters.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Debt level should be zero, outside of temporary legitimate emergencies like WWII.
Oh, okay then. Go ahead and find a way to slash $1 trillion from the federal budget, preferably without causing a recession -- after all, you are trying to avoid economic pain, right? Right...?


Taxation level is too high.
The federal government has spent the past 40 years cutting taxes, and that's still not enough for you?

Do you genuinely not understand that when you cut tax rates, then tax revenues fall? That you're only making the "problem" worse?


Spending level is too high.
And again: In 2019 (a typical year), Social Security cost $1 trillion; Defense $676 billion; Medicare $644 billion; Medicaid $409 billion; interest $375 billion. That right there is 70% of the federal budget. Plus, you're talking about cutting taxes, which will require steeper cuts; and if you actually want to pay down the debt, that means even MORE cuts.

Are you really thinking that we can cut federal spending in half, without decimating the economy? Please.

By the way, the world's economy pretty much depends on the federal government issuing debt. That's why the government is able to borrow so much, at such low interest rates. People are so desperate for the federal government to borrow, that they are willing to lend at rates below inflation. They are literally paying for the privilege to lend money to the federal government.


everyone wins short term and the country gets screwed, particularly young and unborn people who don't deserve to inherit a debt that is 100% attributable to current Americans' selfishness. That's my view, if it matters.
Regardless of whether it matters, it's wrong.

Reagan used that same line 40 years ago. Well, guess what? The kids born in the Reagan era aren't saddled with crushing tax burdens, and the economy they live in isn't decimated by federal debts.

When, exactly, is this "disaster" supposed to happen? Do I have to wait another 40 years before the alleged cataclysm happens? How many decades will it take before you realize that debt isn't a serious problem? Yeesh.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh, okay then. Go ahead and find a way to slash $1 trillion from the federal budget, preferably without causing a recession -- after all, you are trying to avoid economic pain, right? Right...?



The federal government has spent the past 40 years cutting taxes, and that's still not enough for you?

Do you genuinely not understand that when you cut tax rates, then tax revenues fall? That you're only making the "problem" worse?



And again: In 2019 (a typical year), Social Security cost $1 trillion; Defense $676 billion; Medicare $644 billion; Medicaid $409 billion; interest $375 billion. That right there is 70% of the federal budget. Plus, you're talking about cutting taxes, which will require steeper cuts; and if you actually want to pay down the debt, that means even MORE cuts.

Are you really thinking that we can cut federal spending in half, without decimating the economy? Please.

By the way, the world's economy pretty much depends on the federal government issuing debt. That's why the government is able to borrow so much, at such low interest rates. People are so desperate for the federal government to borrow, that they are willing to lend at rates below inflation. They are literally paying for the privilege to lend money to the federal government.



Regardless of whether it matters, it's wrong.

Reagan used that same line 40 years ago. Well, guess what? The kids born in the Reagan era aren't saddled with crushing tax burdens, and the economy they live in isn't decimated by federal debts.

When, exactly, is this "disaster" supposed to happen? Do I have to wait another 40 years before the alleged cataclysm happens? How many decades will it take before you realize that debt isn't a serious problem? Yeesh.
Umm, hi Visbek ... despite your apparent fury, I don't think (?) we have talked before. I'll be happy to reply to your post, or do you prefer to just shout your views, since it appears you are really intent on just saying your thoughts as opposed to talking with other people?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,460
Reaction score
12,036
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Umm, hi Visbek ... despite your apparent fury, I don't think (?) we have talked before. I'll be happy to reply to your post, or do you prefer to just shout your views, since it appears you are really intent on just saying your thoughts as opposed to talking with other people?
Okay then. I will calmly ask....

• 2019 had a $1 trillion deficit. Over $3 trillion -- 70% -- of that is Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. What do you want to cut?

• How do you cut anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion from the federal budget, without it having the same negative effect on the economy that you are trying to avoid?

• We've been cutting taxes for 40 years. Cutting more taxes means less tax revenue. How does that reduce the deficit?

• Conservatives and deficit hawks have screamed about the evils of government debt for 40 years. Why haven't we seen any harm? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is twice that of the US, and it hasn't decimated their economy. How many more decades do we have to wait before we see the harmful effects?

• We've seen conservative leaders make policy choices that increased deficits. Bush 43 did it, with Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." We saw Trump do it before and after COVID, despite claiming he'd balance the budget. Deficit hawks are quiet -- until a Democrat is president, then they suddenly remember "oh yeah, debts are bad!" (Not to mention that Clinton, Obama and Biden all came into office during recessions, which reduce tax revenues and require spending.) Why should I believe them?
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay then. I will calmly ask....

• 2019 had a $1 trillion deficit. Over $3 trillion -- 70% -- of that is Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. What do you want to cut?

• How do you cut anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion from the federal budget, without it having the same negative effect on the economy that you are trying to avoid?

• We've been cutting taxes for 40 years. Cutting more taxes means less tax revenue. How does that reduce the deficit?

• Conservatives and deficit hawks have screamed about the evils of government debt for 40 years. Why haven't we seen any harm? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is twice that of the US, and it hasn't decimated their economy. How many more decades do we have to wait before we see the harmful effects?

• We've seen conservative leaders make policy choices that increased deficits. Bush 43 did it, with Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." We saw Trump do it before and after COVID, despite claiming he'd balance the budget. Deficit hawks are quiet -- until a Democrat is president, then they suddenly remember "oh yeah, debts are bad!" (Not to mention that Clinton, Obama and Biden all came into office during recessions, which reduce tax revenues and require spending.) Why should I believe them?
Thanks! Much easier to reply this way. Will do so shortly.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay then. I will calmly ask....

• 2019 had a $1 trillion deficit. Over $3 trillion -- 70% -- of that is Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. What do you want to cut?

• How do you cut anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion from the federal budget, without it having the same negative effect on the economy that you are trying to avoid?

• We've been cutting taxes for 40 years. Cutting more taxes means less tax revenue. How does that reduce the deficit?

• Conservatives and deficit hawks have screamed about the evils of government debt for 40 years. Why haven't we seen any harm? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is twice that of the US, and it hasn't decimated their economy. How many more decades do we have to wait before we see the harmful effects?

• We've seen conservative leaders make policy choices that increased deficits. Bush 43 did it, with Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." We saw Trump do it before and after COVID, despite claiming he'd balance the budget. Deficit hawks are quiet -- until a Democrat is president, then they suddenly remember "oh yeah, debts are bad!" (Not to mention that Clinton, Obama and Biden all came into office during recessions, which reduce tax revenues and require spending.) Why should I believe them?

Clearing out the easy stuff first, yes, Rs are hypocrites on the debt, and they only care about it when Ds are in power. I'm speaking about policy here, not politics -- politically, Ds should just deficit spend when in power, the same as Rs do, and then be scolds about it when not in power, just as Rs do.
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Okay then. I will calmly ask....

• 2019 had a $1 trillion deficit. Over $3 trillion -- 70% -- of that is Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. What do you want to cut?

• How do you cut anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion from the federal budget, without it having the same negative effect on the economy that you are trying to avoid?

• We've been cutting taxes for 40 years. Cutting more taxes means less tax revenue. How does that reduce the deficit?

• Conservatives and deficit hawks have screamed about the evils of government debt for 40 years. Why haven't we seen any harm? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is twice that of the US, and it hasn't decimated their economy. How many more decades do we have to wait before we see the harmful effects?

• We've seen conservative leaders make policy choices that increased deficits. Bush 43 did it, with Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." We saw Trump do it before and after COVID, despite claiming he'd balance the budget. Deficit hawks are quiet -- until a Democrat is president, then they suddenly remember "oh yeah, debts are bad!" (Not to mention that Clinton, Obama and Biden all came into office during recessions, which reduce tax revenues and require spending.) Why should I believe them?

Next easy part (apologies, my brain likes it when I focus on one specific thing at a time), I was assuming that passing debt on to the next generation was selfish. I am very biased that way. But if there is some reasonable argument for why doing so is not just taking from them to spend for us, I'd listen. Economics are complicated, and maybe it's not the simple theft from future people it appears to be?
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
4,968
Reaction score
2,231
Okay then. I will calmly ask....

• 2019 had a $1 trillion deficit. Over $3 trillion -- 70% -- of that is Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. What do you want to cut?

• How do you cut anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion from the federal budget, without it having the same negative effect on the economy that you are trying to avoid?

• We've been cutting taxes for 40 years. Cutting more taxes means less tax revenue. How does that reduce the deficit?

• Conservatives and deficit hawks have screamed about the evils of government debt for 40 years. Why haven't we seen any harm? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is twice that of the US, and it hasn't decimated their economy. How many more decades do we have to wait before we see the harmful effects?

• We've seen conservative leaders make policy choices that increased deficits. Bush 43 did it, with Cheney saying "deficits don't matter." We saw Trump do it before and after COVID, despite claiming he'd balance the budget. Deficit hawks are quiet -- until a Democrat is president, then they suddenly remember "oh yeah, debts are bad!" (Not to mention that Clinton, Obama and Biden all came into office during recessions, which reduce tax revenues and require spending.) Why should I believe them?

So we know congress won't cut spending. Let's attack the deficit from the Revenue side. Undo the Reagan tax cuts and change the holding period for long term capital gains from its present 1 year to 5 years. Everything else taxed at the earned income rate. Put a minimum tax of 20% on all corporate profits. No more corporations with billions in profits and no taxes.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
48,651
Reaction score
16,953
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We dont, but this is what you get when you elect democrats. Higher taxes, even higher spending. This is how democratic socialism works. The majority taxes the rich, takes a cut for themselves, then buys votes with the rest to win the next election so they can repeat. 80 years and counting.
It's high time we put something useful on the credit card and that is what you don't like. Tax cuts and wasteful defense spending are not useful at all.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
48,651
Reaction score
16,953
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Next easy part (apologies, my brain likes it when I focus on one specific thing at a time), I was assuming that passing debt on to the next generation was selfish. I am very biased that way. But if there is some reasonable argument for why doing so is not just taking from them to spend for us, I'd listen. Economics are complicated, and maybe it's not the simple theft from future people it appears to be?
When you spend for the future you are not taking from the next generation you are spending for them. That is the difference between tax cuts for the rich and the Jobs Act.
 

Tbird19482

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
1,292
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
IMO, the pie chart in post #308 is explained better below:
View attachment 67327574
I would think the money 384,000,000,000 ( seems like too many zeros that is 384 Trillion )would have come out of the 2.7 Trillion the Federal gov ( debt ) owes the SS system
where did you get these numbers again?
Have a nice afternoon
 

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
3,281
Reaction score
1,355
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When you spend for the future you are not taking from the next generation you are spending for them. That is the difference between tax cuts for the rich and the Jobs Act.
Yep, borrowing from the future can be purportedly justified with different arguments. I am skeptical. If we want to spend for them, let's just be heroes and pay the bill. Now. Borrowing on their account is way too subject to, IDK, just wanting to spend money and not pay taxes and pass the bill onto them.
 

Lord Zerg

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
25
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Biden is considering a major federal tax increase for the first time in nearly 30 years, report says

President Joe Biden is preparing to include a federal tax increase in his next big economic package, according to a Bloomberg report on Monday.

People familiar with the matter told the outlet that the Biden administration is working on a follow-up spending bill to the recently-enacted $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus. The initiative is expected to have a bigger price-tag, and may raise the corporate tax rate and the income tax rate for high-earning individuals to offset the spending, Bloomberg reported.

The move would represent the first major federal tax hike in nearly 30 years, per Bloomberg. The last significant tax increases were implemented in 1993 under the Clinton administration.

Sources with knowledge of the private discussions told Bloomberg that current ideas involve raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, bumping up the income tax rate for individuals who earn more than $400,000 per year, increasing the capital-gains tax rate for individuals who earn at least $1 million per year, expanding the estate tax, and "paring back" tax preferences for pass-through businesses, which are not subject to corporate taxes, such as limited liability companies. https://www.businessinsider.com/bid...l-tax-increase-almost-3-decades-report-2021-3


The tax hikes are not nearly as alarming as the "next big economic package." WHY do we need another "big economic package??" Thanks!!

Remember when Trump was running a trillion dollar deficit during a booming economy. With a booming economy there is no need for stimulus packages, and revenue is great while now its much lower because people don't have as much money. Republicans only care about the deficit when a democrat is president.
 
Top Bottom