Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

[jonny5]

Everybody remember months ago when Trump and the Republicans did the same thing and conservatives cheered? Stop pretending you're suddenly fiscal conservatives again after 4 years of silence.

So youre ok with fiscal irresponsibility then?

 

[jonny5]

The govt need to raise more tax revenue somehow.
Taxing the high income earners is the easiest way to do it.
End of story.

I just wish Democrats would knock off the dishonest "fair share", class warfare bullshit.

Why does the govt need more revenue? 3.5 trillion isnt enough?

 

[jonny5]

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

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.

 

[jonny5]

as I said the Only Presidents to double or almost triple the debt in the last 50 years were Republicans
have a nice day

Arent you tired of this argument though? Everyone knows how spending works. Congress tells the President what he can spend and how. The President doesnt make the law or appropriate the money, so they arent responsible for debt. Congress is.

 

[KLATTU]

Why does the govt need more revenue? 3.5 trillion isnt enough?

Just reality.
They have already spent way more than they have brought in. Believing that can be fixed with less spending is a foo's errand. Forget it -never going to happen.

 

[aociswundumho]

Why does the govt need more revenue? 3.5 trillion isnt enough?

You have to add the deficit on top of what fedgov collects in revenue. For 2020 the deficit was over 3 trillion.

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So youre ok with fiscal irresponsibility then?

I'm ok with it. Too bad I don't see it with either party so I'm going to mock people when they pretend their party is fiscally conservative.

 

[jonny5]

Just reality.
They have already spent way more than they have brought in. Believing that can be fixed with less spending is a foo's errand. Forget it -never going to happen.

It has happened. Recently. In 2010, 2012, 2013 after Republicans took the House and forced budget caps on Democrats. Do it again.

 

[jonny5]

You have to add the deficit on top of what fedgov collects in revenue. For 2020 the deficit was over 3 trillion.

https://datalab.usaspending.gov/americas-finance-guide/deficit/trends/

Hows does that show the govt needs more revenue? Is that like me saying I need more income because I bought gold chains on my credit card?

 

[jonny5]

I'm ok with it. Too bad I don't see it with either party so I'm going to mock people when they pretend their party is fiscally conservative.

And where did the OP do that that your mocking him for? And if youre ok with fiscal irresponsibility why is it too bad you dont see it? You should be glad democrats arent responsible since youre ok with it.

 

[aociswundumho]

Hows does that show the govt needs more revenue? Is that like me saying I need more income because I bought gold chains on my credit card?

I was just pointing out that you were drastically underestimating how much they really spend. If it were up to me they would get nothing.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

And where did the OP do that that your mocking him for? And if youre ok with fiscal irresponsibility why is it too bad you dont see it? You should be glad democrats arent responsible since youre ok with it.

I misread the post and thought he said fiscal responsibility.

 

[Tbird19482]

Arent you tired of this argument though? Everyone knows how spending works. Congress tells the President what he can spend and how. The President doesnt make the law or appropriate the money, so they arent responsible for debt. Congress is.

well it is the President that signs it into law and every President gets the Blame for any thing added to the debt when he was President
That is how it works but every body knows the President gets the Blame
Have a nice night

 

[Waddy]

We don't. Most economists agree that the latest giveaway was far too much. This isn't about what we need, it's all about what the Rats think they need to stay in power after the midterm.

quit talking about the rats that way. they can buy my vote anytime. you some kind of commie pinko?

 

[jonny5]

I was just pointing out that you were drastically underestimating how much they really spend. If it were up to me they would get nothing.

I know exactly how much they really spend. I dont how that means we need to raise more revenue to pay for it. If anything, we need to cut up their credit cards and give them an allowance.

 

[jonny5]

well it is the President that signs it into law and every President gets the Blame for any thing added to the debt when he was President
That is how it works but every body knows the President gets the Blame
Have a nice night

So you know youre wrong, but you keep pushing the deception for political gain.

 

[Tbird19482]

So you know youre wrong, but you keep pushing the deception for political gain.

Yes Congress does make and passes the spending bills
And who has the final say ?
The President , He is the one that either signs it into law or sends it back till he gets something he can live with
SO it is the President that is finally responsible for what is in the budget that gets signed into law
Have a nice night

 

[jonny5]

Yes Congress does make and passes the spending bills
And who has the final say ?
The President , He is the one that either signs it into law or sends it back till he gets something he can live with
SO it is the President that is finally responsible for what is in the budget that gets signed into law
Have a nice night

Congress has the final say. The can override a veto. Or they can not pass a bill in the first place. Or they can make a law that says govt gets X spending perpetually like they did with mandatory spending. The President has no say on 75% of spending RIGHT NOW.

 

[rickc]

 

[rickc]

And why has the debt spiraled out of control

 

[Logophile]

If we go into hyperinflation - which we will if we keep printing money and the feds keep spending - only the wealthiest will manage unscathed. We cannot afford more hardship. Americans have already been to the brink with polarization, riots and a pandemic. Stop the excessive spending. I think even Keynes would be alarmed. His economic theory wasn't designed to excuse a reckless government free for all spree. Thanks!!

 

[jonny5]

And why has the debt spiraled out of control

Cool charts, but totally ignores social spending. And the fact that while top marginal rates have come down, the share of taxes paid by those in that rate have gone up.





This is more accurate

 

[Tbird19482]

Congress has the final say. The can override a veto. Or they can not pass a bill in the first place. Or they can make a law that says govt gets X spending perpetually like they did with mandatory spending. The President has no say on 75% of spending RIGHT NOW.

Does the President get the blame or not?
In all my life time every President has been blamed for the debt , yes Congress makes up the budget and passed spending packages it doesn't matter when it comes to the debt the PRESIDENT always gets the Blame
Have a nice afternoon

 

[Visbek]

If we go into hyperinflation...

We won't.

only the wealthiest will manage unscathed.

Wrong.

The super-wealthy will be better off, but certainly wouldn't be "unscathed." Much of their assets are in stocks, bonds and real estate, all of which would be difficult to move and heavily devalued in a hyperinflation.

If they try to sell those assets so they can move them abroad, they'll get hit with taxes. The value would drop because many people would likely try to sell all at once. They'd have to find some safe assets abroad, which will drive up the price of those assets. The companies they own, or run, or own stock in, will all need to pay their workers more (or else those workers will all need to quit).

Oh, and if they want to continue to live in the US, they will burn through their cash quickly. That could be compounded by difficulties with currency exchanges.

I'd add that if the US really did have a hyperinflation, foreign assets will also get screwed by the resulting global recession.

If anything, the only ones who could really survive "unscathed" (or with minimal damage) are those who are already heavily invested abroad; or those who have moderate amounts of assets that they can quickly move abroad.

I might add, this is a HUGE reason why you will never see hyperinflation in the US. Wealthy people know that their assets and influence will be devastated, so they will do anything they can to prevent it from happening. And given that they shovel money at both parties, they're almost certainly going to get their way on this one.

We cannot afford more hardship.

Well, we could, but we don't want to. I'd say that in many ways, the Great Depression followed by WWII was much worse than COVID, and it was awful, but the US certainly survived. At any rate, the only way to avoid "more hardship" is with stimulus packages and keeping interest rates low.

I think even Keynes would be alarmed.

That seems highly unlikely. What would have alarmed him is something like cutting spending while starting two wars (Bush 43) or driving up the debt while cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations (Trump).

Let's be very clear about this: austerity in a downturn absolutely does not work. That was made screamingly obvious by the reaction to the 2008 recession.

 

[Logophile]

We won't.


Wrong.

The super-wealthy will be better off, but certainly wouldn't be "unscathed." Much of their assets are in stocks, bonds and real estate, all of which would be difficult to move and heavily devalued in a hyperinflation.

If they try to sell those assets so they can move them abroad, they'll get hit with taxes. The value would drop because many people would likely try to sell all at once. They'd have to find some safe assets abroad, which will drive up the price of those assets. The companies they own, or run, or own stock in, will all need to pay their workers more (or else those workers will all need to quit).

Oh, and if they want to continue to live in the US, they will burn through their cash quickly. That could be compounded by difficulties with currency exchanges.

I'd add that if the US really did have a hyperinflation, foreign assets will also get screwed by the resulting global recession.

If anything, the only ones who could really survive "unscathed" (or with minimal damage) are those who are already heavily invested abroad; or those who have moderate amounts of assets that they can quickly move abroad.

I might add, this is a HUGE reason why you will never see hyperinflation in the US. Wealthy people know that their assets and influence will be devastated, so they will do anything they can to prevent it from happening. And given that they shovel money at both parties, they're almost certainly going to get their way on this one.



Well, we could, but we don't want to. I'd say that in many ways, the Great Depression followed by WWII was much worse than COVID, and it was awful, but the US certainly survived. At any rate, the only way to avoid "more hardship" is with stimulus packages and keeping interest rates low.



That seems highly unlikely. What would have alarmed him is something like cutting spending while starting two wars (Bush 43) or driving up the debt while cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations (Trump).

Let's be very clear about this: austerity in a downturn absolutely does not work. That was made screamingly obvious by the reaction to the 2008 recession.

In 2020 the ultra-rich got richer. Now they're bracing for the backlash

In 2020, as the world convulsed under COVID-19 and the global economy faced its worst recession since World War II, billionaires saw their riches reach new heights.

www.reuters.com

We are already experiencing inflation, and it's being ignored. That's a fact. And to ignore it is foolish. I am advocating the end of spending on this unprecedented scale because everything has a limit. These huge expenditures were partially warranted, but no more. This isn't a question of austerity. It's a question of watching an economy teeter on the brink. Lumber prices are sky high - not because of a miscalculation in demand, but because of a beetle. And gas is rising. Food is rising. Have you bought a bag of dog food lately?? And wealthy people will be able to afford what the poor and middle class cannot afford or they will ditch the nation. I posted the reuters article for you to peruse. I read it this morning. Thanks!!