• 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!

Tax and Spend and Spend and Spend some more

The recession has been over for 9 months. Who is going to pay for all this spending? 30 trillion in debt, 2-3 trillion deficits. And they just got started.
Business all over the country are still shut down by mostly Democrat governors.
 
My problem with the infrastructure plan is that unless we include some major reforms on permit approvals, purchasing, and how these jobs are ran, it's pointless. When we spend over 5 times more a mile to put in a subway than they do in France, and when we take 5 years to do what China gets done in less than 6 months, it's pretty damn pointless to throw a ton of money at infrastructure. Reforming this nation's unproductive business culture that has cropped up over the last 25 years or so has to be part of it.

American business today is largely a pyramid scheme where for every employee that actually produces something, there are 5 or more product managers, project managers, user experience specialists, marketers and so on. That is why we are getting our economic asses handed to us by China. A 3.5 mile extension of our street car system here in KC is a 5 year project. In 5 years, China put in over 30,000 kilometers of high speed rail. We have a new terminal going in at KCI, its a 4 year project. China built Shanghai's Pudong International Airport in less than 2 years, and they had to reclaim land from the sea to do it. A building put in less than 6 months in China will be a minimum of a 3 year project here. Not that long ago, it wasn't like this in this country, and the reason for it is not the government, it's our grift based business culture. We have tons of people in this country that work 40 hours a week and do nothing product for the economy or the company they work for. It's why GDP growth in this country has been anemic for better than 15 years now. If we don't do something about our unproductive business culture, a huge infrastructure bill is pointless.
 
Last edited:
You made a bullshit claim, I am asking you to prove your own claim.
Dispute it factually if you can.

But for a start, here you go. Most conservatives did not support those pre COVID wile eyed spending bills.

Oops. Now admit that you are wrong. Chances are you're too prideful to do that.

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/3/15524398/house-pass-spending-bill-gop-hates


 
Last edited:
Increases in tax rates does not result in revenue increases. If you want a slower economy, you increase taxes.
Government spending is incorporated into gdp; therefore, the only logical conclusion we can derive from your statement is you support borrowing and spending for maximizing gdp growth.

but that statement you made is in no way fiscal conservative or responsible.
 
Nothing they should pass as much of their stuff as possible before the GOP can get in charge to do the same thing.

EDIT They should work with the GOP on a bill that would raise taxes. If the GOP refuses to work on that bill, they should abandon it.

So then fiscal irresponsiblity is ok? Big govt, big spending is ok? Big taxation is ok?
 
So then fiscal irresponsiblity is ok? Big govt, big spending is ok? Big taxation is ok?
Why should one party (Dems) be fiscally responsible when the other party (GOP) is fiscally irresponsible? What advantage will that give them? The people most adamant about being physically responsible wont vote for them anyways. We’re trapped in a prisoners dilemma here of the GOPs making.

If you’re going to spend, you had better tax; that’s being fiscally responsible.
 
Why should one party (Dems) be fiscally responsible when the other party (GOP) is fiscally irresponsible? What advantage will that give them? The people most adamant about being physically responsible wont vote for them anyways. We’re trapped in a prisoners dilemma here of the GOPs making.

LOL, you are a dog with a bone on changing the subject to Republicans. I give up.
 
Doesnt matter. The govt is still getting 300bn a month in revenue. Spending 450bn a month is the problem.
The problem is that they are spending more than they take in, but the solution is the raise taxes and cut spending. We can debate about where to raise taxes and cut spending but that is the solution.
 
LOL, you are a dog with a bone on changing the subject to Republicans. I give up.
Because they caused this mess. I am sick of them saying we need to cut spending one they refused to cut spending and lower taxes making the problem worse. I do not play this abusive relationship game with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpn
So then fiscal irresponsiblity is ok? Big govt, big spending is ok? Big taxation is ok?
Was the Erie Canal okay? Was the electrification of Tennessee okay? Was the interstate freeway system okay? Was the funding of NASA which launched the computer revolution okay?

Business rides on the back of government. Nations with strong, reliable infrastructure enjoy many benefits and competitive advantages.

The "Reagan Revolution" has run its course. Starving government is a loser. Time to start winning again.
 
My problem with the infrastructure plan is that unless we include some major reforms on permit approvals, purchasing, and how these jobs are ran, it's pointless.
I'm not sure your assertions are correct, but we can always do with more efficiency as long as the social and environmental costs of these improvements are accounted for.
So, how would we do that?
Government regulation and supervision of business? Federal regulation of state government? State regulation of local government?
Increase competition between businesses by government cracking down on monopolies?
Other ideas?
 
The problem is that they are spending more than they take in, but the solution is the raise taxes and cut spending. We can debate about where to raise taxes and cut spending but that is the solution.
I'm for raising taxes, but not cutting spending. We've spent the last forty years starving government. It's not going well.

The federal government has run deficits almost every year since WWII. What's important is not the face value of the debt, but rather our net interest payments.
Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYOIGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed
 
I'm not sure your assertions are correct, but we can always do with more efficiency as long as the social and environmental costs of these improvements are accounted for.
So, how would we do that?
Government regulation and supervision of business? Federal regulation of state government? State regulation of local government?
Increase competition between businesses by government cracking down on monopolies?
Other ideas?

I think we have over regulated in some areas. However, I also think that there needs to be a lot of reform in terms of procurement. For example, requiring all "buy American" on infrastructure projects is ridiculous. We should be like any other country or business and buy the best product for our needs regardless of where it is made. We also need to look at company structure when we take bids for work. Example: How many engineers and tradesmen do they have working there relative to everyone else? If a company isn't engineering led, then we shouldn't take the bid no matter how cheap they come in because its a given there are going tons of delays and cost overruns with them. Fly to any other developed nation, the first thing you notice, from the moment you step into the airports, is that their infrastructure is better. There is a reason for that.
 
They ARE having problems.
So... You linked to an article that didn't actually name any of the nations at risk? That's handy

I found the report. I have not read it in detail; however, it identifies and focuses on 19 nations that are "severely vulnerable," which includes countries like Angola, Gabon, Zambia, Venezuela, Lebanon, Somalia, Belize, and so on.

Several of these nations have fairly low (official) debt-to-GDP ratios, such as Gabon (58%), Ecuador (49%), Zimbabwe (20%), DR Congo (14%). I.e. the problem for some of these nations isn't that they were profligate with government spending for decades. More likely is that COVID, general instability, violent conflict, recovering from conflicts, and/or previous debt issues put them at risk of defaulting in the next decade. Given that default is a pretty routine occurrence, this is kind of in the "dog bites man" category.

Oddly enough, many nations with the highest debt-to-GDP ratio -- like Japan (237%), Greece (174%), Italy (133%), Singapore (109%), and the US (106%) aren't on the list.

Another oddity? The report doesn't actually discuss the harm caused by those debts or defaults. I'm certainly not saying that "this means the UN does not believe that default causes harms" -- far from it. It's more that the report doesn't answer the question of "what harm has federal debt caused for advanced nations like the US, Japan, Italy or Singapore?"


As to Montengro? For many years, China has been offering huge loans for infrastructure projects with many developing nations, with tons of strings attached. Many nations are having problems, because they somehow assumed that China was going to behave like other lending nations or institutions. Nope, China has frequently required that they use Chinese contractors, or demanded control of the project if the nation can't pay. In contrast, loans from other nations or institutions aren't structured this way.

However, it's not clear what the harm is here, other than the highway not being finished, or China exerting undue influence over Montenegro. For example, China's "Belt and Road Initiative" was heavily criticized for using a heavy hand in Sri Lanka; when the Hambantota port (built with Chinese loans and engineers) underperformed, SR couldn't pay back the loans. Sri Lanka decided to sell 80% of the port, which was bought by China Merchants Port (a Hong Kong company partly owned by the Chinese government). Although it initially looked like a raw deal for SR, the port quickly turned around and is now a success, is well positioned for future success, and SR decided in 2014 to build another seaport... with Chinese loans and support. There is a lot of reason to be suspicious of Chinese debt traps, but they may not be anywhere near as bad as often assumed.

Anyway. Needless to say, Montenegro is very different than the US. It's tiny; its tax revenues are much lower; it doesn't have the wherewithal to tell China to sod off; it has exposed itself to a bad deal with China; it has a lot of restrictions on fiscal policy because it's trying to join the EU; there are no strings attached when China buys US debt, and so on.

The list of ways that the nations at risk are vastly different than the US goes on.

If I gave the impression that "no government has, or ever will have a problem, with debt" then I will cheerily be corrected. It should be pretty obvious I don't hold that view, as I've discussed default and examples like Greece, but that's OK. Thus to clarify, my position is: Federal debt is not a serious problem for the United States, or many other advanced nations, even those with very high debt-to-GDP ratios.

So. Japan has a debt-to-GDP ratio over twice that of the US. Why aren't they on the verge of disaster? Why aren't they at risk? What problems have they had which are directly and primarily attributable to their high government debt?
 
Because they caused this mess. I am sick of them saying we need to cut spending one they refused to cut spending and lower taxes making the problem worse. I do not play this abusive relationship game with them.

Cool, when youre ready to discuss the present, let me know.
 
The problem is that they are spending more than they take in, but the solution is the raise taxes and cut spending. We can debate about where to raise taxes and cut spending but that is the solution.

Then lets debate THAT, not Republicans. You ready to do that yet?
 
Oh stop. Just stop.

Stop pretending you give a **** about the budget. ALl of you. You are as likely to bitch about government spending when its the 'other guys' as they are about you'. Just stop. You have already continued to vote for the same people that have put your grandkids into a massive debt shithole and cheered wildly...as long as it was your guys doing the spending. So...stop. Its enough.

I have certainly been 'converted'. I dont resist governemnt spending anymore. Hell...firgive every student loan debt. Forgive every home mortgage payment. Forgive all credit card debt. You want a 'great reset'? You want economic stimulus? Tahts economic stimulus for yer ass right there. Just wipe the slate clean and let EVERYONE spend like...well...congressmen.
 
And you had the audacity to post "Are you seriously suggesting that "2% inflation rate" means that every possible category of spending only increased by 2%? C'mon, man."
sigh

Y'know, at this point it seems like you're just arguing to argue. It also seems an awful lot like you just want to slash social spending to near-zero, even if the debt-to-GDP ratio was 25%. 🤷‍♂️

So, I'm just going to ask again: What are the harms that you claim will happen to the US as a result of debt?

What is the evidence that led you to that conclusion?

Why haven't we seen those issues after 40 years of rising debts?

And why haven't advanced nations with double the debt-to-GDP ratio of the US had those problems?
 
Fly to any other developed nation, the first thing you notice, from the moment you step into the airports, is that their infrastructure is better. There is a reason for that.
Yes there is. The reason is that they invest more money.

In terms of government spending as percentage of GDP the U.S. is near the bottom of industrialized nations, despite spending far more on defense than most.
With the exception of about forty years from the New Deal to the 1970s, the U.S. has had a weaker commitment to public goods than every country that possesses anywhere near our wealth.

In those forty post-war years we built the infrastructure we have relied on ever since. It's time to build again.

And yet when anyone proposes spending more money, all we hear are arguments against it. We're not efficient enough. It's not really "infrastructure." We can't afford it but we also can't raise taxes to pay for it. Can't, can't, can't.
 
Yes there is. The reason is that they invest more money.

In terms of government spending as percentage of GDP the U.S. is near the bottom of industrialized nations, despite spending far more on defense than most.
With the exception of about forty years from the New Deal to the 1970s, the U.S. has had a weaker commitment to public goods than every country that possesses anywhere near our wealth.

In those forty post-war years we built the infrastructure we have relied on ever since. It's time to build again.

And yet when anyone proposes spending more money, all we hear are arguments against it. We're not efficient enough. It's not really "infrastructure." We can't afford it but we also can't raise taxes to pay for it. Can't, can't, can't.

I am all for spending more on infrastructure. My point is, that the plan is very broad, so why not include provisions that increase efficiency, reduce the amount of time it takes to get permitting approvals, and reform procurement? When you can put in subway lines in Paris for a 5th of the cost of doing it here, we have a problem.
 
I am all for spending more on infrastructure. My point is, that the plan is very broad, so why not include provisions that increase efficiency, reduce the amount of time it takes to get permitting approvals, and reform procurement? When you can put in subway lines in Paris for a 5th of the cost of doing it here, we have a problem.
Why do you assume it won't? The actual law won't be ready for months. Lots of time to build suitable controls into the broad goals outlined in the plan. As for subway lines in Paris, I'd like to see a detailed explanation of the differing costs and why there is a difference. I'll bet a great deal of it has to do with intrinsic factors unrelated to permits and procurement. I have heard alarming anecdotes regarding bureaucracy in France.
 
Back
Top Bottom