- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 4,105
- Reaction score
- 2,175
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Heck, go back to 1980 when the debt was just cresting $1 trillion and ask people at that time to imagine the US in near $37 trillion in debt they would have imagined near everyone shackled to a machine in some dystopian world where the nations cities are all crumbling and it's military and other assets sit rusting and unused. And yet, here we are still at the top of the world in many respects, not withstanding recent events.Back in 1946, the idea that we'd have a $30 trillion economy was considered science fiction.
I used to be a big "lets figure out how to pay down the national debt" guy
now?
now I'm a "stop taxing people's income" guy because the ONLY way out of $37 trillion and climbing national debt is default
that's it - period, end of story so might as well run that debt to $100 trillion
So you are a big “let’s do something foolish and destroy the country” guy now. Yes, that tracks.
massive debt is GOOD
have you not listened to liberals? run that debt to $100 trillion, make NO cuts to spending or reduce Govt anything
spend
spend
spend
spend
very few people care about the national debt anymore and me? I have given up. At 15 trillion it might could have been tackled. At 37 trillion? its a runaway train and it will never stop until it hits something very big and hard and so might as well let it run 500 mph
massive debt is GOOD
have you not listened to liberals? run that debt to $100 trillion, make NO cuts to spending or reduce Govt anything
spend
spend
spend
spend
very few people care about the national debt anymore and me? I have given up. At 15 trillion it might could have been tackled. At 37 trillion? its a runaway train and it will never stop until it hits something very big and hard and so might as well let it run 500 mph
At least when it comes to receiving government largesse, there isn’t much difference between today’s “liberal” and “conservative.” The “liberal” likes “helping” the needy by having government relieve “the rich” of their burden of having so much money, while the “conservative” likes taking government money that he “earned” or is otherwise entitled to.
What they both have in common is their legislators, who are eager to get re-elected, know the real score: much of this spending will be paid for by reducing the real cost of the accumulated debt by debasing the dollar. I mean, take a “conservative” Iowa or Wisconsin Republican farmer and American Legion post member and ask him if he wants to cut his agricultural subsidies and FCIC crop insurance; subsidized FSA and Farmer MAC loans; Social Security, Medicare, and VA benefits; military retirement pension; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases of his cheese, eggs, beef, pork, vegetables, and other farm products; federally-subsidized NFIP insurance; FEMA disaster aid; access to cheap foreign migrant labor; etc. This guy would be completely unrecognizable by the Founding Fathers. But, unlike the liberal, at least he’ll hold his own when it comes to inflation because government has allowed him to keep and operate a farm that in a free market would have gone bust a long time ago.
everybody wants spending cuts
not THEIR spending ... other people's spending ... and that's the problem
everybody wants spending cuts
not THEIR spending ... other people's spending ... and that's the problem
The problem is wanting spending cuts at all. It is a false concern always used for political power purposes, not due to any real problems with government spending.
$37 trillion isn't a real problem ?
No, it isn’t. Next question.
No, it isn’t. Next question.
No, it isn’t. Next question.
fantastic - stop taxing people's wages then and let that $37 trillion go to $50 to 80 trillion its not a problem, right ?
Nope. Still need tax revenue to pay for things.
Trump's goal is to eliminate Income Taxes for people earning less than $150k per year.
Eliminating taxes for people who earn less than $150,000 would effectively eliminate taxes for the vast majority of the country’s population.
Individual Income Taxes are the largest source of revenue for the U.S. government. So far in fiscal year 2025, individuals have paid $1.14 trillion in taxes, which is 51% of the total tax revenue collected, according to the Department of Treasury.
The Trump administration’s attempts to replace income taxes with import taxes is more likely to benefit high-income households rather than lower- or middle-income ones.
“We’re going to make a lot of money, and we’re going to cut taxes for the people of this country,” - Trump
source: https://moneywise.com/taxes/trumps-...-no-tax-for-people-making-under-150000-a-year
I just wish Trump would slightly raise the no-tax cutoff point to $162k/year.
The percentage of (total) annual federal spending required to pay interest on the national debt is now about 16% and growing.
fantastic - stop taxing people's wages then and let that $37 trillion go to $50 to 80 trillion its not a problem, right ?
How high do the interest payments have to get before you would consider it to be a real problem?
It will be about $1 trillion by 2026 and over $2 trillion by 2034. Interest payments on the debt are the fastest growing expense in the federal budget.
LolololololololThe tariffs only 'cost' us if if the retards on the left manage to convince the other countries to dig in and fight and outlast Trump. To which I would say...well done...retards...you 'won'.
Because other countries can't to do anything unless Americans tell them to? You do flatter yourselves.The tariffs only 'cost' us if if the retards on the left manage to convince the other countries to dig in and fight and outlast Trump. To which I would say...well done...retards...you 'won'.
The country is not in debt, but it is pushing dollars (more treasuries, really) into the economy via interest payments.
The national sales tax will just be on new retail goods? (lumber, patio stones, paint) How about utilities?(natural gas, electricity, water/wastewater) Services? (plumbing, music lessons, realtor services etc) Used stuff from a thrift store? Used vehicles/implements?No, just retail goods would be subject to the NST. Foods sold in the grocery stores would be exempt from a National Sales Tax, but your $71 filet mignon at the fancy restaurant WOULD be taxed.
Yes. I've heard that argument, too. It's a bad argument because poorer people buy less expensive products, so naturally their net NST would be substantially lower.
then $100 trillion would even be better !
Yes.The national sales tax will just be on new retail goods? (lumber, patio stones, paint)
These things are services - not retail goods.How about utilities?(natural gas, electricity, water/wastewater) Services?
Services would not be taxed. (the plumber will pay NST on his tools and supplies, and he can pass that burden on his customers by raising his fees)(plumbing, music lessons, realtor services etc)
"Used", "second-hand" or "pre-owned" goods would not be subject to NST, since they were already taxed when purchased new. No used goods of any kind would be subject to NST.Used stuff from a thrift store? Used vehicles/implements?
Yes, but low income people (typically) buy less expensive goods that wealthy people, so they would pay less in NSTs.The sales tax regressive argument comes from low-income people paying more of their income for "necessary" stuff than higher-income people.
*A country with its own currency has the power to create and spend that currency as they see fit.
*Bond issuance by such a country is not akin to household-type debt, and is not a true borrowing situation.
*Paying any amount of interest does not make it more difficult for the government to spend in the future.
*Sovereign debt does not need to be extinguished. We use it as savings and money.
The country is not in debt, but it is pushing dollars (more treasuries, really) into the economy via interest payments.
Yes, but not without consequences. Creating money without corresponding increases in real output can lead to inflation.
Zimbabwe and Venezuela both had sovereign currencies. Didn't go so great.
But a bond is still a promise to pay. The government does rely on markets to absorb its debt - unless the central bank monetizes it, and again, that means the risk of inflation.
Interest on the debt is already crowding out other spending. Furthermore investors who buy treasuries are using money that could have otherwise been invested productively in the private sector, instead of being wasted in the public sector.
At least until investors lose confidence.
Semantics. If you owe someone a payment in the future, you’re in debt, end of story. Interest payments aren’t just "pushing dollars", they are a form of redistribution to the wealthy - a group which you people supposedly hate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?