We Have a Spending Problem

[James972]

oh look, jonny blames democrat states for republicans failure to even attempt to balance the budget.

actually, politicians don't attempt anything. before the final vote they do preliminary votes to determine whether to proceed to a final vote. Do you understand?

 

[James972]

So, it was liberals that shipped the jobs overseas, huh? How someone can be so brainwashed.

yes liberal taxes regulations and unions shipped 10 million jobs off shore, then liberals invited in 30 million illegals to take what was left and bid down wages even further. Do you understand now?

 

[James972]

Its pathetic because you again don't hold republicans accountable for being flaming lying hypocrites concerning deficits.

this liberal would love to see Republicans commit political suicide by insisting on balanced budget when their voters don't support it.

 

[MTAtech]

yes liberal taxes regulations and unions shipped 10 million jobs off shore, then liberals invited in 30 million illegals to take what was left and bid down wages even further. Do you understand now?

First, effective corporate taxes in the U.S. aren't especially high.

Second, if you are saying that unions fighting for a living wage is a bad thing and workers should work for a dollar a dollar like China, I don't think you have lots of popular support. To some extent, corporations have fled due to labor costs -- but Republicans in Congress encourage outsourcing.
Third, Americans aren't losing jobs to foreigners. May I remind you that the economy is at or near full employment and unemployment is a 4.1%. Moreover, Americans are losing more jobs to the microchip, not foreigners. It used to take 25,000 workers to make a year's worth of cars. Now it takes 5,000 workers. That's why manufacturing is down from the 1970s.

But your narrative that manufacturing jobs are down, is as phony as Trump University.

 

[James972]

First, effective corporate taxes in the U.S. aren't especially high.

who cares about effective rates when we are obviously talking about the statutory rates, not the effective rates you get by moving off shore to qualify for the effective rate!! You have learned this 11 times. Must we go for 12?

 

[James972]

Second, if you are saying that unions fighting for a living wage is a bad thing and workers should work for a dollar a dollar like China, I don't think you have lots of popular support. ]

obviously saying that unions drove wages up unemploying themselves and pushing their jobs off shore being too stupid to see what they were doing. They didn't get a living wage they got no wage. Can you grasp this?

 

[James972]

Third, Americans aren't losing jobs to foreigners.

what planet have you been on?? Its in the papers every day. Trump was elected president to stop job loss offshore. In 1975 95% of American cars were made in America. Today its 35%. Do you grasp this at all??Do you know about China and manufacturing??? OMG!!

 

[MTAtech]

who cares about effective rates when we are obviously talking about the statutory rates, not the effective rates you get by moving off shore to qualify for the effective rate!! You have learned this 11 times. Must we go for 12?

Because effective rates are what corporations actually pay. Who cares what the statutory rate is if after credits and deductions, the firm pays only fraction?

I'm beginning to believe that you are have no interest in debating the facts, but are instead either a hired shill or a Russian bot. Nobody would make the absurd argument that you made in this post.

 

[MTAtech]

what planet have you been on?? Its in the papers every day. Trump was elected president to stop job loss offshore. In 1975 95% of American cars were made in America. Today its 35%. Do you grasp this at all??

Yes indeed. People know, just know, all kinds of things that are just false. I also think you pulled that 35% number from thin air.

 

[James972]

Because effective rates are what corporations actually pay. Who cares what the statutory rate is if after credits and deductions, t.

yes they pay little because they move offshore to qualify for lower effective rates thus liberal taxes drive them offshore. Very stupid policy right? Still not grasp it?

 

[James972]

Yes indeed. People, know, just know, all kinds of things that are just false. I also think you pulled that 35% number from thin air.

exactly, China does not make our iphones and manufacture millions of other things!! These day most things are manufactured in Portugal- right?

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, I know. Duh. But let me break it down for you.

-In FY2017, the federal govt collected 3.32 trillion dollars. It spent 3.99 trillion.

The two largest outlays are
-Social Security - 934bn
-Medicare - 678bn

Luckily these have direct taxes which pay for part of them, 1200bn. This covers Social Security, and Medicare Part A (hospitals).

Unfortunately there is also
-part B (insurance) which is funded almost entirely from federal income tax, 235bn
-part D (drugs) which is 80% funded by FIT, 82bn

But, we havent even gotten through all the mandatory spending yet, which consumes almost every other dollar of general revenue, (1500bn FIT, 300bn corporate, 300bn excises and other.)

Medicaid - 375bn
Income security - 300bn
Federal pensions - 163bn
Veterans programs - 106bn
Other mandatory - 120bn
Interest - 300bn

So, just mandatory alone consumes all of payroll tax, and about 1700bn of general revenue. Thats about 2800bn, leaving about 400bn for all other functions of govt. And we spend too much on that as well.

Defense-600bn
Justice-64bn
Science-30bn
Energy-8bn
Foreign Affairs-46bn
Environment - 42bn
Agriculture-25bn
Commerce-16bn
Transportation-92bn
Community Development - 28bn
Education - 113bn
General Govt - 24bn
Veterans - 70bn


So, another way to look at it is, we have more than enough general revenue (2100bn) to pay for all the main functions of govt (1200bn), and enough payroll taxes (1200bn) to pay for Social Security and Hospitals (1200bn), and even a little left over (900bn) to pay for Veterans, Federal Pensions, and interest, but we have to borrow to pay for welfare.

lol. Providing for the general welfare is a main function of government.

 

[Critter7r]

do you have a good example of this pretend confusion?

Yes.

You.

 

[PeteEU]

I think I was thinking of Household Debt. But thanks for the correction!

Have to be a tad careful there. Denmark is world leader in household debt in % of disposable income, but to me as a Dane it does not make sense because we dont take out personal loans like a crack addict. So what gives.... well for one, it comes down to "debt in % of disposable income" bit. That means tax rates have a huge impact on the numbers... and yes here Denmark are a world leader in tax rates.

Now if you look at household debt vs GDP, then the numbers are a tad different. Sure Denmark, and the Swiss are on top yet again, but with far more manageable numbers relative to the other statistic. But saying that, I suspect that the very definition of "household" debt is an issue as well. Part of the definition is this.

According to the 1993 System of National Accounts, debt is thus obtained as the sum of the following liability categories, whenever available/applicable in the financial balance sheet of the households and non-profit institutions serving households sector,

The last highlighted part is the one that worries me. What the hell is that? My reasoning is, that quite a few financial institutions serving the "households" are technically non-profits in Denmark. It is not the first time that a definition issue has put Denmark at the top of a list... just look at vehicle theft statistics... we rocking the nr 1 spot!!.. why? Because a bicycle is considered a vehicle in Denmark...

 

[jonny5]

What's a real problem for your quality of life is a whether or not there's a healthy economy, advanced medical and scientific research, good infrastructure, jobs with living wages, a good economic environment for a small business, etc. All of that is contingent upon public funding, either because vital parts of those are necessarily supported by public funding, or else because they're completely publicly owned and funded.

It's just a neoliberal/libertarian fantasy that you can have a first-world, scientifically advanced civilization that doesn't have a large amount of publicly funded and/or publicly owned institutions. It's why the Koch brothers argue that no one should get government funding for their enterprises --everyone except for the billions that their industry takes in in subsidies and publicly-funded scientific and engineering research into the oil and coal industry. Then, apparently, it's okay to use billions in public funds.

Who cares what they think? I certainly dont.

 

[jonny5]

lol. Providing for the general welfare is a main function of government.

General being the key word, and within the limits specified in the constitution which immediately follow that clause.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I dont see healthcare, retirement, basic income, or any of the trillions of other dollars we spend in there.

 

[jonny5]

Except that about half of the debt is Intragovernmental Holdings -- the portion of the federal debt owed to 230 other federal agencies. It totals $5.6 trillion, almost 30 percent of the debt. The rest of the money is either owed to other Americans, of which the interest is income to them, or foreigners. Foreign are owed $6.004 trillion, as of December 2016.

And??

 

[jonny5]

Yeah, over 600 billion on the miltary

Certainly part of the problem. What about the other 3.5 trillion we spend?

 

[MTAtech]

Except that about half of the debt is Intragovernmental Holdings -- the portion of the federal debt owed to 230 other federal agencies. It totals $5.6 trillion, almost 30 percent of the debt. The rest of the money is either owed to other Americans, of which the interest is income to them, or foreigners. Foreign are owed $6.004 trillion, as of December 2016.

And??

Didn't realize that I had to spell it out for you.

My post directly contradicts your assertion that the money is owed to China. About half is one part of the gov't owing another part and a large part of what is left is owed to other Americans.

 

[danielpalos]

General being the key word, and within the limits specified in the constitution which immediately follow that clause.



I dont see healthcare, retirement, basic income, or any of the trillions of other dollars we spend in there.

lol. General means Comprehensive, not major, specific, or common.

 

[jonny5]

Didn't realize that I had to spell it out for you.

My post directly contradicts your assertion that the money is owed to China. About half is one part of the gov't owing another part and a large part of what is left is owed to other Americans.

I said some was owed to China. Its a fact.

 

[Critter7r]

I said some was owed to China. Its a fact.

Well ... you said 30% goes to China. Roughly 30% goes to foreigners, but China is only a portion of that.

 

[jonny5]

lol. General means Comprehensive, not major, specific, or common.

lol. General means affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread. In the constitution it specifically meant the powers which followed. Or so the Father of the Constitution said...

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

 

[jonny5]

Well ... you said 30% goes to China. Roughly 30% goes to foreigners, but China is only a portion of that.

If you want to be exact, we pay at least 80million a day in interest to China.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. General means affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread. In the constitution it specifically meant the powers which followed. Or so the Father of the Constitution said...

Just typical right wing, cluelessness and Causelessness.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.