|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 3, 2019 8:17:02 GMT -5
2 years ago. In 2017 it was raised again, as per usual, to 22 trillion $, and if we aren't there we are pretty close. Usually it has been historically raised to support our wars, and in 2017 the reason cited was hurricane Harvey. Ok. That can we kicked down the road in 1945 was the size of a sardine can,now it's more like an oil tank. More and stronger kicks are needed, and it's more noisy when it rolls along. link We may, just maybe mind you, we have a little spending Jones. Debt is slavery, and the erosion of our economy is not like a bear attack, but being nibbled to death by ducks is just as sure.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 3, 2019 9:04:17 GMT -5
The demand for debt ceiling is an outcome of other actions, so I don't find it independently indicative of anything. Congress establishes revenue and spending. The difference is the new debt demand. The new debt demand gets added to the debt ceiling because the Constitution says we pay our debts. Not raising the debt ceiling would cause a violation. All the debt ceiling increases tell you is Congress continues to spend more than it takes in. Which is independently illustrated.
The current ramp up in debt was a predictable result of the GOP's tax break for people who are already comfortably wealthy. Sometimes deficits matter, like when we want to do good things for people. Sometimes they don't, like when we want to have a war.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Mar 3, 2019 12:10:22 GMT -5
One big issue is that major policies, especially ones that add to the debt, are booby-trapped, on purpose. Since Bob brought it up I'll use that as an example. Dear Leader and Dear Party passed a massive tax cut for the wealthy under the usual auspices of the trickle-down economic model. We can argue the merits of that model later, but for now let's just agree that jobs have been created as a result because that's what the numbers show. President Sanders takes office and on Day 1 signs legislation to repeal those tax cuts. Ooof. Unemployment jumps and the house of cards falls, again, and there are huge costs involved that add to the debt. Oversimplification but I think pretty accurate in principle.
Similar to the PPACA. We can argue the merits of that law later, but for now let's just agree that the number of uninsured have been cut in half as a result because that's what the numbers show. Dear Leader and Dear Party campaigned on and promised to repeal it. What happened was not a lack of a replacement, because they lied about replacing it to begin with. What happened was the GOP knew what would happen if they repeal it. Ooof. The numbers on the uninsured return and exceed where they were prior to the law being enacted and the house of cards collapses.
Tear down and rebuild every 4-8 years is a big freaking problem. Add that to all the wars (the shooting kind, the trade kind, the drug kind, the illegal immigration kind, the nation building kind) and at some point we'll find that ceiling and it WILL come down not for us, but on us.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 12:22:18 GMT -5
"passed a massive tax cut for the wealthy under the usual auspices of the trickle-down economic model."
No, they didn't. They reduced the tariff on domestically produced goods. Corporate income taxes are tariffs on domestically produced goods. We, as customers, employees, and stockholders received these cuts, not "the rich."
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 12:43:07 GMT -5
Want to fix it? Repeal the income taxes. Whether they are replaced by tariffs and excise taxes, or are replaced by my favorite alternative the Fair Tax, their absence would break the cycle of "raise income taxes and nuke the economy causing widespread unemployment" and "lower income taxes and set fire to the economy, causing widespread prosperity." Income taxes are taxes on prosperity, and as Reagan et. al. have said in the past, "If you want less of something, tax it." The consumption tax can be raised and lowered and, at least, won't _just_ affect AMERICAN manufacturing, it will be also applied to foreign goods for sale. Tariffs would _only_ be applied to foreign goods for sale, which I think would be a very good thing for US industry. Any way you cut it, you can do a lot more by raising a consumption tax than you can by raising an income tax, because the consumption tax does NOT nuke our industries and cause widespread unemployment. It may be necessary to save longer for a particular bauble, like a new car, but of course there's no need to buy a NEW car, there's millions of USED cars for sale that get you to work just fine and would be tax-free (at least under the Fair Tax, and probably and tariff or excise tax system.) But as long as we're trying to do this with income taxes, I don't believe a balanced budget will happen. Clinton keeps taking credit for a balanced budget, yet the National Debt went up every year of his Presidency, which says there was no balanced budget, either that or they spent outside the budget. And of course Clinton had to eviscerate the military to do it, so when 9/11 happened and we had to go stick it to the perpetrators, our soldiers arrived with unarmored Humvees and lacking body armor in some cases. That was the Clinton Legacy, a military that did excessive dying because of skimping on expenses for troop protections.
The FairTax is essentially a luxury tax, since it doesn't even start taxing until you've spent all the money up to the poverty level - if you're single, that's about $1K a month, so your first $1K is tax-free under the FairTax. That pays for your (very meager, but life-sustaining) expenses, and then you start paying on your NEW items you buy at retail, and services. If you're poor, how many new items do you buy? TV? Prolly used. Car? Almost certainly used. Cell phone? Maybe used, maybe just a new, cheap flip phone. Raise the FairTax? It mostly doesn't affect you if you're poor. Only the middle class, and esp. the upper middle class, get tagged with it, and of course the rich, buying Caddys and Mercs and Lexus and building wildly expensive homes get to pay it, and they can afford it. Of course they're paying with income that has been relieved of income tax, so they can probably afford it with little inconvenience anyway.
Bottom line, its our tax system. We will never balance the budget by getting our revenue from income taxes, because raising them damages the economy and often lowers the revenues to the gov't.
Gosh, I just bought a $42K car with a $6K "extended warranty and service contract" for 150K mi and 5 years. $48K. FairTax would be $14,400. Of course I'd finance it. $48K financed for 7 years at the 3.8% I got it for would be $746.60 a month. $62,400 for 7 years would be $970.58. Of course, the $8500 a year income taxes I was paying would go to zero, so that would be $8500 / 12 = 708.33 more in my direct deposit every month. Am I going to notice the extra $223.98 for financing the taxes? Nope. With the FairTax, the consumer wins.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 3, 2019 13:49:07 GMT -5
Hey Kool-Aid, that's a delusional pile of garbage that will further isolate wealthy people from everyone else. More of that "removing the burden from those who benefit the most" bullshit you love. We don't need a 50% sales tax (you know it's so, the numbers, the numbers!) to make things right. We'd be way better off undoing the vandalism Reagan and co committed to our tax code.
Now take your meds!
|
|
|
Post by minx on Mar 3, 2019 13:50:34 GMT -5
And here we go yet again.....
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 3, 2019 13:51:34 GMT -5
Hey, you saw me ask him to quit dat schitt.
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 3, 2019 14:45:32 GMT -5
Bobby sang base, Rally sang tenor and we all would join right in there.
will the circle jerk be unbroken in the sky?
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 14:50:03 GMT -5
"We don't need a 50% sales tax (you know it's so, the numbers, the numbers!) to make things right."
We're spending a lotta money, so maybe we do.
The point is that it not stolen from you when you make it, you choose how much you pay in taxes. Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy the bauble. Remember, no tax on basic subsistence stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 14:51:05 GMT -5
And here we go yet again..... People keep repeating bullshit about "tax cuts for the rich" in front of me, its going to happen every time, 'cuz that's just a big fat lie.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 3, 2019 17:40:33 GMT -5
The mechanism for obtaining revenue is irrelevant in any case. Only if you believe with all your heart, and sprinkle a dash of fairy stardust, will the Congress gain the discipline to spend within the total revenue.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 19:38:32 GMT -5
The mechanism for obtaining revenue is irrelevant in any case. No, its not. Income taxes damage prosperity. Consumption taxes don't.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 3, 2019 20:28:41 GMT -5
"Only if you believe with all your heart, and sprinkle a dash of fairy stardust, will the Congress gain the discipline to spend within the total revenue."
Not possible, not now with things like Medicare and Social Security ballooning out of all proportion. We HAVE to service these, not doing so would kill a lotta people, and we need to also service the military or we're going to be in another war simply because some enemy perceives us as weak. After that, without touching those things, you have to nuke practically everything else, esp. since the interest on the debt is almost as large as the military spending. You simply can't cut that much, and you can't raise (income) taxes that high and expect to fund it because the income taxes will suppress the source of the tax, which is American prosperity, so... you're not going to balance the budget by cutting spending _OR_ raising taxes.
The only answer is to tax differently. Tariffs. Excises. FairTax. Pick 1, 2, or all 3. Just nuke the income taxes or you won't succeed.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 4, 2019 5:25:15 GMT -5
You must have a child's mind inside that skull if you imagine Congress won't spend more than they collect. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 9:56:10 GMT -5
You must have a child's mind inside that skull if you imagine Congress won't spend more than they collect. Duh. Well, they wouldn't if they collected enough, but they can never collect enough via income taxes. Income taxes are just a flawed method of raising revenue that as a time-tested record of failure. If you look here: www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287You can see that the last time that the National Debt did not increase was 1957. At that time there was no Medicare and a lot of other government expansion that requires far more $$$ today than then. That kind of $$$ has not been supplied by the income taxes since 1957. Income taxes are not capable of raising that much revenue. They are a flawed way of collecting taxes. If they are not abolished, there will never, ever be a balanced budget.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 4, 2019 10:10:03 GMT -5
I am telling you that no matter how big a pile of money you bring, Congress will spend more. Get it?
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 4, 2019 10:13:40 GMT -5
I think that the whole group needs to go to one of those team building camps, where we sit and hold hands and discuss what bothers us about each other. Then after about 6 shots of fireball, we can step up on a chair and fall back, depending on team members to catch us. I suggest we have this at Minx's house.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 10:24:20 GMT -5
I am telling you that no matter how big a pile of money you bring, Congress will spend more. Get it? Democrats would do that, yes, 'cuz they're communists now that want the state to do absolutely everything, get rid of the mean old industrialists and give industry entirely to the gov't to run, etc. That would spend all the money that the country has, yes. Otherwise, no, not if Republicans were running the gov't.
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 4, 2019 11:01:07 GMT -5
Where you went wrong here, Rally, is assuming congress is running the government. The federal reserve and it's embedded lobbyists, left and right, are calling the shots. Not one of them is elected, so you can't vote them out.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 4, 2019 11:02:12 GMT -5
Yep, democrats are commies and Rooskies are Good Ol' Boys. You dun lost your mind, Kool-Aid.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Mar 4, 2019 11:08:20 GMT -5
I just fail to see the benefit of exercises in futility, over and over and over and over,........
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Mar 4, 2019 11:11:56 GMT -5
I don't know why he went off on the Fantasy Tax when that has nothing to do with debt ceiling or anything that contributes to it. But for my part, I am like the noble Israeli soldier - forced by others, I have no choice in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Mar 4, 2019 11:35:52 GMT -5
There is no why therefore there can be no reason nor understanding. He's been repeating the same posts for at least 10 years so...... what did you expect?
As long as you guys understand that this isn't real discourse, then go ahead and keep swinging that insult stick even though the dead horse doesn't feel a thing, /and never will/ amen.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 11:37:33 GMT -5
Where you went wrong here, Rally, is assuming congress is running the government. The federal reserve and it's embedded lobbyists, left and right, are calling the shots. Not one of them is elected, so you can't vote them out. Well, Congress still appropriates the $$$ that the USA gov't spends.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 11:43:44 GMT -5
I don't know why he went off on the Fantasy Tax when that has nothing to do with debt ceiling or anything that contributes to it. But for my part, I am like the noble Israeli soldier - forced by others, I have no choice in the matter. Its more about bashing the income taxes this time. Its just that the FT is the natural best successor to the income taxes if we were ever wise enough to repeal them. The income taxes are absolutely incapable of raising enough money to fund the gov't at its spending levels since 1957, and should be abolished. President Kennedy said, ""“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 " That was only at the levels of $$$ raised by the income tax in 1963. Its gotten orders of magnitude worse since then. Kennedy lowered the income taxes, or Congress did after his death at his posthumous behest, but it was not enough to avoid borrowing then, it will never be enough, and we ought to repeal the income taxes as a failed endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 4, 2019 11:49:24 GMT -5
Congress was given the authority to issue money in the Constitution, but with the Federal Reserve Act, which they passed, turned that power over to a private banking cartel, and we are now forced to pay interest. But yes, they do appropriate it, but can't seem to develop any discipline or budget sense. The whole system hinges on who can appropriate the most pork for their constituants, in order to be elected again. Congress spends 100% of their time and efforts raising money for party funds and campaigning for the next election, no time for rational thought. It's gotten out of hand with no prioritization or accountability. I think you might even acknowledge that.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 12:11:09 GMT -5
Congress was given the authority to issue money in the Constitution, but with the Federal Reserve Act, which they passed, turned that power over to a private banking cartel, and we are now forced to pay interest. But yes, they do appropriate it, but can't seem to develop any discipline or budget sense. The whole system hinges on who can appropriate the most pork for their constituants, in order to be elected again. Congress spends 100% of their time and efforts raising money for party funds and campaigning for the next election, no time for rational thought. It's gotten out of hand with no prioritization or accountability. I think you might even acknowledge that. About 7 or 8 years ago, I downloaded the budget and, putting defense and Social Security / Medicare off limits for cutting, started eliminating entire agencies to balance the budget. I eliminated NASA, CDC, EPA, IRS, etc. etc. I stopped short of the FBI, and still hadn't balanced the budget by that time. Go ahead and try it. We either would have to kill a lot of people by cutting their SS or Medicare, or risk being killed by exposing ourselves by appearing militarily weak, which would induce enemies to attack us, thinking that they could win. So I held those 2 things as "uncuttable." Unfortunately, they are so huge that cutting almost everything else does no good. You can't balance the budget by cutting, not without killing a lot of people. Sooo... that's why I say that we're going to have to replace the income taxes as the method of revenue. You raise them, the revenues to the gov't go down eventually as the economy-suppressing effects of higher income tax take hold and damage it. You lower them, and revenues to the gov't go up, but can't go up far enough to match the necessary spending. We could maybe abolish SS & Medicare, require everyone on it to go back to work and earn whatever they can 'til they die, which would probably be "shortly," abolish the DoD and have a defense-only posture with the actual militia to repel invasions like Switzerland (there's a reason that Hitler bypassed this country in WW2, and it is that he would have gotten his ass kicked by the Swiss Militia and he knew it), and this might be cheap enough to be funded by the income taxes. But we wouldn't "enjoy" the benefits of liberty when we do it like that. Funding the gov't with consumption taxes would, I think, be the enjoyment of life that we desire, while avoiding further borrowing and as the economy grows rapidly from not taxing business, eventually be able to pay down the debt (over a really long time-frame, probably 100 years or better.)
|
|
|
Post by No. 1 son on Mar 4, 2019 13:54:58 GMT -5
Put defense back in the mix, try to separate world conquest from true defense of the nation, and re crunch your numbers.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Mar 4, 2019 14:27:21 GMT -5
Put defense back in the mix, try to separate world conquest from true defense of the nation, and re crunch your numbers. When did we last conquer anything? I mean, invade, seize the land, steal the resources. We don't do that. We invade, kick the corrupt and murderous that are in charge, and then give the place back to the inhabitants. This might be a mistake, but that's what we do. We don't conquer. The thing is, not doing so may be a basket of unintended consequences. US military might and US leadership have prevented nuclear war for... forever since WW2. What if we didn't do the military thing? Would it be OK if Russia puts a nuclear submarine every 50 miles off both our coasts, just stations them there? How about multiple carrier groups, just steaming back and forth off our coasts? What if we don't oppose evil all over the world? Nobody else will, as we now know from Obama deciding to mostly not do it, no one else stepped forward to oppose the bad guys where we didn't. Imagine if we simply pull back to our borders. Everyone that we're protecting suddenly feels insecure. What do you think they will do? That's right, they'll raise armies. What then? Do they just sit there opposing the Russkies and the Chinks, or do they... fall to fighting each other? Does Germany march on Poland, France, Belgium, etc. AGAIN? If not, why not? Our influence has kept these people mostly devoid of their own forces except for France and England, and kept them focused on the former Soviet Union countries. Therefore, nothing happened, at least nothing nuclear. What happens if we draw back to our borders? Nuclear war between the children that we've been herding about, keeping a lid on since the end of WW2? Probably. Can we take that chance? I don't think so. So, we spend >$700B. Is it worth it? I think so. Better we overhaul the tax system, and pony up that $$$ that we need to do what is best for the world, and that is US leadership. We need guns to be able to lead. They cost money. I don't really see a long-term alternative but to do what we've been doing.
|
|