Let's Run Government On Credit; And Not Collect Enough Taxes - It'll Be Great!

cawacko said:
Uh-oh Poli. You're falling victim to the board where people get so frustrated arguing with each other on a daily basis they revert to semi-trolling. Outside of maybe some anarchists, no one argues for no regulations. It's the ultimate strawman. But God forbid anyone look to roll back any regulations it must mean they want zero regulations right? (and this leaves aside you complain about inequality and lack of opportunity but support regulations that enable it)

And regarding the debt the number one thing the federal government spends money on is entitlements. You complain about debt but you melt down anytime entitlement reform is mentioned. Now there's nothing wrong with calling out the hypocrisy of Republicans who only care about fiscal conservatism when they don't control the Presidency. But don't pretend you care about debt. Like many Republicans, you don't care about spending unless it's spending done by your 'opposition'.
Click to expand...

we are all now Kenseyans now



I remember when the crash happened for a SECOND you actually admitted what your party did
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Jack,



Didn't blame old white men. Merely showed they can make mistakes. Doesn't mean that all old white men do. But the ones who cannot admit, nor learn from, their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
Click to expand...

You are needlessly diverting your 'Message' by throwing in a Politically Correct 'old white men'. (makes you sound like a left-wing Stooge)
 
all the right here did for one second in time


the FEAR of their asses LOSING EVERYTHING shock their head clear for a very short time
 
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
You never mentioned deficit until this post. You spoke about debt. I'll repeat the largest federal spending is on entitlements and the military. If you want to address spending we must hit those areas first.
Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Most people's personal budgets have one very large spending item which they certainly must not eliminate: housing. Somethings are necessary. A country is nothing without her people. People are what make up a country. If you want to take care of the country you have to make sure the people are OK. Most nations get this. The ones that don't fail.

cawacko said:
If you're just making a partisan rant then tell Pelosi to step up and make it an issue. She had no concern with the last budget because she got the spending she wanted. And I see the candidates you are supporting like Bernie and they don't care about the debt either. Look up MMT and its beliefs.

If you really care about the debt start supporting Libertarians. They are the only ones who will do anything about it. However you don't get elected to office by saying you will cut spending.
Click to expand...

This presumes that the only way to balance the federal budget is to cut spending.

Wrong again!

Increase revenue. That will do it in a heartbeat.

And the super-rich can afford it without batting an eye or giving up any caviar:

 
The only way to elevate the republican ideas is to LIE


so the slaves and stupid ones lie all day long
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello cawacko,



No, that's wrong. Most people's personal budgets have one very large spending item which they certainly must not eliminate: housing. Somethings are necessary. A country is nothing without her people. People are what make up a country. If you want to take care of the country you have to make sure the people are OK. Most nations get this. The ones that don't fail.



This presumes that the only way to balance the federal budget is to cut spending.

Wrong again!

Increase revenue. That will do it in a heartbeat.

And the super-rich can afford it without batting an eye or giving up any caviar:

Click to expand...

It's rather contradictory to say you are concerned about debt but don't want to address the biggest driver of it.

I do appreciate your supply side coming out saying if we grow the economy (revenue) then that will address the deficits and debt. However growing revenue doesn't work if you continue to spend at a faster pace.
 
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
It's rather contradictory to say you are concerned about debt but don't want to address the biggest driver of it.
Click to expand...

Not really, because that is solely a Republican assessment of it. The Republican tax cut nearly double the deficit, resulting in far quicker rise of the debt. So really, one of the biggest drivers of the recent debt has been the Republican tax cut for the rich.

cawacko said:
I do appreciate your supply side coming out saying if we grow the economy (revenue) then that will address the deficits and debt. However growing revenue doesn't work if you continue to spend at a faster pace.
Click to expand...

I agree growing the economy produces more revenue. Republicans claimed the tax cut would grow the economy so much that it would more than pay for itself and actually result in reducing the deficit. Remember, the deficit must be reduced to zero before the debt stops growing. Currently, the economy is not paying for the government we already have. There are no easy cuts which can be made to spending which would not directly and adversely impact the economy. You take away entitlements and you take away the income those people use to spend in the economy. And most of that is spent very quickly. That removes a lot of business from the economy by cutting that. It's not like you can kill that economic activity and expect no downturn in overall economy activity, ie the GDP.

Most entitlements go directly into the GDP.

Any entitlements cuts can be seen as GDP cuts.

And that results in cuts to revenue as well.

Those darn unintended consequences.

But if taxes are raised on the rich, that doesn't cut the GDP.

They just sell some stock maybe. Somebody else buys it. No loss of business start-ups or expansions. Businesses have plenty of money for that. That's why they are doing stock buy-backs.

Nope. Entitlement cuts are a bad idea gone worse.

The best way to get control of this runaway debt problem is to tax the rich more. And since they have exponentially more money than they ever need, they can afford it without batting an eye. Won't affect their lifestyle at all. Except maybe not so many of them would be buying so many additional investment properties in San Francisco and running the property values out of reach to the common man there.
 
PoliTalker said:
What could possibly go wrong?

Debt is just a word, right?

We're old white men. We don't care. We'll be dead when the bill comes due.

Besides. We've got you fooled that this economy can last forever like this!

Enjoy it while you can. We sure are....................

.

.

.

Oh and btw: We are also killing all regulations. We don't care what they do. They are all alike, and we don't like them because they cost us money. And we can't get enough money.

So: No more regulations!

What could possibly go wrong?

Don't tell us. We don't care.
Click to expand...

If debt is your concern, then cutting spending should be your priority -- not raising regulations or taxes.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello cawacko,


No, that's wrong. Most people's personal budgets have one very large spending item which they certainly must not eliminate: housing. Somethings are necessary. A country is nothing without her people. People are what make up a country. If you want to take care of the country you have to make sure the people are OK. Most nations get this. The ones that don't fail.
Click to expand...

If you want to make housing more affordable, encourage your local government to reduce zoning regulations. That is the biggest driver in the rise in cost of housing. San Francisco is a good example of how this happens. Houston is a good example of how low zoning regulations allow for very affordable housing compared to the national average.


PoliTalker said:
This presumes that the only way to balance the federal budget is to cut spending.

Wrong again!

Increase revenue. That will do it in a heartbeat.

And the super-rich can afford it without batting an eye or giving up any caviar:

Click to expand...

The "super-rich" can also hide income better than most. Unless you plan on ending all deductions and turning the nominal income tax rates into the equivalent of the AMT, then this idea of raising taxes on the elite isn't going to work.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
If debt is your concern, then cutting spending should be your priority -- not raising regulations or taxes.
Click to expand...

All government spending supports the economy.

Cutting spending can be roughly translated as cutting the GDP.

Cut spending, you cut the economy.

Nope. Let's don't do that.

It has to be raising taxes on the rich.

They can afford it.

We have a great nation. Time for those who have benefited the most to pony up and pay for what has been so good for them.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
If you want to make housing more affordable, encourage your local government to reduce zoning regulations. That is the biggest driver in the rise in cost of housing. San Francisco is a good example of how this happens. Houston is a good example of how low zoning regulations allow for very affordable housing compared to the national average.
Click to expand...

Houston is a good example of why zoning regulations are effective, and what happens when that is ignored. Proper zoning would require that a region maintains enough drainage to prevent flooding in major storms. Since Houston didn't do this, Houston, we have a problem every time a major rain event occurs. Flooding in Houston was made far worse by lack of proper zoning regulations. Bad idea in a region prone to hurricanes in the age of Climate Change.

Woko Haram said:
The "super-rich" can also hide income better than most. Unless you plan on ending all deductions and turning the nominal income tax rates into the equivalent of the AMT, then this idea of raising taxes on the elite isn't going to work.
Click to expand...

I am going to leave the nuts and bolts up to the legal wonks. Bottom line: We are not collecting enough revenue to run the government. That has to change or we are doomed.

The super-rich have money to burn. More than they can every spend during their lifetime. They can afford to chip in more to run the country. They could afford to completely eliminate the deficit, and even build a surplus which would begin to eliminate the federal debt all together. That is a worth while goal. If the federal debt is eliminated then the country could do more with less because we would not have to pay the interest on the debt. We are a rich country. We do not have to carry a big debt or be saddled with the crushing burden of servicing that debt.

Interest on US Federal Debt: (The amount we pay each year in interest because we carry so much dept) $379 Billion
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello cawacko,



Not really, because that is solely a Republican assessment of it. The Republican tax cut nearly double the deficit, resulting in far quicker rise of the debt. So really, one of the biggest drivers of the recent debt has been the Republican tax cut for the rich.



I agree growing the economy produces more revenue. Republicans claimed the tax cut would grow the economy so much that it would more than pay for itself and actually result in reducing the deficit. Remember, the deficit must be reduced to zero before the debt stops growing. Currently, the economy is not paying for the government we already have. There are no easy cuts which can be made to spending which would not directly and adversely impact the economy. You take away entitlements and you take away the income those people use to spend in the economy. And most of that is spent very quickly. That removes a lot of business from the economy by cutting that. It's not like you can kill that economic activity and expect no downturn in overall economy activity, ie the GDP.

Most entitlements go directly into the GDP.

Any entitlements cuts can be seen as GDP cuts.

And that results in cuts to revenue as well.

Those darn unintended consequences.

But if taxes are raised on the rich, that doesn't cut the GDP.

They just sell some stock maybe. Somebody else buys it. No loss of business start-ups or expansions. Businesses have plenty of money for that. That's why they are doing stock buy-backs.

Nope. Entitlement cuts are a bad idea gone worse.

The best way to get control of this runaway debt problem is to tax the rich more. And since they have exponentially more money than they ever need, they can afford it without batting an eye. Won't affect their lifestyle at all. Except maybe not so many of them would be buying so many additional investment properties in San Francisco and running the property values out of reach to the common man there.
Click to expand...

When discussing the debt it's solely a Republican assessment to look at the (largest) items we spend on? I don't think that to be accurate.

And to cut to the chase, you can't make taxes high enough to cover all the debt and unfunded liabilities we have. So ignoring spending is not an option.
 
Hello cawacko,

cawacko said:
When discussing the debt it's solely a Republican assessment to look at the (largest) items we spend on? I don't think that to be accurate.

And to cut to the chase, you can't make taxes high enough to cover all the debt and unfunded liabilities we have. So ignoring spending is not an option.
Click to expand...

Yes, you actually can make taxes high enough to balance the budget. That's what scares the greediest super-rich. They want a 'bargain government' that gives them all the power without having to pay for it.
 
countryboy said:
More lies from the left, if your lips are moving you are lying. The tax cuts have not added one cent to the debt, revenue is still up. It's the spending stupid. You know, the spending that originates in the House of Representatives? Who controls the House of Representatives?
Click to expand...

Who controlled the House for 6 of 8 years under Obama and 2 under Trump? Who did all that spending on 2 wars we were told were going to be easy wins and turns out to never end?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello cawacko,



Yes, you actually can make taxes high enough to balance the budget. That's what scares the greediest super-rich. They want a 'bargain government' that gives them all the power without having to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Now they've gone from buying the politicians to becoming the politician. They have to resort to getting dirty to save capitalism from mean ol Bernie.
 
Casual Leftist said:
Who controlled the House for 6 of 8 years under Obama and 2 under Trump? Who did all that spending on 2 wars we were told were going to be easy wins and turns out to never end?
Click to expand...

Point stipulated. The GOP gets no pass for reckless spending either. My only point is, it's spurious to blame the President's tax cuts on the rising debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top