There Is Simply Not Enough Revenue. The Deficit Is Too Large. Debt Is Out Of Control.

[PoliTalker]

I have not watched the video...(I hate videos except when naked women are involved). Is there a transcript of what he slowly says.

I agree that community service could be a rewarding activity (getting MORE)...although I think there is lots to be had using volunteers.

Interesting story: The Town council where I live once proposed to pay the volunteers of the Volunteer Fire Companies...and Volunteer First Aid ambulance companies...but the volunteer members lobbied against the idea and won. They wanted their efforts to be voluntary...not for monetary compensation.

I guess this is as good a place to mention that MONEY as the major (often the only) compensation for work or contribution...is something that has to end.

Romans used the use of purple for toga fringe as compensation. Chevrons, other insignia, and military scrambled eggs may be needed...or items of that sort. The love of money is the root of most evil in our society.

It's a challenge but I think we can do it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Sorry, but I find this concept "We have to limit the number of humans working to the minimum possible." to be just insane. Somehow everything you want has to be "paid" for, one way or another. Farmers will not grow food unless they are getting something tangible in exchange for it. There is only so much that a machine can do, there still has to be people involved.

There is no doubt that humans will be needed. And they have to be "compensated" (read what I said above to Poli on that score.)

The idea is not only NOT INSANE...it is INEVITABLE...particularly in a capitalistic dominated society.

Companies are REQUIRED to maximize profits...and the cost of labor will always be the prime victim of that. The moment it becomes less profitable to use humans than machines (which is coming for lots of jobs very soon)...the humans are out the door.

Then what happens when the person you gave a "sufficient amount" for a decent life blows it or does not use it well and runs out, will they get more?

You are fixated on the "distribution" problem requiring money as now used...as a necessity.

If distribution uses confined scrip of some sort...the notion of "blowing it" may out the door. It CAN be handled.

In order to incorporate large hunks of socialism into our system, you would also need to get rid of the Constitution, or just ignore it I suppose.

Maybe...maybe not. Our system is flexible...and we may be able to do a lot more along the lines a few of us are suggesting than you think...while staying well within the confines of the Constitution.

 

[Nordberg]

Yeah...I know.

That is why I suggest it as PART of what has to be done.

"Taxing the rich more" IS NOT GOING TO GET THE JOB DONE. Neither is making capital gains a part of ordinary income...nor is increasing inheritance taxes.

It is a beginning...a first step in a process that will have to be accomplished in a structural pattern.

So???

Of course, taxing the wealthy and corporations more would lower the debt. It is so huge that it would not do it in a year. But it would erode the debt on a steady process. We slashed taxes to the wealthy the last 50 years, you cannot expect a tax increase to fix it in much less. But you need to start the process .

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Nordberg,

Of course, taxing the wealthy and corporations more would lower the debt. It is so huge that it would not do it in a year. But it would erode the debt on a steady process. We slashed taxes to the wealthy the last 50 years, you cannot expect a tax increase to fix it in much less. But you need to start the process .

Absolutely true.

It is common to think we have to eliminate the debt to be on sound financial footing. That is not true. Actually we don't even have to reduce it or wipe out the deficit.

There is a more important metric than the debt.

That is the size of the debt compared to the GDP.

The important figure to look at is the Debt/GDP ratio.

If that gets too high it is bad, weakens the USA.

When it gets lower, we are much more secure.

We need to reduce the Debt/GDP ratio.

That can be done two ways.

a) reduce the debt.

b) increase the GDP.

As long as GDP is growing faster than the Debt, then Debt/GDP is reduced. A good thing!

That is not happening.

That's the main problem for our economic outlook.

We could be just fine if we never reduce the Debt, as long as we grow the economy.

When we get the deficit very low, that occurs. As long as the economy is doing well, and we reduce the deficit to a low figure, (a few hundred billion would be fine) then Debt/GDP is reduced.

We can have a great nation and still run our big debt.

We can operate on a deficit and still be fine.

It's not as bad as some fear. The debt will not kill us.

But this is not limitless. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity. We are borrowing too much of our budget. We have to have more revenue. We need to tax the rich more. That is indicated by all measures.

 

[Nordberg]

Sorry but cranking up the deficit is a long term Republican plan. It is not an accident. McConnell and Ryan said that after the huge Trump tax cut, they could not justify cuttiing social programs. That was always the aim. Trumps tax cut did exactlty what the Repubs wanted, it cranked up the debt. That is why we never cut the military . You would think if the Repubs thought the debt was a problem, they would not continue causing it, but they do.Does anyone still think they are the party of fiscal responsibility.? They are the party of debt and building a plutocracy. The wealthgap is greater than the Gilded Age and what did Trump do? He gave the wealthy more. Someday you guys may figure it out.https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-voted-tax-bill-cut-medicare-social-security-pay-488a9bcbba7d/