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

Did I miss a nasty post by Gunny2009?

If I were advising you, Poli, I would suggest that this might be a good time to end this conversation with me.

Maybe somewhere else...some other time...starting from some other point would be better.

But...you should do what you feel best...what you feel will lead to where you want to go.

I promise to keep my promise.
 
I wasn't making a comparison. I was just showing that your statement that "It [the corporate tax rate] actually worked quite well. Up until Trump the deficit was more under control." was demonstrably false and ridiculous.

What was the tax rate and societal programs situation in the era the MAGA folk want to go back to?
 
Hello Heff,

I wasn't making a comparison. I was just showing that your statement that "It [the corporate tax rate] actually worked quite well. Up until Trump the deficit was more under control." was demonstrably false and ridiculous.

True. Taxes on the rich and on corporations were not high enough. If we just taxed them more we could balance the budget.
 
Hello Frank,

If I were advising you, Poli, I would suggest that this might be a good time to end this conversation with me.

Maybe somewhere else...some other time...starting from some other point would be better.

But...you should do what you feel best...what you feel will lead to where you want to go.

I promise to keep my promise.

No problem. Sometimes when a lot has been said it is good to stop and reflect on what has been said.
 
Hello distraff,



We certainly agree the deficit is too high. There are two ways to reduce it. More revenue or less spending. Cutting spending is very difficult. If it were easy it would have been done already. Even with both legislative houses and the executive in control of Republicans, they were unable to do it.

The economy was doing very well when Trump took office. There was no need for a tax cut. The tax cut has produced a problem. Not enough revenue. The CBO predicted exactly that. Now it has come true. the solution is obviously to tax the rich more. That will generate more revenue and cut the deficit. There was no recession before the tax cut when we taxed the rich more. Taxing them more now will not cause a recession. It is what we need to do. We need more revenue.

The problem with your plan is that we will eternally be raising taxes because spending keeps increasing. Our spending is out of control and is increasing a lot faster than the economy is. We need to control it, or its going to bankrupt our nation. I know there is little political room to do this today, so that is why its important for you to vote for representatives who want to control spending.

What I think we should do is that conservatives can get their welfare spending cuts, and liberals get their military spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Its a fair deal, but if both parties can't cut a good deal, then we are going to bankrupt our nation.
 
Hello distraff,

The problem with your plan is that we will eternally be raising taxes because spending keeps increasing.

That shouldn't be a problem because the wealth of the rich is rising accordingly to the need for increased taxes on them. And that makes sense, because the rich are pocketing the ever-increasing profits of the capitalism which is causing the need for more social spending and the subsequent rise in government spending to keep up with that.

Our spending is out of control [wrong] and is increasing a lot faster than the economy is. [please show evidence to back this up?] We need to control it, or its going to bankrupt our nation.

All government spending is already controlled by Congress. That is our system. If we disagree with the spending we can always vote for a more fiscally responsible Congress. Instead, we tend to vote on emotional issues like gun control and abortion access.

I know there is little political room to do this today, so that is why its important for you to vote for representatives who want to control spending.

Go for it. Vote for them. That is your right. I will be voting for the ones who say we need to tax the rich more.

What I think we should do is that conservatives can get their welfare spending cuts, and liberals get their military spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Its a fair deal, but if both parties can't cut a good deal, then we are going to bankrupt our nation.

Sounds like a possible compromise. I hope our representatives work on something like that. If so, I will happily be communicating my views to my representative, as I hope you will be also doing. That's how our government is designed to work. Would be nice to see it in action and answering to the people for a change.
 
If things go the way I think they are going to go...

...with fewer jobs for humans (and more for machines)...and less pay for the jobs humans have to do...

...there will have to be massive INCREASES in safety net programs...especially the ones that fall under the "welfare" label so despised by many.

That is why I say a significant psychological adjustment will have to be made to make the transition (that "will" rather than "might") come in a peaceful way.

Otherwise it is going to be another France during the late 18th century and Russia during the early 20th century "solution."

(Seems like France may be making moves in that direction again right now.)
 
Hello distraff,



That shouldn't be a problem because the wealth of the rich is rising accordingly to the need for increased taxes on them. And that makes sense, because the rich are pocketing the ever-increasing profits of the capitalism which is causing the need for more social spending and the subsequent rise in government spending to keep up with that.



All government spending is already controlled by Congress. That is our system. If we disagree with the spending we can always vote for a more fiscally responsible Congress. Instead, we tend to vote on emotional issues like gun control and abortion access.



Go for it. Vote for them. That is your right. I will be voting for the ones who say we need to tax the rich more.



Sounds like a possible compromise. I hope our representatives work on something like that. If so, I will happily be communicating my views to my representative, as I hope you will be also doing. That's how our government is designed to work. Would be nice to see it in action and answering to the people for a change.

I agree that we can increase taxes on the rich, and they can afford to pay more. But you don't get that many tax increases for the rich out of conservatives in congress. Plus, the deficit is going to be 1 trillion in a year and go past 1.5 trillion in a few years. There is just no way we can tax the rich enough to generate enough revenue to fill that gap, or get enough support among Republicans and moderate democrats in red states to pass that.

The reality is that spending cuts are needed to close the deficit, and yes, we should definitely vote for a more fiscally responsible congress. Unfortunately history has taught as that spending goes up, taxes go up, debt goes job, and regulations go up. At the same time economic growth fall and jobs growth declines.
 
I agree that we can increase taxes on the rich, and they can afford to pay more. But you don't get that many tax increases for the rich out of conservatives in congress. Plus, the deficit is going to be 1 trillion in a year and go past 1.5 trillion in a few years. There is just no way we can tax the rich enough to generate enough revenue to fill that gap, or get enough support among Republicans and moderate democrats in red states to pass that.

The reality is that spending cuts are needed to close the deficit, and yes, we should definitely vote for a more fiscally responsible congress. Unfortunately history has taught as that spending goes up, taxes go up, debt goes job, and regulations go up. At the same time economic growth fall and jobs growth declines.

When you are right...you are right.

And here, for the most part...you are right.

So...the logical thing to do then is to cut spending. BUT...whatever we cut...almost anywhere we cut it...causes less SPENDING at the other end of that continuum.

If we cut welfare and safety net expenditures, for instance...local grocery stores and hardware stores and dollar stores and such get hammered. Landlords get hammered.

If we cut military expenditures...huge defense contractor corporations get hammered...and start laying off people.

Even if we cut foreign aid...farmers and equipment manufactures get hammered (we don't send bushels of dollar bills in foreign aid, we send products and such)...and people get laid off.

We gotta do something else.

Something outside the box.

Something WAY outside the box.
 
When you are right...you are right.

And here, for the most part...you are right.

So...the logical thing to do then is to cut spending. BUT...whatever we cut...almost anywhere we cut it...causes less SPENDING at the other end of that continuum.

If we cut welfare and safety net expenditures, for instance...local grocery stores and hardware stores and dollar stores and such get hammered. Landlords get hammered.

If we cut military expenditures...huge defense contractor corporations get hammered...and start laying off people.

Even if we cut foreign aid...farmers and equipment manufactures get hammered (we don't send bushels of dollar bills in foreign aid, we send products and such)...and people get laid off.

We gotta do something else.

Something outside the box.

Something WAY outside the box.

Currently our trillion dollar deficit is great for stimulating the economy, but the problem is that its not sustainable, and will result in massive interest payments in the future when the debt is much higher and interest rates rise. As it stands now, interest spending is projected to approach 1 trillion dollars per year in 10 years. Our deficit is projected to rise past 1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. If we have a recession, this will be a lot worse. This is why its best to follow the principles of Keynesian economics, and cut the deficit during times of economic growth when the economy can handle the negative growth impacts. That time is now, time to go to work to balance the budget just like we did in the 90s.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/interest-spending-course-triple
 
Hello Frank,

If things go the way I think they are going to go...

...with fewer jobs for humans (and more for machines)...and less pay for the jobs humans have to do...

...there will have to be massive INCREASES in safety net programs...especially the ones that fall under the "welfare" label so despised by many.

That is why I say a significant psychological adjustment will have to be made to make the transition (that "will" rather than "might") come in a peaceful way.

Otherwise it is going to be another France during the late 18th century and Russia during the early 20th century "solution."

(Seems like France may be making moves in that direction again right now.)

Here is a great talk about what our future might look like when machines do most of the work. It addresses how income is distributed, and how we will derive meaning in our lives without working traditional jobs:

 
Currently our trillion dollar deficit is great for stimulating the economy, but the problem is that its not sustainable, and will result in massive interest payments in the future when the debt is much higher and interest rates rise. As it stands now, interest spending is projected to approach 1 trillion dollars per year in 10 years. Our deficit is projected to rise past 1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. If we have a recession, this will be a lot worse. This is why its best to follow the principles of Keynesian economics, and cut the deficit during times of economic growth when the economy can handle the negative growth impacts. That time is now, time to go to work to balance the budget just like we did in the 90s.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/interest-spending-course-triple

Once again...you are correct.

But...so what?

I am suggesting that EVERY dollar cut in government spending...results in a dollar not going into our economy.

Now...I may be wrong, but I think it is a given.

I'd like to test it.

Name any cut in government spending that will not result in a corresponding cut in money into the economy...and lets see how much we can cuts in those areas...what the impact will be on the savings we want to make.

We'll make a list of those areas...and make a BALL PARK estimate of how much we can save in expenditures.

Anyone?
 
Hello distraff,

I agree that we can increase taxes on the rich, and they can afford to pay more.

Thank you.

But you don't get that many tax increases for the rich out of conservatives in congress.

Then we need to spread the word to vote them out.

Plus, the deficit is going to be 1 trillion in a year and go past 1.5 trillion in a few years. There is just no way we can tax the rich enough to generate enough revenue to fill that gap,

Actually we can. The math supports that.

or get enough support among Republicans and moderate democrats in red states to pass that.

That is, of course, why we don't have that already. They got elected because powerful people backed their campaigns. This goes against that big money. The only way to counter that is with lots of votes. We don't need money if we get enough people to vote them out. It won't matter how much money they throw at it if we get the votes. The money is meant to buy votes. If we already have the votes, then the money becomes worthless to their campaigns. They lose. It is a battle of ideas not dollars.

The reality is that spending cuts are needed to close the deficit,

Keep in mind that most government spending is somebody's paycheck. Cuts in government spending can be easily translated into jobs lost.

and yes, we should definitely vote for a more fiscally responsible congress. Unfortunately history has taught as that spending goes up, taxes go up, debt goes job, and regulations go up. At the same time economic growth fall and jobs growth declines.

No, I disagree on that. Much government spending goes directly into the economy, and also there is a ripple effect. So the guy working at the government contractor business, who has a job because of that government spending, take his paycheck and buys stuff. The things he buys create jobs for other people out there in the capitalist world. Government spending is actually very good for the economy.
 
Once again...you are correct.

But...so what?

I am suggesting that EVERY dollar cut in government spending...results in a dollar not going into our economy.

Now...I may be wrong, but I think it is a given.

I'd like to test it.

Name any cut in government spending that will not result in a corresponding cut in money into the economy...and lets see how much we can cuts in those areas...what the impact will be on the savings we want to make.

We'll make a list of those areas...and make a BALL PARK estimate of how much we can save in expenditures.

Anyone?

I thought we went over this already. Cutting the deficit will of course reduce the spending in the economy, which is bad for the economy in the short term. But if we have massive deficits, then this will incur large interest spending in the future, which is going to happen according to economists. Interest spending doesn't help the economy at all and will be nearly a trillion dollars a year, the government is just throwing off the cliff to pay interest on past debt. That is really really bad for the economy and our deficit. Also, a large deficit will limit how much the government can spend and cut taxes when a recession hits, and this can stunt the economy for years. So its a really really good idea to cut the deficit to zero during economic expansions like Keynesian economics recommends and we successfully did that in the 90s.
 
Currently our trillion dollar deficit is great for stimulating the economy, but the problem is that its not sustainable, and will result in massive interest payments in the future when the debt is much higher and interest rates rise. As it stands now, interest spending is projected to approach 1 trillion dollars per year in 10 years. Our deficit is projected to rise past 1.5 trillion in the next 10 years. If we have a recession, this will be a lot worse. This is why its best to follow the principles of Keynesian economics, and cut the deficit during times of economic growth when the economy can handle the negative growth impacts. That time is now, time to go to work to balance the budget just like we did in the 90s.
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/interest-spending-course-triple

Totally agree with THAT.

If we can't pay down the debt Now, while the economy is Good, we'll NEVER be able to do it when it is Bad.
 
I thought we went over this already. Cutting the deficit will of course reduce the spending in the economy, which is bad for the economy in the short term. But if we have massive deficits, then this will incur large interest spending in the future, which is going to happen according to economists. Interest spending doesn't help the economy at all and will be nearly a trillion dollars a year, the government is just throwing off the cliff to pay interest on past debt. That is really really bad for the economy and our deficit. Also, a large deficit will limit how much the government can spend and cut taxes when a recession hits, and this can stunt the economy for years. So its a really really good idea to cut the deficit to zero during economic expansions like Keynesian economics recommends and we successfully did that in the 90s.

If only we had a president that understood this he never would have signed off on that raid-the-cookie-jar tax cut for the rich, and the deficit would not be so high right now.

If we still had President Obama the Deficit would be lower.
 
Hello Frank,



Here is a great talk about what our future might look like when machines do most of the work. It addresses how income is distributed, and how we will derive meaning in our lives without working traditional jobs:


Thanks, Poli. Don't have the time for it now...I'll get to it later.

30 years ago I wrote a long essay dealing with my ideas for how to deal with the problem we are discussing...and one of the things I included was a sort of list of how humans would use their time if not "working to earn a living."

There were some very obvious items: Play more golf or tennis; read, write, paint, create music, wash the car more often, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, police the neighborhood...or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other.

At 82...I have lots of "free time"...and I can barely fit everything I want to do into my schedule.

As for "earning money" under these circumstances…not sure what your guy is gonna say…but that “thinking outside the box” thingy I mentioned is major league.

May have to do away with the concept of keeping score using money.
 
Thanks, Poli. Don't have the time for it now...I'll get to it later.

30 years ago I wrote a long essay dealing with my ideas for how to deal with the problem we are discussing...and one of the things I included was a sort of list of how humans would use their time if not "working to earn a living."

There were some very obvious items: Play more golf or tennis; read, write, paint, create music, wash the car more often, tend to the house and garden, spend more time with the family, police the neighborhood...or lie around in a hammock doing nothing more productive than training a couple of trees to bend in toward each other.

At 82...I have lots of "free time"...and I can barely fit everything I want to do into my schedule.

As for "earning money" under these circumstances…not sure what your guy is gonna say…but that “thinking outside the box” thingy I mentioned is major league.

May have to do away with the concept of keeping score using money.

I quit keeping that score a long time ago. Doesn't matter how much you get, there's always somebody else with more. It's, really, a boring concern. I have plenty to be comfortable. Happiness is my concern. That can't really be purchased. It has to come from within.
 
Back
Top