This is Jerry's last of many responses to why Baby Boomers did not create the National Debt problem. One would think he may be starting to feel guilty? :-)
Moose seem to be in favor of a law repealing the fundamental laws of economics, as well as of human nature. People do not work for free, and want to be rich. Tax them heavily enough, in ways they cannot avoid, and they will simply stop working, investing, whatever. Government can NOT spend money more wisely than the millions of people who individually earn it. It isn't possible. Remember that if government can command what you do with your money, like paying more than people are worth, it's the same as a tax and people will find ways to avoid it and NOT pay it. How many McDonald's kiosks have you walked past without noticing? Remember the yacht tax? How about the "voluntary" tax in Massachusetts, that brought in less than 1% of what millionaires, including John Kerry, "could have" paid in? Remember what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet contributed billions to, avoiding taxes or "voluntary" payments to government? Apparently they believed they could do more "good" with the money than government could, and they have been proven correct.
As for taxes, let us remember that "inflation is the cruelest tax of all" and all this deficit spending is building up a MASSIVE increase in the money supply-- an inevitable avalanche of inflation if ever released into the economy. My thought is that since most of it is simply "on the books" at the Fed, this "imaginary money" could be erased by simply declaring it so, and nobody is hurt.
The Fed was set up in 1913. Since then it has had numerous benefits in stabilizing the banking system (after 1929), but since then has had one singular flaw. While the Constitution gives Congress sole authority "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" the Fed can, by purchase of US Treasuries that nobody wants, at an interest rate THEY set, "coin money" out the wazoo, and they have. The way it is SUPPOSED to work, as the wizards of German monetary policy figured out after the failed Weimar Republic, is that the government can go into debt so long as they sell their paper to the public-- that is, sell bonds on the open market. Of course, if they try to spend and sell more than the market wants, interest rates climb sharply, following the law of supply and demand, and the high interest rates create a public backlash to stop the reckless spending and bring them down again. We would be wise to adopt that policy. Simply pass a law that the Fed cannot buy unsold US Treasuries and voila! Interest rates would rise to torches and pitchforks level quickly.
As for giving up the Social Security that /I/ paid into, I not only refuse to give up what I was promised, but there is no need to do so. Simple SS reform would let me and all future recipients get what they were promised, and future generations to get MORE, but would also actually pay down the national debt over time rather than adding to it. Think outside the box a bit.
145 comments:
Some background to this post...
Someone complained that the rich avoided paying taxes due to their being rich and powerful
My response was... "The challenge is not that the rich are politically powerful. It is that people like Jerry fear taxing them for some reason?"
Jerry made a silly comment to which I replied.
I think you had
better read Table 1 again.
Top 1% AGI:$2.3T Tax:$0.6T %:26.8%
Top 5% AGI:$4.0T Tax:$1.0T %:23.7%
Top 10% AGI:$5.2T Tax:$1.1T %:21.5%
I am thinking we could get another Trillion out of these folks without them needing to adjust their standard of living much.
Or I am fine with cutting spending by $0.6T and increasing taxes by $0.6T.
But this 100% tax silliness you have been promoting forever is just so incorrect.
To which of course led to the above.
"Government can NOT spend money more wisely than the millions of people who individually earn it."
This is fundamental to Jerry's argument, and it's fundamentally incorrect.
It logically follows from his own argument that jerry would never ever voluntarily pool money with other people he knows in order to achieve something that no one person could achieve on their own.
I doubt that's true.
So, it then also follows that larger groups of people also want to pool their money in order to do things that a person or small group can't achieve on their own.
At some point, the group of people and the pool of money becomes large enough that the group decides there needs to be some administration of it.
Perhaps that group becomes so large that direct democracy becomes unwieldy in the governance of the funds. They elect a small group of representatives to make decisions about how to appropriate the money.
The representatives decide to do something the group doesn't approve of.
The group replaces the representatives.
Alternatively, the group could rely on the good will of one or two members who have enough money and resources to do it themselves. What happens when the wealthy decide to hoard their wealth instead of spend it on public goods?
Moose
You were doing so good until that last sentence. :-O
Do you truly not recognize the difference between "government / pooled money" and personal property rights?
Do you truly think your personal property / wealth is public property?
"Do you truly not recognize the difference between "government / pooled money" and personal property rights?"
You've gone outside my scenario.
WITHIN my scenario, what happens if they rely on the wealthy person/people, but the wealthy don't share their wealth? What if it means there is no fire department and people are killed and property destroyed? Do the wealthy bear any part in that failure? If a member of the community starves to death, and the wealthy person was the only one able to help, but didn't, who are you going to blame?
"Do you truly think your personal property / wealth is public property?"
If I used any public resource in attaining my property or wealth, it cannot be said that it belongs to me 100%, ESPECIALLY if I don't contribute to the public resource.
Moose
The point I was making is that jerry has a fundamental misunderstanding of what government IS, and therefore he can't understand what government DOES.
Moose
But let's get back to reality... The wealthy are the people who pay the majority of our bills. You just think they should pay for even more, for better or worse.
Now they do make a large portion of the income and capital appreciation, but it is not like they are not paying for their public resources.
It is the low income folks who receive more than they pay in year in and year out.
Often I do not understand what Jerry believes... Except that he wants his government handout and low taxes... :-)
One has to wonder what you consider to be the general welfare that is one of the stated reasons for the Constitution. If citizens are regularly dying of starvation, lack of clean water, shelter, etc., the government MUST step in where charity doesn't, and the money MUST come from somewhere. If those with means refuse, then they are contributing to the problem, not the solution.
Moose
Please note that you are cherry picking 2 words out of the pre-amble.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And "promote the general welfare" does not necessarily mean... "Give Free Loaders Services and Tax Dollars That Are Taken From the Workers and Investors of the Country" :-O
THere is a vast difference between "individuals pooling their money for some public good" (like putting up an art center, for which the rich folks will naturally provide the bulk of funding) and having government decide that Warroad needs a convention center, and everybody else in MN should pay for it, unequally. How many non-profit and philanthropic organizations do exactly what you are saying only government can do? Maybe millions.
There is a simple way to reconcile the two. You simply give every taxpayer an ITEMIZED tax bill. They must send in the full amount owed (hopefully a vastly streamlined system like a FLAT tax), but then they are given a complete breakdown of the budget, in both broad categories and in specifics below it. Then everybody can modify each entry, adding or subtracting from the amount shown, so long as the total comes out to 100%. So if I would rather have more F35's and eliminate the Tea Tasting Board or sugar subsidies, I can do that by "voluntary association." And "general welfare," Moose, means GENERAL, not for some specific individual or group. That's been a mistake since Davy Crockett railed against it in Congress.
And let us address this "100% tax silliness" you keep tossing around like it was a valid criticism. I want you to take the national debt--$28 Trillion, add it to the roughly $100 Trillion in "unfunded liabilities," and then tell me what tax rate you would need to pay that off in, say the ten years of the normal budget planning cycle.
Do the math; you might learn something.
Jerry,
The nice thing about GDP growth is that we do not need to pay it all off in 10 years. We just to STOP running deficits and maybe run some moderate surpluses, and time will fix the problem.
But you feel free to keep denying that a tax increase and spending decrease would get us back on track. We were running a surplus in ~2000 before those silly Bush II tax cuts.
Have it your way. Tell me what the tax rate would have to be to eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Then try it assuming the interest rate on new Treasury bonds rises to 4%.
Or try it this way: Tell me what combined tax rate and budget cuts would eliminate the deficit in 5 years. If history is any indicator, the budget cuts will never happen, but you can speculate. Do the math that Congress refuses to do.
Oh, and the "nice thing about GDP growth" is that if you raise taxes enough, it stops.
And you are quick to blame tax cuts for deficits, but have you noticed how, after tax cuts, spending goes UP instead of down as it should? And generally, after tax increases, how spending goes up even though revenues don't? What you are saying makes sense until you look at the reality of history and do the actual math. At this point, and while I heartily support a federal balanced budget amendment, as 49 States have, I do not know how it could even be realized. Care to try, assuming immediate passage?
Jerry,
I added some graphics to the post. You should be able to select them too enlarge them.
A balanced budget amendment is useless as long as folks like yourself refuse to pay for their entitlements, or to cut them to align with what they did pay.
A guy on FB was arguing that we should just cut foreign aid and windmill funding. I explained to him that we have a $1,000+ BILLION/yr problem, not a $50 Billion/yr problem. You simply can not cut 25% of the budget without going after entitlements...
And unfortunately folks like you think they are entitled to their welfare checks and services... :-( So it looks like taxing the 1% is more palatable.
Again, why are you so scared of taxing the mega wealthy?
Is there only having $10 Billion Net worth not enough reward for their work, contributions, etc?
Congress has the power to set the value of money in the same way it has the power to make the sun rise in the east. The fact that something is in the constitution doesn't make it so.
--Hiram
You just can't get past blame-casting to look for real solutions, can you?
"A balanced budget amendment is useless as long as folks like yourself refuse to pay for their entitlements, or to cut them to align with what they did pay." I've already checked, and my contributions to SS and Medicare will pay for my benefits well into my dotage. Had I been allowed to make those investments for myself, well PAST my "golden years," probably with some left over. The problem with entitlements isn't people taking more than what is offered, it is politicians offering more than they can deliver without stealing from future generations.
Maybe you should consider this: "A balanced budget amendment is useless so long as Congress refuses to reform entitlements so that the government lives within its means." And it CAN be done, but you're too busy casting blame on the victims of government overspending-- Us and our kids.
"And unfortunately folks like you think they are entitled to their welfare checks and services... :-( So it looks like taxing the 1% is more palatable.
Again, why are you so scared of taxing the mega wealthy?"
There's an old quote, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that guy behind the tree." Fed by the rampant class envy of the new "progressives" (aka socialists), the whole idea here is to destroy capitalism by taking down its most successful practitioners and promising the rest of us that this somehow makes US rich. It's stupid. Suppose you just have government confiscate the entire incomes of the top 1%? How much money do you think YOU will get out of that? Answer: nothing whatsoever. It's raw envy and very ugly. Not to mention unfair. WHY should we take everything from these few people, who have committed no crime and who have improved our lives through their innovations and investments, even given many of us our jobs? How many times have you seen the Koch brothers thanked for their contribution on PBS? Want to give that to government instead?
And what would happen to that $2.6 trillion the 1% (those making $2 million or more) lost? YOU wouldn't see a dime of it, it would all go into this year's deficit or pay down the outstanding debt, and you could pretty much guarantee you would not get anywhere near that next year. The rich would find one of Congress's safe havens for the money. Meanwhile, investments would end and the economy would stall, harming everybody.
Indulge in a little fantasy math. Let's say the rich actually "stand still" for this annual shakedown, and every year government actually DOES get to put $2.5T towards the deficit/debt. How long before the national debt is paid down to zero? You can set aside the unfunded liabilities of entitlements for now.
deficits as far as the eye can see
Jerry,
The deficit is $1 Trillion dollars (25%) and you do not want to raise taxes.
Looking at the budget documents I provided, where would you remove that from the budget?
I asked you first, and gave you 10 years to make it happen, but you came back to raising taxes. So, how much do you want to raise taxes to cover it, without reducing any spending? AND I point out that this year's deficit will EXCEED the $2.6T that the 1% will earn, so every penny of possible (but totally irrational) taxation gained would go down the rat hole. How long before you recognize the truth that "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem"?
Jerry,
Just come up with $1 Trillion dollars (25%)...
You say it is easy, prove it.
Eliminate illegal Obamacare subsidies, and turn Medicaid back to the States with a fixed State subsidy and no federal mandates. Let States manage the "entitlement" as they see fit, within their budget (which is balanced by law). There's your $T.
Easier still would be to reform all 4 major entitlements--OC, SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and do it over some years. And figure a way to pay down the debt, the cost of interest is huge.
Jerry,
There is no $1 Trillion in that proposal...
If we ELIMINATE Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Subsidies we get 25%... That means NO aid to states for these costs...
No more older folks in nursing homes, no more new hips for grandma, etc, etc, etc.
No healthcare for poor kids or adults.
Are you sure you want to cut that 25%?
Jerry,
As for the 8% interest on debt, first we have to stop the bleeding then we can start healing.
Obamacare subsidies are supposed to go ONLY to recipients in STATE exchanges, and only 14 states ever established them, so 2/3 or so of the $1.2T in Obamacare subsidies should not be paid. [and I should note that eliminating Obamacare would save everybody money.] And if you turn Medicaid back to the States, eliminate all the federal mandates on coverage and eligibility, the states can easily manage with a cut of the other $300B.
You do point out the problem, though. Entitlements are the bulk of the budget, and are not controlled. They are already over 2/3 of the total budget and climbing.
"First stop the bleeding" and yet you object to any "cuts" [including a reduction in the growth] in spending? What is the first thing people are told to do when they get in debt? CUT UP THE CREDIT CARDS. Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. Second is "Find a way to live within your means. Give up the country club. Don't eat out as often, etc." Doesn't matter what you want (or what the demagogues demand); find the way.
I just showed you medicaid, medicare, children's health and subsidies = $1.0 Trillion.
Then you say this...
"$1.2T in Obamacare subsidies should not be paid"
Where do you pull these number from?
I look them up online. Surely you can find them as easily. Why is your first instinct to suggest otherwise? But it does make sense. Maybe O'Care, is "off the books"?
Maybe you are using some 10 year period number?
We need $1.0 Trillion annually.
Well, there is support for the idea I used a 10-year number, but projections made at the time, just like the promises for coverage and cost, were wildly out of whack with reality. One thing they did in "scoring" was to assume (and actually made) substantial cuts to Medicare. Apparently that CAN be done, but only if Democrats do it. Maybe you can suss out a better number from here: CBO numbers 2021-2030
Again, I am not suggesting any "cuts" because Democrats will push Granny over the cliff, every time a "cut" is suggested. I propose reforming all these programs so they cost less and work better, but to Democrats that is the same thing, and they much prefer to mortgage the future of our children. A child born today inherits about $390,000 of federal debt and unfunded mandates. Now where is a child that age going to get that kind of money?
So you do not want to raise taxes...
And you don't want to make cuts...
Instead you propose changes that will reduce checks for people in the future while protecting your checks and services.
Your answer pretty well affirms why we are in this yes.
That's a pretty rigorous mud-slinging imagination you have there. I've asked repeatedly, since you believe taxes are the answer, what rate of taxation eliminates the deficit, even in ten years? You have proposed nothing else, merely suggesting that reforming entitlements (plans which you do not know anything about, apparently) will not work. I'll say it again: fixing the blame does not fix the problem! Especially when you mis-identify the problem to begin with.
I have recommended just going back to the 2000 tax system. That was the last time we had a surplus.
And I am fine with cutting spending across all entitlements and defense by 10% immediately
The least painful way to cut entitlement spending would be to stop giving well to do people checks and nationalized healthcare. I am not sure why millionaires are on the government dole...
OK, how much revenue did the 2000 tax system produce, compared with today? Is that difference sufficient to cover the SPENDING INCREASE that took place, and continues? Maybe the answer is here: reality, no blame assigned
And apparently we need a 25% cut, not 10%. How many grannies are you willing to push over the cliff? And generally, "across the board" only applies to discretionary spending, not entitlements, and that's only 1/3 of the budget.
I want to know why you hate rich people so much that you want to take away that which they paid for and were promised they would receive? Now if you want to reform entitlements so that the rich receive less, over time, go for it! It can be done, but we have to get over this idea that as-is federal spending is a sacred cow benefiting everybody. Just not the case.
Oh come now... A link to 2011 data when I have provided wonderful more current data.
And I have never denied that spending is part of the problem, unfortunately you support the spending that is the problem.
And no grannies will be sacrificed to the cliff if the wealthy do not get free checks and services.
I do not hate rich people, I love young people, my children, my future grand children, fiscal responsibility and the future of the USA.
You on the other hand seem okay with huge deficits that will strangle the future of our children and grand children.
Oh, come now. The link I just provided goes through 2020, and it seems conclusive.
You cannot possibly say that the vast increase in spending over recent years is because of old people taking what was promised, unless a few hundred million people suddenly turned 67.
The chart also shows that if tax revenues went back to 2000 levels, our federal government would still have added trillions to the debt, through huge annual deficits. Suppose you earn $8k per month, and spend $12k per month. How long do you think this can reasonably be continued? Do you think you could go to your boss and ask for a 50% raise because of your profligate ways? I cannot advise it.
The only grannies sacrificed will be in the demagogic Democrat ads that accompany ANY attempt to control federal spending. They claim to protecting the old people, and to care deeply for young people. They lie. And you support doing NOTHING that will actually solve the problem.
I just received my totally unrequested "stimulus check" from the government. A little back of the envelope math tells me I received only 5% of the total amount spent per person, and everything else was added to the deficit. By any stretch of the imagination, can you defend that kind of profligacy?
Jerry,
The link used 2011 forecasts, not real numbers.
Revenues were ~20% of GDP in 2000. Pre-covid spending was at maybe ~20.5% If we had stayed at 20% revenues, our debt would be a fraction of today.
Of course spending is jumping, interest burden is going up and the government has to pay for all those bonds so you can get your full check.
If no Grannies harmed, then lets start cutting those underfunded entitlements.
I have always been against the Trump and Biden bailouts. Have you been even as Trump was demanding $2000 checks?
I've been a deficit hawk since Tip O'Neil started us down the path. Say what you will about Clinton, but he got the budget balanced, somehow, (Bush got close) and since then all fiscal sanity seems to have departed DC. The problem is the very notion of "entitlements," that each of us is "entitled" to somebody else's money, with the thieves in Congress asking for credit. What's the old saying? "Sometimes a Robin Hood is just a robbin' hood." And we have a whole Congress full of them, and nothing we can do seems to vote them out, certainly not to a majority who think burdening our kids with impossible levels of debt is any problem at all. It would be so simple to reform these vast boondoggles, but the drunken sailors will not tolerate it, destroying anyone who suggests such common sense. "Hey, why don't we spend another $Trillion, it's not like anybody has to pay for it." "Put it on the plastic, we'll skip town before the bill comes due." It's despicable.
I would really like to know where you get the term "underfunded entitlements." I claim they are vastly OVERFUNDED; we don't have the money. It is inescapable simple math. How long can you spend far more than you take in? You can't. "We" can't.
I paid enough into SS to cover me out to me full life expectancy. Don't complain to me that I should not receive what is mine. And nobody else should lose what they were promised, either, but that is impossible without reform. The Trust Fund is already "broke" in that it is shrinking rather than holding steady or growing.
You are not a deficit hawk, you are a fan of my taxes should be lower and my checks should be bigger.
If you were a deficit hawk you would recognize and admit that Reagan, Bush II and Trump grew the deficits by cutting taxes while increasing spending.
There is no higher power that set in stone that revenue should be 17% of GDP no matter what citizen want to spend, only folks like yourself seem to believe that. And please remember that Trump grew spending / deficits at an alarming rate, and you still worship him. Even though he had GOP control for the first 2 years of his presidency.
Now if SS, SSD and Medicare were just a retirement program, you may be correct, but they ARE NOT and NEVER have been. They are insurance and welfare programs.
People who are unfortunate and or struggle get much more out of them than those who are fortunate. I wonder if you complain about your car insurance premiums being too much because if you do not have an accident. Instead of being thankful you did not need an insurance payout?
This is a wonderful description of the problem... "Don't complain to me that I should not receive what is mine." So many entitled Americans, so little time.
It is interesting that both Bush II and Trump both had full control of government during their terms and neither addressed spending. They just used that power to lower tax revenues.
Well, you may have risen to HALF right with this statement: "If you were a deficit hawk you would recognize and admit that Reagan, Bush II and Trump grew the deficits by cutting taxes while increasing spending." What you SHOULD say is "You being a deficit hawk did not stop [Presidents] from cutting taxes (why shouldn't they) NOR CONGRESS from increasing spending." If you insist on fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem, at least you should get that done correctly. Still doesn't solve the problem, of course, and you keep going back to taxes as the solution. It's not, and can't possibly be.
And then you are half right again: "Now if SS, SSD and Medicare ... are insurance and welfare programs." IF SS was an insurance program, than "premiums" would cover expenditures, just as I have paid in enough to cover my benefits. Likewise Medicare. But Medicaid is definitely welfare, and why it is so inefficient is a testament to runaway good intentions with no intelligent oversight. That ANY of them are "entitlements" beyond what the beneficiaries pay is the fundamental and fatal flaw (aka conceit).
I wasn't aware that veto power gets taken away from Republican presidents when Congress is controlled by Democrats.
Weird. Who knew?
Moose
Jerry,
Deficit Hawk: Supports balanced budget, otherwise known as $0 deficits.
You are not this, you vote for people who increase deficits. I am not sure why you have a hard time accepting this reality.
Insurance only covers expenditures if the company gets to adjust the premiums to match the expected expenses. Unfortunately older voters did not require / enable this, so hopefully younger voters will choose to cut the benefits to align with what was paid in. That would be the responsible Deficit Hawk thing to do.
Moose,
Jerry is having a real hard time accepting that he has been pro-deficit / pro-national debt for decades.
OK, fall back on insults and deliberate falsehoods rather than do the real math. You seem to think that I get exactly the government I vote for, and you know that is absolutely wrong. I did not vote for my current Congressional representative, either Senator, or President. How is it now my fault when they spend $5 Trillion that nobody has?
Moose, if Presidents had the line item veto, they might reasonably be blamed for insane spending-- assuming a sane world. Unfortunately, our entire government seems to have decided that reality is not an essential to government fiscal policy. And we're not doing any better here.
Jerry,
I have no intention to insult you, just hoping you can learn from your past choices. And accept the reality that those choices resulted in our huge national debt.
You voted for and still support Trump. He spent much more borrowed money than Biden has so far.
Finally we citizens get the government we vote for... You wanted tax cuts, you likely want defense spending increases, you do not want entitlements reduced, etc... No politician in their right mind is going to fix our problems until citizens actually want them fixed.
Here is a pretty good graph showing Trump and crew's massive spending increases.
It also shows how Obama and crew did pretty good at holding costs, even though they did not fix the BIG entitlement problem.
Even if you ignore COVID and the Great recession. Trump does worse.
"Obama’s last three years vs. Trump’s first three
Probably a more “fair” way to look at how large the deficits are between Trump and Obama is to total the last three years Obama was in office and Trump’s first three since the economy was in essentially the same shape during those six years.
During Obama’s last three years the total deficits were $1.5 trillion vs. Trump’s $2.4 trillion. These periods were after the Great Recession and before the pandemic impact."
You keep assuming the ridiculous proposition that how I vote results in my desired federal policies. You even assume to know, with outrageous error, what policies I favor. All of it, once again, to blame somebody besides yourself for the abysmal state of fiscal affairs, and to avoid having to talk about real solutions rather than magical thinking. I assure you, if we got Obama back here (and isn't Biden Obama's third term?) things would be no better than they are now. Move along and posit something that will actually WORK. Just changing the President doesn't, nor even changing Congressional majorities. What else ya got?
I contend that no politician will BE "in their right mind" and will act on the incentives in front of them, which is to reduce taxes, spend like crazy, and blame their opponents for the economic collapse as it inevitably must. It's why a Balanced Budget Amendment would at least show them they have a problem.
Jerry,
Since I did vote for Bush II twice and Trump once, I am also responsible for their unpaid for tax cuts.
The difference between you and me is that I accept responsibility for my choice and have learned from it, where as you seemingly want to keep blaming others for our country's mess.
Biden has the same benefit that Obama and Clinton did... The GOP Presidents before each of them had created such HIGH deficits that it is easy to reduce them.
What did you learn? Did you learn that you alone, by picking a different President-- one who disregards deficits-- is the only solution needed to the problem. I can "accept responsibility for my choice" but it is really pointless. I always make my decision based on the lesser of 2 evils, and across the whole spectrum of issues. Sometimes the electorate agrees with me, and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it's "not responsible for advice not taken."
I will try one more time. Tax cuts are not the problem, tax increases are not the solution. ONLY cutting spending, including the reform (not cuts) to entitlements will get us out of the mess "we" are in. "blaming others for the country's mess" is YOUR hobby horse, not mine, and I frankly don't care. I simply look at the difference between revenues and expenditures, realize it is completely "out of whack" and potentially very dangerous, and go looking for solutions. Just because they are politically unpalatable to you and your leftist friends doesn't mean they are not solutions.
I learned that whenever anyone preaches "cutting taxes to raise revenue" run to the other candidate ASAP. Reagan, Bush II and Trump all tried and FAILED miserable.
I learned that "Conservative Balanced Budget" Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites who are happy stealing from their children, instead of paying their bills.
So what is your rationale that collecting revenues equal to what "we the people" spend /collect is potentially very dangerous?
Why do you think collecting 22% of GDP rather than 18% is worse than an out control national debt?
Of course "blaming others for the country's mess" is your hobby horse.
In all these comments all you have ever done is blame others. Do you read what you write?
The only person I know who is less willing to accept some responsibility than you is Donald Trump. :-)
What POSSIBLE value would my "accepting responsibility" be towards finding a solution when our collective brain-dead political class refuses to do so, or to even recognize the problem?
I must concede I have been "blaming others," and indeed SOMEBODY (lots of somebodies) have a share of blame, because it HAS happened. It doesn't mean that anybody actually intended it to happen (indeed, many intended something different) but it happened nonetheless.
The question to you remains... What now, Sherlock?
What VALUE would collecting 22% of GDP versus 18 or 20% have for the country? Or what detriment? Remember, the current debt is about 150% of GDP.
Accepting one's role in creating a problem is a part of learning and improving.
22% would eliminate the deficit and start paying a little on the debt.
Paying and cutting one's bills is how people and governments work their way out of debt.
I am fine with doing both.
Debt currently ~107% of GDP
an extra 2% of GDP comes out to $440 Billion. Not even close to the deficit. I, too, would agree to "doing both," but recognizing that government does not have control of spending and that "cuts" are simply not politically possible. Even sensible reform can't work its way through. So, what now, Sherlock?
BTW, if you want to get an extra $332 billion off the deficit, we could start with cutting off those things NOT authorized by Congress! $332B wasted Congress won't even do THAT!
Since Trump etal has us down to 16.3%, there can be more revenue. And I am all for cutting entitlements.
Since your piece was from Feb2020, I am sure Trump took care of that?
So where is this magical revenue going to come from? It has to be extracted from the productive economy, and that usually means a less productive economy. What is "perfect" about a number of 20%?
And again you want to blame Trump, when these things are ENTIRELY the purview of Congress, as are entitlements. Face it, we have far too few deficit hawks and way too many "What deficit" representatives.
Jerry,
The same place it came from in 2000...
Of course, citizens like you actually paying your bills will possibly slow the economy. Much better than you charging your bills to your grand children.
Let's repeat... You and your ilk are NOT deficit hawks... You are free loaders who are happy spending more than you want to pay in, while saying "What Deficit"?
20+% is what the citizens have chosen to spend... That is why it is what they should be happy to pay.
The Executive Branch enforces the laws...
If a cabinet member was spending non-approved money. That was on Trump.
Wrong on all counts. I abhor deficits but I cannot single-handedly rein in a spendthrift Congress. Neither can anybody in the Executive Branch. Entitlements and "zombie programs" are Congress' way of avoiding their responsibility to oversee spending. All the Executive is doing is spending what Congress tells them to spend. Because it's done so sloppily there is some wiggle room within the total Congress intends, but Congress' proper function is not to GIVE that wiggle room.
As for me, I am following the laws laid down by Congress and paying my full share of taxes. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't seem to do me any good, either. I suppose if I had money like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi, I could make a /donation/ to the Federal Government, above what I owe, to pay down the debt, but I don't have it. And those folks work hard to pay LESS taxes than they might, and make ZERO extra "contributions."
You know, nothing stops YOU from paying a full 20 or 22% of YOUR earnings. Not my fault if you aren't paying your fair share and more.
I've shown you that raising revenues to 20% of GDP wouldn't be enough. And raising taxes doesn't guarantee raising revenues. So either pay up, or tell me how you are going to /propose/ (to Congress) solving this problem. "Cutting entitlements" is "push granny over the cliff" unless you have a better idea? BTW, estimates are that in fifteen years, entitlements and interest will consume all federal revenues. Now seems a good time to start fixing the problem and for-Pete's-sake quit blaming everybody except those who are in charge of fixing it.
Well. Keep blaming "them" then while the responsibility lies closer to home. :-)
I am pretty sure all you have proven is that you want low taxes and no entitlement cuts.
Same as I have been saying all along.
You are certainly stubbornly stuck in your blinkered thinking, trying to blame me, falsely I might add, and showing no interest whatsoever in actually solving the problem, even when is clearly spelled out for you.
I've been baiting you, waiting for some glimmer of original thought or curiosity, holding back known solutions to the problem for a rational discussion. Too bad.
Yes it is too bad...
We will continue to over spend and under collect until disaster occurs.
And you will keep voting for politicians that support perpetuating the problem.
And you will continue voting for politicians who not only refuse to acknowledge the problem, but insist on making it worse than the ones I vote for. And it is too bad that your votes count more than mine.
Oh, and by the way, it is not possible to solve the problem by collecting more. You continue to believe that fable, peddled by the profligates.
If we spend 22% of GDP we certainly can collect 22%...
Your denial of this simple math is puzzling.
How is that simple math??? It's politician math at best! The federal government (not "we" by any reasonable definition) currently spends far more than the revenue they take in. The rest of it is imaginary money, created out of thin air. Now, if each of us could simply print our own money, we could easily pay any tax that was levied, but of course that wouldn't solve the problem any better.
How you keep clinging to the preposterous notion that this "math" of constantly spending more than you take in is sustainable or even acceptable is beyond my ken.
That is why I am advocating taking in what we spend.
You are the one against pay our bills.
And I am advocating a return to simple math that says if you take a couple trillion dollars out of the productive economy and throw it down a rathole, you are not being fiscally responsible and are probably damaging the economy somewhat severely. The analyses are out and say exactly that. No, you have to go with the common sense advice given to anybody that finds themselves in debt. 1) cut up the credit card, and 2) find a way to live within your means. If that means no more lunches at Le Cirque, and selling the Bentley to drive a used Ford, that's what you do. You do NOT demand your boss give you a whopping big raise; that may not turn out well.
Entitlements is a "Rathole", then let's cut them immediately.
Remember that the vast amount of government spending is going to citizens like yourself and investors...
"citizens like yourself"? So, every citizen of the US is exactly alike, all "entitled" to whatever generous handout the politicians want to promise us, regardless of whether the money is available to pay for it or not?
Did you get your Biden bucks yet, the "stimulus" or whatever it's called? I did, and figured out that it COST me (or my descendants unto the seventh generation) 20 TIMES what I received. How are you going to blame me for THAT humongous rathole?
You really are heartless, aren't you? Cut entitlements immediately? It looks good on paper, but you are talking about real people, all kinds of them. And it is SO unnecessary if you just reform these programs, taking them out of the entitlement category and putting them back under the control of Congress, and making them far more cost-effective. Like I said, "find a way to live within your means" regardless of what that means. Congress should be setting limits and priorities, and kicking their addiction to OPM (Other People's Money).
I did not support the Trump tax cuts, the Trump Bucks or the Biden Bucks.
Unlike yourself who cheered as Trump lowered taxes, increased spending and exploded the deficits.
Yes I am pretty heartless, I think we should reserve tax payer money for the elderly who need it. Not give money and services to every elder citizen just because they feel entitled to it.
I did not support the Trump bucks or the Biden bucks, either, yet here we are. That tells me that Congress is spending money totally out of control, and that is the problem. Neither of us can be blamed. I approved of the Trump tax cuts but I had no more say in that than I did in the spending. I approved simply because all money does not belong to the government, out of which they give you back whatever they think you deserve, but rather all money belongs to those that earned it, and government should be living within the constraints of the revenues raised. a cut in taxes SHOULD result in a cut in spending, but again that common sense thinking this not exist within our government.
You are heartless and of diminished mental capacity if you believe that those who paid into Social Security for their lifetimes should suddenly be deprived of the benefits they were promised. Government already taxes Social Security benefits for high income people, which doesn't make a lot of sense. What is really needed, and I'm getting tired of saying it, is a complete reform of all the entitlements so that those who paid in get what they were promised, and everything else only goes to those who truly need it, in the amount needed,and in the most efficacious manner possible. At some point it has to be done and the longer we wait the more painful it will be.
"a cut in taxes SHOULD result in a cut in spending"
Unfortunately Trump and the GOP had no common sense.
What you want is "full benefits for you" and less benefits for future citizens.
I am fine with the second half or your proposal.
The first half as more of your generations self serving behavior.
I had not seen the proposition as two "halves," but it is clear you understand neither one. I told you what I "want" yet you persist in saying otherwise. Just because I cannot get what I want is no good reason to insult a whole generation.
If you agree with the second half, as you say, then perhaps you will give up the silly notion of raising taxes to cover a debt that is spiraling completely out of control?
Jerry,
Your generation set up and underfinanced the "ponzi" scheme. The buck stops there.
And now you want to make sure you get your returns out before it collapses...
Reminds me of Bernie Madoff...
And "Less benefits for future generations" is one of those things that our deeply-in-debt government simply can no longer afford. The choice is to cut them deeply and hurt a lot of folks, to cut them judiciously to do less harm, or to reform them completely to save money with minimum or no harm.
Actually, I think my generation would like to reform the system so EVERYBODY gets out and the collapse is avoided. You would rather have somebody to blame than to actually fix the problem.
When you are willing to bear some of the pain, then we can talk.
There will be no collapse, the benefits will just be cut to match the incoming funds... As they should be.
I sometimes wonder what it feels for wealthy people to get a welfare check each month?
Most of your check comes from a current tax payer like me...
I pay in ~$20,000 annually so needy folks like yourself can buy food and get reduced cost healthcare.
I assume it is kind of hard to be on the dole after complaining about welfare so long. I assume that is why people keep trying to think of it like a retirement account?
Even though they knew their payroll taxes were spent long ago to care for other old folk's welfare.
"When you are willing to bear some of the pain, then we can talk."
And yet you are perfectly willing to inflict pain on everybody rather that fix the system so that pain can me minimiz3ed or avoided entirely. How heartless can you be?
"There will be no collapse...." Really? Medicare is running behind, slightly aided by drastic cuts to provider payments so that some doctors are refusing Medicare patients. The SS Trust Fund is already dropping and will soon disappear entirely. The supposed 25% benefit cut at that time, if it can be held to that, sounds like "collapse" to me. It shouldn't happen and could have been fixed 25 years ago.
If the current generation made a mistake, it was allowing government to run a massive Ponzi scheme called Social Security, promising us something that could not be delivered.
Unfortunately your "fixes" are usually unrealistic dreams that benefit you and cost others.
Which is in alignment with many in your generation as I keep noting.
The mantra of your generation...
"Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you." :-)
And apparently your generation says "nothing can change, we're all doomed, and it's all the fault of Republicans."
Pure nonsense. If you take the days required to do the difficult math, you will find nothing unrealistic about what is (and has been repeatedly) proposed. You just don't want to entertain it because that conflicts with your need to blame somebody and to pretend there are no good solutions.
Actually if you read what I have written, I blame all older American voters who voted for:
- unpaid for spending increases
- tax cuts with no equivalent spending cuts
for our current problem, not just the Republicans.
The Republicans are just the more hypocritical of the 2 parties because they labelled themselves the fiscally responsible folks while driving the debt up the most with their tax cuts with no off setting spending cuts.
At least the DEMs are willing to increase taxes as they increase spending.
I have given you a perfectly good solution cut the checks and services today until they align with the premiums that were paid.
Or stop writing government welfare checks to citizens who do not need them.
You are the one against the simplest solutions.
What solutions do you wish to propose? Who will benefit and who will lose out?
The simple solution would be a balanced budget amendment with real teeth, the equivalent of "cutting up the credit card." Under current law, that would mean, within a few years, eliminating ALL government spending-- defense, environment, the IRS, "infrastructure," Congress and everything else. In short, untold damage to the country, while entitlements went on untouched and continued to grow. Or you could follow Pareto's law and tackle the 80% of the problem that is entitlements, but FIRST you have to take away entitlement status and force Congress to "live within its means." Since that is clearly impossible without inflicting real pain on real people by cutting the benefits they have either paid for or need to stay alive *you heartless SOB* that's a terrible solution as well.
The solution I propose is that nobody "loses out." SS can be reformed in a way that actually keeps the promise for everybody at or near retirement and saves SS for future retirees, that is, it never goes broke. Medicare and Medicaid (and probably Obamacare) can be reformed to do more with less. It WILL work, despite your immediately following, totally knee-jerk denial.
"At least the DEMs are willing to increase taxes as they increase spending." OR just increase taxes for the heck of it, like Gov. Walz. Or increase spending while trying to raise taxes, as the always do. Republicans at least try to cut spending to "pay for" tax cuts (a ridiculous notion). When the boss cuts your hours so you take home less pay, do you go out shopping for new golf clubs, or drop your country club membership? MN government spending actually decreased ONE time, and that was when Republicans had full control. Taxes up or taxes down, spending goes up. Sure, we have a BBA in Minnesota, but the wild spending simply leads us to be the what, 4th or 5th highest taxed State?
Details.
"solution I propose is that nobody "loses out." "
Into the magical wayback machine...
"I've been baiting you, waiting for some glimmer of original thought or curiosity, holding back known solutions to the problem for a rational discussion. Too bad. --
April 12, 2021 at 4:25 PM"
I've argued all this way that the solution is reforming entitlements so as to cut spending, with you insisting it is somehow MY fault and the solution is to raise taxes. NOW you want details of MY solution? I'm not falling for that one. It doesn't matter what I suggest, you will simply dismiss it out of hand or, equally likely, insult me in the process. If you had done the days of math that I did, we wouldn't be having this "debate." Get back to me when you have.
You are likely correct. History indicates that you would make claims with no sources, I would note the holes in the proposal, you will deny the holes, repeat...
Have a great week !!!
The difference is I have sources, you deny my sources with no evidence. I have done the math, you have not but you claim my math is wrong. I make detailed proposals, you claim, with no evidence, they won't work. Let me quote from the film, "the only way to win is not to play." I'm done playing. If you do manage to come up with a real proposal of your own, or can figure out how effective mine might be, let me know and we WILL discuss particulars.
Sounds like a plan.
My plan or your plan? You look for answers, or simply move on?
Jerry,
In ~11 years you have never proposed a viable logical plan.
You have proposed vague generalities that include a lot of wishful thinking and a disregard for the negative consequences incurred.
So I am guessing we just move on unless you choose to surprise me.
The reality is that money does not grow on trees. if people want to spend it, they have to collect it... Or keep stealing it from our kids.
"In ~11 years you have never proposed a viable logical plan." That is by YOUR standard and yours alone. And if I do, you simply dismiss it out of hand as "unworkable" or some such poorly-considered response.
The reality is that about half of what government spends gets wasted. Eliminate that and the spending isn't a big problem. It is this "nothing can change" mentality of yours that is causing the problem. INDIVIDUALS have to earn what they spend. The federal government has no such restriction or compunction.
Go ahead, justify the spending of 95% of the almost $2T of imaginary money that went into the last "Covid relief" bill, but that had nothing to do with Covid. And name all the Republicans that voted for it.
"half of what government spends gets wasted"
Proof please.
I agree that the DEMs and GOPers both spend too much. Trump signed off on way more than $1.9 Trillion. And he was your hero... :-O
Yes. Half
half
Your turn. Justify 95% of 1.9 trillion.
A poll result... Really? Then let's just cut reduce all the checks like I have proposed.
I am against the the Trump and Biden stimulus plans.
Why would I seek to justify them?
I don't like poll results either, since they come mostly from people have an opinion but no facts. So when I hear a proposition like taking a meat axe to spending, as you propose, it sounds silly. Emotionally satisfying, but NOT a realistic solution. If a real person gets in debt trouble, they don't just slash their spending across the board. Try cutting your house or car payment in half and see what happens. No, fiscally responsible means making priorities and choices, and perhaps "reforming" your habits. You drive a used Chevy instead of the Mercedes-- same result, lower cost. You give up the country club and play at the public golf course-- same health benefit and fun, lower cost. Government entitlements run on autopilot, with no oversight, no priorities or analysis and most certainly, no real reform.
Why should you justify them? Because you haven't done a single thing to prevent them, except to propose that we "pay our bills" through higher taxes. Or argue that electing Republicans is the wrong thing to do to solve the problem. Again, how many Republicans voted for this latest outrageous overspending? You keep saying "nothing can change," so what is your solution for the deep hole Congress has dug and continues digging?
Then we are back here. "half of what government spends gets wasted" Proof please.
It is amusing how you are critical of Biden's spending, when Trump spent far more and not once did you criticize it....
Was I supposed to? It was Democrats in Congress who approved every dollar of it, long ago in the case of entitlements. Trump had nothing to do with those.
Why should anyone care about proof of the proposition? The solution to the obvious problem of overspending is to attempt to disprove that widely-held belief. Prove to me that every federal dollar spent is spent wisely and cannot be cut without harming those with no other option, and then see where we are. Quite a large task you've undertaken.
It was Trump and a GOP Senate who blessed all those massive spending increases. And in 2017/18 it was a GOP congress and Trump who increased spending and did nothing about entitlements.
You made the statement, it is your task to prove it. Which is going to be pretty hard since most of the government's budget goes to checks / services for citizens, the military and paying interest to investors.
Then we are back here. "half of what government spends gets wasted" Proof please.
It is a simple declarative statement. Its proof is the fact that it is made. It is the opinion of the majority of Americans which, as you often say, must be served. But 99.9% of them have no idea of how the problem might be remedied, and telling them whom to blame for it probably does more to impede the search for solutions than to advance it. And denying that solutions exist doesn't help, either. So here we are again. Start by admitting that solutions OTHER THAN tax increases or meat-axe cuts exist.
In summary... You want to continue receiving your checks and paying your low taxes... :-)
And have someone else fix the problem you folks created back when... Sounds about right.
In summary, you want to blame me, Trump, old folks and Republicans for lowering (or not paying enough) taxes, while vehemently denying that Democrat spending (or worse yet, uncontrolled entitlement spending) have anything to do with the problem. What sounds right is you think /I/ should "fix the problem." I have no such power, but I do have solutions. You deny their very existence, preferring to continue to whine and complain and blame others.
Actually I also blame "Trump, old folks and Republicans" for excessive entitlement spending.
Trump and the GOP had control in 2017 and 2018 and they did NOTHING to cut spending. And in fact they made large increases.
OK, great, you have cast the blame squarely, in your NSHO. So what have you actually done to solve the problem? What will you do to actually solve the problem? Are you even interested in solving the problem? Would you even consider that there are solutions to the problem?
My solution is simple.
Reduce spending to ~19.5% of GDP
Increase taxes to ~20% of GDP
Until Debt is back to maybe ~40% of GDP.
Then maintain balanced budget.
OK, simple. So, across the board cuts of 25%? Isn't that going to create a lot of "pain"? Or are you going to be selective, cutting some things by enough >25% that entitlements go untouched? That means that the 32% of spending that is discretionary, including defense and all government operations, must be cut by about 80%! Good idea/bad idea?
And if you increase taxes to 20% of GDP, what do you think happens to GDP? Since when do tax increases raise the revenue predicted?
A bit more math: 1/2% of GDP "surplus" to the treasury each year, says we will be back to a balanced budget in 20+ years, assuming all spending (including unlimited and uncontrolled entitlements) do not grow over that time. Any other ideas?
Current spend is ~23% of GDP.
Current revenue is ~17% of GDP.
Where are you getting the need for 25% cuts?
The CBO predicted the 2017 tax cuts would reduce revenues, and Reagan, Bush II and Trump proved it. Not sure why you think that raising taxes carefully would not result in higher revenues. The Laffer curve has been proven laughable... :-)
Only solution is to start today, everyday we delay just makes it worse.
23/17=1.35 or 135%
17/23=0.74 or 74%. QED.
Either way you calculate, spending must be cut by at least 25%. Since you are all for a "meat axe" cut, I assume your "carefully raising taxes" would be similarly ham-handed. NOBODY just stands still and pays more taxes (like CBO assumes), especially those who can afford to hire tax accountants. Remember the "yacht tax"?
Yes, start today, but where? Do you cut the 20% of the budget that is discretionary, or find a relatively painless way to cut back the 80% of the budget that is entitlements? Pareto's law.
If you believe in the balanced budget amendment.
Let's start enforcing it. I am pretty flexible how.
Revenues need to be great than spend in good times.
The government should not be writing checks to citizens who do not need assistance.
Now you are making sense. And had we passed a BBA 20 or 30 years ago (with real teeth) we would not be having the problem we now have. But as I believe I asked FAR upthread, if we passed a BBA today, effective immediately, how could we POSSIBLY (and realistically) get to a balanced budget, even within a 5-10 year budget time frame?
Easy...
We raise taxes and cut spending...
See the year 2000... It can work.
Sorry, I can't see it from here. The rule is "play the ball from where it lies." It may be that had we passed the BBA then, we would have been able, but we didn't. And even then we did nothing to curb the ever-growing cost of entitlements, and the few that dared to touch that "third rail of politics" were severely criticized for that bit of common sense. I simply cannot see how we can control spending unless we control the 80% of the budget shielded under the "entitlements" banner. It's called "mandatory spending," meaning it's not under control. How do you control something that isn't controlled?
One other interesting tidbit. It appears federal revenues actually increased after the Trump tax cuts, as well as after the bush tax cuts of 2003.
Jerry,
Most entitlement payouts can be reduced or changed with the stroke of a pen.
Unfortunately most folks who receive them, like yourself, don't want them cut.
You want your part of the government pork because you feel you deserve it.
Just like most people think / feel.
Therefore politicians are too scared to do so. When have you ever voted for someone who promised to cut a check, service, etc that you personally value. :-)
The green revenue line in the image in this post clearly shows that revenue as a percentage of GDP FELL after the Reagan, Bush II & Trump tax cuts. And the deficits brew each time. Not sure why you fight what is before your eyes.
"can be reduced with the stroke of a pen" That is, an act of Congress. Will Rogers said “This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when a baby gets hold of the hammer. It’s just a question of how much damage he can do with it before we take it away from him.” Congress has not the courage to act with the common sense God gave a baby with a hammer. It can do great damage, but not something constructive. And I am absolutely certain that what I want, or even vote for, has nothing to do with that.
As a percent of GDP and absolute dollars show something entirely different. If corporate revenue increases, why should company costs increase with it? Shouldn't there be productivity improvements, cost improvements, economies of scale?
Not sure why your only solution is to punish the taxpayers or punish those dependent on the various entitlements. There must be a better way.
Deny the data as usual...
And my cuts would not hurt those that need the SS / Medicaid welfare program...
Only those who are on it that really do not need it. Like yourself.
What deny? I simply look at a different (probably better) way of measuring deficits and revenues. I paid into Social Security all my life, and was promised I would at least get that money back in retirement. I know Congress can, at the drop of a hat, take it away, but is outright theft by fraud what you really want our government to be doing? And I want to know how you are going to decide who "needs" these entitlements? And why YOU get to make that call?
You're not going to hurt ANYBODY with your "cuts"? Isn't that just a fantasy-- a "glittering generality"? Get specific. Is there a way to make no cuts at all and still balance the budget? Without raising taxes?
Jerry,
You want your 30 pieces of silver and low taxes...
That is why our country is in the mess it is...
I do not see you proposing any solutions.
I will await your solutions that hurt no one.
Here we go again:
1. You pretend to know what I want, insulting me by the insinuation.
2. You insist I am therefore somehow to blame for a massive problem over which I have no control,
3. You want me to propose solutions,
4. Which you will then question, deny, quibble with, or simply dismiss.
Not sure I want to play this game again, especially since you seem to think you can so easily make drastic spending cuts with no pain. I'm not that heartless.
Instead, I think you would say you are not that generous or giving.
As you keep saying, you are entitled to that welfare handout whether you need it or not.
I have received no "welfare handout," so you are flat-out lying about me. I pay all my taxes and still I tithe to charity. I even donated my "Biden bucks," the 5% I was sent out of what that "Covid relief" bill actually cost me. And it is all irrelevant to the problem! The question is not how generous or charitable I happen to be with my money, but how much our government is forcing you and everybody else to throw away, including money you do not have and not even your grandkids will ever get.
The obvious solution is to have Congress repudiate the debt, eliminate all entitlements including Social Security, pass a permanent budget funding only the current discretionary spending, and then disband itself. Anything other than that is a half-measure, with commensurate pain for the population. Unless.... somebody is willing to talk seriously about reform measures that would resolve the problem while minimizing the pain.
It is unlikely that the citizens will vote for that...
Maybe when some of the older folks pass away, more responsible folks will vote for fiscal responsibility.
You are still positing an either/or situation-- we either raise taxes horribly or make meat-axe cuts to spending (or both). The correct alternative is neither, but to make some common sense reforms on the entitlement programs that will bring them in line with revenues, without huge "cuts" that hurt people dependent on them. And taxes should be designed to gain only the revenue needed to operate the essential functions of the government. That means LOWER rates in many cases. tax vs. revenues
Of course, getting Congress to propose common sense solutions is highly unlikely, and even if some of them did, the other side would mercilessly demonize them before the public. Right now, I am forecasting that we will not see the iceberg in time to steer away.
Before we leave this topic, let me ask your opinion of the following simple method of reducing the deficit AND the debt:
Knowing that almost half of our national debt is simply imaginary money "on the books" of the Federal Reserve Banks, Congress simply repudiates that part of our national debt. Poof! Nobody supposedly hurt when imaginary money disappears. And inflation is reduced because that money never enters the economy.
Then, Congress changes the law which allows the Federal Reserve to "buy up" any Treasury Bonds that do not sell on the open market by magically "printing" new money that they put on their books. If the bonds don't sell on the open market, interest rates must rise until they DO sell, and that quickly becomes untenable, so most of the deficit spending must end.
Thoughts?
I need to do more research. It will probably be a new post.
Your FED ownership numbers are pretty far off
Really? Last I saw it was about $11T.
Sorry forgot source link
So, I said $11T, your source says $10.8. Close enough for government work. But if Biden gets his additional $4T in spending, you know where that is going to come from.
Actually it says the "Monetary Authority" is $5.3 Trillion.
The rest is owed to someone... That is if you would like to keep getting your welfare checks.
Actually it sounds like Biden is planning for the wealthy to pay for the extra spending.
I may not be a fan of more spending, but at least he is trying to pay for his wishes.
Unlike our prior President, who charged his dreams to our kids.
My point is that what is owed to the Fed is purely fiat money, created out of nothing to fund gov't overspending. The money did not exist until the Fed created it to "buy" Treasury bonds that nobody wanted. So simply cancel that debt, and that imaginary money does not need to be repaid.
It sounds like Biden is going to strip that magical money tree in DC down to its roots. There is no way his measly tax plans, even if realized-- i.e. the rich don't find ways to avoid it-- cannot possibly cover even a fraction of that new spending. Latest experts say that 90% of the tax will be "avoided." Once again the Loony Left is trying to greatly increase spending, rather than living within revenues they already have.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."-- P. J. O'Rourke
You are so amusing or disturbingly delusional.
We know from past revenue levels, higher tax rates yield higher revenues.
And somehow you keeping denying that simple clear data.
Oh well...
And lower taxes paid higher revenues. Go by dollars, not percent. And even if we measure your way, the delusional thing is to assume we can tax our way to prosperity. Or pay off a debt that is higher than all of us collectively earn. So how about we simply cancel that part of the Debt held by the Federal Reserve? That would be a start. Then deny the Fed the unlimited right to [unconstitutionally, BTW] "print money" by buying unsold Treasury bonds, you would have your Balanced Budget Amendment, with real "teeth," while still permitting a little bit of overspending, as the public would buy a limited amount of Treasury bonds.
Your never ending delusion...
"lower taxes paid higher revenues"
Three times they told you the same lie.
Three times the debt blossomed.
And still you have not learned.
And still you have not looked at the actual, real data. Governments are notorious for ignoring the simple truth that incentives matter. Lower taxes on an economic activity, and that economic activity increases. Years back, Congress passed a "loophole" giving a tax break for investing in cattle feedlots. The number of feedlots skyrocketed, and they paid considerably more taxes than the tax breaks given. Then there was the "yacht tax" where government placed a high "excise" tax on the sale of large yachts. Yacht sales stopped, the tax was never paid, yacht makers went out of business and paid LESS or no taxes, a total fiasco. Yet they, and you, have not learned that Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics and human nature.
And when will they stop the Fed from printing money to finance their profligate ways?
So many opinions, so little data.
Yes, I will post about FED debt sometime.
I just offered up three real facts, and rather than look up their veracity, you simply dismiss them as my opinion. That's a pretty weak argument. Can I simply dismiss everything you write as unsubstantiated opinion?
How about looking up total DOLLARS of revenue after each tax cut, rather than GDP percent? Then justify ANY specific percent of GDP as being required to finance the essential functions of the federal government. Remember the debate in Congress over the income tax? The concern at the time was "if we do not limit this, some day it may rise as high as 1%"!
Jerry,
You do dismiss even my most document facts, while providing no proof of your opinions.
Matter of interpretation. Sometimes I find your facts convincing, other times I find facts that contradict your facts or at least your conclusions from those facts, and sometimes your "facts" seem to be largely irrelevant to the subject at hand. I've pretty much given up the idea of dueling sources with you, since you dismiss them as "opinion." What I expect is that when I make a statement, you look up exactly what I'm talking about and THEN you can quibble with it. It's not my opinion; at worst it is some "expert's."
Do you want to debate the reality of the yacht tax, or the feeder lot credit? Or just call me a liar?
Liar is too strong. I think delusional cherry picker with no proof is more accurate.
I think you believe what you state and due to your active confirmation bias you are unwilling / unable to learn differently.
I have no doubt that occasionally there are counter-productive tax policies. But overall, history has proven that higher tax rates yield higher revenues. We are not at the upper range of the laffer curve yet.
"history has proven that higher tax rates yield higher revenues. "
OK, liar is too strong, but our statement is incorrect so long as you measure actual revenues, not percentages. Look it up, instead of such bald-faced lies about me.
I have an active confirmation bias, it is true, but when facts match what I already believe, it will be very difficult for you to "teach" me otherwise. Yet you keep trying. You will not accept any "truth" which does not match your preconceived notion. Have you noticed that?
"measure actual revenues, not percentages"
This is an excellent example of your clouded thinking.
You seem to want "tax cuts" to take credit for normal inflationary increases, normal changes in the business cycle and the impact of additional government spending on the GDP.
Now per my image in the post. Spending per GDP went up AND Revenue per GDP went down in the 1980's, 2000's and 2017, which yielded the large deficits. Quite simply the GOP was trying to boost growth with borrowed money. Which works until someone needs to pay the bill.
Yes, and you are still measuring "per GDP." If Republicans pass a tax cut and revenues go up in actual dollars, QED. Inflation doesn't matter because of "static scoring." Which of course isn't real either because the "business cycle" is highly impacted by tax cuts. As for why spending also goes up, consider that the typical "deal" made by Democrats is to trade tax cuts for less spending, and then deliver MORE spending. Or at least to continue entitlement spending on an ever-increasing autopilot.
Rationalize all you want, but your fundamental premise, that tax increases can eliminate our debt and deficit, is simply magical thinking. It "doesn't add up" in the most unimaginable numbers. I find the following helpful: "Suppose you and your family had started a business the day Christ was born, and it was very successful. You earned $1 million every day since then. You would still be far short of $1 Trillion." Like Sen. Dirksen said...
As I said, your delusion and denial is deep seated.
The problem with "my delusion" is that it is firmly rooted in reality. Your delusion is being convinced that it is not, and that your fantasy is everybody else's reality. You can claim all you want that raising taxes is the solution to federal fiscal irresponsibility, but you cannot make it so because the math is solidly against you. You CAN make assumptions and rosy scenarios, but predictions are not facts.
Whatever you wish to believe. :-)
I believe the truth is where you find it, IF you look for it. I don't start with an open mind but I can be convinced if your case is strong enough. I just haven't seen it. I'm like that meme of the guy in the park, sitting behind a card table and the sign says "change my mind." The subject varies, but it is almost always some simple and obvious truth. It's what we have here, though not so simple and obvious. You cannot tax our way out of debt or into prosperity. Or, at some point spending more than you take in is going to bite you in the derriere. Cut spending. Try to do it in a way that shows some discernment.
Post a Comment