Whats going to happen when America can't borrow anymore money?

[g5000]

I will dumb it down even more.

You and I go out to eat. We both order the exact same steaks and the exact same Cokes.

The bill comes to $20. That means we each owe the restaurant $10 for the service it provides to us.

But wait. You get a $5 deduction because you own a house.

The restaurant still needs that $20 if it is still going to stay in the food service business.

Which means I have to cough up $15 while you pay only $5.

See how that works?


But then you bitch about having to pay $5 and why the restaurant is serving steaks to anyone who asks.

So next time, we go to a hot dog stand.

We each order a hot dog and a Coke.

Now the bill is $6.00. Woo hoo! Fiscal austerity rulez!

But wait. You get a $5.00 deduction because you own a house.

So not only do you not have to pay your $3.00 share, you actually get $2.00 credit from the hot dog vendor! Woo hoo. You LOOOOOOVE this system!

Of course, I not only have to cough up the $6.00 for the meal , I have to pay an extra $2.00 to pay for your credit.

 

[g5000]

I reduced the budget all the way down to $500 billion and you said to not spend the fucking money.

It is obvious you are the idiot here.

Why is it so impossible to offset revenue reductions with spending reductions?

Hello? Is this thing on?

I REDUCED THE BUDGET FIRST. That was the very first fucking thing I did.

The current federal budget is $3.5 trillion. I reduced it to $500 billion.

You STILL have to take money from someone else's pocket to pay for tax expenditures, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL THE BUDGET IS.

Please, please, please try to absorb this reality.

Oh, I get it. You are starting off by arbitrarily creating a scenario that doesn't even come close to matching reality, so that you can create the false impression that changing things is impossible because it's already been changed per your scenario.

Here we go, I've got one....G5000 has sex with horses. Now he's a horse fucker, and it's impossible to argue against me because in my version I already made him having sex with horses.

What you are doing is a form of question begging fallacy.

You are clearly too stupid to understand allegories.

 

[g5000]

Oh, I get it. You are starting off by arbitrarily creating a scenario that doesn't even come close to matching reality

I did this to demonstrate the point that the size of the budget is completely immaterial to the fact that tax expenditures come out of someone else's pocket. The size of the budget only determines how much more or less wealth is transferred from one person to the other. It does not alter the fact that wealth is involuntarily transferred at gunpoint.

I cannot help it if you are too stupid to get it.

 

[SwimExpert]

I reduced the budget all the way down to $500 billion and you said to not spend the fucking money.

It is obvious you are the idiot here.

Why is it so impossible to offset revenue reductions with spending reductions?

Hello? Is this thing on?

I REDUCED THE BUDGET FIRST. That was the very first fucking thing I did.

The current federal budget is $3.5 trillion. I reduced it to $500 billion.

You STILL have to take money from someone else's pocket to pay for tax expenditures, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL THE BUDGET IS.

Please, please, please try to absorb this reality.

Oh, I get it. You are starting off by arbitrarily creating a scenario that doesn't even come close to matching reality, so that you can create the false impression that changing things is impossible because it's already been changed per your scenario.

Here we go, I've got one....G5000 has sex with horses. Now he's a horse fucker, and it's impossible to argue against me because in my version I already made him having sex with horses.

What you are doing is a form of question begging fallacy.

You are clearly too stupid to understand allegories.

No, you're the one who is too stupid to understand that just because you invent an imaginary scenario does not mean circumstances unique to your scenario apply to the real world. Ayn Rand once wrote a well known novel where she did exactly that. It was called Atlas Shrugged. She, and the idolatrous robots who worship her could never seem to comprehend that she created a fictional world intent on delivering a certain outcome and that as such, her fiction does not tell us anything about the world in which we actually live.

What you are peddling is not allegory. Animal Farm was allegory. All you've got is a piss poor example of pulp fiction.

 

[g5000]

In the steak scenario, five dollars is forcibly transferred from one person to the other.

In the hot dog scenario, five dollars is forcibly transferred from one person to the other.

The size of the food bill is completely immaterial to the fact that wealth is forcibly transferred.

The budget is smaller, but the playing field is just as unlevel as before.

 

[g5000]

I reduced the budget all the way down to $500 billion and you said to not spend the fucking money.

It is obvious you are the idiot here.

Why is it so impossible to offset revenue reductions with spending reductions?

Hello? Is this thing on?

I REDUCED THE BUDGET FIRST. That was the very first fucking thing I did.

The current federal budget is $3.5 trillion. I reduced it to $500 billion.

You STILL have to take money from someone else's pocket to pay for tax expenditures, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL THE BUDGET IS.

Please, please, please try to absorb this reality.

Oh, I get it. You are starting off by arbitrarily creating a scenario that doesn't even come close to matching reality, so that you can create the false impression that changing things is impossible because it's already been changed per your scenario.

Here we go, I've got one....G5000 has sex with horses. Now he's a horse fucker, and it's impossible to argue against me because in my version I already made him having sex with horses.

What you are doing is a form of question begging fallacy.

You are clearly too stupid to understand allegories.

No, you're the one who is too stupid to understand that just because you invent an imaginary scenario does not mean circumstances unique to your scenario apply to the real world. Ayn Rand once wrote a well known novel where she did exactly that. It was called Atlas Shrugged. She, and the idolatrous robots who worship her could never seem to comprehend that she created a fictional world intent on delivering a certain outcome and that as such, her fiction does not tell us anything about the world in which we actually live.

What you are peddling is not allegory. Animal Farm was allegory. All you've got is a piss poor example of pulp fiction.

I read Atlas Shrugged, rube. This is exactly why I said "you are leeching" to Flash earlier (post 77).

 

[SwimExpert]

I did this to demonstrate the point that the size of the budget is completely immateria

Then you don't get to make arguments that the spending can't be reduced because you already reduced to a certain size.

 

[g5000]

I did this to demonstrate the point that the size of the budget is completely immateria

Then you don't get to make arguments that the spending can't be reduced because you already reduced to a certain size.

I never said spending can't be reduced. Jesus H. Christ.

I said reducing spending does not change the fact the playing field is still just as unlevel. I said reducing spending is completely immaterial to the fact that wealth is being forcibly transferred at gunpoint from one person to another.

 

[g5000]

You dumb fucks think the whole problem is "too much spending".

But the truth is that too much spending is PART of the problem.

Tax expenditures are a much bigger PART of the problem.

I have proposed, many times, several means to cut spending on this forum. But that alone would not solve our problems.

The government is deciding who the winners and losers are with tax expenditures. The government is performing the biggest behavioral control program in history. The government has created a horribly unlevel playing field.

This is why you dumb shits never make any headway with the "tax the rich" assholes. You have no understanding of the real problems we have.

 

[Mr.Right]

Ok so we're 18 trillion dollars in debt most of which is owed to china. So with the situation in Greece whats going to happen when we can't pay back that debt? I know we are a much bigger country and have a higher GDP but we spend and owe so much money that not even the billions of dollars the government collects in tax is enough , so we end up borrowing more and printing more money which is decreasing the value of the dollar if I'm not wrong. So my question is whats going to happen when we cant borrow anymore money, is the economy going to tank?

ps
What i meant about china is that out of all the countries we owe them the most most money I know that most of our debt is owed to ourselves and how come they say that the coming economic collapse is gonna be 10x worse than the great depression

Here's what's going to happen. Social and economic collapse, followed by martial law. If you're not a prepper, now might be a good time to start.

 

[g5000]

Our economic problems are not caused by the rich not being taxed enough. For the most part, our problems are caused by legislative tilting of the playing field. Our elected officials are making serious bank by tilting the field to the advantage of a small number of players.

The sooner you rubes grasp this, the better armed you will be against the "tax the rich" assholes.

The "tax the rich" scheme punishes the innocent and the guilty alike. It is like making the guy who lives in a bigger house than you pay for the shit a thief stole from your house.

The thieves who are robbing us blind have police protection.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[SwimExpert]

I did this to demonstrate the point that the size of the budget is completely immateria

Then you don't get to make arguments that the spending can't be reduced because you already reduced to a certain size.

I never said spending can't be reduced. Jesus H. Christ.

I said reducing spending does not change the fact the playing field is still just as unlevel. I said reducing spending is completely immaterial to the fact that wealth is being forcibly transferred at gunpoint from one person to another.

What does it feel like to watch your entire bullshit argument unravel? What new concoction would you like to mix up next to try to protect the stupidity of your argument? Dr. Paul, is that you? Libertarians do this all the time. You start with a generally good concept and torturously mutilate it out of proportion and to extreme, asinine ends, and end up being the worst advocate in the world for an otherwise good concept.

 

[Flash]

[


Tax expenditures are a transfer of wealth.

Every dollar you deduct or exempt from your taxes is a dollar someone else has to make up for, or it has to be borrowed, no matter how small the federal budget.

That money you think is yours that you are keeping is actually coming out of someone else's pocket. You are leeching.

That is the most convoluted thing I have ever read on the internet. You must be joking because nobody is confused enough to post that garbage.

The IRS Code determines the tax liability for a taxpayer. As long as you are paying taxes according to the Code then you ain't stealing a damn thing from anybody.

Do you even pay income taxes or are you one of the leeches that steals money from others?

If you pay income taxes do you put your money where mouth is and send them more money than you are required to do? If not then why?

The problem is not that government isn't taxing enough. The problem is that the government spends too much money. The combined Federal, State and Local cost of government is over 40% of the GNP and that is despicable.

 

[SwimExpert]

You dumb fucks think the whole problem is "too much spending".

But the truth is that too much spending is PART of the problem.

Tax expenditures are a much bigger PART of the problem.

I have proposed, many times, several means to cut spending on this forum. But that alone would not solve our problems.

The government is deciding who the winners and losers are with tax expenditures. The government is performing the biggest behavioral control program in history. The government has created a horribly unlevel playing field.

This is why you dumb shits never make any headway with the "tax the rich" assholes. You have no understanding of the real problems we have.

Blah, blah, blah.

Hell, I've proposed ways to cut both spending AND taxes, while instituting a simplified tax code without all the swiss cheese, and still come up with a budgetary surplus. Yes, spending IS the problem. Because it does not matter how misguided or immoral tax expenditures (real expenditures, not your bullshit conceptualization) are, the fact still remains that nobody has forced Congress to spend more money than revenue that is coming in.

 

[g5000]

Look at the rubes scream like welfare queens trying to protect their government gifts!

You remind me of those people who line up at Thanksgiving for their turkeys from the back of a truck, provided courtesy of the local drug dealer.

The guy destroying your neighborhood bought your goodwill for the price of a turkey.

If that drug dealer stops making payments to the cops, he gets arrested, and then all you turkey dependents will storm the cop shop ready to burn it to the ground in defense of the drug dealer.

You get your little taste from the gangsters in the form of a child tax credit and you are hooked. You are the gangsters' bitch for life.

Another successful mass behavioral control program.

 

[Flash]

Deductions, exemptions, and credits are the largest government behavioral control program in history. And the sheep are completely oblivious.

The problem is not really the mix of winners and losers that is defined by the current tax code. That usually changes over time and between administrations, The real problem is the fact that so much money comes out of the productive economy for the cost of government. The US spends more money on the combined cost of government than the GNP of all but one other country (China) on earth. In other words if the US (combined) cost of government was a country with GNP then it would be the third largest economy on earth. That is despicable when you think about it.

We need to concentrate on making government much smaller and less costly then the impact would be much less on all Americans, regardless of the tax code.

The first priority needs to be to stop spending so much money. Then the next priority would be to reduce taxation and then to make it more equitable, in that order.

 

[Antares]

But that $500 billion budget still has to be paid for, you see. That hasn't changed.

Or....you could just NOT SPEND THE FUCKING MONEY!

He's been peddling that collectivist lie for a few years here, it is a seriously fucked up view that says spending can NEVER be decreased.

I have never said that, willfully blind monkey.

In fact, I started my post reducing the federal budget to $500 billion to demonstrate the size of the federal budget, no matter how small, does not take away from the fact that tax expenditures have to be paid for by other taxpayers or by borrowing.

It can't be helped if you are too willfully stupid to grasp the truth of this.

Don't mind me, I'm just laughing at you.

It is a seriously fucked up view that the money is the Govts and for every dollar they let you keep is a dollar they must make up and take from someone else.

Seriously, that is some fucked up shit.

You are simply too dense to understand that that will always be a minority view and the people at some point will ALWAYS rise up and tell you to feed your own fucking kids.

 

[Antares]

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

By taking more you can take less, got it.

 

[rdean]

We will go belly up and become just another third world country.

Slash education.
Abolish the EPA.
Widen money gap.
That's been the GOP goal all along.

 

[ScienceRocks]

We will go belly up and become just another third world country.

Slash education.
Abolish the EPA.
Widen money gap.
That's been the GOP goal all along.

These people would have us become a central American shit hole if they had their way.
What else would they do...
1. Abolish the nws, nasa and nsf.
2. Abolish the fda, cdc, and everything.
3. Abolish ssi for our old
4. Abolish infrastructure funding

We live in the riches nation on earth and we have a bunch of fucking retards that believe we shouldn't compete with the rest of the first world. 1% of our population controls over half the wealth but that isn't effin enough so lets lower taxes for them some more. Yeah, lets become a third world hell hole that can't do anything and sure as fuck can't compete.