Fighting more govt debt

[task0778]

What's in it: House GOP rules package aims to curb trillions in yearly heaps of new debt

The House Republican rules package includes several provisions aimed at cutting federal spending, which the GOP says has been a major contributor to inflation.

www.foxnews.com

First, let's not get into a pissing contest over which party is more responsible for the $31.38 trillion (and growing) debt we now have. The issue of this thread is what should be done about it, and the link above talks about what the GOP House wants to do.

A 55-page set of rules for the House that Speaker Kevin McCarthy hopes to pass on Monday will set ambitious new curbs on federal spending, part of the GOP's effort to stop piling on trillions of dollars in new debt each year.

One of the biggest changes is a return to a "Cut-As-You-Go" policy that says legislation cannot be considered if it increases mandatory spending over a 5- or 10-year period. This "CUTGO" policy requires bills that call for new spending to find offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

That is a more aggressive stance compared to the "Pay-As-You-Go" policy under Democratic control. "PAYGO" also requires offsets to new spending, but those offsets can either be spending cuts or tax increases – and in either case, PAYGO rules were often waived entirely by Democrats.
As a fiscal conservative, I can support this although I do think tax hikes ought to be part of the discussion. Will the Senate democrats agree to such a policy? Doubt it, somebody is going to have to blink or we're looking at a gov't shutdown and maybe a debt default otherwise.


The decision to go with CUTGO shows the new GOP’s aversion to possible tax hikes, which can be seen elsewhere in the new rules package. For example, the rules require a supermajority in the House to approve new tax increases.

"A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present," the rules state.

In another push to stop piling on new debt, the rules will end the practice of allowing the House to automatically increase the debt ceiling through passage of a budget resolution that would require borrowing above the current ceiling. Instead, the GOP will require separate votes to raise the debt ceiling in a bid to restore accountability to Congress.


Here's where there's going to be some discord within the GOP as the hard-liner Freedom Caucus people might not support a more moderate spending bill even if some democrats buy into it. Not to mention what the money gets spent on and how much. And all this is the face of existing inflation and slowing economic growth; some say the country is heading into a recession if we aren't already in one. So, will the House GOP stick to their guns on this CUTGO policy? These days, fiscal sanity is not in vogue.

 

[Donald H]

Fiscal sanity is spending when it's required and justified and there's little doubt that poverty and a decayed infrastructure is overtaking America.

The question that is being ignored is, why aren't the bills being paid by the very wealthy?

Could it be that America's huge and growing income inequality be a hint?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Fiscal sanity is spending when it's required and justified and there's little doubt that poverty and a decayed infrastructure is overtaking America.

The question that is being ignored is, why aren't the bills being paid by the very wealthy?

Could it be that America's huge and growing income inequality be a hint?

The middle class has always paid the bills. Its time that our worthless govt do without. They are a threat to the country.

 

[Donald H]

The middle class has always paid the bills. Its time that our worthless govt do without. They are a threat to the country.

You're avoiding the obvious ms. trout. The bills aren't being paid.

But you suggest that the middle class has always been paying, so who 'isn't' paying? Would income inequality be a clue?

And yes, i know that it's the American way and that can never be changed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You're avoiding the obvious ms. trout. The bills aren't being paid.

But you suggest that the middle class has always been paying, so who 'isn't' paying? Would income inequality be a clue?

And yes, i know that it's the American way and that can never be changed.

Our govt is writing checks for trinkets that the populace never approved. Our hope our govt fails miserably. They've screwed the populace too long.

 

[Paleman]

What's in it: House GOP rules package aims to curb trillions in yearly heaps of new debt

The House Republican rules package includes several provisions aimed at cutting federal spending, which the GOP says has been a major contributor to inflation.

www.foxnews.com

First, let's not get into a pissing contest over which party is more responsible for the $31.38 trillion (and growing) debt we now have. The issue of this thread is what should be done about it, and the link above talks about what the GOP House wants to do.

A 55-page set of rules for the House that Speaker Kevin McCarthy hopes to pass on Monday will set ambitious new curbs on federal spending, part of the GOP's effort to stop piling on trillions of dollars in new debt each year.

One of the biggest changes is a return to a "Cut-As-You-Go" policy that says legislation cannot be considered if it increases mandatory spending over a 5- or 10-year period. This "CUTGO" policy requires bills that call for new spending to find offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

That is a more aggressive stance compared to the "Pay-As-You-Go" policy under Democratic control. "PAYGO" also requires offsets to new spending, but those offsets can either be spending cuts or tax increases – and in either case, PAYGO rules were often waived entirely by Democrats.
As a fiscal conservative, I can support this although I do think tax hikes ought to be part of the discussion. Will the Senate democrats agree to such a policy? Doubt it, somebody is going to have to blink or we're looking at a gov't shutdown and maybe a debt default otherwise.


The decision to go with CUTGO shows the new GOP’s aversion to possible tax hikes, which can be seen elsewhere in the new rules package. For example, the rules require a supermajority in the House to approve new tax increases.

"A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present," the rules state.

In another push to stop piling on new debt, the rules will end the practice of allowing the House to automatically increase the debt ceiling through passage of a budget resolution that would require borrowing above the current ceiling. Instead, the GOP will require separate votes to raise the debt ceiling in a bid to restore accountability to Congress.


Here's where there's going to be some discord within the GOP as the hard-liner Freedom Caucus people might not support a more moderate spending bill even if some democrats buy into it. Not to mention what the money gets spent on and how much. And all this is the face of existing inflation and slowing economic growth; some say the country is heading into a recession if we aren't already in one. So, will the House GOP stick to their guns on this CUTGO policy? These days, fiscal sanity is not in vogue.

Funny, they don't consider this. How about limiting the size and scope of new bill packages? They routinely dump a 4000-page bill LOADED with pork, giving congress a whole day to read before voting. Nobody knows what is in the bill but they vote for it anyway. It is a swamp and needs to be fixed.

 

[task0778]

Fiscal sanity is spending when it's required and justified and there's little doubt that poverty and a decayed infrastructure is overtaking America.

The question that is being ignored is, why aren't the bills being paid by the very wealthy?

Could it be that America's huge and growing income inequality be a hint?

Answer: They don't make that much money annually. I believe the FY2022 deficit was approx $1.4 trillion, but the top 1% will pay about half that in income taxes, maybe less. Do you really think you can double their tax burden without financial consequences? In country after country, progressive liberals have tried to raise taxes and the rich people said fuck you and left, or at least their money did. The life blood of any capitalist economy is investment, and when you make it less rewarding to start a new business or expand one, you undercut economic growth. That's not opinion, that is reality that is borne out by history.

The real answer is to cut spending to levels that can be supported by govt revenue. Since the pandemic years from 2020, our spending has increased by about a trillion dollars a year or more, and that cannot continue. I don't care which party is to blame, looks to me like both of them are to some degree and IMHO it is pointless to argue about who is worse. But that trend has got to stop.

 

[MarcATL]

LoLing @ "let's not have a pissing contest."

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

 

[Donald H]

Answer: They don't make that much money annually. I believe the FY2022 deficit was approx $1.4 trillion, but the top 1% will pay about half that in income taxes, maybe less. Do you really think you can double their tax burden without financial consequences?

No. You can't double their tax burden but the debt can be reduced or paid off over a period of X years by increasing their taxes.
But there's a quick and dirty answer too and that's to increase taxes on the working class to get the same result.

In country after country, progressive liberals have tried to raise taxes and the rich people said fuck you and left, or at least their money did. The life blood of any capitalist economy is investment, and when you make it less rewarding to start a new business or expand one, you undercut economic growth. That's not opinion, that is reality that is borne out by history.

That's basically true because they have a country wo which they can run, when they say 'fuck you'. So how about eliminating the countries of refuge, or making it illegal to shelter profit in the Bahamas or others. (oh wait, isn't Biden already trying to do that?)

The real answer is to cut spending to levels that can be supported by govt revenue.

That could be the answer for Germany or some other countries that aren't already suffering from a broken down infrastructure, but those ones don't have potholes that swallow up their cars, or bridges falling down around their asses, etc., etc.

Since the pandemic years from 2020, our spending has increased by about a trillion dollars a year or more, and that cannot continue. I don't care which party is to blame, looks to me like both of them are to some degree and IMHO it is pointless to argue about who is worse. But that trend has got to stop.

Yes, it's pointless to argue which party is worse. It's both, and as I suggested, it's the American way.

So do you think the very wealthy could afford to reduce the debt with a program designed to do so over a period of X number of years? I mean the 2% or3% (6,000,000 or 9,000,000) who are raking in 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 bucks a year or more?

or

Tax it out of the hides of the working class!

 

[Moonglow]

What's in it: House GOP rules package aims to curb trillions in yearly heaps of new debt

The House Republican rules package includes several provisions aimed at cutting federal spending, which the GOP says has been a major contributor to inflation.

www.foxnews.com

First, let's not get into a pissing contest over which party is more responsible for the $31.38 trillion (and growing) debt we now have. The issue of this thread is what should be done about it, and the link above talks about what the GOP House wants to do.

A 55-page set of rules for the House that Speaker Kevin McCarthy hopes to pass on Monday will set ambitious new curbs on federal spending, part of the GOP's effort to stop piling on trillions of dollars in new debt each year.

One of the biggest changes is a return to a "Cut-As-You-Go" policy that says legislation cannot be considered if it increases mandatory spending over a 5- or 10-year period. This "CUTGO" policy requires bills that call for new spending to find offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

That is a more aggressive stance compared to the "Pay-As-You-Go" policy under Democratic control. "PAYGO" also requires offsets to new spending, but those offsets can either be spending cuts or tax increases – and in either case, PAYGO rules were often waived entirely by Democrats.
As a fiscal conservative, I can support this although I do think tax hikes ought to be part of the discussion. Will the Senate democrats agree to such a policy? Doubt it, somebody is going to have to blink or we're looking at a gov't shutdown and maybe a debt default otherwise.


The decision to go with CUTGO shows the new GOP’s aversion to possible tax hikes, which can be seen elsewhere in the new rules package. For example, the rules require a supermajority in the House to approve new tax increases.

"A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present," the rules state.

In another push to stop piling on new debt, the rules will end the practice of allowing the House to automatically increase the debt ceiling through passage of a budget resolution that would require borrowing above the current ceiling. Instead, the GOP will require separate votes to raise the debt ceiling in a bid to restore accountability to Congress.


Here's where there's going to be some discord within the GOP as the hard-liner Freedom Caucus people might not support a more moderate spending bill even if some democrats buy into it. Not to mention what the money gets spent on and how much. And all this is the face of existing inflation and slowing economic growth; some say the country is heading into a recession if we aren't already in one. So, will the House GOP stick to their guns on this CUTGO policy? These days, fiscal sanity is not in vogue.

The policy will cause recession if not depression.

 

[Moonglow]

Our govt is writing checks for trinkets that the populace never approved. Our hope our govt fails miserably. They've screwed the populace too long.

The people were never asked and have never been asked to approve.

 

[Paleman]

Answer: They don't make that much money annually. I believe the FY2022 deficit was approx $1.4 trillion, but the top 1% will pay about half that in income taxes, maybe less. Do you really think you can double their tax burden without financial consequences? In country after country, progressive liberals have tried to raise taxes and the rich people said fuck you and left, or at least their money did. The life blood of any capitalist economy is investment, and when you make it less rewarding to start a new business or expand one, you undercut economic growth. That's not opinion, that is reality that is borne out by history.

The real answer is to cut spending to levels that can be supported by govt revenue. Since the pandemic years from 2020, our spending has increased by about a trillion dollars a year or more, and that cannot continue. I don't care which party is to blame, looks to me like both of them are to some degree and IMHO it is pointless to argue about who is worse. But that trend has got to stop.

Agreed, but I hope you understand that when you spawn common sense the left freaks out.

 

[task0778]

the debt can be reduced or paid off over a period of X years by increasing their taxes.

Show me some numbers. Do you have a link that proposes this?

First of all, I do not understand how you can reduce or pay down the debt if you are running a deficit. Do you intend to just print or create more money? Let's say the top 1% pay on average $700 billion a year in income taxes. Last year the deficit was $1.4 trillion, so how much are you going to raise their taxes by and how will you make up the rest, including the amount of money you're going to pay on the debt?

And on top of that, I do not understand how anyone can believe that substantially raising taxes on the top 1% (people making more than around $600k) won't have consequences for economic growth. New businesses and business expansions require investment money, you gotta have capital. So how is it not obvious that raising taxes on the very investors you need for economic growth is not counter-productive?

 

[task0778]

The policy will cause recession if not depression.

How long do you think the US Gov't can continue to spend over a trillion dollars above their revenue before the shit hits the fan? Last year it was approx $1.4 trillion deficit, do you believe the gov't can do that indefinitely? I am curious as to your ideas or solutions to our debt and deficits, do you believe raising taxes on the top 1% is the only answer? What do you think about printing or creating new money out of thin air? You don't think that would be inflationary? Which is worse, higher inflation or a recession? Tellme, what is your long-term solution?

 

[g5000]

What's in it: House GOP rules package aims to curb trillions in yearly heaps of new debt

The House Republican rules package includes several provisions aimed at cutting federal spending, which the GOP says has been a major contributor to inflation.

www.foxnews.com

First, let's not get into a pissing contest over which party is more responsible for the $31.38 trillion (and growing) debt we now have. The issue of this thread is what should be done about it, and the link above talks about what the GOP House wants to do.

A 55-page set of rules for the House that Speaker Kevin McCarthy hopes to pass on Monday will set ambitious new curbs on federal spending, part of the GOP's effort to stop piling on trillions of dollars in new debt each year.

One of the biggest changes is a return to a "Cut-As-You-Go" policy that says legislation cannot be considered if it increases mandatory spending over a 5- or 10-year period. This "CUTGO" policy requires bills that call for new spending to find offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.

That is a more aggressive stance compared to the "Pay-As-You-Go" policy under Democratic control. "PAYGO" also requires offsets to new spending, but those offsets can either be spending cuts or tax increases – and in either case, PAYGO rules were often waived entirely by Democrats.
As a fiscal conservative, I can support this although I do think tax hikes ought to be part of the discussion. Will the Senate democrats agree to such a policy? Doubt it, somebody is going to have to blink or we're looking at a gov't shutdown and maybe a debt default otherwise.


The decision to go with CUTGO shows the new GOP’s aversion to possible tax hikes, which can be seen elsewhere in the new rules package. For example, the rules require a supermajority in the House to approve new tax increases.

"A bill or joint resolution, amendment, or conference report carrying a federal income tax rate increase may not be considered as passed or agreed to unless so determined by a vote of not less than three-fifths of the Members voting, a quorum being present," the rules state.

In another push to stop piling on new debt, the rules will end the practice of allowing the House to automatically increase the debt ceiling through passage of a budget resolution that would require borrowing above the current ceiling. Instead, the GOP will require separate votes to raise the debt ceiling in a bid to restore accountability to Congress.


Here's where there's going to be some discord within the GOP as the hard-liner Freedom Caucus people might not support a more moderate spending bill even if some democrats buy into it. Not to mention what the money gets spent on and how much. And all this is the face of existing inflation and slowing economic growth; some say the country is heading into a recession if we aren't already in one. So, will the House GOP stick to their guns on this CUTGO policy? These days, fiscal sanity is not in vogue.

The first thing the Republican Congress did under George W. Bush was abolish PAYGO.

Another thing the Republicans aren't telling you is that their "Cut As You Go" hoax does not require tax cuts to be offset.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures add $1.4 trillion of spending every year. Ban those, and we would not only have a balanced budget, we would have a surplus which could be used to lower tax rates for everyone.

It would also have the serendipitous effect of reforming campaign spending. But that's exactly why our corrupt Congress will never do it.

 

[Independent thinker]

You're avoiding the obvious ms. trout. The bills aren't being paid.

But you suggest that the middle class has always been paying, so who 'isn't' paying? Would income inequality be a clue?

And yes, i know that it's the American way and that can never be changed.

We do know that the majority of the income taxes collected come from the rich.

 

[task0778]

The first thing the Republican Congress did under George W. Bush was abolish PAYGO.

First of all, this is a lie. In September 2002, the PAYGO law expired, i.e. not extended; it was not abolished. That was near the end of the 107th Congress, so it wasn't the first thing they did. And as a matter of fact, at the time the PAYGO expired, IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO CONTROLLED THE SENATE, not the republicans, so you lied about that too. The House was controlled by the GOP then, but as you no doubt know, if the Senate didn't pass legislation to extend PAYGO then it doesn't happen. And in any case, as far as I can tell neither party honored it anyway. But let's not pretend that is was the republicans' fault that it expired, that is BS.

Another thing the Republicans aren't telling you is that their "Cut As You Go" hoax does not require tax cuts to be offset.

I see no point in turning this discussion into a discussion about which party is more to blame for the rising debt/deficits. Since there will be no tax cuts in the immediate future, your point is moot. And taxes (revenue) is not the problem anyway, the problem is the out-of-control spending that is by far the cause of the rising debt/deficits. Which both parties are at fault for. I would agree however, that if and when a tax cut is ever proposed and enacted, there should be an accompanying cut in spending to offset the cost. But nobody should hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The issue of this thread is what should be done about it,

Why are we borrowing money to be repaid with interest when we can print it ourselves at no cost?

 

[task0778]

Why are we borrowing money to be repaid with interest when we can print it ourselves at no cost?

Printing more money is inflationary. That's why. Does anyone require an explanation, I thought this was common knowledge.