Let's talk about the National Debt

[presonorek]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

 

[Wry Catcher]

7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on lies. The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it. Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep. Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.

Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.

Then Obama switched sides

Iraq was stable? You're insane.

Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.

Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.

I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS. Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.

I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.

I've posted this at least 6 times

"Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]
In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]

In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]

Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]
One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."

Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province." Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists

History:

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

History revised:

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.

Then Obama switched sides

Iraq was stable? You're insane.

Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.

Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.

I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS. Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.

I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.

I've posted this at least 6 times

"Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]
In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]

In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]

Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]
One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."

Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province." Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists

History:

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

History revised:

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

Bullshit, Freddo. The troops could have stayed in place, but Obama switched sides

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

It's call the Welfare State and the "War on Poverty"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
Then we'll look at tax hikes.

They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.

Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.

North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

 

[presonorek]

I'll repeat this message:

There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away. Trying to get someone to care about a disaster 400 years down the road is next to impossible. That's why there are so many nutjobs trying to convince us that it is going to be much sooner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.

All we can do is speculate.

Yeah, let's leave the idiotic, 28% interest rate, speculation out of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll repeat this message:

There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away. Trying to get someone to care about a disaster 400 years down the road is next to impossible. That's why there are so many nutjobs trying to convince us that it is going to be much sooner.

There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away.

Medicare will cause a crisis in a much, much shorter time frame.
Even if we stop importing poverty from Mexico and South America.

 

[presonorek]

It's call the Welfare State and the "War on Poverty"

Anybody with a 4th grade education can look at the Federal Budget and cut 60% off without thinking too hard. None of the cuts would stop any legitimate government operations. It isn't rocket science if you dismiss the fact that we are a democracy. Once you take into account that we are a democracy it becomes way more advanced than brain surgery.

100% of Americans think that their receipt of a particular government service is necessary. They think it is the other guy that needs to be cut off. On the other hand the other guy thinks it is his receipt of a particular government service that is necessary and it is the other guy who needs to be cut off.

Ad nauseam

 

[presonorek]

Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.

It's not too far fetched to see this as a constitutional amendment in the distant future. Almost all states require a balanced budget. That's usually how the federal government is changed. The states do it first then if it works the federal government does it. Example: Romneycare was first implemented in Massachusetts. Since it worked so well it was implemented at the national level.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.

It's not too far fetched to see this as a constitutional amendment in the distant future. Almost all states require a balanced budget. That's usually how the federal government is changed. The states do it first then if it works the federal government does it. Example: Romneycare was first implemented in Massachusetts. Since it worked so well it was implemented at the national level.

Since it worked so well

OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.

 

[presonorek]

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

That's how they did it in North Carolina but the threshold was way lower than $60,000. It was like $10,000. lol

 

[presonorek]

Since it worked so well

OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.

Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?

Was failure the intent? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since it worked so well

OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.

Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?

Was failure the intent?

Failure has never stopped liberals from expanding government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.

Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
Then we'll look at tax hikes.

They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.

Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.

North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since it worked so well

OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.

Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?

Was failure the intent?

Failure has never stopped liberals from expanding government.

[head banging on desk]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.

Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
Then we'll look at tax hikes.

They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.

Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.

North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.

You ask why that would impact income inequality?

Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.

A flat tax is regressive.

Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.

Why would it do either of those things?

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.

They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.

Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.

North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.

You ask why that would impact income inequality?

Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.

A flat tax is regressive.

Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated. That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.

North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013. We'll see how that goes in the next few years.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.

You ask why that would impact income inequality?

Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.

A flat tax is regressive.

Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?

 

[Wry Catcher]

At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that. Nobody really knows the answer. We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed. There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row. There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased. You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster. All we can do is speculate.

One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells. To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE). The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have. Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality. Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy. We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.

If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.

Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000? You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.

You ask why that would impact income inequality?

Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.

A flat tax is regressive.

Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?

Before going all captious, try reading my post above. Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.

The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving. Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.

The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together. It's them or us is no way to run a country.