Our National Debt, spending addiction and deficit spending is problem 1

[bendog]

Tax cuts do not increase debt, spending above revenue levels does.

And paycuts are great.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, USA National Debt is almost $29 trillion and growing. This website will provide plenty of numbers and data (courtesy of OBM). In upper right it has a "time machine" function going back to 1980.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

The time machine displaying debt runs off the page.

 

[Orangecat]

And paycuts are great.

I disagree, but sometimes a pay cut is a necessity to keep the paying entity fiscally viable in the long run.

 

[task0778]

RE the Trump tax cuts:

Democrats claim the Trump tax cut bill of 2017 was a giveaway to the “rich,” but this episode of What’s Ahead shows that it had the opposite impact on high-income earners. In 2018 the top 1% ended up paying $16 billion more in federal individual income taxes than they did in 2017, while 99% paid a total of $80 billion less.

The proportion of taxes paid by the highest 1% of income earners went from around 37% in 2017 to 40% in 2018.

How The Rich Paid More Taxes With Trump’s Tax Cuts

Contrary to Democratic assertions, the “rich” are paying more as a result of Trump’s tax cut than they were before.

www.forbes.com

 

[Donald H]

“Income inequality” is a pretty meaningless buzz phrase. It is used mostly by liberals and progressives as a thin cover for their true desire: some Marxist type “economy.”

In order to even discuss the notion of “income inequality,” a meaningful definition would be required. Most of the leftists who bandy that term around however are reluctant to get pinned down as to a coherent definition.

I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because — like most things in lib-speak — words have no fixed meaning (and this isn’t by accident or even by ignorance). But if it’s not a deliberate effort to avoid precision, the implication is that they fear the consequences of a debate about what they actually mean.

I don't fear a debate at all. It's simply 'income inequality' in the simplest of terms and then that can be expanded upon.

Maybe a first step would be for us to have a little bit closer look at why nearly all Americans agree that they have bad government. And then the next step I'll take with you is saying that bad government is caused mostly by politicians who are bought and paid for by lobbyists that represent the very wealthy.

Let's work on that before we expand the discussion to examining the consequences of that so far.

 

[DBA]

That's just the line of baloney that's been invented to keep the working class willing to suffer not getting a piece of the American pie

Do tell. What policies are in place that prevent the working class from getting a piece of the pie? What you and your side want are policies that gift a piece of the pie at the expense of those that attained it.

 

[Donald H]

Do tell. What policies are in place that prevent the working class from getting a piece of the pie? What you and your side want are policies that gift a piece of the pie at the expense of those that attained it.

I'm a Canadian and I have no side.
The problem in place is lobbyists paying politicians to support the interests of big corporations and that burns up the money that needs to go into the pie for the working class.

Yes, I and others do want those who attained it to be forced to share it.
Capitalism works wonderfully well! No company, corporation, or corporatist has the right to keep all the money it/he earns. That's an established fact!

The question is then, how much does it/he have to pay back to the country that allows him to operate at a profit.

In one instance none! He can take his corporation to China and they will allow him to keep a bigger portion maybe?

 

[BackAgain]

I don't fear a debate at all. It's simply 'income inequality' in the simplest of terms and then that can be expanded upon.

Maybe a first step would be for us to have a little bit closer look at why nearly all Americans agree that they have bad government. And then the next step I'll take with you is saying that bad government is caused mostly by politicians who are bought and paid for by lobbyists that represent the very wealthy.

Let's work on that before we expand the discussion to examining the consequences of that so far.

So. In brief then: when you speak of “income inequality” you are actually talking about the belief of American citizens that the government is “bad.”

Seems like a silly way to define a term. Let’s say we dispense with such belabored condescension. Here is what I propose.

In a short sweet declarative sentence or two, please try to define the term “income inequality” and preferably in a non propagandistic manner.

 

[bendog]

I disagree, but sometimes a pay cut is a necessity to keep the paying entity fiscally viable in the long run.

the tax cuts did not generate the new revenue Dump and Moscow Mitch promised.

 

[DBA]

the tax cuts did not generate the new revenue Dump and Moscow Mitch promised.

Tax hikes are only short-term boosts in revenue. They are a short-sighted solution and economically inorganic. If we want more tax revenues and the economy to boom for the long-term, taxes should be cut, encouraging more work, more investment and more productivity which produces more income, more jobs and ultimately more revenue. Democrats, as usual, have everything backward. Democrats are economic illiterates, which goes a long way toward explaining why there are more "rich" Republicans.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The government and banks create money out of thin air. As long as the money is invested wisely, it creates wealth that justifies it's creation.

Banks are paid back the money they create thru loans.

The government is only paid back part of the wealth created only thru taxes.

The difference between what the government creates and what it gets back in taxes become the government deficit.

That money gets trickled up to the wealthiest who buy the government debt.

In a very weird way, it all works out, but it would be so much simpler if the government would just tax the wealthy to get the money back.

 

[Donald H]

So. In brief then: when you speak of “income inequality” you are actually talking about the belief of American citizens that the government is “bad.”

Seems like a silly way to define a term. Let’s say we dispense with such belabored condescension. Here is what I propose.

In a short sweet declarative sentence or two, please try to define the term “income inequality” and preferably in a non propagandistic manner.

I don't have time to waste on those who aren't ready.

 

[bendog]

Tax hikes are only short-term boosts in revenue. They are a short-sighted solution and economically inorganic. If we want more tax revenues and the economy to boom for the long-term, taxes should be cut, encouraging more work, more investment and more productivity which produces more income, more jobs and ultimately more revenue. Democrats, as usual, have everything backward. Democrats are economic illiterates, which goes a long way toward explaining why there are more "rich" Republicans.

The economy has outperformed even while taxes were raised. You're chanting dogma to a dead god.

Not that raising taxes to raise taxes is a good idea.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't have time to waste on those who aren't ready.

It would have been easier and more honest of you to simply admit that you cannot (or that you refuse to) define that term.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't have time to waste on those who aren't ready.

Also: we are all ready for you to define the term. It is you who isn’t ready to step up. Not exactly a surprise.

 

[Donald H]

Also: we are all ready for you to define the term. It is you who isn’t ready to step up. Not exactly a surprise.

You can cool off for a couple of weeks and then try me again. You need to be punished for your childish behaviour.

 

[Oddball]

There is a current claim, repeated by the media, that our national debt is $28.08 TRILLION.
View attachment 569687
At this point and noting the accelerating rate of deficit spending, the proportion of payment of just interest on the debt to “revenues” is unquestionably going to become much much larger. Like a person who can’t handle their own household budget, the government will “borrow” ever more just to pay interest. Of course, the government will probably in just “print” money but this makes each dollar increasingly less valuable. (And some will tell us that inflation isn’t a big deal.

Now consider, the $28 TRILLION DEBT figure is phony. It doesn’t include unfunded mandates like pensions. Anyone care to take a stab at THAT one?

You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion

The federal unfunded liabilities are catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth.

www.forbes.com

I know that most liberals and progressives and economic authorities like AOC will dismiss this as pure right wing hysteria, but for reasonable people, I suggest that our addiction to spending and debt and deficit spending is the most urgent problem we face as a nation.

Cut $1 trillion in annual spending....Problem solved.

 

[Oddball]

An updated maxim:

“A trillion here. A trillion there. Pretty soon we’re talking ‘real money.’ “

I believe it was Senator Proxmire who first said something along those lines — albeit in those days he was talking about Billions.

That was back in the day when democrats actually loved Murics.

 

[BackAgain]

You can cool off for a couple of weeks and then try me again. You need to be punished for your childish behaviour.

Lol. You remain a coward. And it came as no surprise that you would be too much of a pussy to ever sack up and even attempt to define the very term you were spouting about.

Oh. I mean “a boot.” There. A little Cunuckistan English just for you, you silly pathetic twit.

Since your balls are missing, maybe you could put USMB to better use and put up the e version of the “missing “ posters we often see on light posts and utility poles when a kid’s dog runs away.

“Missing. Donald H is missing his balls. If found, please contact Donald H at USMB. He hasn’t seen his balls in years; but he may need them someday.”

You could even offer a reward. Maybe a double looney?

 

[Oddball]

Lol. You remain a coward. And it came as no surprise that you would be too much of a pussy to ever sack up and even attempt to define the very term you were spouting about.

Oh. I mean “a boot.” There. A little Cunuckistan English just for you, you silly pathetic twit.

Since your balls are missing, maybe you could put USMB to better use and put up the e version of the “missing “ posters we often see on light posts and utility poles when a kid’s dog runs away.

“Missing. Donald H is missing his balls. If found, please contact Donald H at USMB. He hasn’t seen his balls in years; but he may need them someday.”

You could even offer a reward. Maybe a double looney?

What do you expect to get from snow Meskins?