Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[ColonelAngus]

No idea who the rich are and what their fair share of taxes is, huh?

Why did Hillary say, "The rich should pay their fair share" if none of you Hillary supporters knew what the **** she was talking about?

She said it over and over and over....it's weird that no one asked her what the **** she was talking about.

 

[Brain357]

and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

They clearly are not concerned about the debt. That is a lie.

 

[The Derp]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

 

[The Derp]

However we face long term demographical problem of aging population with increasing medical costs and less workers per dependent. And the true answer is the same down-the-middle compromise, instead of never ending politico campaigning. Cut some benefits, raise some taxes.

Totally agree with most of what you said except here...the Millennial generation currently in the workforce is larger than the Boomer generation that is entering retirement. In fact, Millennials are the largest generation ever.

We don't have a demographic problem. China has the demographic problem because their workforce is smaller than that of the population entering retirement.

We don't need to cut benefits. We need to expand them.

 

[The Derp]

No idea who the rich are and what their fair share of taxes is, huh?

I would say anyone whose income (all forms, not just a paycheck) is more than $1M a year is "rich" and aren't paying their fair share of taxes. Hard to see how you'd oppose raising taxes on millionaires since you're not one and you'll never be one.

 

[AntonToo]

However we face long term demographical problem of aging population with increasing medical costs and less workers per dependent. And the true answer is the same down-the-middle compromise, instead of never ending politico campaigning. Cut some benefits, raise some taxes.

Totally agree with most of what you said except here...the Millennial generation currently in the workforce is larger than the Boomer generation that is entering retirement. In fact, Millennials are the largest generation ever.

We don't have a demographic problem. China has the demographic problem because their workforce is smaller than that of the population entering retirement.

We don't need to cut benefits. We need to expand them.

It is not larger as a % of population, it is smaller.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I'd like to see an actual CUT IN SPENDING and a CUT IN TAXES.

The US budget is $4 trillion.

IT seems to me we should cut $1 trillion off the NET budget (TAXES-SPENDING) and pay down our debt.

If we keep up our pace of acquiring debt, we will be like GREECE and PUERTO RICO....bankrupt and missing debt obligations from liberal overspending and corruption.

 

[AntonToo]

I'd like to see an actual CUT IN SPENDING and a CUT IN TAXES.

Because you are a tax-cut zealot like most conservatives, with no true interest in getting the budget under control.

You will not give even an inch, agree to contribute NOTHING to make it happen, nope, you just want ever more tax-cuts.

Exactly what I was talking about.

 

[The Derp]

Exceptions for emergencies could be allowed..

Look, a BBA doesn't make allowances for that kind of thing, which is why a federal BBA is ******* stupid. You can't just say we need a BBA, then start rattling off exception after exception. That disaster thing was just something I thought of off the top of my head. A BBA would prevent the government from effectively managing another financial collapse (and subsequent bailouts) or war. A BBA also forces governments into "crunch time" by the end of the FY if they're not able to balance. What that means is that the state then has to raise user fees, fines, and penalties to close the gap. What that means for you are higher fees for registering your car, higher tuition costs, higher co-pays and drug costs, higher tolls, more tickets and fines being issued, etc.

KS had to raid its Highway Fund to close its tax cut budget gap thanks to their BBA. They had to raise in-state tuition for students to close the budget gap, thanks to the BBA. They had to close schools early to close the budget gap, thanks to the BBA.

There is not one single example of a BBA actually benefiting any state. But there are plenty of examples of a BBA being a liability for the state to meet its other commitments.

Electioneering should also be disallowed except for a certain number of days before the elections. Campaign contributions to candidates should be heavily taxed and severely limited.I know however it will never happen.

Yeah, I agree with you on this. In fact, I'd go one step farther and say no donations to any candidate at all. All elections are publicly financed; the primary-campaign-election season should be no more than 3 months; automatic voter enrollment; Election Day should move to the first Monday in November and be a National Holiday everyone has off; and early voting should start October 1st, run through election day, be open 24/7; and you should be able to go into any Post Office anywhere in the country to cast a vote.

The best way to get change is to get more people to vote, and to get more people to vote, make it easier. In addition to being able to vote at your precinct, you should also be able to vote at any post office anywhere in the country at any time from October 1st-election day.

I know that will never happen either, but I maintain that it's the best path.

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

Exactly!

 

[The Derp]

I'd like to see an actual CUT IN SPENDING and a CUT IN TAXES.

OK, so what do you want to cut? Have you given it any thought? Because the bulk of federal spending is in Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. So you're gonna cut how much from those three programs?

Or are you just going to be lazy and say "cut 20% off every budget"? Because, why 20%? Why any percentage? Seems wholly arbitrary and random to me, and that you have a position but you don't know how you got to it.

IT seems to me we should cut $1 trillion off the NET budget (TAXES-SPENDING) and pay down our debt.

Why must the debt be paid off right away and by that amount?

If we keep up our pace of acquiring debt, we will be like GREECE and PUERTO RICO....bankrupt and missing debt obligations from liberal overspending and corruption.

No we won't. You're a ******* idiot.

 

[Spare_change]

Our problem is that we constantly spend more than we budget, and more disastrously, spend more than our income. THAT difference is called the deficit. The debt, on the other hand, is the compilation of all deficits unpaid to date plus all interest incurred.

We don't spend more than we budget, we voluntarily cut revenue which manufactures deficits. It's exactly what happened in 2001 after the Bush Tax Cuts. We had a record high budget surplus in 2000 that was turned into a record high budget deficit by 2003.

That is entirely, 100% because of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Same thing happened in Kansas in 2013...they too had a budget surplus that was a record high...then Brownback and the Conservatives cut taxes, the surplus was turned into record deficits, and Kansas' economy cratered. Those tax cuts were repealed this spring by Republicans and Democrats in Kansas (SB 30), overriding Governor Skidmark's -er um, I mean Brownback's- veto. Here's the budget for Kansas, both with and without tax cuts. You'll notice spending stays the same. What is it you see?

When I look at that, I see KS going from a $436M deficit to a $155M surplus. Do you see the same thing? Spending didn't change at all, only the amount of revenue collected and look at that! Without even touching spending, Kansas got a budget surplus by repealing tax cuts.

So if that's the case in Kansas, why would repealing low taxes for the rich play out any different on the nation's budget?!

Let's address the logic of what you say ... but first, let's get the truth out there. (Looking at charts from 2008 - 2016)

1) Federal revenue has increased every year. In fact, we have continued to set records on how much money the federal government takes in. (In 2008, it was about $2.5 trillion, rising steadily to about $3.3 trillion in 2016, and expected to exceed $4 trillion this year)

2) Federal spending has increased every year, obviously setting records on how much money we spend. (In 2008, we spent $2.98 trillion, increasing every year, and in 2016, $3.84 trillion - expected to surpass $4 trillion this year).

3) The cumulative deficit has increased every year (obviously, because spending has outpaced income every year) by over $6 trillion dollars in the same time period.

4) In the same period, the national debt has increased by about $7.5 trillion (the difference being, primarily, interest on interest)

5) Recently, we just passed thru the $20 trillion in total national debt.

6) About one-third of that national debt is held by foreign countries.

7) Social Security holds about 15% of the national debt.

Clearly, we don't have an income problem - in fact, we continue to collect more and more money every year. Income is only restricted by the level the American people are willing to pay. As long as they don't complain, the government can continue to collect more and more.

Spending, however, SHOULD (but isn't) be restricted by the amount of money collected. Instead, we continue to allow our spending to outpace our income. We simply don't have a viable restriction on spending. Again, what the people ask for, they get - no matter the long term consequences.

Overspending your income is called, with a straight face, "deficit spending". It is predicated on the notion that money spent now will generate sufficient income later to pay off the money borrowed to fund the current spending. While a really nice theory, $20 trillion in debt clearly demonstrates that, in the long term, it doesn't work. Borrowing money is okay only if you can pay it off. THAT should be the first priority - not the last.

Some posit that we should ignore the national debt - just don't pay it. If, for example, China were to demand payment, the government would have to come up with about $2 trillion that it doesn't have. If that happened, the government wouldn't be able to pay - simple as that. The government would be faced with two options - trade "stuff" for the loans or, go to war. They would have to trade land, natural resources, etc for the debt instruments, or they would have to refuse, which would cause the Chinese economy to crash (and the subsequent reactions throughout the international economy). The Chinese, obviously, cannot allow that to happen, and will show up ready to take what they need. So, ignoring the national debt is NOT a viable option.

However, even if they didn't, the immediate reaction of the federal government would be to write off all its debts. The $2 trillion owed to the Social Security fund would be cancelled - payments would stop. The government wouldn't be able to borrow the money (since they have already shown they won't pay), and people will suffer. This will ripple thru all the negative spending entities of the government.

Recently, there was a proposal floated that the US should offer $0.85 on a dollar to retire some of their debt. This, of course, means that the cost of borrowing money in the future would increase. This would make our debt problem worse, not better.

Clearly, the only viable answer lies in both increasing federal revenue AND decreasing federal spending. Anything else is economic suicide. In fact, we may have reached the point where it's too late. Time will tell.

Given the length of this, I won't directly address your supposition, but will be glad to discuss it further.

 

[BlindBoo]

Exceptions for emergencies could be allowed..

Look, a BBA doesn't make allowances for that kind of thing, which is why a federal BBA is ******* stupid. You can't just say we need a BBA, then start rattling off exception after exception. That disaster thing was just something I thought of off the top of my head. A BBA would prevent the government from effectively managing another financial collapse (and subsequent bailouts) or war. A BBA also forces governments into "crunch time" by the end of the FY if they're not able to balance. What that means is that the state then has to raise user fees, fines, and penalties to close the gap. What that means for you are higher fees for registering your car, higher tuition costs, higher co-pays and drug costs, higher tolls, more tickets and fines being issued, etc.

KS had to raid its Highway Fund to close its tax cut budget gap thanks to their BBA. They had to raise in-state tuition for students to close the budget gap, thanks to the BBA. They had to close schools early to close the budget gap, thanks to the BBA.

There is not one single example of a BBA actually benefiting any state. But there are plenty of examples of a BBA being a liability for the state to meet its other commitments.

Electioneering should also be disallowed except for a certain number of days before the elections. Campaign contributions to candidates should be heavily taxed and severely limited.I know however it will never happen.

Yeah, I agree with you on this. In fact, I'd go one step farther and say no donations to any candidate at all. All elections are publicly financed; the primary-campaign-election season should be no more than 3 months; automatic voter enrollment; Election Day should move to the first Monday in November and be a National Holiday everyone has off; and early voting should start October 1st, run through election day, be open 24/7; and you should be able to go into any Post Office anywhere in the country to cast a vote.

The best way to get change is to get more people to vote, and to get more people to vote, make it easier. In addition to being able to vote at your precinct, you should also be able to vote at any post office anywhere in the country at any time from October 1st-election day.

I know that will never happen either, but I maintain that it's the best path.

I think we could write reasonable exception for unexpected expenses into an amendment. If they become too burdensome we'd need to cut spending or raise more revenue because you can't or shouldn't run deficits forever.

But again I doubt it will ever happen.

I'd agree to your campaign reforms too.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Spending money you don't have for something like a WAR or a GIANT natural disaster is understandable.

Deficit spending of roughly $1 trillion per year....every single year....is NOT SUSTAINABLE and STUPID.

Just look at Greece and Puerto Rico. That's what happens when corrupt liberals are in charge of taxing and spending.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Our problem is that we constantly spend more than we budget, and more disastrously, spend more than our income. THAT difference is called the deficit. The debt, on the other hand, is the compilation of all deficits unpaid to date plus all interest incurred.

We don't spend more than we budget, we voluntarily cut revenue which manufactures deficits. It's exactly what happened in 2001 after the Bush Tax Cuts. We had a record high budget surplus in 2000 that was turned into a record high budget deficit by 2003.

That is entirely, 100% because of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Same thing happened in Kansas in 2013...they too had a budget surplus that was a record high...then Brownback and the Conservatives cut taxes, the surplus was turned into record deficits, and Kansas' economy cratered. Those tax cuts were repealed this spring by Republicans and Democrats in Kansas (SB 30), overriding Governor Skidmark's -er um, I mean Brownback's- veto. Here's the budget for Kansas, both with and without tax cuts. You'll notice spending stays the same. What is it you see?

When I look at that, I see KS going from a $436M deficit to a $155M surplus. Do you see the same thing? Spending didn't change at all, only the amount of revenue collected and look at that! Without even touching spending, Kansas got a budget surplus by repealing tax cuts.

So if that's the case in Kansas, why would repealing low taxes for the rich play out any different on the nation's budget?!

Let's address the logic of what you say ... but first, let's get the truth out there. (Looking at charts from 2008 - 2016)

1) Federal revenue has increased every year. In fact, we have continued to set records on how much money the federal government takes in. (In 2008, it was about $2.5 trillion, rising steadily to about $3.3 trillion in 2016, and expected to exceed $4 trillion this year)

2) Federal spending has increased every year, obviously setting records on how much money we spend. (In 2008, we spent $2.98 trillion, increasing every year, and in 2016, $3.84 trillion - expected to surpass $4 trillion this year).

3) The cumulative deficit has increased every year (obviously, because spending has outpaced income every year) by over $6 trillion dollars in the same time period.

4) In the same period, the national debt has increased by about $7.5 trillion (the difference being, primarily, interest on interest)

5) Recently, we just passed thru the $20 trillion in total national debt.

6) About one-third of that national debt is held by foreign countries.

7) Social Security holds about 15% of the national debt.

Clearly, we don't have an income problem - in fact, we continue to collect more and more money every year. Income is only restricted by the level the American people are willing to pay. As long as they don't complain, the government can continue to collect more and more.

Spending, however, SHOULD (but isn't) be restricted by the amount of money collected. Instead, we continue to allow our spending to outpace our income. We simply don't have a viable restriction on spending. Again, what the people ask for, they get - no matter the long term consequences.

Overspending your income is called, with a straight face, "deficit spending". It is predicated on the notion that money spent now will generate sufficient income later to pay off the money borrowed to fund the current spending. While a really nice theory, $20 trillion in debt clearly demonstrates that, in the long term, it doesn't work. Borrowing money is okay only if you can pay it off. THAT should be the first priority - not the last.

Some posit that we should ignore the national debt - just don't pay it. If, for example, China were to demand payment, the government would have to come up with about $2 trillion that it doesn't have. If that happened, the government wouldn't be able to pay - simple as that. The government would be faced with two options - trade "stuff" for the loans or, go to war. They would have to trade land, natural resources, etc for the debt instruments, or they would have to refuse, which would cause the Chinese economy to crash (and the subsequent reactions throughout the international economy). The Chinese, obviously, cannot allow that to happen, and will show up ready to take what they need. So, ignoring the national debt is NOT a viable option.

However, even if they didn't, the immediate reaction of the federal government would be to write off all its debts. The $2 trillion owed to the Social Security fund would be cancelled - payments would stop. The government wouldn't be able to borrow the money (since they have already shown they won't pay), and people will suffer. This will ripple thru all the negative spending entities of the government.

Recently, there was a proposal floated that the US should offer $0.85 on a dollar to retire some of their debt. This, of course, means that the cost of borrowing money in the future would increase. This would make our debt problem worse, not better.

Clearly, the only viable answer lies in both increasing federal revenue AND decreasing federal spending. Anything else is economic suicide. In fact, we may have reached the point where it's too late. Time will tell.

Given the length of this, I won't directly address your supposition, but will be glad to discuss it further.

QFT:


Spending, however, SHOULD (but isn't) be restricted by the amount of money collected. Instead, we continue to allow our spending to outpace our income. We simply don't have a viable restriction on spending. Again, what the people ask for, they get - no matter the long term consequences.

 

[francoHFW]

So for 35 years now the Reaganist GOP has been Wrecking the middle class and the country's infrastructure, all to save the bloated greedy idiot GOP rich from paying their fair share. The only way that works is with a giant propaganda Hate Machine, for dupes only... The presidents that have added to the debt have been Reagan and W bush and Obama, but he was only averting another GOP Great Depression and helping the victims... Look it up.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

I can see that you haven't looked back at history and observed the many nations that have collapsed due to massive inflation caused by frivolous behavior. You actually think that we'll just hum along forever by continually raising the debt ceiling, printing endless dollars, and failing to back up our currency by something tangible. That type thinking just astounds me.

 

[eddiew37]

Republicans don't give a shit about the debt. It's merely an election time ploy to get suckers to vote for them.

BINGO

 

[Lakhota]

Republicans are deficit/debt hypocrites - only outraged when Democrats are in power. Just imagine the deficit/debt when Trump leaves office.

The deficit is the annual difference between government spending and government revenue.

The debt is the total amount of money the U.S. government owes. It representsthe accumulation of past deficits, minus surpluses.

Debt vs. Deficits: What's the Difference?

 

[francoHFW]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

I can see that you haven't looked back at history and observed the many nations that have collapsed due to massive inflation caused by frivolous behavior. You actually think that we'll just hum along forever by continually raising the debt ceiling, printing endless dollars, and failing to back up our currency by something tangible. That type thinking just astounds me.

Like mainly the GOP causing World depressions in 1929 and 2008...