It's the debt ceiling again!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by wgabrie, Feb 26, 2023.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Protecting Social Security is exactly why we must control the debt growth. At $30T in debt, and an environment of rapidly rising interest rates, the 5 year note, for example has risen over 3.5% in the last couple of years. As the notes supporting our debt turnover and are renewed at current rates, the annual debt service is going to rise significantly.

    A 3.3% increase in borrowing costs on $30T is an additional $1T a year in debt service costs. Enough is enough.

    Currently the Federal government has a $31.4 trillion borrowing limit, and, the debt stands at $29.6T, so they still have $1.8T in unused credit and new budgets and borrowing authority in just $5.5 months.

    Congress Returns To Face Debt Ceiling Bight, Battle Over Judges

    [​IMG]

    'House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is' already 'putting together legislation that pairs a one-year increase in the debt ceiling with' commonsense 'spending cuts and other spending limits.'

    BIDEN REFUSES TO MEET WITH MCCARTHY TO NEGOTIATE A DEBT CEILING INCREASE.

    Well, he's busy with vacations. He just returned from his Ireland vacation and promptly left on another one. He has only been in the White House for 40% of his presidency.

    McCarthy's commonsense plan to help Dems finish off their last budget year without breaching the ceiling will free up unused COVID spending for other Federal spending, end Illegitimate Joe's student loan giveaway and 'implementing the GOP’s recently passed energy package that would boost oil and gas production' helping Americans weather Biden's Inflation storm, which will grow the economy and increase incoming Federal Revenues.

    Remember, the federal government will take in another $2-3T between now and the end of the fiscal year.

    [​IMG]

    If Biden continues to refuse to negotiate, the House will simply pass the necessary legislation and send it over to the Senate.
     
  2. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The current proposals by the Freedom Caucus will not solve the deficit. The proposal by the freedom caucus is to simply go after "Democratic" constituency and programs favored by the DNC It is wny they won't go after the waste, fraud, and abuse that occurs with RNC-favored programs, like farm subsidies for instance, or the procurement process which already has huge amounts of fraud. At best, over 10 years, is a reduction of $1 trillion dollars while keeping the JCTA intact. But the CBO proposal says if we get rid of JCTA, and make a 29% cut on all expenditure programs, the deficit and debt would be eliminated in 10 years. That means everything from SS to medicare to DHS to IRS to all programs, including Congressional staff BTW. And that pretty much shows that what the Freedom Caucus is doing and the RNC is not really about debt and deficit issues, it is simply that they want their programs funded but not the other guys. And that is simply HS politics at its worse.



    Pretty much neither because as I said above, it is simply HS politics of I want my programs funded but not the other guys. Me, I would use a committee of 25 CPA and Tax Attorneys. I would simplify the tax code, raise revenue in certain areas, use tax credits to encourage certain spending, modernize the regulation system we have, and a few other ideas. And that plan does take time, like a five to 7 year plan. And that is our greatest weakness. We change course every two to four years depending on which party controls the WH, House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is party first, not country. And I won't leave the most vulnerable more vulnerable either.



    Yes, but I am not willing to play the political games that the two parties do. Apparently, you do and think it will give you a benefit. It won't. Never will either. Second, you are using buzzwords from a political viewpoint. In reality, there is no such thing as a "pro-growth, lower tax rates, less regulation" that will solve the deficit. They all pretty much conflict with each other. Less regulation will mean that businesses will find it easier to screw the customer for the quick buck and then run away. That is pretty much Greece. Lower tax rates mean less revenue to get even the bsaic priorities hard to fund, like the military or CBP, among other things. And "pro-growth" is just another euphemism of a national retail sales tax that will increase the budget and prices to the ones who purchase the most on a consistent basis, the lower and middle class. And that has never worked. It also creates an oligarchy, and we will have a government similar to Russia. No thank you.

    We could follow the Clinton plan where there were higher rates in the top income brackets, redo the nonrefundable and refundable tax credits to be more in tune with today's population, have directed tax credits to encourage purchases and other policy directions such as education, job training, and so forth. In fact, I would expand the Business Tax credits when it comes to hiring and eliminate the ones for other things, encourage business incentives to create apprenticeship programs for both trade and white-collar skilled positions, and so forth. That would be far more attainable, get rid of the HS political game that both parties engage in, and really put the country as a whole first without the political BS you are spewing.


    Me, I would have you pay full monty on all roads you use once you leave your private property. This will include any and all products you have delievered. And that price is $110 per mile Congrats.


    The student loan program needs to change. If you take out a student loan today, and you use a 10 year repayment plan, you will end up paying 5 to 6 times the amount you orginally borrowed. In a lot of cases, that is predatory lending practices. Student loans the now the second most important investment a young person will take, given that either private or public universities can get expensive, even more, middle-class taxpayers. The current Biden proposal is alright, but it appears to be stopped by the courts. And this means that Congress must set aside their differences and solve the problem.


    Farm subsidies. Corporate subsidies with no special treatments, get rid of the accrual method of accounting, getting rid of IRC 969, and some other things. Most green subsidies go to auto manufacturers and oil exploration companies like ExxonMobile, Chevron, and so forth.



    I know what it means. But if you want to do this, it must apply accross the board, including military disabled veterans. Most who are disabled are abled body because the VA system is really weird and uses weird math.


    I know how government accounting works. But government accounting is not the reason for the deficits or debts. Or how the "able body" is supposed to go. Again, the "able body" is the policy decision, and being applied to those only on TANIF or SNAP benefits but not VA is preposterous. It is the typical conservative rules for thee but not for me routine that you are. Or for applying. Either all or none, Take your pick here.

    I am well aware of Paxton's lawsuit. And yes, he won't win. But then again, why did Paxton file the lawsuit to begin with? That proxy voting. His goad is to get the court to state that proxy voting is illegal period in the future, which will hinder how Congress can conduct their own business.
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course they alone do not solve the deficit nor are they the only proposals from the Reps but they are certainly far more than the Dems are offering which will only exacerbate things. And again CBO predictions arduous notoriously wrong. give them no credence. I prefer the historical records.




    Pretty much it has only happened and will only happen under more conservative fiscal policy as we have had in the past and the path to that is NOT on the De side. And I would have wished everyone had voted to continued the policies of the Gingrich/Kasich Congress to which Clinton capitulated. And the the Bush/Rep Congress. Instead we go a Dem Congress and Dem budgets and policies starting in 2007 and had one of our worst economic periods. And now Biden and the Dems snatched a successful COVID recovery from the jaws of victory and put and what may be in even worse than those last Dem years.


    I mentioned the times it did work.

    It doesn't mean that at all.

    No it does not the surpluses and paltry deficits under Bush were in large part rests of lower tax rates as they both produced huge surges in ta revenues.

    That is NOT the only pro-growth policy by a long shot.

    Clinton's plan slowed the economy and slow the growth of tax revenues. That is why his political adviser told him to "triangulate", ie change course, and get on board with Gingrich and Kasich and sign their budgets and sign their other pro-growth bills. I agree let's go back go back to those.



    We were talking student loan debt what are you trying to wander off onto now?


    That's more nonsense. You do not pay even double.

    It's the schools that are predatory. Let them be the lenders.

    Do you believe the purpose of accounting is to supply the government tax money and that shed dictate how businesses a
    operate? Why do you want to get rid of accrual accounting systems?


    A disabled Vet is nog able bodied by definition and I think we have plenty of non disabled not veterans collecting government money as entitlements to worry about first.



    That you believe abled body who refused to work are as worthy as disabled veterans and would those EARNED benefits hostage is quite telling.
     
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THIS WOULD MATTER IF BIDEN CARED WHAT VOTERS WANT: Biden country backs McCarthy spending cuts, debt plan.

    Survey of areas Biden carried by 5% or more:

    “Majorities agree with Speaker McCarthy and Republicans' in Congress proposed savings in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, like reclaiming unspent COVID relief funds, reforming energy permitting.”

    “Speaker McCarthy and the new House majority are on the right side of the debt ceiling battle, listening to what the majority of Americans want and working in good faith to reach an agreement that will responsibly raise the debt ceiling while cutting government spending,”

    Illegitimate Joe Biden 'is losing support for his muted demands for increased spending and debt to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has called for spending cuts.'

    'Worse for Biden, 51% will blame him if a compromise isn’t found with McCarthy. The elusive president has so far refused to negotiate with the speaker.'

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You either have to solve the deficit and debt, or you don't. The easiest way is a 29% cut across the board, all programs, both Democrat and Republican, along with the elimination of the Trump Tax Cuts, and an increase in a recession, the growing pains of solving the debt and defict. It is 56% across the board if you want to keep the Trump tax cuts in play. Other than that, we don't solve the debt and deficit and it is a political game, which you just acknowledged. And thus, you are not truly serious about solving the debt and deficit, are you?

    CBO predictions use middle-of-the-road, standard optimization of the historical data you prefer. We don't use numbers that float in the air, like Trump who said his JCTA plan would solve the debt and deficit in ten years. He was predicting an unreasonable 5% GDP growth, among other things. CBO cut that down to size and was more accurate in the first two years of the Trump presidency than Trump loyalists propose.

    But the reality is the CBO critique won't work because of politics and because both parties will never agree to it. The game is the Dems go after Republican-funded or liked programs while the Republicans go after the Democratic-funded or liked programs, all claiming it "will solve the deficit." From a pure numbers perspective, it won't and it never has.


    It has never happened in nearly all of the 250 years of our history, except twice. Once under Andrew Jackson, and once under Bill Clinton. But with all conservaitve governments, the debt has gone up, significantly each and every time. First under Reagan, second under Bush Jr, and third under Trump. And yes, it went up signficantly under Obama as well. But since Obama is not a conservative by any standard, your argument is moot and a myth.

    For Reagain, he had a GOP senate for 6 years. Reagan was in office for 8 years and got a lot of Democrats to vote for his proposals that he made. House was in Dems hands all that time, but a majority in the house dems, the Blue Dog Democrats, voted with Reagan on a majority of these domestic proposals. So, you can't blame dems for that one.

    For Bush Jr, Bush was in the WH for 8 years. The GOP controlled both houses for 6 years. The last two years was under Dem Control But we had that financial and banking crisis. That is a housing bubble that pretty much busted because of the increased subprime rates and the desire at any cost to fund mortgages in an ever-increasing housing market that was outpricing the people who were buying them while using the rob peter to pay paul scheme. That was business greed pure and simple. The four states that had the worst housing crisis and foreclosures had the most conservative housing policies in the country, especially when it comes to flipping the homes


    Yes, you keep mentioning the myths, but never the reality.


    yes it does


    So you admitted that the lower tax rates caused the deficits? The reason whe we had those debts was in fact because of the broad based tax cuts, along with the increased military spending for two wars, and the increased spending on anything and everything that deals with security. We basically went on a spending spree militarily and domestically with an emphasis on national security.

    Pro growth means making sure that the tax buden is not with business and passed on to the customer 100%. That is why sales taxes is such a popular idea among "pro growth" policy "experts."


    The economy was in full swing with low unemployment throughout much of the Clinton Presidency. It was beginning to slow down in 1999 and 2000 because the average consumer was in more debt on a per capita basis than the federal government was on a per capita basis. But recessions are a natural cycle in economics. The FED's job is to smooth out the troughs/valleys and the peaks.



    I simply was stating that the courts have the student loan debt, but Congress still needs to solve it. It's a problem, a major porlbem. Student debt is the second largest investment decision, right behind a home, for any consumer who wants to go to college to advance their education.


    Yes, you do. The number of interest charges over 25 years at 6%, which is what most were being charged in the 2000s to 2021, would have you pay three to four times the amount that you originally borrowed to go to school.

    Some were, like Trump University and other "for profit" schools. But most are business minded or oriented. They advertise their programs, their online degrees, their traditional degrees, and so forth much like any other company that advertises their product. Education is now a product to be bought and sold like any other service, and that includes sports BTW.

    The purpose of accounting to measure, analyze, and report to the appropriate managers on the efficiency or lack thereof of its financial position. It is no different with government as with private business. The standards are different from private business, which uses GAAP accounting procedures, and governmental accounting standards. Government accounting is a unique beast and has its quirks in its system, but the overall function is the same.


    Then you don't know how a person who is disabled is classified. A person with ear loss is 40% disabled. A person with a TBI is 60% disabled. A person with a bad knee is 20$ disabled. If you achieve a score greater than 100 then you are "totally and permanently disabled" but if you look at the vet, he appears healthy, functional, cognitive, and so forth, and thus is able bodied per the GOP standard. The same standard the GOP wants to use for those who are totally and permanently disabled by the Social Security Administration via a physician and their statement.



    Again, it goes to able body. If a person is on dialysis, but looks fit to you, is congnitive of their surroundings, are they able-bodied?
     
  6. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'There is right now resistance from the GOP to accept McCarty's plan. The Freedom Caucus says it does not go far enough and others want the debt limit to go for two years, not one. Democrats are using the wait-and-see approach.
     
  7. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I understand you correctly, it is your contention that if we want to eliminate the deficit, a 29% across the board spending reduction, in combination with rolling back the Trump tax cut, OR a 56% across the board spending cut if we keep the Trump tax cut is required.

    If that is indeed what you are saying, the clear implication using transitive logic is that the Trump tax cut therefore decreased tax revenue by an amount that is equal to 27% of all current federal spending which is why according to you that if we keep the Trump tax cut, we would need to cut that additional 27% in spending in order to eliminate the deficit.

    How did you arrive at this figure? At first glance, this does not make a lick of sense. Help me to understand your logic. What am I missing?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2023
  8. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not arrive at this firgure, the CBO did. If we eliminate the Trump tax cuts, and have no safe programs, then the reduction is 29% across the board. It goes higher if you start protecting certain programs such as SS, Medicare, VA, and Defense. If you keep the Trump Tax cuts and protect all four that I just mentioned, then the cut in expenditures is greater than 100%. If you keep the trump tax cuts and reduce all programs, to achieve it in 10 year would be a 56% reduction. The difference is not the amount of revenue or lack thereof, it is the fact that the revenue from tax cuts is based on a law of diminishing returns if we averaged a less than 2% GDP growth throughout the ten years.
     
  9. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe that whatever you have read that you clearly have mistaken its meaning because there is not a snowballs chance in hell that Trumps tax cuts reduced government revenue by an amount that is equal to 27% of government spending in year 1 which is what you are referring to when saying we need a 56% reduction in spending to balance the budget. I could understand perhaps a 10 year projection of a decrease in combination with taking it to year 1 that perhaps such a claim could be made. If it is a 10 year projection, you would then need only an additional 2.7% reduction in spending rather than 27%. That would perhaps be a believable statement. There would still be an argument to be made in regard to the stimulatory effects of a tax cut, but at least the claimed 2.7% number would make sense. 27% does not.

    Can you provide a link to what you think makes this claim?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2023
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WOW what a brilliant never before heard of postulation!

    Oh I'll go with the cuts although they do not have to be that drastic. But then you propose exactly the opposite on tax policy and completely ignore GROWING THE ECONOMY and ending government hand outs to able bodied people with stricter work requirements. Why would you want to slow economic growth and investment which is the tax base to generate tax revenues? And your continue fallacious statements about what I acknowledged and how "serious" I am only show a lack of merit to your weak rebuttals.

    And they are notoriously wrong. We have actual hard historical data deal with that.


    It happened under Newt Gingrich and John Kaisch and a Republican Congress and the policies I advocate not you get your facts straight.


    The growth of the debt was slowed with the fiscal conservative budgets which even produced surpluses. Reagan requested LESS spending each year than Congress authorized and Congress refused to pass all the spending rescissions he sent to them. Yet the deficits still fell but would have gone under $100B had his budgets been passed. Then you attribute the Democrat budgets for FY2008 and FV2009 to Bush43 in order to put those deficits on him. The fact is after he and the Republicans him a paltry $161B for FY2007 the Dems took back the Congress and began to pass their spending and tax policies. Bush was able to hold them to $400B in 2008 but they cut him out completely for FY2009 where the Dems took the deficit to $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three years. And take the COVID spending out of Trump's before you try to toss him in there.

    And Biden is trying to do the same he and Obama did which is to have NO regard for deficits and debt. It YOU care a twit about either you would NOT be voting for Democrats.


    We had a Democrat Congress which was hellbent on HUGE spending increases and HUGE expansion of government. Bush solved the financial problems with TARP which was paid back before it was due and WITH INTEREST the US Treasury made money on it. The Dems blew solving what mortgages still had problems and the economic recovery giving us the worst recovery in modern history and Biden is about to top that.

    The reality which for which you have no rebuttal except your simple dismissals.

    No it doesn't laws against fraud and the ability to sue are still and will remain in place.

    No and NO way you could have derived that as I say exactly the opposite. They produced HUGE increases in tax revenue growth and with budget restraint produced paltry deficits and even surpluses. When did Dem policies last do that? WITH the special appropriations for the war on terror in FY2009 the deficit was just $161B, two years later with the wars ended the Dems took it to $1,400B so stop trying to blame it on wars which is the FIRST spending priority of the government.

    Taxes on business are already passed on you think raising taxes on business will end those taxes being passed on to customers? How exactly does that work? Why do you think sales taxes are so popular throughout the thousands of taxing authorities in this country?

    It was in full swing when he came into office and his tax and regulation policies slowed that growth down. It was the Rep policies of the Rep Congress which got it back on track, it's pro-growth policies getting people back to work and spending restraint to turn deficits into surpluses. We could do it again why would you oppose that? The Rep answer to that slowdown, dot.com bust and 9/11 were mostly correct and they hinged on lower tax rates, putting people back to work and fewer regulations and then GET OUT OF THE WAY. And it worked. Their mistake was the pre-bate on the tax rate cuts which did nothing and they passing the cuts as a phase in through 2006. They voted in 2003 to accelerated that phase in and the economy took off and we saw one of best economic periods ever. Why would we not want a repeat of that?

    There is nothing to be solved. If you took out a loan solve it by paying it back. They stop flooding taxpayer money into these universities.

    ROFLMAO oh now it's 25 years...........pay it off in ten.


    Government has no "accounting standards" it just does tallies up what it spent this year and says we need 10% more so pass a tax increase.

    I know all about it but we are talking able bodied people and not allowing them to live on the government dole but rather become tax PAYERS. And guess what even disabled people in this country can work and even have protections in the workplace to insure they can if they are able.

    Yes it does if you are able to work then WORK.
     
  11. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, it's a fanciful one.

    First, because of Trump's Tax Hikes on the Rich, the wealthy that were able to pull their income forward into 2017, did so, in order to avoid SALT charges, so, the baseline to use is 2016 as 2017 is artificially high due to this tax avoidance.

    [​IMG]

    In 2018, federal revenues were 103.6% of 2016 revenue.
    2019 - 106.8%
    2020 - 107.7%
    And in 2022 - with the Trump tax cuts in effect, revenues are 145.2% of 2016 revenue.

    Two things to notice on the chart. Spikes in Federal revenue are generally followed by recessions, and NEVER have we seen a spike in federal revenue like we have seen since Biden took over, and the Trump Tax cuts are in place. We don't have a "too low of taxes" problem, we have a "they spend way too much money" problem.

    New: McCarthy rolls out one-year debt-ceiling hike with $4.5T in sensible spending cuts

    And those cuts are spread over 10 years. A lot changes in 10 years.

    Ends Illegitimate Joe's Student Loan Giveaway for the Privileged Gentry.

    '“Limited government spending will reduce inflation and restore fiscal discipline in Washington,” McCarthy said on the House floor. “If Washington wants to spend more, it will have to come together and find savings elsewhere just like every single household in America.”

    Well, if Washington actually spends less, it would reduce inflation, I'm not holding my breath.

    Hopefully the debt ceiling increase is only to the level necessary to reach 9/30/2024 and so accommodates any planned deficit spending for the upcoming fiscal year.

    Chuckles Schumer and Illegitimate Joe are still missing in action, so, the House should simply pass a bill, send it to the Senate and adjourn.
     
    FAW likes this.
  12. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,762
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It actually reduces problems. Most of what federal government does is beyond what it was created to do.
     
  13. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I read comes from the CBO report on how to solve the deficit and the debt in 10 years. it does two things. One, it shows the frugality of what the GOP is really up to. None of their proposals will solve the debt and deficit anytime soon. Not in 10 years and not in 75 years. The second is the report is hypothetical in nature if we are truly willing to solve the debt problem. Or in other words, it exposes the fallacy of the GOP talking points to a T when it comes to debt and deficits. If we all used logic and math correctly, without any manipulation or political agenda, this would be the only way, would it? But since we don't, we are stuck with the children called politicians in Congress, and the biggest children of them all are the Conservatives/GOP/Freedom Caucus type of people. And that is why we have the problem that we do now.
     
  14. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not going to go through point by point of your response. You have pretty much shown what your desire is. I will give you a hint. It has nothing to do with solving the debt and deficit, just the politics of such which will not solve the debt and deficit in 10 years, much less a 100 years. In reality, the true world, and not the hypothetical world, the presuppositions, assumptions, and political agendas that you are advocating will in no way, mathematically speaking, solve anything, just decide who has and who does not have power, which is the true attention of the political system we have today. And you are in league with that sort of thinking. Convince yourself all you want, but the real hard truth is, you don't want it solved, period at all. But I do, and I am willing to propose this if I was a legislator, without any care or concern of what others may think. True leadership is not what is doing what is popular for the people, it is doing what is right for the people, even if it means sacrificing financially, my own interests. The GOP nor the DNC are ever willing to do that. They are two peas in the same pod. You have convinced yourself of the lie that it isn't. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich is not a fiscal conservative. Never was in his career. He raised taxes just as much as any Democrat did. What he did though was a compromise, which is how things used to get done. You seem to forget that, or more likely, ignore that fact because it does not fit your political agenda that Democrats are bad. And what you said about Newt Gingrich is completely bull hockety. The Dems were already in the 1990s known for going after debt and deficits. It was part of Bill Clinton's platform when he ran in 1992. So, don't give me that BS.

    Second, there are govenernamal accounting standards through the FASAB. Federal, state, and local governments use this accounting standard no matter which state or city, or governmental agency they are in. This is definitely something you do not know and will never know.

    Third, we have been having debt and deficit problems since the 1980s. We went on a spending spree in the 1980s and basically outspent the Soviets on weapons and weapons developments. It is here where our defense budget ballooned to what it is today. We have had revenue problems. Make broad-based tax cuts, and keep everything equal, we will have debts and deficits. We slowed the growth in discretionary spending in the 2000s under Bush, had two wars where we spent a lot of money, and still had debts and deficits. We slowed domestic spending even further, and even used sequestration to curb spending, and we still had debt and deficits after the Financial crisis. And we went full drunken sailor mode in spending in the Trump administration. In short, you can't blame all of this on Dems. Yes, Dems are a part, but even more, are the policies of the GOP that have driven the debt and deficits through its broad-based tax cuts as well. And that is strictly on the federal level. And why debt and deficit politics is simply just another political gimmick that you are panhandling here?

    Finally, when it comes to work requirements, very few people who are poor qualify for TANIF and other such measures. For Medicaid, there are three ways to obtain Medicaid. First, you are 65 and older and do not have enough SS Credits to obtain regular social security benefits. Second, you are under 65, totally and permanently disabled, and don't have even 10 SS Credits. And third, you are in a state that has expanded Medicaid eligibility requirements and is working but doesn't have the pay or the job to obtain group health insurance but has medical needs and so forth. The work requirement will affect only one group, the last, and they are already working, just very poor when it comes to Medicaid. It may sound nice, politically speaking, but it won't do a bloody, pun-intended thing, or solve any of the debt or deficits in any manner. Just a political talking point because poor people, well, they must be lazy, according to CPAC logic.

    NOTE, how taxes are spread is the right question. Sales taxes are directly spread to the consumer. Income taxes are spread as part of all overhead expenses from rent/mortgage to taxes, to administrative expenses, and so forth. You are, as usual, half right.
     
    wgabrie likes this.
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well when you can't refute the historical facts and data....................

    Let me give you a hint, I am prefect clear on what I desire which has to do with solving the devt and deficit, you just can't prove your means of doing so would be better or even successful where I have given you the historical results of your desire and my desire.

    I gave you reality and the true world. You are the one wanting to deal with CBO projections and liberal economic theory and hypotheticals which have been disproven in the real world.


    Of course he was and the policies he an Kasich, who was a fiscal conservative at the time, passed embodied those principles and they WORKED. What I said is perfectly true and your simple dismissals refute nothing. Bill Clinton ran on raising taxes and spending more money and got that passed his first two years and as documented slowed the economy and the rate to tax revenue growth. It was when the Republicans took back the Congress and his political adviser told him he better get on board with THEIR policies else face losing reelection. So they came up with the term "triangulation" ie, give in to the Reps and accept their policies.


    Government accounting is make sure you spend every dime allocated and then request double the increase from the previous years and don't account for how it is spent or whether what is was spent on worked.

    It's real simple. Pass policies that encourage investment and growth and expansion in the economy. Cut the needless costly regulations that strangle that. Stop handing out free money and limit unemployment and welfare benefits telling people if you can work you WIILL work. Then restraint the growth of government spending to below the growth of the economy and thus tax revenues. You get rid of expenses and increase revenues until in blances.

    The work requirement affects those people who can provide for themselves and have no claim of other peoples hard earned money because they don't want to. It worked before and it will work again and we will be a better off country for it, they people who do go back into the workforce will be better citizens for it.

    What on earth are you talking about now? Income taxes are not overhead to a business other than it's corporate taxes which are in the cost of the goods or services to the consumer.
     
  16. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have not cited historical facts and data. You used factoids and data with a political claim that is totally baseless. Nothing you have stated is proven, period, with your premise is accurate, let alone factual.

    You can encourage investment and growth in three ways. First, allow foreign direct investment into the US. So far, the GOP and the "America First policy" prohibits that type of investment, or make it more difficult. Second, pass specific tax cuts such as energy credits, for investment into new technology. And with the McCarthy Proposal, it does the exact opposite. And third, shore up the financial institutions because investments range from college to business products. And the small banks, the ones whose assets are under $250 billion, do most of the bullwork for loans and investments. And the GOP does not want that either. Nothing in taxes or broad-based tax cuts, the conservative mantra, does this. It does not create investment and it never will.

    Again, when it comes to governmental accounting, you don't know what you are talking about. You are confusing the difference between governmental accounting and governmental policy. And governmental policy is such that yes, every dime needs to be spent no matter what. But Congress also dictates what government agencies can and cannot spend their money on. If money is not spent, then Congress, whether Republican or Democrat, will cut that portion of the budget and transfer the money to another area that needs the money. That is how the House Ways and Means Committee works, and has been doing so since this country was founded.

    The work requirement is a gimmick based on false presumptions and false analysis of those who are on the program to begin with. It is designed to get people off the program while they still struggle with minimum-wage jobs that don't even pay the bills. Want to help the poor, create actual job corps and more apprenticeships and other similar programs with Businesses so the poor can work their way up without losing the benefits in the process.

    In the GAAP world for a business, overhead is anything that is not direct. Income taxes on a business is a taxes based on business activity, but in cost accounting methods, it is overhead, or part of it, much like rent/mortgage, insurance, administrative staff, etc. You may want to take a look at this link to calculate your overhead. Notice how income taxes is considered overhead under a cost accounting system.

    So, if you think Newt Gingrich was a fiscal conservative, then why on earth would he raise or agree to raise in the 1997 tax package that the maximum marginal tax rate rose from 35% to 39.7%?
     
    wgabrie likes this.
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have absolutely cited hard numbers to you in the past and historical fact here and you have shown nothing to refute it.

    You can do it by lower overall business regulation cost and tax rates across the board and government stop trying to manage the markets through banking and regulations. You leave that capital in the markets where the free market and investors can best decided how it should be allocated.

    ROFL try to separate the two. I explained how government manages itself and uses accounting to do so. What is lacking is any control on that such as a PROFIT margin and making investors and customers happy. There is no interest in cost cutting or even succeeding your way out of a job, the goal is to keep your department growing and funding increasing.

    The way to help the poor is through the private sector and growth of private sector jobs and not through wasteful ineffective government make work jobs corps. The way to do it is through LOCAL and state cooperative agreements for job training for ACTUAL jobs and careers. The federal government needs to cut back the Department of Commerce and the Department of Unions......I mean ahhumm Labor. Send some grants to some state industrial development boards but mainly cut it from government spending at all.

    Spare me the accounting lessons they are not necessary for discussion here.

    There wasn't such a cut in 1997 his tax rate cuts were on the supply side, capital gains. Clinton raised the top marginal to 39.5 in the 1993 tax package. It was Bush43 and the Reps who not only cut capital gains rates but income rates and the highest earners paid not just hugely more in revenue but a higher share of taxes and we hit a record 15% tax revenue increase while bring the deficit down to a paltry $161B.

    So what is your complaint about the Bush43/Rep supply side fiscal policies exactly and how would you proposed to say the Dem/Obama/Biden policies were better?
     
  18. Alwayssa

    Alwayssa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    32,956
    Likes Received:
    7,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, no you have not. You cited numbers, but added to them your political opinion that is neither based on facts or evidence while ignoring a whole bunch of other factors. For instance, you constantly go from POTUS to Legislature back to POTUS if the facts all don't align with your political BS. And I, along with others, pointed that out several times, for instance, the 2007 to 2009 Financial Recession and somehow it was the Democrats' fault why that happened. Second, the supply-side never works, it hasn't worked. There are serious economic studies that prove this. It helps but it does not work in the way you think it does. And this site shows five reasons why the supply side does not work the way you think it does. Tax cuts, for instance, do not create more jobs. What creates jobs is something called demand. You can make all the cuts in taxes you want, but if people don't want the product, it won't be produced. Think Studabeaker Chuck Wagons for instance. No one wants that, and if you call all the taxes in wood products, no one will still build a chuck wagon. But that is to show the point. There are other reasons, but it is not the panacea or the all-good feeling that you are thinking of. As we lowered marginal tax rates from 70% to 40% to 25%, we also went from a primary cash-based society to a credit society and became hooked on credit economics. We have people who finance $2500 plus mattresses, financing for new cars have risen from 4 years max to now 6 or seven years so that we can obtain those low monthly payments and other things. That is what really increased our GDP, we basically borrowed out the Qazzoo as we lowered interest rates, which in turn, caused us not to save as much because of these low-interest rates. You just can't have both, if you want banks and other financial institutions to make a profit. You will either ignore all this or come up with another RW conspiracy theory for all of this. but the economic professionals who don't have an ax to grind politically, have used empirical evidence to show that it never really did work to the extent you are claiming. Never has and never will.

    There is more than "just reducing regulation" if you want to make this work. Most of the regulation on the books is outdated and they need to be revised or eliminated. That is an ongoing process. But what you don't understand about most regulations is that businesses have their hands in the regulation, to begin with. In the old days, RIA and CCH were the primary ones who wrote the tax regulations. Industries wrote business regulations to protect their interest and increase the cost of entry into the industry. But if we lower regulation in the wrong way, then it is just easier for businesses to screw customers more easily. But hey, if you want to eliminate regulation, I am sure I will find a way to dump nuclear material next to your property and see how that works out for you. But in reality, all you are citing is a campaign slogan, not reality when it comes to regulation.

    When it comes to accounting, you don't know a damn thing. And you stated that governmental accounting was to spend every dollar. That is not governmental accounting. That is governmental policy. Know the difference. Cost accounting is the bread and butter for any business that has Cost of Goods Sold, COGS, and is a type of managerial accounting for production cycles. it is used by any and all manufacturers, but its principles are the same. And yes, income taxes are indirect taxes and thus are part of overhead along with Rent/mortgage, utilities, etc. There are direct costs, indirect costs, and mixed costs. Mixed costs are both parts of overhead and cost of goods sold. And the link I provided is strictly how to calculate overhead costs, which included income taxes, and indirect costs to business. But in reality, you can't lower business costs in the way you are thinking. There is always a tradeoff. People are not going to work for free. Certain costs a business cannot control. For instance, if you have vendors, the vendors set the price of the goods with terms of payment. If the vendors of a certain product all go up for whatever reason, and any competitor for that product would be similar in price and terms. So, the savings will be negligible at best. Or with utilities or with any other expense that is supplied by a third party. Regulation just makes sure you are following the rules. Businesses are known to cut corners, some greater than others. And in times when a business does cut corners, it may end up being mail fraud, wire fraud, business fraud, contract violations, and so forth, but that is the most egregious error.

    The way to help the poor is to teach them job skills with cooperation between government and private businesses. Most businesses will not hire someone who is on welfare. It is too risky for them, or someone who has large gaps in employment history unless they go back to the same employer under a similar position. For most poor people, they lack the skills of whatever job. Minimum wage jobs don't pay the bills either, and they are in service industry jobs that are not for the adults who may be raising a family. They don't provide child care options, or health insurance, or other benefits generally, compared to other mid and large size businesses. And they know the service industry has a larger pool than more specialized workers, like a digger for instance.

    The 1997 Tax Relief Act was very specific in tax cuts. It mostly got rid of IRC 1034 and created IRC 121, increased the exemption on a federal level from $600k to $1.3 million, created the education credits, 529 plans, Coverdel Education Savings Accounts, and a few other things. To offset the cost, the maximum income tax bracket rose from 35% to 39.6%. But it was not supply side by any measure.
     
  19. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Federal spending is not "out of control"; however, the idea we can have a free lunch by not taxing to pay for the services we want is.

    upload_2023-4-24_6-53-9.png

    Federal spending under Clinton, Obama (after the Bush Recession) and Trump (before covid) was a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Reagan, Bush the Elder and Dubya. (No, I'm not counting the covid spending.)
    It isn't the truth. Federal spending, despite having an aging population and advances in medical care making Medicare and Medicaid more expensive, is not causing the ballooning deficit. Note to liberals--nor is protecting the country against the likes of Russia and China.
    Maybe we should stop cutting taxes and pretending tax cuts pay for themselves.

    Sorry to burst your bubble with the real truth.
     
    FreshAir and wgabrie like this.
  20. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have cited the historical budget numbers and you have yet to refute them with your specious simple dismissals. YES The 2007-2009 fiscal polices were DEMOCRAT policies as I have repeatedly shown especially 2009 where the Dems cut Bush out completely. That rise in deficits from the Republican measly $161B was SOLELY Democrat driven and passed. The ONLY way you can try to attack conservative fiscal policies is to fallaciously try to attribute it to Bush.

    Supply-side as I have already demonstrated has worked every time those policies have been instituted. You don't create jobs with phony demand, you have to have the CAPITAL first. Nothing can happen until the capital can be put together to finance it and fund expansions which take time to become profitable. The government taking that capital out of the market suppresses expansion and job growth. Does it every time as I had shown. People didn't demand PC's but people invested in creating them and MADE a market it's what marketing departments do you know, come up with things people will want if they can be produced.

    Government account and management is NOTHING like the private sector in it's accuracy or it's purpose. No need to carry on about that further as it has nothing to do with the subject here/

    That is government spending and deficits and once again hitting the arbitrary debt limit. One side cares not a twit about deficits and debt and is demanding more a free hand in wasteful unnecessary spending and government expansion. That will hamper economic growth in the private sector, go against the efforts of the FED to bring down inflation and prevent a full economic recovery if not drive us back into a recession. Which side do you support?
     
  21. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have competitive business taxes and it isn't necessarily a good idea to just start chopping regulations that protect the health and safety of the American people. You might try being more nuanced in your headlong ideological rush to cut taxes.
    No, you didn't because you only think you know how the system works. (Caveat here--your continuing effort to sell us on the same nonsense could mean you do understand and are propagandizing the forum.)
    This is part of the way to "help the poor." Improving public education in poor neighborhoods would help. So, too, would removing measures like right-to-work laws that make it difficult for workers to share in the wealth they help create.

    IMG_0750.jpeg
    You could use some economics study.
     
  22. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is a "competitive business tax" exactly. Why do you believe the only regulations are those to do with health and safety? You might broaden your knowledge in your headlong rush to burden the economy with more government taxes and regulations and spending.



    Lack of any rebuttal noted.

    And how do you propose to improve public education in poor neighborhoods where we already pour billions of dollars? How about cutting the federal Department of Education which has only overseen a decline in educational performance since it's inception and block granting to money to the local school systems? How about getting rid of the teachers unions and their political clout which is only there to protect the teachers and union leaders and not to help educate the children?

    How about getting rid of union requirements which holds back the people who work on their own merit to increase their share of the wealth while not loosing their jobs because of the union business managers are more interested in their own well being.

    Feel free to actually challenge any economic point I have made with an actual rebuttal.
     
  23. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looking at your response, you 100% did not address the singulr question that I asked. I will repeat...

    I believe that whatever you have read that you clearly have mistaken its meaning because there is not a snowballs chance in hell that Trumps tax cuts reduced government revenue by an amount that is equal to 27% of government spending in year 1 which is what you are referring to when saying we need a 56% reduction in spending to balance the budget. I could understand perhaps a 10 year projection of a decrease in combination with taking it to year 1 that perhaps such a claim could be made. If it is a 10 year projection, you would then need only an additional 2.7% reduction in spending rather than 27%. That would perhaps be a believable statement. There would still be an argument to be made in regard to the stimulatory effects of a tax cut, but at least the claimed 2.7% number would make sense. 27% does not.

    Can you provide a link and citation to what you think makes this claim? Your numbers clearly do not add up.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2023
  24. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not what I said.
    You can't resist making up positions for me, can you?
    Poor neighborhoods have lower education spending then rich neighborhoods in most cases.
    Poor states will be worse off than they are now--states like those in the South--who proportionally benefit more from federal spending then rich states like New York or California.
    How do you explain the poor quality of education in the South where unions are either weak or nonexistent? Anyway, teachers have a right to be represented if that's their choice.
    We have been getting rid of unions in the private sector. That hasn't helped workers wages.
    Done. Now, how about you evidencing you know what you're talking about?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2023
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You said something about competitive tax rates and that it would be health and other emotional things that would be cut.

    Can't help dodging your own statements?

    That's not necessarily true we spend HUGE sums in poor areas. That is not the problem the problem is the education being provided and personal responsibility to take advantage of that education provided. It has gotten worse the more.federal involvement and the more the political teachers unions have been given control.

    W redoing just fine and in fact better than most coming out of COVID. It took Biden and the Dems to screw that up.

    How do you correlated the two. Even FDR opposed public sector unions. Unions are for the free market with private employers.

    Sure helped down here where we all have good paying jobs in places where unions and their representatives and their corrupt and self serving representation has been kicked out over the years because the workers don't want them. We each can stand on our own merits.

    What afer you disputing specifically?
     

Share This Page