The Debt “Ceiling” is Unconstitutional

When and by how much should we raise taxes to pay for the conquest of Iraq and Afg?

 

Yes, I do. That’s why the debt limit is unconstitutional. Because when Congress sets a budget that exceeds revenue, it implies the balance of funds needed to meet the budget must be borrowed. The debt limit contradicts Congress’s own law. It’s asinine.

First of all this is an ignorant thing to say because we are the ones who will suffer, assuming you’re American. If you aren’t American, there is a good chance you will also suffer.

I don’t care about the House’s bill because I think it should be totally unnecessary. Your proposal about eliminating a bunch of federal departments and agencies is fine. That should be debated when forming and passing the budget. Closing a bunch of federal departments would be preferable to setting a budget that requires borrowing money while simultaneously prohibiting the treasury from borrowing money.

 

I’m saying that is what causes the problem. Congress overspends in the budget, then punts the deficit problem to the debt limit vote. No. Overspending implicitly authorizes the necessary borrowing. If they don’t want to borrow more, then pass a balanced budget.

 

It doesn’t have to be a business for the benefits of borrowing money to still apply. Businesses spend other people’s money all the time. That is literally how capitalism works.

That’s fine. Pass a budget like that. Don’t pass a much bigger budget that requires the treasury to borrow money and then prohibit the treasury from borrowing money.

 

Amen.

The idea that we should TANK the USA for missing this entirely political measure is stupendously, monumentally STUPID, especially given our constitution.

And, one can see that as the battles over this issue (now and in the past) have amounted to no more than one party or the other trying to hold America hostage to their own partisan views on what spending (that passed both sides of congress and was signed by the president) is important.

It hasn't had ANYTHING to do with responsibility - the supposed objective of debt limits.

The fundamental problem is that we buy stuff (like conquering other countries) and then refuse to pay.

It's like the congress wants to order lobster and then dine and dash - or push the weight off on those who have the LEAST representation and the LEAST ability to pay.

So, McCarthy demands that we ignore the multibillion dollar tax cheats while demanding an end to life giving support to those in serious trouble.

He should be in JAIL - along with the rest who refuse to pay for their lobster ideas.

 

A debt limit is just that- the limit available. Setting a budget that exceeds that limit is a violation. And the determination of a limit must come first, not after the fact.
No matter how you debate this, the fact is that federal spending, as well as many states, is done with near zero consideration of funds available.

One such example is the many "unfunded" commitments- important future expense obligations such as pensions are used to entice employees- with no idea how that money will be raised. They don't even show that as a liability on financial statements, as if it didn't exist.

I'm saying the problem is far bigger than this particular debt limit issue- which is a can already kicked down a hundred times.

 

No that is not how capitalism works. There is no benefit to borrowing by government. Government can have a savings account for emergencies like the rest of us.

Borrowing money to spend is one thing. Spending money that doesn't exist and hasn't yet been borrowed is idiotic. Federal government has not had a budget for decades. They feel they don't need it since they can borrow and/or print money at will. Idiotic system.

 

Who are multibillion dollar tax cheats? Any names? Ah yes, I understand it. Biden made it up and you fell for it.

 

Prior to June/July, historically deficit months, Republicans will have to tell us what expenditures should be scaled down, and/or postponed.

My rationale; According to my calculations,
June/July withholding taxes will only defray approx. 70% of our non-FICA expenditures.

Also, in reference to Treasury’s “extraordinary measures, mainly borrowing money from two Federal employee Pension and Disability Funds, their Assets “held in cash” have significantly been reduced, and total contributions to said funds equates to $10 billion a month.

Thus, attention Republicans, just don’t refuse to raise the debt ceiling, prior to June/July, what expenditures would you scaled down, cut, and/or postponed that would free up approx. $100 billion?

 

The IRS points out that that unpaid taxes are amounting to a loss of revenue of a trillion dollars per year.

About a decade ago unpaid taxes were about half that.

The Biden administration has been slammed for asking for more money to go after billionaire tax cheats, as the IRS has been shrinking and doesn't have the staff to do these investigations.

Today, McCarthy and others working to PREVENT this law enforcement and instead to go after those who can't pay for food and healthcare.

In fact, the reason for McCarthy's first attempt failed is that it didn't land HARD ENOUGH on those who are seriously struggling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/...x cheats cost the,per year, I.R.S. chief says.

Look it up somewhere else before you whine about the source.

 

The government with a savings account. Splendid. “Let’s not just tax money we need to spend, let’s tax money we don’t need to spend, but might need some day.” If a candidate runs on that idea you are probably the only non-relative that will vote for him.

 

Fine, but if Congress sets the limit (first, as you say), then sets a budget over that, it nullifies the previously set limit. If they want to honor the limit, then honor it with the budget and appropriations bills.

Nonsense. There is a congressional budget office, congressional research service, a bureau of labor statistics… they know damn well what the available funds are.

I agree, but triggering default is not solving the can-kicking, it’s shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

I did not say they didn't know what the available funds are- I said they gave that near zero consideration.

Not knowing would be correctible ignorance. Intentionally disregarding it would be incompetence, corruption, and stupidity.

 

Not I. I don't vote. No point in voting for the status quo. The idea is to eliminate government debt. The savings account doesn't have to be permanent. The government can reduce taxation to spending when the fund is in place. Pssssst. Government debt and monetary supply expansion is what has put us is in this pickle. If you like pickles then you should be happy.

 

A. I don't believe what the IRS says. B. I asked about wealthy tax cheats. You didn't answer.

About a decade ago the dollar was worth 60% more than today.

Again, what billionaire tax cheats? Any names?

Today, McCarthy and others working to PREVENT this law enforcement and instead to go after those who can't pay for food and healthcare.

Sounds like something federal government likes to do.

NY Times gets its information from government. There is no other source for it. Whether the government says it or the NY Times says it, I don't believe the number is that high. And it certainly isn't billionaires who have no reason to break the tax laws. I want to deny federal government as much money as possible. CUT SPENDING.

 

Not nearly as stupid as watching government destroy the economy. If it takes default to stop the profligate spending then so be it. Government can reduce spending easily without a default if it wants to. Apparently it welcomes a default instead of doing what is right.

 

It is more asinine to believe that congress sets a budget. There hasn't been a federal budget for decades.

I'm an American and I'm happy to have short term suffering in return for fiscal responsibility in government.

At least you appear to agree that federal government is too large. That is a start. Federal government, though, is not on board with that.

 

It is greed and corruption, exactly what the Biden administration accuses the private sector of harboring. If only federal government had competition like those companies in the private sector! I'm very disappointed with the American electorate.

 

I suspect you know too little about this.
The cost-benefit of auditing low-income people is negative. The IRS targets the wealthy, because that's where the money is.

Regardless of that, all you have to know is- who's paying the income tax bills. The Treasury does report that information, clearly.

The top 1% of taxpayers paid a total equal to 150% of the bottom 90% of all taxpayers.
The top 10% pay 71% of all income tax revenue.
The bottom 50% pay 3% of all income tax revenue.

That means that the real people getting the free ride on somebody else's buck- are not the wealthy.

It's popular to say tax the wealthy, because the poorer voters out-number them vastly, and people love the idea that someone else can be made to pay their bills... and will vote for it.
The same politicians who promote it are somehow miraculously building wealth way beyond their salaries

Pelosi makes $200K a year as speaker. In the 16 years she's been in that position, her net worth has grown $140 million, about 9.3 mil a year.....

 

I did know what you posted. Thanks for the refresher. I am not wealthy. Yet I have been through three IRS audits and all three ended with no additional tax due. They were a waste of time and money on both my part and that of the IRS. So I have that bit of fog on my lenses.

Billionaires have great accountants that know how to take advantage of tax law. I think most people who think the billionaires are cheating are really mad at the tax laws, not the tax payers. I have a good accountant as well but I'm on a completely different level from billionaires. Like them, my tax returns are legal and accurate. The tax laws apply to everyone.

 

It's true that wealth allows (and needs) good accounting. Of course, it's a strategy in advance about how money is handled and distributed in order to generate the lowest tax, but that is neither illegal nor unfair.

The more complicated your situation is, the harder it is to cover all the angles- and the IRS doesn't have to prove you owe money; if they say you do- it's up to you to prove you don't. It can be a political weapon too and there have been times when it was used that way. I'm especially concerned with the huge expansion of the IRS and the focus on arms.

I believe that good management in leadership and fair laws people can understand- laws that they can depend on, not ones that keep changing, would result in a far better relationship. People need a government they can trust, and so long as it's not trustworthy the relationship will be highly adversary.

 

What is right is to raise the revenue to pay for what we purchase.

Instead, the plan over decades, starting with Reagan and before has been to buy stuff and CUT revenue.

 

I think you are ignoring that massive cuts to revenue that have come AFTER having purchased features in a way that depends on future dollars.

When we purchased the conquest of Iraq and Afg, we needed to raise the revenue to pay for that.

When we helped out individuals, businesses, hospitals, etc., during and after COVID, we needed to pay for that. Those were important expenditures, but that didn't make them free.

We may have needed tax cuts after the 2008 crash, but then we pretended that we didn't really need that revenue - so we made it permanent. That cut off our ability to pay for the stuff that we bought, knowing that we had revenue. It's like an individual bought a house, got payment delays due to loss of work, and then just decided not to go back to work anymore.

Today, McCarthy wants to ignore the hundreds of billions of THEFT of our tax dollars by the ultra wealthy and instead go after those who desperately need help.

How can anyone trust a government that would do that??

 

When there is less revenue there has to be less spending. Pretty simple.

The government has no business purchasing what it can't afford. If they want to go to war, they need to save up for it just like I need to save up for a new car.

Those expenditures went way beyond the appropriate purpose of federal government.

Think that through. It is fiscal irresponsibility.

Not true. What is true is that he passed a bill that expands the debt limit with some future spending cuts. The democrats will have nothing to do with it.

I don't trust federal government at all. Not even a little. I haven't for decades so I can't answer your question. I think everyone should distrust federal government.

 

Borrowing is not raising. We need to stop buying what we can't afford.

Denying revenue to federal government is a positive thing. It is the only way to reduce spending. Increasing spending while denying revenue is irresponsible as I said above, not matter who does it.