Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:07 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
<checks forum, confirms that it is indeed Great Debates>

Wow HD, you make a very convincing rebuttal.
  #102  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:10 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
... You've got defense spending and interest on the debt. Everything else is almost trivial.
Really? Here is the CBO's chart for 2017. It shows:

Net interest = $263B
Defense spending = $590B
Nondefense (discretionary) = $610B
"Other" = $614B
Medicaid = $375B
Medicare = $591B
Social Security = $939B

You think "everything else is almost trivial"? Even the $610B in non-defense discretionary spending? And the $614B spent on "other"?
  #103  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:12 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
And remember that $190B is a rounding error, right?
  #104  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:22 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Really? Here is the CBO's chart for 2017. It shows:

Net interest = $263B
Defense spending = $590B
Nondefense (discretionary) = $610B
"Other" = $614B
Medicaid = $375B
Medicare = $591B
Social Security = $939B

You think "everything else is almost trivial"? Even the $610B in non-defense discretionary spending? And the $614B spent on "other"?
I think the charts support my point of view, actually but I thank you for the link. I say SS, Medicare, and Medicaid shouldn't really count as federal revenues or spending, they have their own revenue source. Now from the chart, the non-defense discretionary spending is $610 billion. OK, so I was mistaken and it is more than defense. But- what do you cut? Transportation? Education? Veteran's benefits? If you were in charge, which of these would feel the blow of your mighty ax?
  #105  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:26 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
For the same reason that Dems applaud when their elected officials increase spending but fail to "pay for it" with sufficient revenue-raising measure to cover the costs.

We both have policy priorities we want to see realized, and don't care sufficiently if the necessary downside (cutting spending in the case of R's and raising taxes in the case of D's) actually happens.

Neither side is willing to give up their preferred solution to see that government revenues and outlays meet.
So because you perceive Democrats to have behaved irresponsibly, you think it's just fine if Republicans behave irresponsibly? Your side controls the House, the Senate, the White House and (for all intents and purposes) the Supreme Court. Excusing your fiscal irresponsibility with whataboutism is utterly craven.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 09-18-2018 at 01:26 PM.
  #106  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:31 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 11,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Sure. I doubt that the "temporary" tax cuts will be allowed to expire. It was savvy politics.
If the republicans intended to extend the temporary tax cuts, they wouldn't have bothered making the tax cuts for the super-rich permanent. What they actually did is set up a situation where they can either lambast the democrats for not perpetuating your tiny tax cut - or just sit back and ignore the situation if the democrats are not in a position to take flak for allowing them to expire. After all, it's not like they give a fuck about your tax cut - if they did it would be as permanent as everyone else's.
  #107  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:37 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
So because you perceive Democrats to have behaved irresponsibly, you think it's just fine if Republicans behave irresponsibly? Your side controls the House, the Senate, the White House and (for all intents and purposes) the Supreme Court. Excusing your fiscal irresponsibility with whataboutism is utterly craven.
The trends I'm talking about there extend over the last couple of decades, at least.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 01:37 PM.
  #108  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:45 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,777
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. "

- Alexis de Tocqueville
  #109  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:45 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I think the charts support my point of view, actually but I thank you for the link. I say SS, Medicare, and Medicaid shouldn't really count as federal revenues or spending, they have their own revenue source. Now from the chart, the non-defense discretionary spending is $610 billion. OK, so I was mistaken and it is more than defense.
You're welcome and it's refreshing to see a simple acknowledgement of an error. I think it's worth noting that, at least in a number of categories, that chart shows net spending, that is, how much the federal government is spending on those programs after "their own revenue source" has been accounted for. For example, Medicare is "spending minus income from premiums and other offsetting receipts" and Other is "minus income from offsetting receipts".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
But- what do you cut? Transportation? Education? Veteran's benefits? If you were in charge, which of these would feel the blow of your mighty ax?
I'd be fine with something like "the Penny Plan".
  #110  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:46 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The trends I'm talking about there extend over the last couple of decades, at least.
Including the time when GHWB raised taxes, and Republicans revolted on him and he lost re-election?

Including the time where, based on those higher taxes and a booming economy under Clinton, the deficit was erased?

Or are you talking about the times when Republican Administrations got tax cuts with pretty good economies (Reagan, GWB) and managed to spike the deficits?

Or maybe you think that during a major recession, lowering the deficit is more important than people having food stamps and unemployment so that they do not starve?
  #111  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:47 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd be fine with something like "the Penny Plan".
Don't make me laugh.

That article is written by the one Senator most responsible for authoring tax cuts that are increasing the debt by nearly $2 trillion without cutting any spending whatsoever.
  #112  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Including the time when GHWB raised taxes, and Republicans revolted on him and he lost re-election?

Including the time where, based on those higher taxes and a booming economy under Clinton, the deficit was erased?

Or are you talking about the times when Republican Administrations got tax cuts with pretty good economies (Reagan, GWB) and managed to spike the deficits?

Or maybe you think that during a major recession, lowering the deficit is more important than people having food stamps and unemployment so that they do not starve?
Essentially nobody is in danger of starving to death in America today, certainly not because of a lack of funds. Food stamps don't prevent starvation, they allow people to spend their cash on cigarettes and beer because their food is taken care of.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 01:49 PM.
  #113  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:03 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You're welcome and it's refreshing to see a simple acknowledgement of an error. I think it's worth noting that, at least in a number of categories, that chart shows net spending, that is, how much the federal government is spending on those programs after "their own revenue source" has been accounted for. For example, Medicare is "spending minus income from premiums and other offsetting receipts" and Other is "minus income from offsetting receipts".


I'd be fine with something like "the Penny Plan".
You know, I'm relatively certain that you and I have never voted the same way but there is no need for us to be disagreeable just because we disagree.

SS will soon be cashing in its T-bills and relying on a bit more than revenues, that is true. This was of course the reason for racking up those massive SS surpluses in the first place.

But I'm not so sure that your "penny plan" is practicable. I shall return later when I'm more convinced of that.
  #114  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:20 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
False. Where did you get the impression I wasn't following it? I asked you for a cite, and was told "Try Google." That declining to offer a cite for assertions pretty much ended the conversation.
You didn’t ask for a cite, you asked for information. The very fact that you asked tells me that you don’t know and your attempt to spin that as something else tells me even more.
  #115  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:22 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Essentially nobody is in danger of starving to death in America today, certainly not because of a lack of funds. Food stamps don't prevent starvation, they allow people to spend their cash on cigarettes and beer because their food is taken care of.
When we hit 10 percent unemployment in 2008, you would have been happy eliminating food stamps to save money and reduce the deficit?

But at at time of full employment, you support the debt-raising tax cuts because you, a person with a pretty good salary, would like a couple more thousand dollars in your pocket each year?

That's pretty cold.
  #116  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:22 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not interested in what Google has to say. I'm interested in what you have to say. But if your response is to NOT offer a cite, or even an example, I guess that tells me plenty.
Here's what I have to say, then: the only way the question of how regressive state income taxes are bears on what I was saying in my response to septimus earlier is that they're less regressive than state sales taxes.

Are you questioning that? If not, then I'm really not interested in discussing it further; I've answered his question accurately.

If you are questioning that - if you think state income taxes might be even more regressive than sales taxes - all I can say is, are you fucking kidding me??

And finally, if you want to nitpick over some side issue that has nothing to do with the question septimus asked, and my answer, you'll have to do it by yourself.
  #117  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:35 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
When we hit 10 percent unemployment in 2008, you would have been happy eliminating food stamps to save money and reduce the deficit?
Just as a point of information, the unemployment rate didn't hit 10% until October 2009.

Like I said, my preference would be something along the lines of the penny plan, with across-the-board cuts, perhaps with some carve-outs determined by Congress. I wasn't advocating for food stamps to be cut in 2009 (but I don't think I would have lifted a finger to oppose it if it were a realistic possibility).

I'm guessing that this is where you're headed with the food stamps argument, so I'll meet you there: Yes, I'm fully aware that the food stamps program is also "little more than a rounding error" in our overall federal budget, and that cutting it, even to zero, wouldn't solve our budget shortfall by itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
But at at time of full employment, you support the debt-raising tax cuts because you, a person with a pretty good salary, would like a couple more thousand dollars in your pocket each year?
That couple more thousand dollars was certainly one reason I supported it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
That's pretty cold.
Republicans can't win with your side. You guys either accuse them of "voting against their economic interests" or being "pretty cold" when they vote for their economic interests.
  #118  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:18 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post


I'd be fine with something like "the Penny Plan".
That isn't a plan. That is simplemindedness presented as if it were a plan. Are we all supposed to slap out foreheads and go, "Gollleeee, when you put it like that it is as if you haven't just proposed cutting $1 trillion from the budget!"

The question was: cut What?
  #119  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:34 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see that as being any more convincing than this:

"The problem isn't that Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they're the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Democrats into office despite Democrats presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit."
You may not like taxes but they are a means of paying for government spending. So the Democrats have a realistic plan.

The Republican plan is to hope there are a lot of voters who won't be able to figure out that they don't have a plan.

Your admission that you find both plans equally convincing explains which party you support.
  #120  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:44 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Republicans can't win with your side. You guys either accuse them of "voting against their economic interests" or being "pretty cold" when they vote for their economic interests.
No, we're saying you don't understand what your economic interests are. Sure, the government can cut your taxes this year. And you'll think "Wow, this is great" and vote them back into office.

But they're paying for your tax cut by borrowing more money. So they gave you a two thousand dollar tax cut and put you three thousand dollars in debt. That's not a good deal for you.
  #121  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:45 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Like I said, my preference would be something along the lines of the penny plan, with across-the-board cuts, perhaps with some carve-outs determined by Congress. I wasn't advocating for food stamps to be cut in 2009 (but I don't think I would have lifted a finger to oppose it if it were a realistic possibility).

I'm guessing that this is where you're headed with the food stamps argument, so I'll meet you there: Yes, I'm fully aware that the food stamps program is also "little more than a rounding error" in our overall federal budget, and that cutting it, even to zero, wouldn't solve our budget shortfall by itself.
Actually, you're completely wrong. That thought did not occur to me, and it is not an argument I like (except when we are literally talking about rounding errors, like a $10 million grant to study some scientific phenomenon that anti-government spending crusaders rail against while not understanding at all).

Quote:
That couple more thousand dollars was certainly one reason I supported it.

Republicans can't win with your side. You guys either accuse them of "voting against their economic interests" or being "pretty cold" when they vote for their economic interests.
I said it's pretty cold to generally like cuts to a program to make sure poor people can buy groceries while hailing that you just got a tax cut that amounts to maybe several weeks of take-home pay for those same poor people.

The reason you can't win with our side is that this kind of crap is disgusting. It's like Wall Street bankers spitting on homeless people for kicks.

Last edited by Ravenman; 09-18-2018 at 04:45 PM.
  #122  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:39 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,842
More like helpless people being robbed and then forced to pay admission to a show where the robber berates them for being so stupid that they got robbed.
  #123  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:53 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
And that the money that was stolen probably would have been wasted on things like a birthday cake for their kid (what kid NEEDS a cake?) instead of the cool stuff rich people will buy, like a Performance Dual Motor Tesla Model 3. The seats are white vegan leather!
  #124  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:00 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, we're saying you don't understand what your economic interests are. Sure, the government can cut your taxes this year. And you'll think "Wow, this is great" and vote them back into office.

But they're paying for your tax cut by borrowing more money. So they gave you a two thousand dollar tax cut and put you three thousand dollars in debt. That's not a good deal for you.
It's a better deal for me than giving three thousand dollars away to whatever pet project / program they're running this year.

I appreciate the concern (sort of), but I'm not very interested in what you imagine my economic interests are.
  #125  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:14 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's a better deal for me than giving three thousand dollars away to whatever pet project / program they're running this year.

I appreciate the concern (sort of), but I'm not very interested in what you imagine my economic interests are.
This country doesn't revolve around you.
  #126  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:35 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
And that the money that was stolen probably would have been wasted on things like a birthday cake for their kid (what kid NEEDS a cake?) instead of the cool stuff rich people will buy, like a Performance Dual Motor Tesla Model 3. The seats are white vegan leather!

[the capitalist] turns the worker into a being with neither needs nor senses and turn the worker's activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. Hence any luxury that the worker might enjoy is reprehensible, and anything that goes beyond the most abstract need – either in the form of passive enjoyment or active expression – appears to him as a luxury. -- Karl Marx
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #127  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:59 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This country doesn't revolve around you.
I'm well-aware. Thank you. I was one of ~130 million voters last fall. I chose to vote for my economic interests. Is that wrong, in your eyes?
  #128  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:00 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's a better deal for me than giving three thousand dollars away to whatever pet project / program they're running this year.
It's hard to discuss issues with you when you miss so much of what people are saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I appreciate the concern (sort of), but I'm not very interested in what you imagine my economic interests are.
You told me what your economic interests are. You want to have more money. And I was explaining how going into debt doesn't do that.
  #129  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:17 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... You told me what your economic interests are. You want to have more money. And I was explaining how going into debt doesn't do that.
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Whether I pay $9,000 or $11,500 in taxes this year, and next year, and for the next 8 or 9 years, has a real, direct impact on my bottom line. Whether we're in debt $32 trillion in 10 years or only $30.1 trillion has a drastically-less direct impact on my bottom line. Do you understand now?

* all numbers in this post are approximations, offered only as an example

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 09:17 PM.
  #130  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:21 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm well-aware. Thank you. I was one of ~130 million voters last fall. I chose to vote for my economic interests. Is that wrong, in your eyes?
If offered a choice, children would generally attempt to subsist on cupcakes and soda. They are just eating in their own self-interest.
  #131  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:22 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Let's cut your taxes down to zero and we can be 200 trillion in debt in 10 years! Fuck it! Free hot tubs for the masses!

I'm astounded that you spend so much time talking about policy when you clearly don't give a shit about it.
  #132  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:25 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If offered a choice, children would generally attempt to subsist on cupcakes and soda. They are just eating in their own self-interest.
So that's a "yes" then? People should vote in favor of what you (or Little Nemo) consider their economic interests to be, not what they do?
  #133  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:37 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps you've misunderstood. Whether I pay $9,000 or $11,500 in taxes this year, and next year, and for the next 8 or 9 years, has a real, direct impact on my bottom line. Whether we're in debt $32 trillion in 10 years or only $30.1 trillion has a drastically-less direct impact on my bottom line. Do you understand now?
It makes a big difference if we matching tax cuts with spending cuts. If we keep spending the same amount of money and just borrow to make up for the tax cuts, then the debt grows.

What do you think will happen to that debt? Will it just disappear? No, it will have to be paid off - with taxes.

So what's the point of getting ten thousand dollars this year if it just means you have to pay fifteen thousand dollars when the debt is due? You'll just come out five thousand dollars behind.

Let's say the government builds a bridge. Which would you prefer them to do to pay for it; pay a million dollars for it or borrow a million dollars and then pay the million with two hundred thousand dollars of interest? Same bridge but you can pay either $1,000,000 or $1,200,000 for it. Remember it's coming out of your taxes either way.

Can you explain why you think going into debt won't have an impact on your bottom line? Do you find that works when you buy a car or a house? That going into debt has no effect on your finances? Because that's not how it works for most people.
  #134  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:38 PM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
If we pay more for the bridge it really pisses off the libtards

Last edited by steronz; 09-18-2018 at 09:39 PM.
  #135  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:43 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It makes a big difference if we matching tax cuts with spending cuts. If we keep spending the same amount of money and just borrow to make up for the tax cuts, then the debt grows.
Not that I agree, but if someone's position was "So what about the debt? I get more money now and for the foreseeable future. Why should I care about the debt?" what's the answer to that?
  #136  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... it will have to be paid off - with taxes. ... when the debt is due... Remember it's coming out of your taxes either way. ...
I think there's pretty substantial evidence that it does not, in fact "have to be paid off" or that "when the debt is due" exists in any meaningful timeframe. If we had a BBA or something like that, you could plausible make these claims, but we do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... Can you explain why you think going into debt won't have an impact on your bottom line? ...
I didn't claim it "won't have an impact" on my bottom line. It may, but my claim is that that impact is likely smaller and more distant than the direct impact of saving $2,500/year for the next 10 years.

I understand the arguments of why debt is bad and we shouldn't go into debt. I've made those arguments before. Nobody gives a shit. We're over $20T in debt and on our way to $30T. Do you reasonably believe that there's some point in your or my lifetime where we will have paid that amount off with taxes?

ETA: kudos to manson1972, ninja'd me real good.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 09:45 PM.
  #137  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think there's pretty substantial evidence that it does not, in fact "have to be paid off" or that "when the debt is due" exists in any meaningful timeframe. If we had a BBA or something like that, you could plausible make these claims, but we do not.
What? Do you think the government isn't paying off its debts? How do you think it's able to keep borrowing more money?

Of course we pay off debts. We have been all along and we will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I don't know who told you we don't.

And the timeframe we're talking about is thirty years. Which I think qualifies as "meaningful".
  #138  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:05 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Not that I agree, but if someone's position was "So what about the debt? I get more money now and for the foreseeable future. Why should I care about the debt?" what's the answer to that?
I'd say that person is very short sighted.
  #139  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:07 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'd say that person is very short sighted.
In what way?
  #140  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:13 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,033
The son of the Debt Clock billionaire says tax the rich:
Quote:
Durst has a message for Congress: Tax the rich more.

“I support higher taxes on people like me,” said Durst in an interview from his office in midtown Manhattan with sweeping views of the city. “I think America has more of a revenue problem than a spending problem.”

When his father put up the National Debt Clock, total gross U.S. debt was just shy of $3 trillion — or about $12,000 a person. Today it is over $21 trillion, or about $65,000 a person.

Economists typically focus on debt held by the public, which is currently about $16 trillion, because that is the amount the government truly owes creditors (the rest of the debt is money one government agency owes another). Debt held by the public will top $127,000 per household by the end of the year, according to JPMorgan. Personal debt per household will average about $126,000.
But to some people, it may seem an abstraction. It is the government that owes the whole $16 trillion; averaging it out 'per family' is just a statistical game.

Until it isn't. Even HD's own cite about that silly penny plan acknowledges that interest on the debt is on the road to $1 trillion per year. Now, maybe Juan doesn't like military spending but Jane doesn't like Medicare spending, Joe is against food stamps, and Jim wants to cut it all. Well, even with programs a person doesn't like, funding them at least produces some public good (or product anyway, we hope it is good). Interest on the debt is nothing but the public supporting the lavish fortunes of mostly super wealthy bondholders. The public gets basically jack in that case.

Some people take an attitude that "the government can't do anything right." They view any government action at all (until they're flooded or a crime victim or something) as harmful, and so they may think "the bond guys get richer and the government doesn't do any further harm" is the preferable outcome.

Me, I think The Government Can't Do Anything Right is one of those TV bromides that get push-marketed so hard, kind of like Washington Will Never Cut Spending. Speaking of that:
Quote:
The last big fiscal success, the “Clinton surpluses” of 1998-2001, can be traced in part to the efforts of President George H.W. Bush. He was faced with a dangerous combination of a weakening economy and high interest rates. To convince the Federal Reserve to lower rates, he needed smaller budget deficits. A Democratic Congress wouldn’t agree to spending cuts without higher tax revenue. But Bush had famously promised, “Read my lips, no new taxes” during the 1988 Republican Convention. In the end, he reached a bipartisan deal that included about $2 in spending cuts for each $1 in added revenues, including from a tax hike on high earners. That deal helped cost Bush re-election in 1992. President Clinton followed up with a deficit-cutting budget in 1993.

The deficit fell from 4.5% of gross domestic product in 1992 to near-breakeven five years later, before swinging to surpluses. The lesson of what might rightly be called the Bush-Clinton surpluses is that budget reform isn’t a job for narcissists or glory seekers, because the public outrage forms immediately, and the benefits don’t become clear until much later, by which time others will have arrived to help collect the high-fives.
We have a contemporary precedent for how to reduce the debt. Let's apply it as a template.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Not that I agree, but if someone's position was "So what about the debt? I get more money now and for the foreseeable future. Why should I care about the debt?" what's the answer to that?
The answer is... progressive taxation. Make sure that guys like HD get to keep their $3000 tax cut. Allow the first significant chunk of income be exempt from the necessary Liberal Socialist Democrat Tax Hikes Obama proposed people earning $250,000 or less per year say in the same tax bracket. Since about a decade will have passed, make the limit $300,000 to throw a bone to the the Rs. Starting at (NOTE: NOT a tax on all the money someone makes if they exceed $300,000 a year, but only dollars after $300,000 a year) $300,000, jack up the personal income tax rate. A rate of X at $300,000, Y for $750,000, Z for 1.25 million, Alpha for over $5 million. You get the idea: tax the rich. But don't eat 'em, I am actually not malicious towards the rich, I just want a more Constitutionally congruent taxation scheme.

That way, we stimulate the economy by putting more money into the hands of people most likely to spend it, and we extract a defensible extra amount of tax from the wealthiest, who profit from all of our collective labors to be so rich, trust me.
  #141  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:22 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think there's pretty substantial evidence that it does not, in fact "have to be paid off"...
Spoken like a true Republican.

Well, during a Republican administration, anyway. As soon as a Democrat is president it'll become a crisis. Again.

Quote:
I understand the arguments of why debt is bad and we shouldn't go into debt. I've made those arguments before. Nobody gives a shit. We're over $20T in debt and on our way to $30T. Do you reasonably believe that there's some point in your or my lifetime where we will have paid that amount off with taxes?
I don't know if it'll ever be paid down to 0, but I'd like to see us start heading in that direction. The lower the debt, the less we pay out in interest on that debt. It gets us some breathing room if there's a downturn and revenue declines. And even if it's not paid off in my lifetime, that's okay; the sooner we start the easier it'll be, and I expect the nation to outlive me.

You say you want to cut taxes and spending? Fine, spending first. You eat your vegetables before you get dessert. You mow the lawn before you go golfing. You do your homework before you watch TV. Do the work first, you can reward yourself after.
  #142  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:36 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
What? Do you think the government isn't paying off its debts? How do you think it's able to keep borrowing more money?

Of course we pay off debts. We have been all along and we will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I don't know who told you we don't.

And the timeframe we're talking about is thirty years. Which I think qualifies as "meaningful".
The post I responded to was about "the debt", not "debts", and no, I don't think we pay off "the debt". Sure, we refinance individual "debts" from time to time, paying off the old creditors with money borrowed from new creditors, but the trend line is for more and more public debt. "The debt" keeps growing and growing, not getting smaller by paying it off with taxes.
  #143  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:42 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
... The answer is... progressive taxation. Make sure that guys like HD get to keep their $3000 tax cut. Allow the first significant chunk of income be exempt from the necessary Liberal Socialist Democrat Tax Hikes Obama proposed people earning $250,000 or less per year say in the same tax bracket. Since about a decade will have passed, make the limit $300,000 to throw a bone to the the Rs. Starting at (NOTE: NOT a tax on all the money someone makes if they exceed $300,000 a year, but only dollars after $300,000 a year) $300,000, jack up the personal income tax rate. A rate of X at $300,000, Y for $750,000, Z for 1.25 million, Alpha for over $5 million. You get the idea: tax the rich. But don't eat 'em, I am actually not malicious towards the rich, I just want a more Constitutionally congruent taxation scheme. ...
How much do you think we could raise from such a plan? How much is the "defensible extra amount" you think you can extract from the rich?
  #144  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:45 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
... I don't know if it'll ever be paid down to 0, but I'd like to see us start heading in that direction. The lower the debt, the less we pay out in interest on that debt. It gets us some breathing room if there's a downturn and revenue declines. And even if it's not paid off in my lifetime, that's okay; the sooner we start the easier it'll be, and I expect the nation to outlive me.

You say you want to cut taxes and spending? Fine, spending first. You eat your vegetables before you get dessert. You mow the lawn before you go golfing. You do your homework before you watch TV. Do the work first, you can reward yourself after.
I'm fine with this. Let's start slashing spending. The primary opponents to this plan have "D" after their name.
  #145  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:55 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm fine with this. Let's start slashing spending. The primary opponents to this plan have "D" after their name.
No, they don't. We've cited the figures in this thread which show that what you believe isn't true. This is the reason why people think you're a low information voter. People tell you facts and you just ignore them.

I'm done.
  #146  
Old 09-19-2018, 12:16 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm fine with this. Let's start slashing spending. The primary opponents to this plan have "D" after their name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, they don't. We've cited the figures in this thread which show that what you believe isn't true. This is the reason why people think you're a low information voter. People tell you facts and you just ignore them.

I'm done.
Earlier Ravenman said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... it is a stone-cold undeniable fact that Republican orthodoxy fully embraces the reduction of these programs in order to lower spending. This is Paul Ryan's entire reason for being in Congress. It has been a part of every Republican platform for decades. To deny that the overwhelming majority of Republican elected officials seek to reduce Medicare and Social Security is like denying that water is wet. ....
I think he's right. You appear to disagree. Just where do you imagine you "cited figures" that contradict this?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-19-2018 at 12:16 AM.
  #147  
Old 09-19-2018, 12:31 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
How much do you think we could raise from such a plan? How much is the "defensible extra amount" you think you can extract from the rich?
$350 billion.

Following the Bush-Clinton template, this would be accompanied by $550 billion in spending cuts. Including... Social Security and Medicare.

This would balance the budget. Hold steady for 5 years and grow into surplus. It's a super incentive ☺️
  #148  
Old 09-19-2018, 01:15 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
$350 billion.

Following the Bush-Clinton template, this would be accompanied by $550 billion in spending cuts. Including... Social Security and Medicare.

This would balance the budget. Hold steady for 5 years and grow into surplus. It's a super incentive ☺️
I'm intrigued by your plan and would like to hear more details. Has this been fleshed out in more detail anywhere, or is it just an idea in your own head?

Do you think elected Dems could agree to $550B in spending cuts, including SS & Medicare?
  #149  
Old 09-19-2018, 01:31 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm intrigued by your plan and would like to hear more details. Has this been fleshed out in more detail anywhere, or is it just an idea in your own head?

Do you think elected Dems could agree to $550B in spending cuts, including SS & Medicare?
On the one hand, it is my idea. OTOH it has been fleshed out by GHWB and Bill Clinton.


I think Dems are willing to negotiate.
  #150  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:29 AM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm fine with this. Let's start slashing spending. The primary opponents to this plan have "D" after their name.
Great, let's get the D's out of power then. We'll vote Republicans into majorities in the house, senate, give them the executive and the judiciary.

<waits 2 years>

Look what happened, spending went up, taxes.went down, deficit boomed. Fucking D's indeed.

Low. Information. Voter.

Last edited by steronz; 09-19-2018 at 07:29 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017