So, what’s the “correct” amount of tax revenues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spooje
But you end up paying a lot more for it.
Price of goods and services + the interest on the loan you took out to pay the price. The longer you take to pay back the loan, the more it costs in the end.
Right?
Technically yes, but cash flow is important as well. Instead of paying $20 million up front we’re paying $1.1 million (or whatever) for 20 years, leaving $19 million to spend on other things. Or maybe we don’t have the $20 million right now but really need the thing we’re buying right away.
Really, it’s pretty standard practice, businesses do it all the time, not to mention individuals. What do you think mortgages and car payments are? The important thing is being able to afford the payments, which we can’t, because our revenues are too low. Lowering taxes won’t fix that, no matter how much some people want to believe it will.
I am totally stealing this.
Not if it involves Greece.
I don’t know if you are missing the point deliberately or not but when people talk about spending cuts as if the concept of increasing revenue doesn’t even exist, I feel the need to remind them that the revenue side of the equation exists.
BTW, what do you consider unecessary spending because I’m pretty sure that there are people that think its necessary. Sure there is some waste in government (just like in any large organization) but not really enough to make a difference. When you talk about unnecessary spending, then cutting that spending should not be painful but we are well beyond painless cuts. All the low hanging fruit was plucked DECADES ago, there just not a lot of fat left.
OR, not taking in enough to cover your spending.
We used to have near balanced budgets or surpluses all the time.
Take a look at historical deficits and see when we started running large deficits. Then look and see when we had surpluses then look and see when we had large deficits again.
And when have they passed a budget while Obama was in office? Its all continuing resolutions which means that they are simply carrying over the budget from the Bush administrations.
This is the most incomprehensibly bizarre cite and post I have seen in a while.
It may not be needed. Congress can make mistakes. But their constitutional role is to make those decisions. It pretty much is their job description.
If we had to amend the Constitution every time we opened a new federal agency, the Union would be nigh ungovernable.
I’ll ask you the same question. Should we build the bridge to nowhere? 2 groups of politicians voting on the same project.
I can give you many examples of things that are not necessary. Lets start with the big signs along the highway announcing the money funding it came from the stimulus package. The signs produce nothing and are a waste of money. at $5000 per sign that money could have been used for a temporary tax break to hire more workers which would have sped up the construction and put people to work which was the point of the stimulus money in the first place. Less construction time means better traffic flow which means lower fuel consumption which means less Co2. Since the money was borrowed that $5000 sign actually cost us more. We essentially paid extra money to increase global warming.
Another great example is my city. We received a number of hybrid buses. They cost $450,000 apiece. My city couldn’t afford the cost of the buses. Who paid for them? Did your city’s populace pay for them? I’d like to know because my city should at least spring for a thank you card. BTW, we already have electric buses.
The bottom line is that we have a $14,500,000,000,000 debt that we can’t pay off because it’s climbing and it threatens our credit rating. Congress is literally writing checks with money that doesn’t exist. Who is going to repay the current debt because we aren’t paying yesterday’s debt.
I’m pretty sure that $5000 did put someone to work. Signs don’t build themselves, you know.
In a sense, I agree with you; that’s a pretty frivolous thing to spend money on. (Where is that $5000 figure coming from, by the way?) When I moved back east, I noticed that the “welcome to…” signs at the state borders had the name of the current governor on them. Kind of a waste of money, especially since they have to be changed so often. The people who live in the state should already know who the governor is, and the people visiting don’t care. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s just a drop in the ocean.
Well, then, it’s fortunate, isn’t it, that the Congressional Budget Office seemed to conclude that if Congress did nothing for the next four years, the debt would go away.
(Granted, I don’t think it’d be possible for any Congress with any make-up to just “do nothing” properly.)
That may be the crucial insight. There may not be the political willpower to remove the Bush tax cuts at the present moment, but neither is there the will to prevent them from evaporating. Americans have a rough, even crude, sense of justice coupled with an overarching apathy. They are not willing to mass in groups of torch-wielding peasants to demand an end to tax policies that slobber all over the rich folks, but neither will they turn out to support them.
So their minions have a narrowing window of opportunity to shriek themselves hoarse about rampant spending in hopes of obtaining enough power to make it happen. At this point, I doubt it. With the caveat that in politics, every day is Anything Can Happen Day.
I wonder if anyone in the Tea Party is acquainted with anyone involved with mega bond investments?
It is hard to come up with explanations in which the pubbies’ behavior make sense. If they want to drive up interest rates by damaging the nation’s credit rating because their sponsors want to buy about $2 trillion in treasury bonds at 7+%, well there ya go. And raising taxes on high incomes would cut into the profits- the whole idea is to take money from taxpayers and get it to the rich!
If it is all on purpose, the scale of the scheme is worthy of a Lex Luthor. So yeah, “eeevvviiillll Republicans” would be perfectly appropriate.
Whether or not any of the above is accurate, Cantor is still a spineless troglodyte.
I assume, from the calls for making sure “outside” bondholders (read: not Social Security) are paid in full, that the point is to jack up the interest rate on US Savings Bonds & turn the US government into more of a Mafia-style racket.
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Wall Street paid off their government bailout loans with…wait for it…taxpayer money.
Yeah, they don’t tell you that part do they.
The “scam” (quotes around it because it is quite legal) is they borrow money from the Fed at absurdly low interest rates (e.g. 0.5%). The collateral for those loans are the toxic debt they can’t do anything with anyway. They then take that money and buy government debt (T-Bills and such) which pay out at 2-3%. Cash in the security, pay back the 0.5% interest you owe and pocket the rest.
Make no mistake, that is taxpayer money they are pocketing.
It is literally the same thing if I went to you, borrowed $1000 at 0.5% interest and then you borrowed $1000 from me at 2.5% interest.
Wonder why they are not loaning to businesses and individuals (which would help spur the economy and was the supposed intent of the bailout)? Your answer is right there. Why would they? This is FAR easier, very profitable, zero risk. Basically free money for them. You and I can go pound sand.
Not only do I agree with this post, but it has the best reason for an edit EVER!
Heh, joke’s on me. I thought I was missing something. 
Are you fucking joking me? You really believe this? We could zero out a whole alphabet soup of government agencies and no-one would be the wiser, unless they noticed the improvement in their lives.
DEA? Zero it out tomorrow. Legalize that shit.
Department of Education? Zero it out. Can anyone seriously argue that schools are better now that they have been federalized? Return education to local control.
Department of Energy? Yeah, they have done a FAAANTASTIC job. Thanks to them we have cheap gas, electricity is almost free, oh wait…
ATF? You mean those clowns who are approving the sale of munitions to the drug mafia? Great job! It should be a convenience store, not a federal department. Burning children alive for being part of a religious sect that never harmed anyone was just a bonus.
Defense Department? We could cut about 75% of that one, if their mission only involved actual defense of our country. Bring our boys home, and close our bases around the world. What are we still doing in NATO, now that the cold war is over?
I know that right wing talk radio will never propose this cut, because their stations benefit, but how abouts we do away with the Ad Coucil? It seems that 90% if the ad space in overnight dead time is purchased by the Ad Council, reminding us to eat our vegetables and brush our teeth and fasten our goddamn seat belts. Zero it out.
PBS. Planned Parenthood. NPR. National Endowment for the Arts. All of that can go as far as I am concerned. Let people pay for the art they enjoy.
The Federal Government could easily shrink by at least one-third, without touching a dime of entitlements, which should also be scrutinized.
Speaking of which, why does anyone think Social Security is a good idea? A regressive tax, linked in imagination but in no reality to a benefit that pays more to people the less the actually need it. At least remove the income cap from withholding and means test the benefits so only those in need receive it. Does Bill Gates need to get Social Security payments? Well, he is eligible, even though he only paid in on his first 100k of earnings.
Also, can we please end the farm subsidies? Last time I checked, ADM wasn’t a small family farmer. Want to save the family farm? Leave them alone, and stop the insane new food legislation that will put the final nail in their coffin.
Already cut out the fat? Give me a break. If anything, the fat has been growing and growing.
Awesome handle/post alignment there!