It Never Ends

[pepper brooks 579]

At what point do we wake up and stop sending financial morons to represent us?  I know, never.  Too many votes are too easily bought with promises of someone else's money.  Nobody has a plan to address the spending crisis in Washington.  Not. One. Single. Candidate.  None.  Shameful. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696?fbclid=IwAR2gHg4WCwbAo-kEGO5SoiayM20tp-3DyEcRxPqKIaZttHWweiUqlqHmj6I

[David Dennison 18,655]

There is no spending crisis.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is no spending crisis.

Show your work. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

8 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

At what point do we wake up and stop sending financial morons to represent us?  I know, never.  Too many votes are too easily bought with promises of someone else's money.  Nobody has a plan to address the spending crisis in Washington.  Not. One. Single. Candidate.  None.  Shameful. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696?fbclid=IwAR2gHg4WCwbAo-kEGO5SoiayM20tp-3DyEcRxPqKIaZttHWweiUqlqHmj6I

Trying winning an election with a platform of cutting defense spending in half and taxing the shit out of the 0.01%

The spending isn’t so much the problem.  It’s where the money is going.  We blow so much money on things that have no real return on investment except for the pharaohs at the top of pyramid.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pig Bellmont 8,691]

 

[retread 2,951]

Self-perpetuating political machine in DC will never slow down, and it will grind to powder any Congressperson who gets in its way.

[pepper brooks 579]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trying winning an election with a platform of cutting defense spending in half and taxing the shit out of the 0.01%

The spending isn’t so much the problem.  It’s where the money is going.  We blow so much money on things that have no real return on investment.  

they out spend cash flow by over 1 trillion a year.  That is a spending problem no matter how you slice it.  You could cut military spending by 40% and not make a dent.  Until entitlements are addressed along with defense noting ever matters, and the .01% cannot be taxed into fixing this.  You couldn't tax every billionaire the country 100% and make a dent in a one trillion a year deficit.  It's impossible.  The problem is way bigger than the typical, small minded ,canned, left response of tax the rich and cut defense 

[tantric superman 4,667]

10 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

At what point do we wake up and stop sending financial morons to represent us?  I know, never.  Too many votes are too easily bought with promises of someone else's money.  Nobody has a plan to address the spending crisis in Washington.  Not. One. Single. Candidate.  None.  Shameful. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696?fbclid=IwAR2gHg4WCwbAo-kEGO5SoiayM20tp-3DyEcRxPqKIaZttHWweiUqlqHmj6I

I think we need to form a new party called the Fiscal Party of America.   Completely open tent other than the fact that your math has to add up. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

13 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

At what point do we wake up and stop sending financial morons to represent us?  I know, never.  Too many votes are too easily bought with promises of someone else's money.  Nobody has a plan to address the spending crisis in Washington.  Not. One. Single. Candidate.  None.  Shameful. 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696?fbclid=IwAR2gHg4WCwbAo-kEGO5SoiayM20tp-3DyEcRxPqKIaZttHWweiUqlqHmj6I

For as long as Republicans pretend that deficits are only caused by spending and not lack of revenue.   The policy argument needs to be "tax more and spend more" (Dems) versus "tax less and spend less" (Reps).  That is, we should only vote for the policies we are willing to pay for, and the partisan debate is over what policies are worth the cost. 

Instead, modern "conservativism" argues that fiscal responsibility is "tax less, worry about spending later."  With Americans no longer needing to pay for the extra spending, there is no public will to cut spending.  That is why we're in this situation. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[David Dennison 18,655]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Show your work. 

The United States has a net worth of approximately $150 trillion, that's hardly indicative of a spending crisis. Or a debt crisis. Or any other kind of financial crises as a nation.

[David Dennison 18,655]

3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

they out spend cash flow by over 1 trillion a year.  That is a spending problem no matter how you slice it.  You could cut military spending by 40% and not make a dent.  Until entitlements are addressed along with defense noting ever matters, and the .01% cannot be taxed into fixing this.  You couldn't tax every billionaire the country 100% and make a dent in a one trillion a year deficit.  It's impossible.  The problem is way bigger than the typical, small minded ,canned, left response of tax the rich and cut defense 

No, it isn't. It's not a problem at all given the value of the United States of America and the assets it has at its disposal.

It's a political red herring. 

[TexArcher 37,508]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is no spending crisis.

If a person makes $100k a year and spends $125k a year, there's a problem, right?

The government makes about 4 trillion a year and spends about 5 trillion a year, for round numbers.  Yes, it's a problem.  

[Dbeasy 14,966]

The United States has a net worth of approximately $150 trillion, that's hardly indicative of a spending crisis. Or a debt crisis. Or any other kind of financial crises as a nation.

Ya this is no explanation. Nice try. Right now you look like someone who can’t balance their checkbook.

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, TexArcher said:

If a person makes $100k a year and spends $125k a year, there's a problem, right?

The government makes about 4 trillion a year and spends about 5 trillion a year, for round numbers.  Yes, it's a problem.  

Not if the net worth of that person is in proportion to the net worth of the United States of America, no.

[TexArcher 37,508]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The United States has a net worth of approximately $150 trillion, that's hardly indicative of a spending crisis. Or a debt crisis. Or any other kind of financial crises as a nation.

Do you think all of that net worth is spendable?

[Blotto 23,432]

Sweet .....let's auction off the White House to the Chinese and pay rent.

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

It’s not a problem because we can always liquidate people’s houses and property to pay for it once we don’t have enough cash?  I don’t think most American people view their own assets as collateral for government largesse gone awry.

What do you think taxes are?

[pepper brooks 579]

So now we have folks here who think all that "value" can be converted to cash, confiscated by the federal government and used to pay debts.  deer lowered.  I guess this explains who the embarrassing incompetents we saw pandering at the mueller hearings get elected.  

[Aqua Buddha 14,504]

12 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think we need to form a new party called the Fiscal Party of America.   Completely open tent other than the fact that your math has to add up. 

That’s no fun.

[Sbbruin 21,724]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Show your work. 

Bear with me.  I'm working on it.

[FondrenRoad 4,378]

8 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

If a person makes $100k a year and spends $125k a year, there's a problem, right?

The government makes about 4 trillion a year and spends about 5 trillion a year, for round numbers.  Yes, it's a problem.  

Does that person get to both create new money and control the money supply?

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, pepper brooks said:

So now we have folks here who think all that "value" can be converted to cash, confiscated by the federal government and used to pay debts.  deer lowered.  I guess this explains who the embarrassing incompetents we saw pandering at the mueller hearings get elected.  

Let us know when the United States gets close to defaulting on a debt service payment.

 

 

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, longhornmatt said:

I think income taxes are not at all the same thing as foreclosing on people’s non-incoming generating assets.   Run the numbers with GDP or some other measure that approximates income instead of overall wealth to get an accurate comparison of the revenue taxes could raise, and then get back to us on how spending isn’t a problem.

Oh, OK. I'll accept your parameters for my arguments.

 

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Well, you should.  Because your argument about taxes ignores how taxes work.

And your comparison of the finances of the United States of America to the finances of a household is absurd. 

[housious 468]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The United States has a net worth of approximately $150 trillion, that's hardly indicative of a spending crisis. Or a debt crisis. Or any other kind of financial crises as a nation.

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Which is saying something. 

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is no spending crisis.

Once again dennison chimes in with non reality  based dreck. 

[David Dennison 18,655]

2 minutes ago, housious said:

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Which is saying something. 

But it matters when taking the overall financial health of the United States into account.

There is no spending crisis. If the government needs money in the future, your taxes are going up.

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Once again dennison chimes in with non reality  based dreck. 

What's the crisis? We can pay our bills. Easily.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

29 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

they out spend cash flow by over 1 trillion a year.  That is a spending problem no matter how you slice it.  You could cut military spending by 40% and not make a dent.  Until entitlements are addressed along with defense noting ever matters, and the .01% cannot be taxed into fixing this.  You couldn't tax every billionaire the country 100% and make a dent in a one trillion a year deficit.  It's impossible.  The problem is way bigger than the typical, small minded ,canned, left response of tax the rich and cut defense 

OR we can invest more in programs designed to generate more tax revenue and productivity over the long haul.  Basically, expand and strengthen the middle class while abandoning trickledown approaches to the economy.  Also tax the rich and cut defense spending.  

Stop spending money on prisons and start building more schools.  Stop the war on drugs and invest in treatment facilities.  Fully incorporate the undocumented workers into our economy so they are contributing to the tax base instead of us blowing money trying to hunt them down.  

Relax our draconian and costly immigration policies to attract a more productive  workforce.  Rework our design of the military so the money goes to combating our current and emerging threats instead of fighting a Cold War against the entire world.  Go to a single payer healthcare system so we aren’t spending twice as much as anyone in the world for healthcare.  

Lots of long term approaches to tackling our spending problem. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Rougarou 594]

This is maybe worse than David's digging in in defense of Pelosi not doing a good job for us. Nobody digs heels into a poorly thought out opinion with weak support like DD, though. Kudos to him.

[Bateshorn 9,898]

28 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

For as long as Republicans pretend that deficits are only caused by spending and not lack of revenue.   The policy argument needs to be "tax more and spend more" (Dems) versus "tax less and spend less" (Reps).  That is, we should only vote for the policies we are willing to pay for, and the partisan debate is over what policies are worth the cost. 

Instead, modern "conservativism" argues that fiscal responsibility is "tax less, worry about spending later. tax less, worry about spending when the Democrats are in power"  With Americans no longer needing to pay for the extra spending, there is no public will to cut spending.  That is why we're in this situation. 

FIFY

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, Rougarou said:

This is maybe worse than David's digging in in defense of Pelosi not doing a good job for us. Nobody digs heels into a poorly thought out opinion with weak support like DD, though. Kudos to him.

What's the spending crisis?

 

[Bateshorn 9,898]

This is Fort Benning. Tell me that Columbus, GA would have 400,000 residents if it didn't have a 160,000 plus soldiers 100 miles north. It's basically a welfare program using high tech weapons.  Start with the absurd bloat with in DOD, and I'll believe people are serious about spending.  As long as you are going to exempt the Pentagon from a serious fiscal diet, you are just bitching about non defense discretionary spending, which means you aren't actually serious about fiscal issues. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Bateshorn

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

DD’s supposedly comforting solution to the debt is worse than the fears most deficit hawks even have about the USA eventually defaulting and causing a huge financial meltdown.  I don’t even think they are envisioning the government making everyone homeless as it liquidates a substantial percentage of the private wealth in America (the debt would be about 1/6 of DD’s 150 trillion number today and most likely ever increasing as a percentage over time).

Are you honestly worried about default?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

36 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

they out spend cash flow by over 1 trillion a year.  That is a spending problem no matter how you slice it.  You could cut military spending by 40% and not make a dent.  Until entitlements are addressed along with defense noting ever matters, and the .01% cannot be taxed into fixing this.  You couldn't tax every billionaire the country 100% and make a dent in a one trillion a year deficit.  It's impossible.  The problem is way bigger than the typical, small minded ,canned, left response of tax the rich and cut defense 

The spending problem is caused by the taxing problem.   As McConnell just told Trump, people don't lose elections for spending more.   The reason for that is that people don't feel any personal impact for spending more in the form of taxes.   Our taxes are going down at the same time spending is going back up. 

Massive deficits is the legacy of Reagan and the modern conservative movement.

[David Dennison 18,655]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

The spending problem is caused by the taxing problem.   As McConnell just told Trump, people don't lose elections for spending more.   The reason for that is that people don't feel any personal impact for spending more in the form of taxes.   Our taxes are going down at the same time spending is going back up. 

Massive deficits is the legacy of Reagan and the modern conservative movement.

Bingo. 

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12,419]

39 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Sweet .....let's auction off the White House to the Chinese and pay rent.

Can't. Russians already own it.

[RomaVicta 29,783]

45 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think we need to form a new party called the Fiscal Party of America.   Completely open tent other than the fact that your math has to add up. 

An open tent Reform Party is my pipe dream. Anybody can endorse the platform of reducing the power of concentrated wealth on government and remain loyal to their own party otherwise. Elect only candidates who are also part of the reform party.

The Reform Party exists only as long as it takes to close off the troughs. Start with harsh laws. Maybe offer amnesty for some caught up in pre-reform days to reduce resistance and allow for the human fact that some just had to go along to do anything worthwhile.

Another aspect would be to educate public school students on government and demand that they understand it beyond the simplistic model of the three branches. You don't graduate if you can't pass a fairly thorough test about:

America as an experiment.

Where power in government lays.

How just voting isn't really the full measure of a citizen.

My unicorn is a manly unicorn.

 

[Bateshorn 9,898]

Do you know what American's like in virtually every survey ever?  Government Spending and Low Taxes.  Don't blame politicians for giving the people exactly what they want.

[David Dennison 18,655]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Do you know what American's like in virtually every survey ever?  Government Spending and Low Taxes.  Don't blame politicians for giving the people exactly what they want.

Yep. And when one of those things has to give, it's taxes that go up. Every time.

[pepper brooks 579]

18 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The spending problem is caused by the taxing problem.   As McConnell just told Trump, people don't lose elections for spending more.   The reason for that is that people don't feel any personal impact for spending more in the form of taxes.   Our taxes are going down at the same time spending is going back up. 

Massive deficits is the legacy of Reagan and the modern conservative movement.

yet revenue is up?  How you gonna spin that?  Revenue is up and spending is up.  Where is the model that gets revenue up and spending down?  Nowhere, which is the point.  No matter the tax rate, historically receipts have been 16-20% of GDP.  That is the case when the top rate was 90% and the case when it was 28%.  Oh, and massive deficits are the work of congress and Tip O'Neill.  They are the work of Dennis Child Molester, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and Nancy Pelosi.  

 

Saying the spending problem is caused by the taxing problem is akin to someone who makes 150k a year going and buying a 3 million dollar home and then claiming their mortgage problem is caused by their salary problem.  uh....

Edited July 24, 2019 by pepper brooks

[elfenix 34,171]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

fun fact: all of the additional debt during the clinton years was interest from all the previous presidents. 

 

 

 

oh, and balanced budgeteers are financial morons.

[David Dennison 18,655]

3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

yet revenue is up?  How you gonna spin that?  Revenue is up and spending is up.  Where is the model that gets revenue up and spending down?  Nowhere, which is the point.  No matter the tax rate, historically receipts have been 16-20% of GDP.  That is the case when the top rate was 90% and the case when it was 28%.  Oh, and massive deficits are the work of congress and Tip O'Neill.  They are the work of Dennis Child Molester, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and Nancy Pelosi.  

 

Saying the spending problem is caused by the taxing problem is akin to someone who makes 150k a year going and buying a 3 million dollar home and then claiming their mortgage problem is caused by their salary problem.  uh....

Again, whether that's actually a problem depends on the existence of assets beyond yearly income. If his salary is the only source of income, yes, it's a problem. If he has a portfolio that includes assets well in excess of the $3 million mortgage, then it's not much of a problem.

[elfenix 34,171]

26 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

No matter the tax rate, historically receipts have been 16-20% of GDP.

we've never tried taxing more than 20% of GDP, therefore, it can't be done!

(and st. ronald never got a budget back from congress that was bigger than the one he sent.  OH POOR RONALD HE WAS CONNED BY CONGRESS WOE IS HIM.  bull. shit.)

 

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

Until entitlements are addressed along with defense noting ever matters, and the .01% cannot be taxed into fixing this. 

republicans bloated up the military in order to get everyone else to go along with cutting entitlements.  that's been the plan for 40 fucking years.  when that plan wasn't working (see above about all the additional debt during the clinton years being interest on existing debt), they lied us into a war that cost a fuck ton, killed thousands of americans, broke the middle east, and benefited not a single fucking average joe, so we need to take it out of the hides of retirees?  fuck that.

the astounding part is that people actually vote for this

Edited July 24, 2019 by elfenix

[pepper brooks 579]

Here is an exercise for the "tax more" crowd.  Why don't you tell us how much of other people's money is your "fair share", the revenue impact of it, how much of this extra revenue go towards reducing the deficit (note, deficit, not debt), and the impact of taking that money out of the economy and sending it to Washington. How does that impact employment, GDP, etc.  

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

Unfortunately, one of the indisputable downsides of Democracy is that it requires a large bureaucracy. The only time things get done quickly is when there is consensus thru shock or fear. 

 

[Bateshorn 9,898]

9 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

yet revenue is up?  How you gonna spin that?  Revenue is up and spending is up.  Where is the model that gets revenue up and spending down?  Nowhere, which is the point.  No matter the tax rate, historically receipts have been 16-20% of GDP.  That is the case when the top rate was 90% and the case when it was 28%.  Oh, and massive deficits are the work of congress and Tip O'Neill.  They are the work of Dennis Child Molester, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, and Nancy Pelosi.  

 

Saying the spending problem is caused by the taxing problem is akin to someone who makes 150k a year going and buying a 3 million dollar home and then claiming their mortgage problem is caused by their salary problem.  uh....

Ronald Reagan's name was on every one of those appropriations bills between 1981 and January 1989. And  republican President Pro Tempor or George H.W. Bush between 1983 and 1987. Every. Single. One.

[elfenix 34,171]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

Here is an exercise for the "tax more" crowd.  Why don't you tell us how much of other people's money is your "fair share", the revenue impact of it, how much of this extra revenue go towards reducing the deficit (note, deficit, not debt), and the impact of taking that money out of the economy and sending it to Washington. How does that impact employment, GDP, etc.  

Edited July 24, 2019 by elfenix

[David Dennison 18,655]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

Here is an exercise for the "tax more" crowd.  Why don't you tell us how much of other people's money is your "fair share", the revenue impact of it, how much of this extra revenue go towards reducing the deficit (note, deficit, not debt), and the impact of taking that money out of the economy and sending it to Washington. How does that impact employment, GDP, etc.  

Have the seen the Pentagon's budget? It's a jobs program for the private sector.

[Doc Reeves 6,434]

1 minute ago, pepper brooks said:

Here is an exercise for the "tax more" crowd.  Why don't you tell us how much of other people's money is your "fair share", the revenue impact of it, how much of this extra revenue go towards reducing the deficit (note, deficit, not debt), and the impact of taking that money out of the economy and sending it to Washington. How does that impact employment, GDP, etc.  

 

The issue is not how much money you keep but how much service you get for your money.