Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

[Guest]

It's kind of hard to evaluate them when you're confronted with more bullshit and hot air than facts both in the mainstream media, and in casual discussion.

And by bullshit in casual discussion I assume you mean things such as...

Hey, you guys know who else was a Socialist? Ronald Reagan. I mean jesus, the man raised taxes somewhere between 8 and 11 times depending on which sources you look at. Apparently that's now the threshold for calling someone a socialist. So there you have it folks; Reagan was secretly in cahoots with the Soviets all that time....whoda thunk?

[Guest one]

Wrong.

How am I wrong? Just for some contrast, food assistance costs 25.6 billion dollars per year to fund and childcare costs 4.2 billion dollars to fund. The typical family on welfare does not use childcare assistance because there are many alternatives for the aid and it is more difficult to qualify for.

The chart depicts the scenario as if it is a typical situation. I am sure there are situations that allow people to receive all that aid but it is not the norm. The graph is illustrating childcare as being the most costly, which it is, but overall childcare aid accounts for less than 5% of total welfare costs because the number of recipients of that aid is very low.

Edited November 29, 2012 by one

[Prozac]

And by bullshit in casual discussion I assume you mean things such as...

Touche....My statement was tongue in cheek though. I routinely hear ridiculous shit come out of the mouths of people who are supposed to be educated and they are dead serious. I'm sick of the "Obama's a Socialist and here's why..." argument. An argument against the man's policies should be able to stand on it's own. All you do (not you specifically) when you start an argument like that is shut down the listening capabilities of anyone who doesn't already agree with you. BTW this isn't just directed at conservatives--there's plenty of ridiculous left wing bullshit out there as well as evidenced by watching 15 minutes of MSNBC at any time of day.

[Guest]

Obama asked for the power to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval today.

Great idea.

[czecksikhs]

Deficits don't matter. It is just money we owe to ourselves!

[Guest]

I think all checks and balances should be removed from the system.

I kind of like the direction Morsi is going.

[Guest]

I read this stuff and I ask myself "Do he really believe the stuff he types? Do he really not understand the purpose of or need for the Stautory Debt Limit?"

Please don't respond. I ask myself these questions. And the answer saddens me because I know the answers apply to not just one person but to tens of millions of people.

[Guest one]

I read this stuff and I ask myself "Do he really believe the stuff he types? Do he really not understand the purpose of or need for the Stautory Debt Limit?"

Please don't respond. I ask myself these questions. And the answer saddens me because I know the answers apply to not just one person but to tens of millions of people.

I didn't go to the fancy Harvard Business School like you but I do have 6 undergraduate credits in economics from the best online school the Air Force's money can buy. Even with all the knowledge that $1500 in tuition assistance can get you, I can't figure out why the statutory debt limit is currently important. I can see how it was important in 1917 when the government actually cared about what it meant to have a debt but at this point our debt is so high that raising it means very little. I think that raising the debt limit would have been more important trillions and trillions of dollars ago but at this point what is the difference between 16 trillion and 16.5 trillion?

I don’t think our government understands the importance of the statutory debt limit so why should I? This was never even in the news until it was used as a political weapon.

I wrote a lot of that stuff in jest but I think our president just wanted to avoid any negative economic impacts that will happen if the House holds the debt ceiling hostage again. Checks and balances are important but so is protecting our economy from a destructive House.

Edited November 30, 2012 by one

[disgruntledemployee]

Educate me then...blah blah blah

I'm begging you, if you think the debt ceiling is such a great policy, defend it. Blah blah blah.

Ah ha! I knew there was some connection. It all makes sense now.

Which is why this comment makes sense.

I read this stuff and I ask myself "Do he really believe the stuff he types? Do he really not understand the purpose of or need for the Stautory Debt Limit?"

Please don't respond. I ask myself these questions. And the answer saddens me because I know the answers apply to not just one person but to tens of millions of people.

Out

[HeloDude]

I read this stuff and I ask myself "Do he really believe the stuff he types? Do he really not understand the purpose of or need for the Stautory Debt Limit?"

Please don't respond. I ask myself these questions. And the answer saddens me because I know the answers apply to not just one person but to tens of millions of people.

I don't know why you sound so surprised...or maybe you're not, you're just disgusted and disappointed. I could have told you 9+ months ago that Nsplayr thinks this way. He's a classic liberal who honestly believes more and bigger government is the answer--he truly believes that government knows best and that government creates prosperity. He believes that poor people are poor, not because of bad choices, but because there are wealthy people keeping them poor. Never mind that study after study points to the fact that out of wedlock children are more likely to grow up in poverty (a bad decision), that drug and alcohol abuse (bad decisions) often lead to poverty, dropping out of high school...and on and on.

The left has done a fantastic job in building their base by giving out handouts...again, their entire convention was based on it. The more people they get on the government dole, the better. Even the President campaigned on the fact that successful people are only successful because of the government...and therefore they owe the fruits of their labors to the government. And now the Dems, lead by the President, said that he won't give up any new spending cuts even when he gets increases in tax revenue/rates.

And then when I call Nsplayr out on asking what he does for charity (time and monetary), he avoids answering the question. If he truly believes in wanting to help the less fortunate, then he should be living as close to a Mother Theresa in his free time as possible. But guys like him truly believe that bigger government is the answer....hence why he doesn't support States' Rights as that takes away from a larger federal government. At least I respect Nsplayr for being up front and honest. What's funny is that he serves in a military that practices inequality all the time with O's vs E's...just a side thought.

The problem is...I don't think that 51% of the country was 'duped' this last election. I believe this is the era we are living in--that bigger government is the answer. I don't think I need to put up the stats again--the rising demographics are the majority of the folks on welfare and having out of wedlock children. It's the perfect recipe for those who want more people dependent on the government. It's not a question of when all these entitlements will bankrupt the country...the question is when.

[Guest one]

I don't know why you sound so surprised...or maybe you're not, you're just disgusted and disappointed. I could have told you 9+ months ago that Nsplayr thinks this way. He's a classic liberal who honestly believes more and bigger government is the answer--he truly believes that government knows best and that government creates prosperity. He believes that poor people are poor, not because of bad choices, but because there are wealthy people keeping them poor. Never mind that study after study points to the fact that out of wedlock children are more likely to grow up in poverty (a bad decision), that drug and alcohol abuse (bad decisions) often lead to poverty, dropping out of high school...and on and on.

The left has done a fantastic job in building their base by giving out handouts...again, their entire convention was based on it. The more people they get on the government dole, the better. Even the President campaigned on the fact that successful people are only successful because of the government...and therefore they owe the fruits of their labors to the government. And now the Dems, lead by the President, said that he won't give up any new spending cuts even when he gets increases in tax revenue/rates.

And then when I call Nsplayr out on asking what he does for charity (time and monetary), he avoids answering the question. If he truly believes in wanting to help the less fortunate, then he should be living as close to a Mother Theresa in his free time as possible. But guys like him truly believe that bigger government is the answer....hence why he doesn't support States' Rights as that takes away from a larger federal government. At least I respect Nsplayr for being up front and honest. What's funny is that he serves in a military that practices inequality all the time with O's vs E's...just a side thought.

The problem is...I don't think that 51% of the country was 'duped' this last election. I believe this is the era we are living in--that bigger government is the answer. I don't think I need to put up the stats again--the rising demographics are the majority of the folks on welfare and having out of wedlock children. It's the perfect recipe for those who want more people dependent on the government. It's not a question of when all these entitlements will bankrupt the country...the question is when.

Shitting on Nsplayr aside, do you think raising the debt ceiling is that big of a deal? We all know it has to happen and it has never not been raised when needed in recent history.

Edited November 30, 2012 by one

[Guest]

I can see how it was important in 1917 when the government actually cared about what it meant to have a debt but at this point our debt is so high that raising it means very little. I think that raising the debt limit would have been more important trillions and trillions of dollars ago but at this point what is the difference between 16 trillion and 16.5 trillion?

Holy shit.

[Guest one]

Holy shit.

Like I said, mostly in jest.

Our debt is so high right now it is insane. Having a ceiling doesn't mean anything if you keep raising it.

What is the difference if the president raises the debt ceiling or if Congress does it? Economically, there is no difference.

Edited November 30, 2012 by one

[Guest]

Educate me then...

Nope.

[HeloDude]

Shitting on Nsplayr aside, do you think raising the debt ceiling is that big of a deal? We all know it has to happen and it has never not happened in recent history.

I'm not shitting on him...he has clearly laid out what he believes. I think he is hypocritical by saying he truly believes in reducing inequality, and then calls out how this country does not do enough to reduce inequality....but then won't say what he personally does to reduce inequality. Either he should lead by example or own up to the fact that he is similar to Biden. Again, he's the one preaching inequality.

But to answer your question...the best analogy I can give is a smoker having another cigarette when they're already experiencing lung problems. Of course another pack one day might not make a big noticeable difference, but eventually, if they don't stop, it's going to kill them, and sooner rather than later. And it will be even worse if they increase their smoking habit. Anybody who thinks we can incur unlimited debt forever with no negative impacts to our country/economy is smoking crack. If unlimited debt was no problem, then every country would be doing it and flourishing. You don't have to look at Greece as the only example, look at several other European countries.

Nsplayr talks about Congress capping their spending habits (which I fully agree)...unfortunately Medicare/SS spending is not voted on, it pays out whatever the bill is. Trust me, I blame the GOP for a lot of the problems as well, but right now they're the only ones even talking about reducing spending.

I honestly hope sequestration goes into effect...right now it's the only spending cuts that are going to happen if you take the President and Dem leaders at their word.

[Guest one]

I'm not shitting on him...he has clearly laid out what he believes. I think he is hypocritical by saying he truly believes in reducing inequality, and then calls out how this country does not do enough to reduce inequality....but then won't say what he personally does to reduce inequality. Either he should lead by example or own up to the fact that he is similar to Biden. Again, he's the one preaching inequality.

But to answer your question...the best analogy I can give is a smoker having another cigarette when they're already experiencing lung problems. Of course another pack one day might not make a big noticeable difference, but eventually, if they don't stop, it's going to kill them, and sooner rather than later. And it will be even worse if they increase their smoking habit. Anybody who thinks we can incur unlimited debt forever with no negative impacts to our country/economy is smoking crack. If unlimited debt was no problem, then every country would be doing it and flourishing. You don't have to look at Greece as the only example, look at several other European countries.

Nsplayr talks about Congress capping their spending habits (which I fully agree)...unfortunately Medicare/SS spending is not voted on, it pays out whatever the bill is. Trust me, I blame the GOP for a lot of the problems as well, but right now they're the only ones even talking about reducing spending.

I honestly hope sequestration goes into effect...right now it's the only spending cuts that are going to happen if you take the President and Dem leaders at their word.

I completely agree with you and most of what Rainman is saying, I just put more blame on our Congress the last ten or 15 years than our presidents during the same time period.

I am all for cutting the budget but a lot of you talk about cutting food assistance and Medicare. I can understand cutting these things if we exhaust all other options first but we need to get our priorities straight. Let’s cut Pell grants out entirely before we talk about stop feeding people. The Pell grant costs more than our federal government’s entire food assistance program and it provides a pretty vital service to many. I don’t care if you believe that some people deserve to starve in the United States, you can at least admit it looks bad on our country to have hungry people, especially children. I just think we should cut the luxuries before we start cutting things that are necessities for many.

All that being said, there is room to reform everything to a certain degree. It is important to identify waste in different welfare programs and cut that.

Edited November 30, 2012 by one

[Butters]

Hey, I do not mean to shit in everyone's Cheerios , but politics, debt ceiling, and possible economic collapse aside... I feel we have real issues plaguing this country. It seems the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records has determined PYB is not a lunatic and has removed all the derogatory information from his records that kept him from making O-5. Now he is meeting a supplemental board. Oops, meant to put this in the WTF Thread.

On the surface, it would appear that receipt of multiple letters of counseling and reprimands would indicate questionable judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. However, when each incident is reviewed on its own merit, it would appear Subject is fully aware of the U.S. Constitution and has openly challenged what he perceives to be a violation of either his own rights or those of other American citizens.

[Guest one]

Wow, I didn't know he had derogatory information in his records. I just remembered a lot of back and forth on here and then everything he ever wrote just disappearing.

Was all of that because of stuff he wrote on here?

ETA: Nevermind. My mind has been blown. A ruined career over a parking ticket. Pretty funny that he doesn't actually know how to pick his battles.

https://www.pickyourbattles.net/

Edited November 30, 2012 by one

[Butters]

Wow, I didn't know he had derogatory information in his records. I just remembered a lot of back and forth on here and then everything he ever wrote just disappearing.

Was all of that because of stuff he wrote on here?

You missed a lot and be glad it is all gone. If you must know... go here https://www.pickyourbattles.net/

[pawnman]

Deficits don't matter. It is just money we owe to ourselves!

And China.

[Vertigo]

And China.

They own less than 8% of our total debt.

[TreeA10]

Dump 8% of our debt on the market at bargain rates and see what happens to the remaining 92%.

[Guest]

They own less than 8% of our total debt.

I think it is more than 8% if you include Hong Kong.

In any case, it is significant and it is more than any other foreign group including Japan, UK, Brazil and OPEC. It is even higher if you exclude the QE1-3 monetary policy churn.

Dump 8% of our debt on the market at bargain rates and see what happens to the remaining 92%.

Valid.

[matmacwc]

Educate me then...what is the purpose of the debt ceiling if not what I described, a supposed deterrent to spending? It's not a check-and-balance since Congress imposes the debt limit but left the power to change or raise the debt limit in the hands of Congress. Yea, the debt limit tells Treasury it can't issue more debt, but then again treasury does so based on the law as passed by, you guessed it, Congress.

I'm begging you, if you think the debt ceiling is such a great policy, defend it. I understand you're very concerned about the issue of the debt and I think most other people are as well to one degree or another, but divorced from that, this particular policy of having a limit on which bills you can pay, it is unnecessary and in the current political environment is causing more problems than it is helping to solve. If you want to peg the debt limit to some kind of fiscal measure...percentage of GDP, something else, etc. then it would have it's intended effect of limiting Congress' ability to spend "too much." In it's current form there is no use for it.

This isn't just some hair-brained scheme of a guy on the internet though...

Exactly. Even better.

You must owe more on your credit cards than you can afford, only reason to defend this.

[HeloDude]

The credit card you seek to cut to prevent future spending is called an appropriations bill. Not raising the debt ceiling is like getting a power bill and contemplating whether or not you should go ahead and pay it. It's making good on past debts, which as a concept has nothing to do with future spending. If you want lower spending, great, tell Congress to stop appropriating more money than the government receives in revenues; if you want to ruin the credit rating of the country, tell them not to pay our bills i.e. raise the debt ceiling.

Does someone actually want to offer an alternate view on the purpose or function of the debt ceiling? Does anyone actually want to defend keeping it around as an ineffectual tool for limiting Congressional spending that is itself controlled by the same Congress that's over-spending during the appropriations process? Bueller?

Dude, you're extremely naive or you are just trying to outplay a used car salesman and sell a piece of crap. Are you really trying to say that raising the debt celing has nothing to do with future spending? It's all about future spending--the country does bring in revenue. It actually brings in a lot of revenue.

The GOP, currently the only party legitimately talking about cutting spending, cannot reduce appropriations by themselves since they only hold 1/2 of the legislature...however they can in fact tear up the credit cards. The country has enough revenue coming in to continue to pay interest on the debt, pay SS checks, etc. If you lay off a bunch of government employees and close a bunch of a parks, that is not 'not paying your debts', it's called laying people off. The Dems either negotiate with the GOP on cuts or risk shutting down parts of the government. Personally I think the GOP will cave, though I wish they would hold their ground. Clinton negotiated with the GOP, this President doesn't seem to want to do that.

This is what the GOP gets for spending like Democrats for 6 years--karma is a bitch.