A way out of this without a true default will be for the Treasury Department to unilaterally raise the limit, citing the 14th Amendment, and daring the GOP to take them to court.

"The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned."

It's what the orange man would; just do shit and dare someone to stop him.

Fiscal mismanagement!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

The rich pay more taxes… so unless you do something funny, they will get more back.

I like tax cuts. However, cutting taxes sure didn’t stop spending, which is what is supposed to happen when you do that.

That’s really what the GOP is guilty of… making a tax cut to try and force spending cuts, and then being unwilling to pay the price when someone’s pet project gets the ax, or someone doesn’t get a increase they think they deserve.

Trump being a 5-star example. Loved tax cuts, but also loved increasing spending.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

The rich pay more taxes… so unless you do something funny, they will get more back.

I like tax cuts. However, cutting taxes sure didn’t stop spending, which is what is supposed to happen when you do that.

That’s really what the GOP is guilty of… making a tax cut to try and force spending cuts, and then being unwilling to pay the price when someone’s pet project gets the ax, or someone doesn’t get a increase they think they deserve.

Trump being a 5-star example. Loved tax cuts, but also loved increasing spending.

The rich pay more taxes because they make more money. Government can't get taxes from the poor. Rather than be resentful, I would think you'd be happy to be doing well enough to be in a high tax bracket.

You like tax cuts because you're in a high income bracket. If you truly believed the tax cuts would reduce spending, you were awfully naive and didn't pay attention to history. Tax rates were over 90 percent by the end of WW II, and have gone through a number of cuts since then. When did the US EVER cut spending to pay for tax cuts?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

The rich pay more taxes… so unless you do something funny, they will get more back.

I like tax cuts. However, cutting taxes sure didn’t stop spending, which is what is supposed to happen when you do that.

That’s really what the GOP is guilty of… making a tax cut to try and force spending cuts, and then being unwilling to pay the price when someone’s pet project gets the ax, or someone doesn’t get a increase they think they deserve.

Trump being a 5-star example. Loved tax cuts, but also loved increasing spending.

The rich pay more taxes because they make more money. Government can't get taxes from the poor. Rather than be resentful, I would think you'd be happy to be doing well enough to be in a high tax bracket.

You like tax cuts because you're in a high income bracket. If you truly believed the tax cuts would reduce spending, you were awfully naive and didn't pay attention to history. Tax rates were over 90 percent by the end of WW II, and have gone through a number of cuts since then. When did the US EVER cut spending to pay for tax cuts?

The truth is, nobody is willing to sacrifice to cut spending. All are perfectly willing to see someone else sacrifice. Amongst the politicians, none have the testicular fortitude to ask that people sacrifice, nor are they willing to sacrifice themselves.

I agree that the government needs to live within its means.

That doesn’t mean increasing taxes to cover its current spending.

It means cutting its spending in some sort of logical manner, then adding funding if needed after that.

As to tax rates historically, look at what percent of the GNP was taxes. No one paid 90% rates. The tax code had all kinds of carve outs, exemptions, and holes.

It was pretty unfair in that only those who knew could take advantage, and they were given out as political payola to those donating or friends of politicians.

The graduated income tax is a crock.

I have no issue with a percentage system…

I do have an issue when I pay a substantially higher percentage of my income as taxes than someone like Gates or Buffett.


I also think that we need to rethink this whole idea of tax policy as a social policy.

Dr. Butler, you didn't answer my question. It wasn't a rhetorical one.

When did the US ever cut spending to pay for a tax cut?

I agree with you that the country should live within its means. How about cutting spending first, before we reward ourselves with tax cuts? Because the other way, it doesn't work.

I don't know if I agree with you on a flat tax. Lower income people still won't be able to pay much if anything. Would you have the US Treasury garnish their wages? Nevertheless, I agree with making the Buffets, Gates, and Trumps pay something. I also think everyone should have to buy in to our nation's business. I think more monetary participation by lower income people might increase their interest and voting participation.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

Wow! Just wow!

The government doesn't need to increase its intake!

IT NEEDS TO DECREASE ITS SPENDING!!!!!


.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

Wow! Just wow!

The government doesn't need to increase its intake!

IT NEEDS TO DECREASE ITS SPENDING!!!!!


.

Exactly.

We have plenty of money. Plenty!!! Pass a budget, spend it wisely, and live WITHIN our means. Cut out 2/3s of the bureaucracy to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

Wow! Just wow!

The government doesn't need to increase its intake!

IT NEEDS TO DECREASE ITS SPENDING!!!!!


.

Yeah, we need to do both, but I don't think that the Government can take in enough to cover it's legitimate spending. I bet if you took 10 posters here and gave them the power to go over the budget and remove any non legitimate spending that none of the final figures would be close to each other. Defense is a legitimate need, but the amount of waste and unaccounted for funds is mind boggling. How are you going to fix that?

BTW a goodly part of the payroll tax receipts will be returned as refunds so don't let gross receipts cloud your analysis.
I agree with some things like rescinding unspent covid funds, etc.
My main point is that the treasury doesn't need Congress's approval in order to raise the debt ceiling. They can do it like trump would and dare them to sue or whatever.

The purpose [or should be the purpose] of a tax cut is to generate enough taxable economic activity such that it will replace that amount that was cut. So a dollar in tax cuts should generate sufficient economic activity resulting in an additional dollar of tax. Seems to me to not be possible. A corporation buying back its stock generates no meaningful economic activity. A person putting it into savings generates essentially or no economic activity. The only ones helping are those lowest on the economic totem pole. Or the tax reducing agency simply doesn't need the money.
With all of the talk about outdated and failing infrastructure how could any government not need the money?

Just like anywhere else in western world, biggest black holes of spending are “ stupid programs “ or give away money first foreign countries and second to nonessential feel good helpings

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

Wow! Just wow!

The government doesn't need to increase its intake!

IT NEEDS TO DECREASE ITS SPENDING!!!!!


.

Exactly.

We have plenty of money. Plenty!!! Pass a budget, spend it wisely, and live WITHIN our means. Cut out 2/3s of the bureaucracy to begin with.

Where is this "plenty of money" of which you speak?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Fiscal mismanagement!

True and the dumbest part is having to borrow money to pay for the tax cut that benefited the rich more that the little people.

No! The dumbest thing is borrowing money and giving it away to foreign countries and illegal aliens!!!

There's a lot of waste and poor spending regardless of the source of the money. The Guvmint needs to increase its money intake instead of borrowing it.

Wow! Just wow!

The government doesn't need to increase its intake!

IT NEEDS TO DECREASE ITS SPENDING!!!!!


.

Exactly.

We have plenty of money. Plenty!!! Pass a budget, spend it wisely, and live WITHIN our means. Cut out 2/3s of the bureaucracy to begin with.

Where is this "plenty of money" of which you speak?

In 2021…the IRS took in $4,070,000,000,000. It projects revenue of $4,714,000,000,000 in 2023.

Live within^^^!!!

In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the government spent $6.27 trillion.

The only way I see any country spending more then they take in is in emergency like war for survival, nothing else comes close
US and EU border complete insanity with their spendings

You conservatives do have your own reality.

Why do you insist on crying about what SHOULD be? As in, we SHOULD cut spending.

You ought to talk about what IS.

What is IS? IS is that Congress spends a pile of money! More than we take in. Congress refuses to make the country live within its means.

The actual remedy to increasing debt is either to cut spending or increase revenues. We all know that, we make that balance in our daily lives. Since decreasing spending has never worked, what are we left with? Well, duh!

Until the budget is in balance, and we're working on paying down the debt, responsible, patriotic citizens don't cry for more tax cuts.

And seems like socially, liberally thinking people just see one solution, increase taxes…hmmm
Most people with income can’t just all of a sudden increase it overnight
Every government is addicted to money so more we give them more they spend

Now RTH, read your own column again please?

I wrote it. Do you typically have to re-read the stuff you wrote ten minutes ago?

Liberals are more realistic than conservatives. Besides the tax cut problem I already talked about, there's the birth control/abortion issue. What do we do with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

Conservatives answer what SHOULD be. "People SHOULD not have sex outside of marriage. If they do, they SHOULD be punished with an unwanted child for the rest of their lives."

Liberals answer what IS. "People will have sex. They have the right to control their own bodies and reproduction."

I'm not so sure, Roland.

The congress would increase spending as there has been no adverse reaction to congresscritters who persist in spending more than we have.

Carrot and stick works.

Either or obviously doesn't.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I wrote it. Do you typically have to re-read the stuff you wrote ten minutes ago?

Liberals are more realistic than conservatives. Besides the tax cut problem I already talked about, there's the birth control/abortion issue. What do we do with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

Conservatives answer what SHOULD be. "People SHOULD not have sex outside of marriage. If they do, they SHOULD be punished with an unwanted child for the rest of their lives."

Liberals answer what IS. "People will have sex. They have the right to control their own bodies and reproduction."

Oh boy, now you throw abortion around if you loose argument about budget and taxes

eU is very liberal and we have quite the restrictions on abortions

Anyway, you being from Alaska, I’d expect different set of mind so I just guess…you are lawyer or government worker?

Lose what argument?

An argument requires two sides. One side advances a position, and the other takes a position that's opposed.

You never made your position known, let alone advanced a reasonable argument for more tax cuts.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
You conservatives do have your own reality.

Why do you insist on crying about what SHOULD be? As in, we SHOULD cut spending.

You ought to talk about what IS.

What is IS? IS is that Congress spends a pile of money! More than we take in. Congress refuses to make the country live within its means.

The actual remedy to increasing debt is either to cut spending or increase revenues. We all know that, we make that balance in our daily lives. Since decreasing spending has never worked, what are we left with? Well, duh!

Until the budget is in balance, and we're working on paying down the debt, responsible, patriotic citizens don't cry for more tax cuts.

I remember the GOP getting full control under Bush 2 and going crazy spending to the point where John McCain accused them of being drunken sailors. Hardly a liberal problem.

quote:

We have plenty of money. Plenty!!! Pass a budget, spend it wisely, and live WITHIN our means. Cut out 2/3s of the bureaucracy to begin with.

Set the example & start with the stuff YOU want.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Lose what argument?

An argument requires two sides. One side advances a position, and the other takes a position that's opposed.

You never made your position known, let alone advanced a reasonable argument for more tax cuts.

Yep, I was right about you…

I know what you are: a pesky gnat.

Go away before someone swats you. Not me. I don't have the time for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I wrote it. Do you typically have to re-read the stuff you wrote ten minutes ago?

Liberals are more realistic than conservatives. Besides the tax cut problem I already talked about, there's the birth control/abortion issue. What do we do with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

Conservatives answer what SHOULD be. "People SHOULD not have sex outside of marriage. If they do, they SHOULD be punished with an unwanted child for the rest of their lives."

Liberals answer what IS. "People will have sex. They have the right to control their own bodies and reproduction."

Oh boy, now you throw abortion around if you loose argument about budget and taxes

eU is very liberal and we have quite the restrictions on abortions

Anyway, you being from Alaska, I’d expect different set of mind so I just guess…you are lawyer or government worker?

Actually, unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children cause more tax money to be spent. The Feds pay states for children removed from homes placed with other family members and foster care, more food stamp money, states have programs separate from food stamps (that I am sure is propped up w Fed money) for families to receive free food. In KY, that program is called WHIC.

Then thee is the face, most unwanted pregnancy is low income folks who now need more housing or rent assistance, child care assistance, and medical assistance overall. The new right says tough. Kind of ignoring on the State level the whole Christian thing. They loose elections. The Left says we must meet those obligations some believe in the cause and some just want to win the election.

Either way, Rolland is right in the terms of an economic debate.

Alas…the beginning of the end. Quazi-conservatives advocating for more taxes from the more productive segment of the populace. This country will most likely follow the Roman Empire.

Increasing governmental revenue, especially on a graduated level does not build a strong economy. It incentivizes less production and more dependence.

The ignorance or stupidity or both boggles the mind.

I did not advocate for anything.

I explained how banning abortion and birth control access causes more government spending.

Great critical thinker.

I have advocated for any piece of legislation be debt neutral wo creating unfunded mandates on the states. That is old fashion financial conservatism. I did not make it up. However, not in that post.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Alas…the beginning of the end. Quazi-conservatives advocating for more taxes from the more productive segment of the populace. This country will most likely follow the Roman Empire.

Increasing governmental revenue, especially on a graduated level does not build a strong economy. It incentivizes less production and more dependence.

The ignorance or stupidity or both boggles the mind.

Yes it does!


.

No…old fashioned conservatism takes the revenue it has and uses it effectively. It cuts waste and creates a hierarchy from highly critical to less critical to spend what it has…trying to keep a bit in reserve for a rainy day. This would be called the novel idea (in today’s idiotic world) of a budget. Staying within your budget is the novel (in today’s idiotic world) idea of responsibility.

If there are ways to increase revenue with out burdening people and businesses more so be it (ie: a rare commodity however).

A flat-tax with a minimum threshold is the way to go if you want “true” conservatives to buy in.

People who have run businesses and survive longterm live by the concepts above. Those who have not……

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
No…old fashioned conservatism takes the revenue it has and uses it effectively. It cuts waste and creates a hierarchy from highly critical to less critical to spend what it has…trying to keep a bit in reserve for a rainy day. This would be called the novel idea (in today’s idiotic world) of a budget. Staying within your budget is the novel (in today’s idiotic world) idea of responsibility.

If there are ways to increase revenue with out burdening people and businesses more so be it (ie: a rare commodity however).

A flat-tax with a minimum threshold is the way to go if you want “true” conservatives to buy in.

People who have run businesses and survive longterm live by the concepts above. Those who have not……

IMO too many people benefit too much from the current system for a flat tax to EVER get any serious traction.

Financial conservatism does not allow for unfunded mandates.

President Bush got burned with that.

You can say no, but it does not make it so.

GOP has been complaining about Unfunded Mandates since at least 1995.

Your problem is you do not want to fund mandates passed by the people’s representatives and, more or less, the State’s representatives in Congress.

Yet, you can’t win elections because you are trying to drag us back to a culture that A) never existed as you present and B) does not need to return.

Even the Current GOP in Congress knows Unfunded mandates are bad policy.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floo...funded-mandates/amp/

Here is something scholarly.

https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.e...psq/psq_99kij01.html

You’re no, is soundly not a statement of Conservatism used to be.

I pay more tax than anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I did not advocate for anything.

I explained how banning abortion and birth control access causes more government spending.

Great critical thinker.

I have advocated for any piece of legislation be debt neutral wo creating unfunded mandates on the states. That is old fashion financial conservatism. I did not make it up. However, not in that post.

What’s next? Anyone who doesn’t work or doesn’t pay taxes ( low income ) will be eliminated?
Heym, good thinking … really?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I know what you are: a pesky gnat.

Go away before someone swats you. Not me. I don't have the time for you.

Hit the nerve…

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I wrote it. Do you typically have to re-read the stuff you wrote ten minutes ago?

Liberals are more realistic than conservatives. Besides the tax cut problem I already talked about, there's the birth control/abortion issue. What do we do with the problem of unwanted pregnancies?

Conservatives answer what SHOULD be. "People SHOULD not have sex outside of marriage. If they do, they SHOULD be punished with an unwanted child for the rest of their lives."

Liberals answer what IS. "People will have sex. They have the right to control their own bodies and reproduction."

Oh boy, now you throw abortion around if you loose argument about budget and taxes

eU is very liberal and we have quite the restrictions on abortions

Anyway, you being from Alaska, I’d expect different set of mind so I just guess…you are lawyer or government worker?

Actually, unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children cause more tax money to be spent. The Feds pay states for children removed from homes placed with other family members and foster care, more food stamp money, states have programs separate from food stamps (that I am sure is propped up w Fed money) for families to receive free food. In KY, that program is called WHIC.

Then thee is the face, most unwanted pregnancy is low income folks who now need more housing or rent assistance, child care assistance, and medical assistance overall. The new right says tough. Kind of ignoring on the State level the whole Christian thing. They loose elections. The Left says we must meet those obligations some believe in the cause and some just want to win the election.

Either way, Rolland is right in the terms of an economic debate.

RTH is wrong in this whole debate…here you go

Empires and civilizations disintegrated along these lines of thinking

Mathematically as to the impact in tax revenue spent, He is not wrong.

I explained why he is not wrong. You just assert the conclusion he is wrong.

If we are going to have a social welfare net, unwanted children are going to be an additional expense.

What I am not sure of is if we give universal free birth control and abortion coverage if the costs of that and the complications thereof, might be higher.

Also, we have seen that availability of contraceptives has lowered birth rates in places where they are widely available and affordable… to the point where it is causing issues with paying for the welfare net.

It’s not quite the easy question everyone on both sides makes it to be.

From a greater human good perspective, one could argue that mandatory contraception be part of utilizing the social welfare system… but we all know that’s unacceptable and rife with potential abuse.

There is no easy answer.

I am for no mandates to fund. I do want some repealed.

There is not always a new tax to he levied. Wealth is not unlimited.

Live within our means. Repeal until we can afford with existing revenue.

A balanced budget amendment is the only hope.