Does not raising the debt ceiling = US defaults on its debt?
Poll
 | 10 votes (35.71%) | ||
| | 18 votes (64.28%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: AZDuffmanActually a base belief of most in the Tea Party is to repeal the right of congress to collect an income tax and replace that with a consumption tax. I'd be for this as long as the pols do not start handing out money to "make up" for the burden. Anything to get the bottom half of the country used to the idea they need to pay something and maybe then the next handout proposal we ask "how will this be paid for?"
The consumption tax could have an added benefit. The USA gets a lot of inflow of tourists, this would capture revenue from them. All the illegal aliens would start paying a fair share as well.
I assume sales taxes are state based, not federal?
Quote: thecesspitI assume sales taxes are state based, not federal?
Correct. There are some federal "excise taxes" on gas and booze for example, but no federal "sales tax" or VAT.
Quote: s2dbakerI don't know why you're so hysterical.
My god, if Itscalledsoccer's well thought out and well delivered posts
sound like hysteria to you, what must real hysteria be like in your world?
This argument is as simple as explaining Santa Claus to a child. Up until
about the age of 5, you encourage them to believe in Santa, and when
they start school, you explain real life to them. Thats whats happening
with all the riots in Europe, they're being told Santa was a lie, they really
can't be provided for from cradle to grave, and they're reacting like typical
5 year olds. In the US, the Libs are in complete denial, Socialism doesn't
work, Big Sugar Daddy is broke. Its funny and scary to watch them, but
more scary than funny.
Is that an example of well thought out and delivered posts ??
Quote: buzzpaff" It's impossible to have any discussion with someone who denies truth"
Is that an example of well thought out and delivered posts ??
Its certainly not hysteria. And it is impossible to talk to someone
who's in denial. The royalty in the Tuileries Palace in Paris continued
to party as their world crumbled around them, refusing to believe
France would ever revolt. Some of them were still in denial,
even as they heard the blade hurtling down towards their necks.
Quote: buzzpaff" It's impossible to have any discussion with someone who denies truth"
Is that an example of well thought out and delivered posts ??
Well ... yeah. Truth is truth. If s2dbaker is denying truth, what's hysterical about saying he's denying truth?
If you think he's NOT denying truth, please share with us why you think that. Otherwise, don't fault me for speaking truth. If you think he's speaking un-truth and you say I'm "hysterical" for identifying it, aren't you, in reality, being hysterical (at best) and sinister (at worst)? Which am I to guess?
I'm still trying to figure out which part of his post is well thought out. Is it the part where he denies that he's Kreskin? Perhaps the part where he invokes the US Constitution, conveniently omitting the part where the Executive Branch has veto power over the Legislative Branch? Perhaps it's the part where he states that he wants spending to stop but doesn't give any examples of what programs he wants eliminated and how much that would save?Quote: EvenBobMy god, if Itscalledsoccer's well thought out and well delivered posts
sound like hysteria to you, what must real hysteria be like in your world?
Like I said before, I hope a Republican wins the White House in 2012 so that we can go back to ignoring the deficit.
Quote: s2dbakerI don't know why you're so hysterical. I already stated that I want a Republican to win the White House in '12 so that Deficits go back to not mattering anymore. What more do you want?
Sticking with the theme that I've already anticipated such answers, and that I've already written the response to them, to wit ...
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerPeople who won't answer a direct question will always obfuscate. Always.
That's a paraphrase because I couldn't find the quote. But it is an accurate paraphrase.
Quote: s2dbakerI'm still trying to figure out which part of his post is well thought out. Is it the part where he denies that he's Kreskin? Perhaps the part where he invokes the US Constitution, conveniently omitting the part where the Executive Branch has veto power over the Legislative Branch? Perhaps it's the part where he states that he wants spending to stop but doesn't give any examples of what programs he wants eliminated and how much that would save?
Like I said before, I hope a Republican wins the White House in 2012 so that we can go back to ignoring the deficit.
It's the part where I anticipated your responses before you said them. I telegraphed them AGAIN in the second post.
You may deny them, and that's okay. But it's there for god and everybody to see.
I would rather hear a rebuttal as to your thoughts on why my identification of a Democrat-held house does not = higher % deficit, and that the House writes spending bills, etc.
But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.
But even now, I'm guessing you won't. Just a guess, but a good one. Your call on whether or not you want to prove me right ... again.
Quote: MathExtremistIntellectual honesty hasn't been a major force in U.S. politics for a very long time now. Everyone's blaming each other for the same thing, and not all of them can be right. But all of them can be, and often are, wrong. The economy is broken because Congress is broken. Congress was never intended to be a divided entity the way it is now, where loyalty to party trumps loyalty to legislative body. That's thrown off the entire balance part of the "checks-and-balances" we all learned about in grade school. It's all well and good to deride "years of increased government spending" under both GOP and Dem Presidents, but that's the way Congress voted. They're the ones writing the spending bills. The President just signs them.
No doubt, intellectual honesty has not been a major force. But I don't think the concept/philosophy of Congress is broken. I think that people in Congress are broken. Loyalty to party is not the bellwether, though. Loyalty to what works is. Making a choice between which party's philosophy is closer to what actually works, I'll take the Republicans over the Democrats. That doesn't mean Republican = what works. It means that Republicans hold a philosophy closer to what works than Democrats. At least, it does if you look at how Democrats vote and the reasons for the current budget impasse.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd now you have the Tea Party saying "no more taxes, period". Hundreds of GOP legislators have signed a pledge from the Americans for Tax Reform that they will never raise taxes, and that includes not repealing tax-break loopholes. Quite frankly, that's stupid. It implies that the current taxation policy is correct even while everyone who's paying attention agrees that it's not. So it's broken but we'll pledge not to fix it? That's nonsensical -- and intellectually dishonest.
Not quite. Tea Party says no more additional spending, and cuts to current spending. They also think that higher taxes does not = higher government revenue. Tea Partiers are no less fallible than any other group, but they're right on those two main points, which is what gives them their grass-roots power. Also, it's wrong to assume GOP = Tea Party. Finally, it's wrong to assign bad motive to using tax loopholes. Loophole-finders are perfectly law-abiding. Your gripe isn't with loophole-finders. It's with the folks who wrote the tax laws.
Until your thinking is correct on those points, I'm not sure there's much else to talk about here.
Quote: MathExtremistThe right thing to do is to examine the levels of government spending in the various programs that the public demands (e.g. "cut social security over my dead body") and then figure out how to pay for that. I recall that the big 3 entitlement programs are set to grow to more than 100% of tax revenues at some point in the next 20-25 years if everything stays as-is. The bare facts of an increasingly older population and increasingly longer post-retirement life make accelerated entitlement spending a certainty -- accelerated beyond the rate of tax revenue increases. Yet Congress has failed to make a credible attempt at putting in place a plan to smooth over the coming turmoil, because anyone who even brings it up will get voted out of office. So I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that blaming each other for the situation is the wrong one. I also know that rigid, dogmatic fixation on using only one of the two big levers in fiscal policy is wrong-headed. That's like trying to play roulette on a layout with only red numbers -- you're missing half the game.
The issue has been efforted to be addressed before, most recently GWB after the 2004 election, but has not had the popular political will to be seriously confronted. Being voted out of office is also correct, see also 2006 election results. But that is changing. I don't know where it's going to land or if anything will ultimately change. But it is changing.
Before condemning fiscal policy to two levers, tell me what other levers are. Playing with only red numbers is perfectly legitimate if there are no other colors.
I'm assuming that there's a question somewhere in there but I don't see it. It's mostly just patting yourself on the back for posting a table that shows that under Republican presidents, the debt rises much faster than under Democratic presidents and then saying that a liberal will point that out. I guess I must be obfuscating again but you win, congratulations.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIt's the part where I anticipated your responses before you said them. I telegraphed them AGAIN in the second post.
You may deny them, and that's okay. But it's there for god and everybody to see.
I would rather hear a rebuttal as to your thoughts on why my identification of a Democrat-held house does not = higher % deficit, and that the House writes spending bills, etc.
But, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.
But even now, I'm guessing you won't. Just a guess, but a good one. Your call on whether or not you want to prove me right ... again.
Quote: buzzpaffNow who is being hysterical ? The sky is falling, the sky is falling !
It's not hysterical to say the sky is falling when it actually is.
If any group can be accused of over-using the "sky is falling" argument, it's the Dems:
"Republicans want old people to choose between medicine and food."
"Black churches will burn if Republicans are elected."
"Republicans want children to starve rather than give them a lunch."
"Bush lied, people died."
"In 10 years, we will be facing melted polar ice caps if we don't do something about global warming."
I'm not sure I have to keep going with this.
It may be contemplated that Republicans are playing a similar card when they're saying we can't spend any more money without crashing the USA's credit rating.
You know, except that S&P and Moody's have telegraphed downgrading, and the $15+ trillion projected debt, and increasing tax rates = lower government revenue, as FACT shows.
You or anyone else can say that fact isn't = fact. I can also say that the USA just won the Women's World Cup. But both are equally deluded.
You or anyone else can choose to live in delusion. That's your choice. But I do not believe the women just won the Cup, and you should not believe that the sky is not in imminent danger of falling.
Quote: s2dbakerI'm assuming that there's a question somewhere in there but I don't see it. It's mostly just patting yourself on the back for posting a table that shows that under Republican presidents, the debt rises much faster than under Democratic presidents and then saying that a liberal will point that out. I guess I must be obfuscating again but you win, congratulations.
What purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?
I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.
What room is there in asking questions under those parameters? Talking to you is like talking to a 2-year-old. Don't obfuscate and I won't say you're obfuscating. There are several threads where people who hold different opinions than me answer me directly. I don't agree, but I don't accuse them of obfuscating. You, OTOH, obfuscate. You don't answer, probably because you can't answer.
Obfuscate again. Don't answer. (Just a prediction, but so far, so obvious.)
???Quote: ItsCalledSoccerBut, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.
But even now, I'm guessing you won't.
So which is it? Should I answer this mystery question or not?Quote: ItsCalledSoccerWhat purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?
I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.
What room is there in asking questions under those parameters?
The feeling is mutual. I'm glad we can agree on something.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerTalking to you is like talking to a 2-year-old.
Thank you. You may resume your war now...
Quote: s2dbaker???Quote: ItsCalledSoccerBut, as I just posted, people who are dodging a question will obfuscate or distract. Which you are doing. Just answer the question.
But even now, I'm guessing you won't.So which is it? Should I answer this mystery question or not?The feeling is mutual. I'm glad we can agree on something.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerWhat purpose would asking questions serve? Where does that even say I'm asking anything? It says I await a rebuttal ... and the fantastic, intelligent rebuttal is ... "where is the question?" Really?
I wasn't asking, I was answering. You dodge straightforward questions. You deny reality. You don't know the Constitution.
What room is there in asking questions under those parameters?
Parsed again. Predictable, again. Why do you liberals make it so easy? Do you really think folks (if they so choose) can't look back through the thread?
Is that the same thinking that Obama has when he says last December, in extending the Bush tax cuts, that the current tax levels are needed to maintain a growing* economy, but now says that tax rates should increase to save the economy?
Nareed is no arbiter of fairness, he's not impartial, and he's wrong about calling this a flame war. Flame wars involve name-calling; neither you nor I have done that. But the reality of what your own guys say vs. what they say now and what you support is just ... wow. Really? REALLY?!?
I suppose the thinking of someone based in reality can seem like a 2-year-old's to someone who's not. That's okay. It's just another way to obfuscate. The difference is, you can only repeat what I already say, vs. making your own points.
Really, I would have more respect for you if you would at least respond rather than dodge and obfuscate. But I don't guess you really care about what I respect. That's okay, if that's what you need to feel better, I guess I can't deny you that. When I was 2, I probably imagined similar things.
Sort of like comparing someone to a two year old? Maybe I'm just obfuscating again but I'm not seeing a question that requires an answer.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerFlame wars involve name-calling
Quote: s2dbakerSort of like comparing someone to a two year old? Maybe I'm just obfuscating again but I'm not seeing a question that requires an answer.
Yup, you're obfuscating. If you don't mind, please post the WHOLE quote. It's right there, anyone can read it for themselves.
Reposting entire discussions is tiresome for the reader when they can simply go ..Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIf you don't mind, please post the WHOLE quote.
So what was that question that I was supposed to answer?Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIt's right there, anyone can read it for themselves.
Quote: NandBAnd how does the Corporate portion of the revenue stream suffer? Placing the bulk of the debt responsibility upon people, removes corporate responsibility. Corporate shold take 1/2 responsibility of such burden. Just My Don Quixote 2c worth
Fair question, although I'm not sure why anyone - corporate or personal - MUST suffer. But anyways ...
Corporations are just entities, kind of like people. There's not much reason to separate the two. But, according to p. 97 of the 1040 instructions, corporate taxes make up 4% of government revenues (borrowing makes up 40%, personal income taxes 26%). We could guess why corporations aren't made to pay more.
But remember, corporations pay salaries to individuals, and those individuals pay taxes, mostly at a higher rate. The expenses a corporation charges are income to other corporations, which use that to pay its people and its own tax burden. Should corporations aren't making money pay taxes on income that doesn't exist? Is it really a valid point to say that corporations only avoid taxes because of loopholes? Loopholes are law-abiding; it's a bad law that allows for them, not a bad corporation.
I don't think taxing corporations more is the answer. 40% is borrowed; shall we increase taxes on corporations by 10 times to make that up? Do we really think corporations would keep their current employee base - and subsequently income tax receivables to the government - at a 10x tax burden?
Personally, I'm not so quick to assign motive or burden to corporations, and I don't think the problem lies with how much/little they're taxed.
Quote: s2dbakerReposting entire discussions is tiresome for the reader when they can simply go ..So what was that question that I was supposed to answer?
It's there. The reason you're not answering it or quoting it is something other than me not having posed it.
Maybe all this rigamarole is intentional .. to make the reader tired. Also an effective, if not transparent, tactic.
(Obfuscation.)
Yes. The alternative is what? Go Galt? That's not going to happen.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerDo we really think corporations would keep their current employee base - and subsequently income tax receivables to the government - at a 10x tax burden?
Still not seeing it.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerIt's there.
Do not try to teach a pig to sing. it wastes your time and annoys the pig. So that is my last post on this thread,
Quote: s2dbakerYes. The alternative is what? Go Galt? That's not going to happen.
So ... corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?
(These are questions, by the way.)
EDIT: Galt, as in fictional John Galt? Emphasis on FICTIONAL? Is that the only world that works for you?
(Also questions.)
Why is that a better response than creating an environment where corporations will hire, thereby increasing the tax base? Higher taxes for corporations >> more taxpayers? Really?
(More questions.)
Quote: s2dbakerStill not seeing it.
I can't make you see them.
This is a good question and a fair question and the answer is "Yes". Corporations that pay taxes are making a profit and are indeed surviving quite nicely.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerSo ... corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?
(These are questions, by the way.)
You could if you were to post one.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerI can't make you see them.
Quote: s2dbakerThis is a good question and a fair question and the answer is "Yes". Corporations that pay taxes are making a profit and are indeed surviving quite nicely.
Thanks for identifying a question.
But you're obfuscating. Again.
The question was, corporations with a 10x tax burden will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?
You answered a question I didn't ask. Answer the question I did ask. Which is, for the 3rd time ...
Corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels? Corporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?
EDIT: thanks for showing, again, what happens when you're asked a direct question.
Yes, they will keep ALL of their employees they have and at the exact same salary levels.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerYou answered a question I didn't ask. Answer the question I did ask. Which is, for the 3rd time ...
Corporations, with a 10x tax burden, will keep ALL the employees they have, and at the exact same salary levels?
Corporations do seek a way to cut costs to survive.Quote: ItsCalledSoccerCorporations don't seek a way to cut costs to survive?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerFinally, it's wrong to assign bad motive to using tax loopholes. Loophole-finders are perfectly law-abiding. Your gripe isn't with loophole-finders. It's with the folks who wrote the tax laws.
Until your thinking is correct on those points, I'm not sure there's much else to talk about here.
My thinking agrees with yours, so I'm not sure why you're being dismissive. I'm not assigning any motives to anyone operating under tax loopholes. I'm suggesting that it's foolish to preclude Congress from closing those loopholes simply because it would be a tax increase. If we agree that the loophole-writing authors of the tax code were wrong, I submit that it is a terrible idea to say fixing those loopholes is off-limits. But that's precisely what the ATR pledge does. When dogma trumps efficacy, we all lose.
Quote:Before condemning fiscal policy to two levers, tell me what other levers are. Playing with only red numbers is perfectly legitimate if there are no other colors.
You misread me, I'm afraid. I said there are two levers (and there are: taxation and spending). The Tea Party is willing to operate only one of them (spending) and has put taxation off-limits. And to my analogy, there are indeed red and black numbers on the roulette wheel.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually a base belief of most in the Tea Party is to repeal the right of congress to collect an income tax and replace that with a consumption tax. I'd be for this as long as the pols do not start handing out money to "make up" for the burden. Anything to get the bottom half of the country used to the idea they need to pay something and maybe then the next handout proposal we ask "how will this be paid for?"
The consumption tax could have an added benefit. The USA gets a lot of inflow of tourists, this would capture revenue from them. All the illegal aliens would start paying a fair share as well.
There are a lot of problems with a national VAT or consumption tax, least of all the fact that the rate would need to be about 31% or so in order to be revenue-neutral (and don't get me started on the exclusive vs. inclusive language games -- if I pay $1 before and $1.31 after, that's a 31% increase). In order to keep the rate that low, you'd have to pay taxes on your rent, your doctor's bills, your legal fees, and even a new home. You'd also have about two generations of very angry older Americans who saved for retirement and are now living on a fixed income, now faced with a world in which their saved, after-tax dollar no longer covers a dollar's worth of goods because now that costs $1.31. There have been no sensible proposals for handling such transitions. Until there are, I think the Fair Tax or other VAT-like proposals are simply academic exercises.
This is all just part of the total reorganization of the world economy. Those of us in the USA, Canada and Western Europe were the top dogs. We had no place left to go but down. Nobody wants to give up a significant part of their life style but that is what is going to occur so get used to it people. For those that believe in global warming blame it on bad stewardship of the envrironment if you want. Hopefully that isn't the case since the worst environmental countries are now some of the most successfull economically. I think that the bottom line is that we got fat and sassy and forgot how to work. There were billions of people lined up to take our place when we decided that we didn't want to work like our parents or grandparents had to work. I believe this recession is not something that we are going to recover from and go back to the 'way it was'. I think we are in the middle of a total revamping of the world and those of us in North America are going to end up with a significantly reduce lifestyle from what we had become used to and most still think they are owed. The sooner we accept that, the faster we can get on with our new lives and become productive and happy.
N&B
Quote: AZDuffmanCorrect. There are some federal "excise taxes" on gas and booze for example, but no federal "sales tax" or VAT.
BC has 12% sales tax, 5% goes to the federal level, and 7% to the Province (as I recall, it might be flipped around).
Solely charging sales (or consumption taxes) is a very regressive tax system. While your aim may be to ensure that everyone pays something, consumption taxes effect the lower paid proportionally more than the higher paid (not least as the higher paid tend to consume less than 100% of their income, deferring expenditure or moving it abroad).
I used to think (personal) taxation should all be one way or the other (all consumption or all income based), but I now think that's too dogmatic and a mix approach works. It also allows you to have another dial at your disposal (I understand that some people would reject the ability of the government to effect the market place...).
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerBut I ask it with a pure motive, and to show that, I'm not going to opine on the "why" and the political philosophy.
Well, since it looks like you broke your own promise, (just my opinion on that mind you), I have to say, if this were poker, the Republicans went all in on a bad bluff. The President can see their hand, so bluffing at this point is a matter of pride going before fall.
The fall would be if they bust the credit rating. The President will surely get blame but the Republicans aren't going to be heroes when they total up the cost of that.
The fall also would be if they cause more rancor and splits among the tea partiers by either raising taxes in a deal, or kicking the can.
The fall would also be that the polls don't support their no taxes, just cuts strategy. What happens when you go against the will of the people?
Republican FAIL.
Quote: buzzpaffTry This one
Do not try to teach a pig to sing. it wastes your time and annoys the pig. So that is my last post on this thread,
I will bet 1 million dollars this is not your last post on this thread. I have not read further.
As far as 'corporate taxes', if you tax GE then that money is not available to be given to its employees/executives, and thus will not be taxed later. GE will have to either raise its prices or pay its employees less, or employ fewer employees. Which of those 3 options do you want? Also, if GE is competing in the global marketplace, how will it be able to if it has onerous taxes placed on it?
The concept is so simple to me. I want our government to run like I run my household. A rare long term project (buying a house) may be reason to go into debt (mortgage), but there is a defined plan (monthly payments for 30 years) to end the debt. Otherwise, I borrow nothing without a reasonable plan to pay it off. I accumulated a 'reserve', so any 'unexpected' expenses are not cause for more borrowing. If I am running the government, I WOULD expect hurricanes, wars, attacks from Muslim extremists. These would not be 'unexpected expenses'.
Of course there are no perfect solutions. However,what will likely turn out to be the most expensive bill in history, Obamacare, whose gigantic costs will only start phasing in AFTER the next election (quite a surprise he crafted it that way), occurred because we had all 3 bodies (house, senate, executive) all controlled by Democrats. So when forced to call myself a ------, I have to pick Republican.
Quote: s2dbakerSOOPOO, you do know that employees salaries are expenses that are deducted from revenue. By your logic, GE would actually pay it's employees more to avoid paying taxes.
And that is why some corporations pay no taxes, because they don't show that 'profit'. But the $100 million they paid to top exec is taxed at the highest marginal rate, regardless of whether the company showed a 'profit'. So tax them LESS, so that that 100 million can be 110 million, and the federal government (and states too) get more.
I think ME hit the nail on the head--- IF we were starting a new taxation system from scratch, then a consumption or VAT would be the way to go. But all those that have paid income taxes all these years, and now are expecting those who now have incomes to pay, would find a swift change to a consumption tax unfair.
By the way, s2dbaker, my group acts like a corporation. We make sure that at the end of every year we 'zero out' by distributing all monies to the partners so we do not have to pay 'corporate taxes'. So each partner is responsible for their own share of federal and state taxes. Additionally, we are responsible for our own FICA (both halves) and Medicare tax (both halves). So on my first 100k I pay about 60% to the feds, state, FICA, and Medicare. After the first 100k it is about 45% on the rest. So as the liberal who wants "taxes on the rich" to go up, what % do you think would have me paying 'my fair share'? I feel like already I am paying my fair share, and then some....
the rate that we (yes i'm very well off too) were paying under Clinton/Gore would be fine.Quote: SOOPOOAnd that is why some corporations pay no taxes, because they don't show that 'profit'. But the $100 million they paid to top exec is taxed at the highest marginal rate, regardless of whether the company showed a 'profit'. So tax them LESS, so that that 100 million can be 110 million, and the federal government (and states too) get more.
I think ME hit the nail on the head--- IF we were starting a new taxation system from scratch, then a consumption or VAT would be the way to go. But all those that have paid income taxes all these years, and now are expecting those who now have incomes to pay, would find a swift change to a consumption tax unfair.
By the way, s2dbaker, my group acts like a corporation. We make sure that at the end of every year we 'zero out' by distributing all monies to the partners so we do not have to pay 'corporate taxes'. So each partner is responsible for their own share of federal and state taxes. Additionally, we are responsible for our own FICA (both halves) and Medicare tax (both halves). So on my first 100k I pay about 60% to the feds, state, FICA, and Medicare. After the first 100k it is about 45% on the rest. So as the liberal who wants "taxes on the rich" to go up, what % do you think would have me paying 'my fair share'? I feel like already I am paying my fair share, and then some....
Quote: SOOPOOThe concept is so simple to me. I want our government to run like I run my household.
No, you really, really do not. If you're like the majority of American family heads, you provide food, clothing, and shelter for your family. You also make all the spending decisions and household rules. You also do not charge your family members anything to live in your home.
If the government were run that way, we would abolish Congress and the independent Judiciary and invest the President with sole authority to make and change all rules, pass judgment, and execute policy decisions. The U.S. would cease to be a constitutional democracy and become a benevolent dictatorship. There would be no taxes, yet everyone would be entitled to free food, clothing, and homes. Because there are no taxes, the government would be responsible for earning revenue through commerce with other nations and competing with its own citizens' industries.
I could keep going but you should see the point. The government is entirely unlike a household, and the financial resources and responsibilities of one are very different than the other. Do not fall into the seductively simple trap of thinking that stabilizing the U.S. economy as simple as "balancing the budget like any household does". It's not, and as soon as that simplistic thinking leaves the public discourse, the sooner we can move on to the much more nuanced and difficult task of enacting policy that's appropriate for our nation rather than a single family.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, you really, really do not. If you're like the majority of American family heads, you provide food, clothing, and shelter for your family. You also make all the spending decisions and household rules. You also do not charge your family members anything to live in your home.
If the government were run that way, we would abolish Congress and the independent Judiciary and invest the President with sole authority to make and change all rules, pass judgment, and execute policy decisions. The U.S. would cease to be a constitutional democracy and become a benevolent dictatorship. There would be no taxes, yet everyone would be entitled to free food, clothing, and homes. Because there are no taxes, the government would be responsible for earning revenue through commerce with other nations and competing with its own citizens' industries.
I could keep going but you should see the point. The government is entirely unlike a household, and the financial resources and responsibilities of one are very different than the other. Do not fall into the seductively simple trap of thinking that stabilizing the U.S. economy as simple as "balancing the budget like any household does". It's not, and as soon as that simplistic thinking leaves the public discourse, the sooner we can move on to the much more nuanced and difficult task of enacting policy that's appropriate for our nation rather than a single family.
You are too smart, ME, to extrapolate my concept that the government shouldn't borrow what it can NEVER pay off, into the whole 'benevolent dictator' discourse. My analogy is purely fiscal in nature. Do not borrow what you cannot afford to repay. Plan for 'unexpected' expenses which are quite expected. You are correct, the government is unlike a household. My point is if it was run like MY household we would not have the problems we have now. You use the term 'simplistic' in a perjorative way. I would use it in a laudatory way.
that sounds a lot like that crazy liberal Nancy Pelosi scheme called Pay-Go. Why do you hate America?Quote: thecesspitBUT, should government long term borrowing not be based on project/program expenditure, and there to be a long term balance (which may be a long term, small debt (10-20% of GDP, relating to a small, average over spend per year).
Quote: s2dbakerthat sounds a lot like that crazy liberal Nancy Pelosi scheme called Pay-Go. Why do you hate America?
I quite like America. I live there. Just not in smaller central belt of the continent.
Quote: SOOPOOYou are too smart, ME, to extrapolate my concept that the government shouldn't borrow what it can NEVER pay off, into the whole 'benevolent dictator' discourse. My analogy is purely fiscal in nature. Do not borrow what you cannot afford to repay. Plan for 'unexpected' expenses which are quite expected. You are correct, the government is unlike a household. My point is if it was run like MY household we would not have the problems we have now. You use the term 'simplistic' in a perjorative way. I would use it in a laudatory way.
But even if you limit the analogy to fiscal topics, there is a vast gulf between what one *should* do and what one *can* do. The economic conservatives in this country have long argued for the relaxation of market regulations, restrictions that could have prevented banks from giving mortgages to homebuyers who could clearly not afford to repay them. Those same restrictions could also have prevented the subsequent collateralization and mis-labelling that gave rise to the banking system collapse by saying "No, you can't chop up a bunch of bad paper, shuffle the pieces, and magically come up with A-rated debt" (it's eerie how similar that sounds to the typical betting system). Yet, at the same time, those same economic conservatives are in *favor of* regulating the government's ability to borrow and spend money on things it can't afford. If anything, that indicates an underlying acceptance of the premise that the federal economy is not equivalent to a household economy and should not be regulated similarly. At the risk of quoting the prolific mrjjj, you can't have it both ways.
