Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Poll Finds Americans Favor Ending Tax Cuts

tax polls pew research

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#61    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 24 July 2012 - 02:06 AM

View PostBama13, on 23 July 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Or we cut the budget and do not need to raise the debt ceiling. If I had a credit card and I maxed it out should I ask them to raise my limit or spend less. They might agree to raise my limit, but if my spending continues to out pace my income, all I am doing is getting into a deeper hole. At some pint they will refuse to raise my limit. Then what? When trying to get out of a hole the first step is to stop digging.

The debt ceiling is not a credit limit and cutting the budget would do nothing. These are debts already acquired. The analogy is that you have 1000.00 in debts and refuse to pay.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#62    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 24 July 2012 - 05:44 AM

Raising the Debt Ceiling does not have anything to do with the Budgeted minimum payments the US makes. That is considered Untouchable, like Social Security. If more was needed to make that payment, then other things would have to be lowered, like military spending. The Deficit is only connected to the Debt in that it is money being spent that the US Fed Gov does not have. Making cuts in the Budgets Discresionary Spending totally would lower the Deficit and thus reduce the astounding fast growth of the National Debt and thus would reduce future Debt payments.

Not raising the Ceiling is not automatically going to hurt the Debt Payment. That is leftist Propaganda. And Democrat versus Republican politics. Like Medicare, it will always be paid, even if the Debt Ceiling is not raised. They would simply have to cut the military entirely and all other discresionary spending.

If what you are saying is that even with the discresionary spending being cut,that not raising the Debt Ceiling will prevent the Debt payments from being paid, then this nation is in too much hurt already, and there would be no point to the illusion of the ceiling at that point.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#63    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,893 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 24 July 2012 - 12:53 PM

View Postninjadude, on 24 July 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

The debt ceiling is not a credit limit and cutting the budget would do nothing. These are debts already acquired. The analogy is that you have 1000.00 in debts and refuse to pay.

Cutting the budget would do nothing? How about it would save money so we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling. The analogy is that if I had a 1000.00 in debts I need to spend less and pay off my debts. Not just keeping spending more and passing my debts to my offspring. This is what I understand least. Most libs say they are all about the kids, yet are willing to stick them with our massive debt. All for the kids my ass, it is all about them.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#64    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,279 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 24 July 2012 - 04:38 PM

View PostBama13, on 24 July 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Cutting the budget would do nothing? How about it would save money so we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling.

Nothing as far as the debt ceiling goes. The debt celing is for money ALREADY spent.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#65    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,893 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 24 July 2012 - 06:01 PM

View Postninjadude, on 24 July 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Nothing as far as the debt ceiling goes. The debt celing is for money ALREADY spent.

And if they had spent less we wouldn't need to raise the ceiling, right? I thought raising the debt ceiling was to pay for the current budget. Are you saying that if we had no additional spending this fiscal year (not possible I know) we would still need to raise the debt limit? In other words we don't take in enough money to pay for the things we already "bought"? If that is true then we need to "return" some of our purchases. I just do not think it is possible to continue to spend more than we make.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#66    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 25 July 2012 - 05:20 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 24 July 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Not raising the Ceiling is not automatically going to hurt the Debt Payment. That is leftist Propaganda. And Democrat versus Republican politics.

Even a technical default is likely to have dire consequences for the US economy.


#67    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 25 July 2012 - 08:45 AM

I'm confused about something.  All the talk I hear is about balancing the budget / closing the debt deficit.  Is there a plan to pay part of that money down?  I don't hear anyone saying "let's bring down the debt from 15 trillion to 6 trillion" or anything like that.  Due to compound interest, is it going to be 100 trillion in another 30 years?  What would eventually happen?  Many times in history when a country's debt got too high they've invaded whoever they owed the money to in order to erase the debt :hmm:  At any rate, this seems unsustainable and no one seems to care.

Edited by ranrod, 25 July 2012 - 08:46 AM.


#68    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 July 2012 - 06:38 PM

View Postranrod, on 25 July 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

I'm confused about something.  All the talk I hear is about balancing the budget / closing the debt deficit.  Is there a plan to pay part of that money down?  I don't hear anyone saying "let's bring down the debt from 15 trillion to 6 trillion" or anything like that.  Due to compound interest, is it going to be 100 trillion in another 30 years?  What would eventually happen?  Many times in history when a country's debt got too high they've invaded whoever they owed the money to in order to erase the debt :hmm:  At any rate, this seems unsustainable and no one seems to care.
Ron Paul was always talking about that. And he basically wanted to cut all Departments of the Government by 1/3rd and eliminate many wholesale. And he was going to half the military and end military research.

The Deficit is so big that fixing that alone is a humungous task. The current Budget (2012) has about 2.5 Trillion of Revenues, and 3.8 of Expenditures. So Expenditures are 1.50% of Revenue. That is scary enough, don't you think?

To reduce the Debt, we'd need to get to something like 2.5 Trillion in Revenues and 2.0 Trillion in Expenditures. That would leave 500 billion to go to the Debt, and then we'd have it paid off in like 25 years (given compounding interest) at that rate. But that would require cutting government spending in Half!!

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#69    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 25 July 2012 - 07:12 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 25 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Ron Paul was always talking about that. And he basically wanted to cut all Departments of the Government by 1/3rd and eliminate many wholesale. And he was going to half the military and end military research.

The Deficit is so big that fixing that alone is a humungous task. The current Budget (2012) has about 2.5 Trillion of Revenues, and 3.8 of Expenditures. So Expenditures are 1.50% of Revenue. That is scary enough, don't you think?

To reduce the Debt, we'd need to get to something like 2.5 Trillion in Revenues and 2.0 Trillion in Expenditures. That would leave 500 billion to go to the Debt, and then we'd have it paid off in like 25 years (given compounding interest) at that rate. But that would require cutting government spending in Half!!


Hmmm.... would 500 billion a year be enough to pay off more than the interest on the debt?  What is the yearly interest on 15 trillion, anyway? :D

I totally agree with you, spending has to be cut significantly in order to get anywhere on paying down the debt.

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.

#70    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 23,867 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:00 PM

The current payment on the National Debt... really just a payment on the interest... is 225 Billion. So yeah, 500 billion would cover that.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#71    ranrod

ranrod

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:29 Aug 2009

Posted 26 July 2012 - 05:36 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 25 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

Ron Paul was always talking about that. And he basically wanted to cut all Departments of the Government by 1/3rd and eliminate many wholesale. And he was going to half the military and end military research.

The Deficit is so big that fixing that alone is a humungous task. The current Budget (2012) has about 2.5 Trillion of Revenues, and 3.8 of Expenditures. So Expenditures are 1.50% of Revenue. That is scary enough, don't you think?

To reduce the Debt, we'd need to get to something like 2.5 Trillion in Revenues and 2.0 Trillion in Expenditures. That would leave 500 billion to go to the Debt, and then we'd have it paid off in like 25 years (given compounding interest) at that rate. But that would require cutting government spending in Half!!
Is anyone other than Ron Paul talking about paying down the debt (even if to a manageable degree), rather than reach equilibrium?  I'm told zero debt is also bad.  I don't know what an appropriate amount of debt is.

What about a compromise?  Increase revenue to 3.0 Trillion, decrease spending to 2.5 T?  I don't hear numbers for debt vs revenue being thrown around.  Just quotes like, "zero tax increases", "must reduce spending", "must increase revenue", etc.  The general public doesn't get much exposure to the particulars of the politicians' plans.

It does sound like Bush Jr reduced revenues substantially and then when we couldn't pay our bills anymore and the debt started skyrocketing, the republicans cried out, "gee whiz democrats, why are you spending so much?".  Meanwhile Bush spent more than Clinton or Obama.  Not saying we aren't spending too much, but "starving the beast" as they call it constitutes gambling with our lives.  As I understand it, Republicans believe that cutting spending first, then cut revenue will not work because once we have a surplus, politicians will find a way to spend it.  So cut revenue first, and as the beast starves politicians will be forced to cut spending to match.

I'm not convinced we're all not just being toyed with by both parties, but what's the solution?  I'm not sure Ron Paul is the answer either (not sure in how many states he can be written in to begin with).

Edited by ranrod, 26 July 2012 - 05:37 AM.


#72    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:35 PM

View PostDieChecker, on 25 July 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

The current payment on the National Debt... really just a payment on the interest... is 225 Billion. So yeah, 500 billion would cover that.

Thanks :)

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.

#73    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:50 PM

View Postranrod, on 26 July 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

Is anyone other than Ron Paul talking about paying down the debt (even if to a manageable degree), rather than reach equilibrium?  I'm told zero debt is also bad.  I don't know what an appropriate amount of debt is.

What about a compromise?  Increase revenue to 3.0 Trillion, decrease spending to 2.5 T?  I don't hear numbers for debt vs revenue being thrown around.  Just quotes like, "zero tax increases", "must reduce spending", "must increase revenue", etc.  The general public doesn't get much exposure to the particulars of the politicians' plans.

It does sound like Bush Jr reduced revenues substantially and then when we couldn't pay our bills anymore and the debt started skyrocketing, the republicans cried out, "gee whiz democrats, why are you spending so much?".  Meanwhile Bush spent more than Clinton or Obama.  Not saying we aren't spending too much, but "starving the beast" as they call it constitutes gambling with our lives.  As I understand it, Republicans believe that cutting spending first, then cut revenue will not work because once we have a surplus, politicians will find a way to spend it.  So cut revenue first, and as the beast starves politicians will be forced to cut spending to match.

I'm not convinced we're all not just being toyed with by both parties, but what's the solution?  I'm not sure Ron Paul is the answer either (not sure in how many states he can be written in to begin with).

I'm not sure that zero debt would be possible because that would remove some of the more steady and stable investments people use.  I think a reasonable goal would be no greater than 40% GDP.

Edited by karmakazi, 26 July 2012 - 02:51 PM.

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.

#74    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 39,782 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:00 PM

View Postkarmakazi, on 26 July 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

I'm not sure that zero debt would be possible because that would remove some of the more steady and stable investments people use.  I think a reasonable goal would be no greater than 40% GDP.

Making debt at the cost of all to favor a few capable of investing in it is just a continuation of socialism for the rich.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#75    karmakazi

karmakazi

    Crazy Cat Lady

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona

  • That which does not kill us, makes us stranger.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:14 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 26 July 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Making debt at the cost of all to favor a few capable of investing in it is just a continuation of socialism for the rich.

I'm not talking about a few rich people who enjoy playing the market for the fun of it.  I'm talking about people of many different pay grades, who have 401k or retirement plans which frequently include bond investments as a stable long term, low risk growth option.  People whose needs will not be covered by social security.

That particular debt, when sold as bonds to US Citizens, pays interest to those citizens and that is how their money is grown.  I don't have a problem with that.  Debt to foreign countries... yes that should be eliminated.

There is no greater risk in life than doing nothing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users