Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
questionmark

Poll Finds Americans Favor Ending Tax Cuts

98 posts in this topic

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.

You don't have a right to have the general taxpayer subsidizing your savings. The government should have 0% debt as a rule, only be able to make debts in national emergencies and have to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible. My term would be in no more than 4 years. If they can't do that they would have to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have a right to have the general taxpayer subsidizing your savings. The government should have 0% debt as a rule, only be able to make debts in national emergencies and have to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible. My term would be in no more than 4 years. If they can't do that they would have to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

Or cut spending. Why is raise taxes always the answer?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or cut spending. Why is raise taxes always the answer?

If you made debts because you have a national emergency you hardly can cut spending, if that was the solution you would not make any debts to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have a right to have the general taxpayer subsidizing your savings. The government should have 0% debt as a rule, only be able to make debts in national emergencies and have to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible. My term would be in no more than 4 years. If they can't do that they would have to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

It would take both raising taxes and cutting spending severely to pay down the debt to 0 in four years. Some people would flip out if taxes were raised, some would flip out if spending was cut, and some would flip out about either or.

People in this country want their cake and want to eat it too, and so the debt continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would take both raising taxes and cutting spending severely to pay down the debt to 0 in four years. Some people would flip out if taxes were raised, some would flip out if spending was cut, and some would flip out about either or.

People in this country want their cake and want to eat it too, and so the debt continues.

This time they will most likely default, maybe not on the next electoral cycle but after that 100%.

I am talking about the future as there is nothing to fix in the present anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you made debts because you have a national emergency you hardly can cut spending, if that was the solution you would not make any debts to start with.

So once you go into the debt the only solution is to make more money?

Once the national emergency is over why would it be impossible to cut spending?

Not an expert on debt because I have never had any. No credit cards, loans, nothing. I don't even have a credit rating. Yet I manage to live a pretty darn good life. Got all the things I need and some of the things I want.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So once you go into the debt the only solution is to make more money?

Once the national emergency is over why would it be impossible to cut spending?

Not an expert on debt because I have never had any. No credit cards, loans, nothing. I don't even have a credit rating. Yet I manage to live a pretty darn good life. Got all the things I need and some of the things I want.

OK, again: I said NO debt, unless there is a national emergency. If that happens the debt has to be paid down in 4 years and if that is not possible taxes are to be raised to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible.

What is so difficult to understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time they will most likely default, maybe not on the next electoral cycle but after that 100%.

I am talking about the future as there is nothing to fix in the present anymore.

Oh, ok, I thought we were talking about reducing the debt of the present system.

If that were set aside (or imploded as is more likely) then I agree, there shouldn't be any debt created in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, again: I said NO debt, unless there is a national emergency. If that happens the debt has to be paid down in 4 years and if that is not possible taxes are to be raised to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible.

What is so difficult to understand?

I am saying that we could also pay the debt down by cutting spending. You act as if there is only one way to pay the debt (raise taxes). I am saying there are at least two ways (raise taxes and/or cut spending).

I think we should start by cutting spending then, if we still need more revenues, raising taxes. But when we raise taxes lets raise them on everyone, not just the "rich". We can raise them more on the "rich", but everyone needs to contribute.

Edited by Bama13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying that we could also pay the debt down by cutting spending. You act as if there is only one way to pay the debt (raise taxes). I am saying there are at least two ways (raise taxes and/or cut spending).

I think we should start by cutting spending then, if we still need more revenues, raising taxes. But when we raise taxes lets raise them on everyone, not just the "rich". We can raise them more on the "rich", but everyone needs to contribute.

If you can quit spending you don't have a national emergency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can quit spending you don't have a national emergency.

You can't quit spending, you can reduce spending. If you reduced spending you could still have a national emergency. I'm not saying we wouldn't need to raise taxes, just that we should see how much spending we can cut before we decide how much additional revenue we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have a right to have the general taxpayer subsidizing your savings. The government should have 0% debt as a rule, only be able to make debts in national emergencies and have to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible. My term would be in no more than 4 years. If they can't do that they would have to increase taxes to pay down the debt.

Questionmark, I think the people who are affected by bonds or treasury securities through IRAs, 401k, or other pension and retirement plans is high. Maybe 35% of the people? The trickle down effect is immense too as those same bonds and treasury securities are held by not only individuals but corporations, state and local governments, the federal reserve, and foreign governments. I've heard economists say that if we pay the debt to zero, it would be an economic disaster. Some Debt is supposed to be a great tool to stimulate economic growth. Not being versed in economics, I don't know all the reasons why. Maybe someone here can help?

At any rate, I think the debt should be as low as possible without negatively affecting the economy. Don't know where that would place our national debt at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionmark, I think the people who are affected by bonds or treasury securities through IRAs, 401k, or other pension and retirement plans is high. Maybe 35% of the people? The trickle down effect is immense too as those same bonds and treasury securities are held by not only individuals but corporations, state and local governments, the federal reserve, and foreign governments. I've heard economists say that if we pay the debt to zero, it would be an economic disaster. Some Debt is supposed to be a great tool to stimulate economic growth. Not being versed in economics, I don't know all the reasons why. Maybe someone here can help?

At any rate, I think the debt should be as low as possible without negatively affecting the economy. Don't know where that would place our national debt at.

That is not a trickle down that is a right out subsidy if there is no need for the government to have debts. And that my friend falls under the chapter fraud, waste and abuse. Regardless of how many benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, again: I said NO debt, unless there is a national emergency. If that happens the debt has to be paid down in 4 years and if that is not possible taxes are to be raised to pay down the debt within the shortest time possible.

What is so difficult to understand?

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Telling people that they have to pay more, while this government is invading other countries, at this point for no aparent reason what so ever to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, is a little hard to swallow. In fact the list of things this government is wasting money on is down right criminal. The list is long, and is insane. Im thinking with some better financial skills we could be doing just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few things that are difficult to understand. Telling people that they have to pay more, while this government is invading other countries, at this point for no aparent reason what so ever to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, is a little hard to swallow.

Which country do you believe this government has invaded for no apparent reason whatsoever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What about a compromise? Increase revenue to 3.0 Trillion, decrease spending to 2.5 T?

That would probably work if the Politics were not so even and so partisan.

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.

Bush Jr did not really reduce revenues. His deficits were comparable to the previous 30 years for his first 7 years. If the Housing Bubble had collapsed in 2009 instead of 2008, Bush would have walked away clean.

His tax cuts, if they had not existed, would have collected more revenues, like 100 to 200 billion more per year, yet would they have kept that income, or would it have been spent? The same deficit is completely likely to have still happened.

Or cut spending. Why is raise taxes always the answer?

Because the Keynesians (mostly Democrats) believe that the more you spend the better off everyone is. Unfortunately their keynesian beliefs seem to melt away when it is not a Recession, when Keynesian says that the Gov should cut back, cut taxes and save for bad times. Keynesian does not mean running up Debt or a Deficit. A true Keynesian state would have a large bank account from which to draw to increase spending during recessions. The US is a god awful place to try Keynesian economics.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That would probably work if the Politics were not so even and so partisan.

Bush Jr did not really reduce revenues. His deficits were comparable to the previous 30 years for his first 7 years. If the Housing Bubble had collapsed in 2009 instead of 2008, Bush would have walked away clean.

Evidently not... unless the GDP shrank during that time:

CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png

Just in case you are not getting it, the only time the Baby Bush outlay/revenue ratio was at the average (since '46) was in '06, and then it surely was not the billions he intended to make on tax cuts.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Look at the graph Q. The deficit between outlays and revenues is not any different between 2003 and 2007 then it was during the entire Reagan/Bush years, and Carter and Nixon before that. The only blip is Clinton (who was a fine President for a Dem).

My point being that the 2001 to 2007 timeframe should not be considered "out of control".

Do you disagree that the Housing Bubble could have burst in 2009, 2010 or 2007 and at any of those points, the same spending would have been needed?

And if the Bush Cuts were so Terrible, why are they still in Effect and even being talked about as pushing out for another Year?

If you are arguing about my one statement that revenues did not decrease, then you would be right. They did decrease, but, what I was trying to point out was that the Deficit then incured was not unusual.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the graph Q. The deficit between outlays and revenues is not any different between 2003 and 2007 then it was during the entire Reagan/Bush years, and Carter and Nixon before that. The only blip is Clinton (who was a fine President for a Dem).

My point being that the 2001 to 2007 timeframe should not be considered "out of control".

Do you disagree that the Housing Bubble could have burst in 2009, 2010 or 2007 and at any of those points, the same spending would have been needed?

And if the Bush Cuts were so Terrible, why are they still in Effect and even being talked about as pushing out for another Year?

We were coming from having money left over, claiming then that he did not "reduce" the outlays with his tax breaks sounds a little outlandish to me. And the reason why Clinton, with the aid of Gingrich, made a surplus is because nobody got any "tax revenue forfeitures by the government". If Dubya would have stayed on course he could have combat the housing bubble with half the debt he had then.

And, just because the others are speeding does not mean that if you are over 55 you are doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were coming from having money left over, claiming then that he did not "reduce" the outlays with his tax breaks sounds a little outlandish to me. And the reason why Clinton, with the aid of Gingrich, made a surplus is because nobody got any "tax revenue forfeitures by the government". If Dubya would have stayed on course he could have combat the housing bubble with half the debt he had then.

That might be true, but it is supposition, just as my arguement is. Maybe Bush could have racked up less debt, and maybe he would have spent more.

And, just because the others are speeding does not mean that if you are over 55 you are doing the right thing.

Someone should tell that to Obama and the Congress who are doing 95 right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should tell that to Obama and the Congress who are doing 95 right now!

I just keep screeching in the wind and nobody listens....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all the nonsense and partial sense and outright propaganda has subsided the real problem exists because politicians are able to buy votes with OPM. PERIOD. And it has become such an entrenched fact of our government that only a total collapse will end it. When that happens the few left standing will have to try and devise some other scheme and I hope it works better for more of the people who are willing to work and try to get along with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all the nonsense and partial sense and outright propaganda has subsided the real problem exists because politicians are able to buy votes with OPM. PERIOD. And it has become such an entrenched fact of our government that only a total collapse will end it. When that happens the few left standing will have to try and devise some other scheme and I hope it works better for more of the people who are willing to work and try to get along with each other.

They already have another plan devised. Its why they are intentionaly destroying this system. It will work great for about 3 and one half years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.