https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/2 ... ill-517194

I thought this was a bad idea from the beginning and glad that it will probably be DOA once they get close to an agreement on the spending bill. I swear Yellin scares me every time she speaks. Glad the moderates are getting some input in these huge pieces of legislation. It is much needed.

It was never realistic - would have been challenged in court and killed anyway.

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

It's a major stretch to assume anyone moving $600+ into an account in a year is a potential tax evader.

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

So, you were comfortable with the IRS receiving information on the movement of your money?

I can understand...a little...the current reporting of $10000 in a single transaction, but $600 in a transaction? That is the definition of an intrusive government. Then, they offer to make it $10000 in a year? Like that's any better.

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

So, you were comfortable with the IRS receiving information on the movement of your money?

I can understand...a little...the current reporting of $10000 in a single transaction, but $600 in a transaction? That is the definition of an intrusive government. Then, they offer to make it $10000 in a year? Like that's any better.

The way I read the link is that the CURRENT is $600 but Democrats want to up that to $10,000. And Manchin is against that? The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't. Raise it.

Democrats also lifted the threshold for the amount of withdrawals and deposits needed to trigger the reporting, from $600 to $10,000

seb146 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

So, you were comfortable with the IRS receiving information on the movement of your money?

I can understand...a little...the current reporting of $10000 in a single transaction, but $600 in a transaction? That is the definition of an intrusive government. Then, they offer to make it $10000 in a year? Like that's any better.

The way I read the link is that the CURRENT is $600 but Democrats want to up that to $10,000. And Manchin is against that? The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't. Raise it.

Democrats also lifted the threshold for the amount of withdrawals and deposits needed to trigger the reporting, from $600 to $10,000

These are new reporting requirements that were part of the proposal. Federal law already requires personal/business transactions of $10K or more to be reported to fight money laundering.

A person must file Form 8300 if they receive cash of more than $10,000 from the same payer or agent:

In one lump sum.
In two or more related payments within 24 hours. For example, a 24-hour period is 11 a.m. Tuesday to 11 a.m. Wednesday.
As part of a single transaction or two or more related transactions within 12 months.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/cash-payme ... laundering

seb146 wrote:

The way I read the link is that the CURRENT is $600 but Democrats want to up that to $10,000. And Manchin is against that? The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't. Raise it.

Democrats also lifted the threshold for the amount of withdrawals and deposits needed to trigger the reporting, from $600 to $10,000

Let's read all the words, shall we:

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and key Democratic lawmakers have stressed that the proposal would only give the IRS the total amount of money going in and out of an account in a given year — not a peek at individual transactions.

Democrats also lifted the threshold for the amount of withdrawals and deposits needed to trigger the reporting, from $600 to $10,000, in a sign that rank-and-file members had some doubts about the idea.

The current reporting requirements are for $10000 in a single transaction. The Democrats want that threshold to be $10000 in moved in or out of an account in any given year.

seb146 wrote:

The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't. Raise it.

Afford what? This has nothing to do with affording anything. It has to do with an intrusive government being allowed to look at financial accounts of anybody they want without a court order.

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

You can catch Tax evaders quite easily without this IRS reporting. I find it ironic you invoked Romney since it was he who was smeared as not paying his taxes which turned out to be totally false. Much like most of the accusations we have seen.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

You can catch Tax evaders quite easily without this IRS reporting. I find it ironic you invoked Romney since it was he who was smeared as not paying his taxes which turned out to be totally false. Much like most of the accusations we have seen.

And, yet, nothing much is being done about tax evaders because "it is business" and "leave them alone to do what they want with their money" and all those other excuses.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ge-126974/

But Romney did off shore a good share of his money. Is it to avoid paying taxes? Probably. He moved money and paid little in taxes the two years we were allowed to see his returns. If he has done nothing wrong, why not share his returns? If he pays taxes, why not share that?

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

You can catch Tax evaders quite easily without this IRS reporting. I find it ironic you invoked Romney since it was he who was smeared as not paying his taxes which turned out to be totally false. Much like most of the accusations we have seen.

And, yet, nothing much is being done about tax evaders because "it is business" and "leave them alone to do what they want with their money" and all those other excuses.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ge-126974/

But Romney did off shore a good share of his money. Is it to avoid paying taxes? Probably. He moved money and paid little in taxes the two years we were allowed to see his returns. If he has done nothing wrong, why not share his returns? If he pays taxes, why not share that?

I thought we were talking about the Dem proposal to raise revenue, not Romney?

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

It's a major stretch to assume anyone moving $600+ into an account in a year is a potential tax evader.

I think the reasoning behind this is that you will technically catch tax evaders who are say an electrician who does a cash job for a friend or someone who pockets their cash tips. Technically they are breaking the law but everyone breaks the law in tiny ways.

Ever had a bit of weed, ever gone over the speed limit. Ever got a warning for being caught going 10 over or having a joint in your pocket.

These aren't the problems with the tax system and cracking down on this will not fix any of the government's revenue issues.

seb146 wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

So, you were comfortable with the IRS receiving information on the movement of your money?

I can understand...a little...the current reporting of $10000 in a single transaction, but $600 in a transaction? That is the definition of an intrusive government. Then, they offer to make it $10000 in a year? Like that's any better.

The way I read the link is that the CURRENT is $600 but Democrats want to up that to $10,000. And Manchin is against that? The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't. Raise it.

Democrats also lifted the threshold for the amount of withdrawals and deposits needed to trigger the reporting, from $600 to $10,000

It is $10,000 cash that is required to be reported and due diligence is applied?

I work at a bank (be it in Canada) and $10,000 deposits are very common with businesses and we don't have to report it when its an electronic payment or a cheque (unless we really have a suspicion).
We do reporting for cash but not to tip of the feds for tax purposes but as you said, for money laundering purposes.

StarAC17 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Manchin is no moderate. Romney is more moderate. Why not hold tax evaders accountable? Just because they run things, I suppose.....

It's a major stretch to assume anyone moving $600+ into an account in a year is a potential tax evader.

I think the reasoning behind this is that you will technically catch tax evaders who are say an electrician who does a cash job for a friend or someone who pockets their cash tips. Technically they are breaking the law but everyone breaks the law in tiny ways.

Ever had a bit of weed, ever gone over the speed limit. Ever got a warning for being caught going 10 over or having a joint in your pocket.

These aren't the problems with the tax system and cracking down on this will not fix any of the government's revenue issues.

You are absolutely right. But, what WILL fix government revenue issues we can't do because we can't tax the 1% at all, for some reason... This is Democrats saying they WANT to do something but can't so here is a nothing to appease Republicans who really don't want to do anything!

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Bingo. You don't buy new carpets when you're a hundred k in the hole. The economy is already in the tank and this will sink it.

cairns wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Bingo. You don't buy new carpets when you're a hundred k in the hole. The economy is already in the tank and this will sink it.

A bit late for that principle no? The US was only free of government debt ONCE, in the Jackson administration: https://www.debt.org/faqs/united-states ... -timeline/

It's NEVER too late for that principle. Debt has killed countries, civilizations and dynasties- as well as families- for eons. In the score of history the US is a very, very young country. And we are frightfully in debt. Both parties have contributed to it. But Biden, Pelosi and their minions are trying to knock it out of the park.

The debt was about 40% of GDP in 1982, which was manageable, now it’s over 100% and will continue to grow.

Look to Argentina, Venuezula and Greece for recent examples......

cairns wrote:

Look to Argentina, Venuezula and Greece for recent examples......

All three are not diversified economies with multiple major inputs. Chavez modified the Venezuelan constitution to eliminate checks/balances. You’re comparing apples to genetically modified rice.

There is no excuse for a country or anyone to assume unsustainable debt. Read some history and get back to us. You're speaking with profound ignorance.

cairns wrote:

There is no excuse for a country or anyone to assume unsustainable debt. Read some history and get back to us. You're speaking with profound ignorance.

You're speaking with profound paranoia. Check the credit ratings of the US against various other countries and get back to me:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/rating

Again..I know you're committed to your ridiculous observation that debt doesn't matter but I'll try once more and then and then I'm done with you.

I don't wallow with pigs.

https://reason.com/2021/10/22/40-years- ... llar-debt/

Bye!

cairns wrote:

Again..I know you're committed to your ridiculous observation that debt doesn't matter but I'll try once more and then and then I'm done with you.

I don't wallow with pigs.

https://reason.com/2021/10/22/40-years- ... llar-debt/

Bye!

I never made that statement, thank you very much. Find the quote. The debt will definitely continue to expand as Mr. Boehm points out, but whether or not that is 'unsustainable' depends on economic performance, which obviously cannot be foreseen. The ratings agencies do not seem to think a negative there is in the cards given our diversification and dominance of critical global sectors.

How did we go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually then quickly. Apologies to Hemingway. Debt is wonderful servant and a terrible master. Borrowing is fine IF the proceeds are invested and receive a return. Borrowing to buy consumption of depreciating assets is folly.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

How did we go bankrupt? Two ways, gradually then quickly. Apologies to Hemingway. Debt is wonderful servant and a terrible master. Borrowing is fine IF the proceeds are invested and receive a return. Borrowing to buy consumption of depreciating assets is folly.

And how does this apply? Any debt the US takes on is to fund financial commitments to build capital in the US through producers and consumers. There is no depreciating asset present, except in the hands of someone that bought something that they hold in their hands that is depreciating. In the meantime, the dollar they used went to someone else, who may have invested it, bought a car, got an education, or produced a new product.

The vast majority of USG expenditures are not investments, but current consumption. USG gives a dollar which goes to a car, QED. But, that dollar came from somewhere else in the economy. Where it came from and at what opportunity cost is what’s hidden in your argument. If the dollar came from a person investing in high tech at 20% ROI and goes to someone buying a depreciated asset, it’s a net loss to the economy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The vast majority of USG expenditures are not investments, but current consumption. USG gives a dollar which goes to a car, QED. But, that dollar came from somewhere else in the economy. Where it came from and at what opportunity cost is what’s hidden in your argument. If the dollar came from a person investing in high tech at 20% ROI and goes to someone buying a depreciated asset, it’s a net loss to the economy.

Fitch has made those calculations, and them some. Still AAA and in a bad year AA+.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The vast majority of USG expenditures are not investments, but current consumption. USG gives a dollar which goes to a car, QED. But, that dollar came from somewhere else in the economy. Where it came from and at what opportunity cost is what’s hidden in your argument. If the dollar came from a person investing in high tech at 20% ROI and goes to someone buying a depreciated asset, it’s a net loss to the economy.

That dollar doesn't just go to a car. The car goes to an end user who holds the depreciating asset. The money went to the sales organization, that then spends it on ......... t
hat becomes velocity of money.

The issue that really matters is velocity of money. Because if people stop spending, then money doesn't travel fast enough to keep multiple people employed. Then people lose jobs, creating real debt and deficits as the government has to really pump money in.


The person pumping money into High Tech, could be wiped out in a downturn or bad investment.

Semi-broken pottery theory. If employment were the best measure of an economy, we’d be digging ditches by shovel instead we use excavators. It’s about the highest and best use of a dollar. MV has been crashing for 25 years, by the way.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

When I have researched it I have mostly seen taxes and the economy are not connected. With some of the greatest growth when taxes were highest. And lower taxes not leading to incredible growth. The economy following its own path more influenced by other outside events and factors (COVID was kinda huge).

And to those that love the idea of higher taxes to pay for stuff, remember most of the money won't be there when any increases occur. Everyone with enough money WILL adjust their money stream to minimize the affects. If you are expecting a trillion dollars, you'll be lucky to see half that as the money moves to safety.

My main thing is and always has been: PAY FOR WHAT YOU DO! I hate the Republicans and Dems that keep voting to protect their stuff and wont cut anything. OK fine if you won't cut (can't cut) then taxes need to increase. Ultimately BOTH need to happen. (I liked the forced across the board cuts that were in place years ago. It was great so much grousing and complaining by the Congress over their gooses getting stuck. I say we go back to that.)

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

When I have researched it I have mostly seen taxes and the economy are not connected. With some of the greatest growth when taxes were highest. And lower taxes not leading to incredible growth. The economy following its own path more influenced by other outside events and factors (COVID was kinda huge).

Seems to me it matters more HOW a dollar is spend rather then how much is taxed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Semi-broken pottery theory. If employment were the best measure of an economy, we’d be digging ditches by shovel instead we use excavators. It’s about the highest and best use of a dollar. MV has been crashing for 25 years, by the way.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

M2V is low because of a lot of money being pumped into the economy

Also crypto, digital wallets, and low interest rates have changed the velocity of money to an extent. People are less likely to store money in a bank and take it out again when interest rates are so low. People with cash, keep it on hand.

I personally do a lot of money movement within venmo now. Paying a friend for my portion of a dinner, or bill, and them paying me back. Yes, occasionally i move between my bank accounts, but M2V misses a lot of that

Debt though is good , if debt were all bad, no one would have it.

All debt is not bad, debt that doesn’t produce a return on investment is bad. My mortgage was good debt, I know live without paying rent, it’s free and clear. Same with out cars. Going in debt to eat is bad. For consumables, if you can’t pay cash, you can’t afford it.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

All debt is not bad, debt that doesn’t produce a return on investment is bad.

Yes, but even debt that doesn't produce an immediate return for the user, at least helps out whoever got paid with that debt. The issue then belongs in the holding companies, and we saw how that worked out in 2007-2009

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

All debt is not bad, debt that doesn’t produce a return on investment is bad. My mortgage was good debt, I know live without paying rent, it’s free and clear. Same with out cars. Going in debt to eat is bad. For consumables, if you can’t pay cash, you can’t afford it.

Not sure why you’re analogizing via household concerns. To central bankers, all debt is both potential ROI in terms of feeding the economy and consumable in terms of government services rendered to both corporations and the public.

If government debt is a good, Venezuela should be paradise.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If government debt is a good, Venezuela should be paradise.

As stated earlier in the thread, conservatives have to stop mentioning Venezuela as point of comparison in these discussions. Non-diversified economy, and guardrails/checks and balances removed by dictator over a decade ago. Zero comparison to our situation.

seb146 wrote:

The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't.

Please tell me that this statement comes from the fact that Musk actually sold some kind of investment and managed to cash in $48M as opposed to having his net worth increase by that amount because Tesla stock surged.

This is where I break with Democrats and why I find myself out of step with them. Net worth does not equal actual liquidity. If your house was valued at $200k 10 years ago, and today it's worth $1M, your net worth increased by $800k, but that doesn't mean that you have an additional $800k to spend. If you still earn your typical 5 figure salary, that's your taxable income; the increase in your house's value is not taxable until you sell it and cash in the profits; you can change the tax code so that every time the house's value goes up, you tax the increase, but that would mean that upon selling it, you shouldn't be taxed anything else except the increase in worth from the last tax valuation.

Saying that Bezos, Gates, and Musk made millions in a day is fodder for political campaigns (especially progressives) but it's just as misleading as saying that CRT will make White students feel ashamed about themselves.

Tugger wrote:

Ultimately BOTH need to happen. (I liked the forced across the board cuts that were in place years ago. It was great so much grousing and complaining by the Congress over their gooses getting stuck. I say we go back to that.)

I'd vote for a candidate that promises sequestration. Many Republicans love to talk about deficits and balancing budgets but immediately forget about it if a Republican is president. The next time Democrats hold a sizable majority, they should enact sequestration across the board. They may get punished in the next election, but it'll be interesting to see how Republicans respond: will they lift it completely or just for Defense (because you know they WILL lift it)?

einsteinboricua wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The very wealthy people (Musk made $48 million in one day!) can afford this but us who actually do stuff can't.

Please tell me that this statement comes from the fact that Musk actually sold some kind of investment and managed to cash in $48M as opposed to having his net worth increase by that amount because Tesla stock surged.

This is where I break with Democrats and why I find myself out of step with them. Net worth does not equal actual liquidity. If your house was valued at $200k 10 years ago, and today it's worth $1M, your net worth increased by $800k, but that doesn't mean that you have an additional $800k to spend. If you still earn your typical 5 figure salary, that's your taxable income; the increase in your house's value is not taxable until you sell it and cash in the profits; you can change the tax code so that every time the house's value goes up, you tax the increase, but that would mean that upon selling it, you shouldn't be taxed anything else except the increase in worth from the last tax valuation.

Saying that Bezos, Gates, and Musk made millions in a day is fodder for political campaigns (especially progressives) but it's just as misleading as saying that CRT will make White students feel ashamed about themselves.

Tugger wrote:

Ultimately BOTH need to happen. (I liked the forced across the board cuts that were in place years ago. It was great so much grousing and complaining by the Congress over their gooses getting stuck. I say we go back to that.)

I'd vote for a candidate that promises sequestration. Many Republicans love to talk about deficits and balancing budgets but immediately forget about it if a Republican is president. The next time Democrats hold a sizable majority, they should enact sequestration across the board. They may get punished in the next election, but it'll be interesting to see how Republicans respond: will they lift it completely or just for Defense (because you know they WILL lift it)?

I am sure you or I and similar voters would be very interested in the sequestration litmus test. The problem is the average voter has to know what sequestration means, and they don’t.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If government debt is a good, Venezuela should be paradise.

As stated earlier in the thread, conservatives have to stop mentioning Venezuela as point of comparison in these discussions. Non-diversified economy, and guardrails/checks and balances removed by dictator over a decade ago. Zero comparison to our situation.

I’d say way too much confidence in our political leadership, on both sides of the aisle. They’ll take the guardrails alway in a second.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If government debt is a good, Venezuela should be paradise.

As stated earlier in the thread, conservatives have to stop mentioning Venezuela as point of comparison in these discussions. Non-diversified economy, and guardrails/checks and balances removed by dictator over a decade ago. Zero comparison to our situation.

I’d say way too much confidence in our political leadership, on both sides of the aisle. They’ll take the guardrails alway in a second.

There are some important ones that are untouchable without a Constitutional amendment. We.are.not.Venezuela

I don’t subscribe to the left wing punditry that VP Pence was all that stood between us and coup on Jan 6th.

The latest on the other bill.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

The senator did not take questions as he departed, but gave one last impassioned infrastructure plea to his House colleagues: "It's time to pass the bill and quit playing games."

cairns wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Bingo. You don't buy new carpets when you're a hundred k in the hole. The economy is already in the tank and this will sink it.

Would you both be in agreement to cut the US defense budget 1/3 to 1/2 to help balance the US budget? If the answer is yes then you are consistent, if not then you only want to cut government programs you don't agree with.

Not to say the military is not important as it is but they largely are designed for a 20th century war in the 21 century and there is tons of inefficiency in defense.

We're going to find out that the irs will still monitor bank transactions. Count on it.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Exactly right. The US government has an absolute bonanza of tax revenue currently. Emotionally, of course it is never enough, and it is human nature to want the earth’s entire resources to solely serve one’s fragile ego and the need to dominate others. But numerically, the US has huge tax revenue.

LCDFlight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Exactly right. The US government has an absolute bonanza of tax revenue currently. Emotionally, of course it is never enough, and it is human nature to want the earth’s entire resources to solely serve one’s fragile ego and the need to dominate others. But numerically, the US has huge tax revenue.

Then you would support an across the board 25% cut in US spending? (That's what is would take essentially. All programs and all budgets? That would solve it right there. The key is it has to be all and everything. Picking and choosing will not, does not work. No one wants their ox gored and the voters will reject it.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Exactly right. The US government has an absolute bonanza of tax revenue currently. Emotionally, of course it is never enough, and it is human nature to want the earth’s entire resources to solely serve one’s fragile ego and the need to dominate others. But numerically, the US has huge tax revenue.

Then you would support an across the board 25% cut in US spending? (That's what is would take essentially. All programs and all budgets? That would solve it right there. The key is it has to be all and everything. Picking and choosing will not, does not work. No one wants their ox gored and the voters will reject it.

Tugg

Yes, but that will be tough on entitlements. There has been immense creep, with people now suggesting that 60-80% of people should be on entitlements from cradle to grave. I would remove entitlements except for people over 65 and people who are at least 75% handicapped.

For other things, I think we can cut government spending 25-60% and see no impact to performance, if modern management practices are put into effect. Actually, personally I think performance could vastly improve at the same time. I have spent a years in bureaucracies, including some time in federal government. Most teams of 75 people have 8-9 people doing the work. Laying off 30 people would make no difference, and might improve the speed and quality of the team.

LCDFlight wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Then you would support an across the board 25% cut in US spending? (That's what is would take essentially. All programs and all budgets? That would solve it right there. The key is it has to be all and everything. Picking and choosing will not, does not work. No one wants their ox gored and the voters will reject it.

Tugg

Yes, but that will be tough on entitlements. There has been immense creep, with people now suggesting that 60-80% of people should be on entitlements from cradle to grave. I would remove entitlements except for people over 65 and people who are at least 75% handicapped.

For other things, I think we can cut government spending 25-60% and see no impact to performance, if modern management practices are put into effect. Actually, personally I think performance could vastly improve at the same time. I have spent a years in bureaucracies, including some time in federal government. Most teams of 75 people have 8-9 people doing the work. Laying off 30 people would make no difference, and might improve the speed and quality of the team.

See I never understand that, why do people want entitlements on people over 65? I say they should be for people that are productive and contributing to the economy and end when you are not. Yuo can buy private insurance, just like a 401K or something, that will cover you after.

Healthy people can work and be productive and are not a burden on others. That is where entitlements should be. To get people moving.

But again, I am certain you can't pick and choose, it would be a loser. An across the board cut is the only option for those that want to cut.

I have said before I am OK with a tax increase to cover what we are spending since it is what we are spending. But for some reason people think gigantic cuts to certain programs while leaving others intact are possible when it has never proven to be such. Pay for what you use.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There is no government revenue problems, there is too much spending. The USG has all the money it needs, besides the left wing fashion was MMT. Why doesn’t the Administration just print $3.5 trillion, no taxes, no borrowing. It’s free as Mr.Biden said.

Exactly right. The US government has an absolute bonanza of tax revenue currently. Emotionally, of course it is never enough, and it is human nature to want the earth’s entire resources to solely serve one’s fragile ego and the need to dominate others. But numerically, the US has huge tax revenue.

Then you would support an across the board 25% cut in US spending? (That's what is would take essentially. All programs and all budgets? That would solve it right there. The key is it has to be all and everything. Picking and choosing will not, does not work. No one wants their ox gored and the voters will reject it.

Tugg

The problem with that is you not applying any priorities—defense and a legal system have a certain priority that, say Ag or Commerce don’t have.

Venezuela was once, before Chavez, one of the richest economies in South America. A 100 years, Argentina was the 7th or 8th wealthiest in the world. Government intervention, debt, politically motivated subsidies will kill an economy and our’s is not immune, by a long shot,