The debt ceiling has to be raised to pay for what Congress already passed into law.
Why do certain politicians always try to hurt the economy by grandstanding on spending after the pigs have left the pen?

There should be no negotiation on lifting the debt ceiling. The discussions must be made when passing bills that destroy income taxes or increase spending. If the vote to increase spending passed, even under old legilstation, then that is what it is . The debt ceiling should be lifted.

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?



https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... t-ceiling/

It will all come down to IF the issue cause bad things to happen to the economy (people's lives) and who it appears is causing it/not doing what they can to address it.

Tugg

Certain politicians need to be seen as not the ones who caused the debt, even though they all have their pet projects in their districts.

casinterest wrote:

The debt ceiling has to be raised to pay for what Congress already passed into law.
Why do certain politicians always try to hurt the economy by grandstanding on spending after the pigs have left the pen?

There should be no negotiation on lifting the debt ceiling. The discussions must be made when passing bills that destroy income taxes or increase spending. If the vote to increase spending passed, even under old legilstation, then that is what it is . The debt ceiling should be lifted.

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?



https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... t-ceiling/

Something I agree strongly with, I heard on Chapo Trap House following the Speaker fracas:
"This isn't the Obungler administration this is the Brandon Imperium. If anyone's going to mint the [$1 trillion] coin, it's Brandon. Republicans can crow about the debt ceiling and the White House can just say 'that's cute, f*** off, we're minting the coin."

bluecrew wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The debt ceiling has to be raised to pay for what Congress already passed into law.
Why do certain politicians always try to hurt the economy by grandstanding on spending after the pigs have left the pen?

There should be no negotiation on lifting the debt ceiling. The discussions must be made when passing bills that destroy income taxes or increase spending. If the vote to increase spending passed, even under old legilstation, then that is what it is . The debt ceiling should be lifted.

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?



https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... t-ceiling/

Something I agree strongly with, I heard on Chapo Trap House following the Speaker fracas:
"This isn't the Obungler administration this is the Brandon Imperium. If anyone's going to mint the [$1 trillion] coin, it's Brandon. Republicans can crow about the debt ceiling and the White House can just say 'that's cute, f*** off, we're minting the coin."

At the end of the day we won't just prirnt a coin. This is about authorizing the spending already in place and just liftting the ceiling of the debt until Congress starts to manage spending better

casinterest wrote:

The debt ceiling has to be raised to pay for what Congress already passed into law.
Why do certain politicians always try to hurt the economy by grandstanding on spending after the pigs have left the pen?

There should be no negotiation on lifting the debt ceiling. The discussions must be made when passing bills that destroy income taxes or increase spending. If the vote to increase spending passed, even under old legilstation, then that is what it is . The debt ceiling should be lifted.

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?



https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... t-ceiling/

It's not just raising the debt ceiling but, rather, getting rid of so-called "entitlements" Republicans have wanted to get rid for decades. Republicans have wanted to give everything to the very wealthy. They *say* it is because the very wealthy will "trickle it down" to us working to prop up the morbidly wealthy. That is the excuse. But, in reality, the morbidly wealthy simply give to those who give them money.

MAGAs will crash the economy and give all the stockpile of Social Security and Medicare to the morbidly wealthy because the morbidly wealthy will give the profits back to them. Not us who paid into those two programs. You and I will never ever see a dime. All we will see is flashy and heartwarming (blech) commercials about how we MUST vote MAGA to be true patriots and be the greatest and true patriots and so on. Democrats will at least try to fund Social Security and Medicare while taking money from the morbidly wealthy, but at least they try.

If we were a truly Christian nation, as MAGAs keep saying we are, we would look more like Iceland or Germany or, at the very least, Canada.

If Republicans are stupid enough to actually eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all the Dems will have to do is run one TV spot showing grandma reduced to eating dog food and Florida will instantly become the bluest state in the country.

All Republicans with at least two working brain cells know this.

Does anyone know how this is handled in other countries?

As all the ones I've lived in/aware of, this has never popped up as a talking point.

All you see are 'debt clocks'. E.g.
https://www.debt.ca/debt-clock

Or is it the case of not having a written down ceiling as the parliament has agreed to spending X so it will be paid for regardless if we increase debt?

ReverseFlow wrote:

Does anyone know how this is handled in other countries?

As all the ones I've lived in/aware of, this has never popped up as a talking point.

All you see are 'debt clocks'. E.g.
https://www.debt.ca/debt-clock

Or is it the case of not having a written down ceiling as the parliament has agreed to spending X so it will be paid for regardless if we increase debt?

Same here - this doesn’t pop up anywhere. Most countries just spend as if debt doesn’t matter.

johns624 wrote:

Certain politicians need to be seen as not the ones who caused the debt, even though they all have their pet projects in their districts.

I doubt that's it. What politician did lose an election over the debt ?

No, it's simply a hammer that can be used to hit Dems on the head, so they use it. Even if they'll probably end up hitting their own fingers in the process.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Does anyone know how this is handled in other countries?

As all the ones I've lived in/aware of, this has never popped up as a talking point.

All you see are 'debt clocks'. E.g.
https://www.debt.ca/debt-clock

Or is it the case of not having a written down ceiling as the parliament has agreed to spending X so it will be paid for regardless if we increase debt?

Having a debt ceiling doesn't make any sense, that's why it doesn't exist elsewhere. What makes some sense is a golden rule : requiring balanced budgets, or a limit on deficits.

Countries with this I know about had to ditch them during the pandemic, though.

Of note is that the EU's Maastricht treaty does have a debt limit, it's only theoretical with some limited enforcement that has never been put in practice. It isn't a "Euro amount limit" though, but a debt/GDP ratio, that should be kept under 60%. Let's say most EU countries have blown through it long ago.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Does anyone know how this is handled in other countries?

As all the ones I've lived in/aware of, this has never popped up as a talking point.

All you see are 'debt clocks'. E.g.
https://www.debt.ca/debt-clock

Or is it the case of not having a written down ceiling as the parliament has agreed to spending X so it will be paid for regardless if we increase debt?

We (Switzerland) have a mechanism thats called "Schuldenbremse" or roughly translated debt break. The idea is, that the annual budget has to be at least balanced, so parliament is not allowed to create additional debt. Of course there are fine prints and if there is a need for certain spending that tipps the budget negative (so additional debt has to be taken) it can be done. But the reasoning has to be very good otherwise parliament will vote it down.

Putting a ceiling on debt in general does not exist tho, because that is just plain stupid. Even in the case of Switzerland, additional debt can be taken on short time if the budged is balanced. So if Switzerland needs to take on debt in February to pay for some things but will pay some outstanding debt back in November the final debt will be the same so no additional debt is taken, even though from February until November there was a period where the debt actually increased.

seb146 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The debt ceiling has to be raised to pay for what Congress already passed into law.
Why do certain politicians always try to hurt the economy by grandstanding on spending after the pigs have left the pen?

There should be no negotiation on lifting the debt ceiling. The discussions must be made when passing bills that destroy income taxes or increase spending. If the vote to increase spending passed, even under old legilstation, then that is what it is . The debt ceiling should be lifted.

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?



https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... t-ceiling/

It's not just raising the debt ceiling but, rather, getting rid of so-called "entitlements" Republicans have wanted to get rid for decades. Republicans have wanted to give everything to the very wealthy. They *say* it is because the very wealthy will "trickle it down" to us working to prop up the morbidly wealthy. That is the excuse. But, in reality, the morbidly wealthy simply give to those who give them money.

MAGAs will crash the economy and give all the stockpile of Social Security and Medicare to the morbidly wealthy because the morbidly wealthy will give the profits back to them. Not us who paid into those two programs. You and I will never ever see a dime. All we will see is flashy and heartwarming (blech) commercials about how we MUST vote MAGA to be true patriots and be the greatest and true patriots and so on. Democrats will at least try to fund Social Security and Medicare while taking money from the morbidly wealthy, but at least they try.

If we were a truly Christian nation, as MAGAs keep saying we are, we would look more like Iceland or Germany or, at the very least, Canada.

Math, Finance and Economis is not a strongpoint of the GOP. As pointed out in another thread, most don't even understand that they pay less income taxes than most of the working poor on their first 45,000.

They also don't understand why we have social security and medicare now. They don't understand why provitizing it is a bad idea.

Aaron747 wrote:

Most countries just spend as if debt doesn’t matter.

With respect, I’m not sure that is quite true. But the U.S. is perhaps unique in that a law passed in 1917 (I think it was) placed a cap on the debt and requires an act of Congress to raise it.

However, doing so is non-optional according to the 14th Amendment.

“Section 4 Public Debt
The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

In other words, Congress, having already voted for spending, cannot then refuse to pay for it.

QF7 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Most countries just spend as if debt doesn’t matter.

With respect, I’m not sure that is quite true. But the U.S. is perhaps unique in that a law passed in 1917 (I think it was) placed a cap on the debt and requires an act of Congress to raise it.

However, doing so is non-optional according to the 14th Amendment.

“Section 4 Public Debt
The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

In other words, Congress, having already voted for spending, cannot then refuse to pay for it.

I was referencing the general situation in the G20. Countries consider not only their domestic books but overseas as well. The US and the UK are well behind others in CAB:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/722 ... -balances/

Our country is 31 TRILLION dollars in debt. Both parties should be dragged behind a truck. Any one who tries to absolve either party is a moron.

cairns wrote:

Our country is 31 TRILLION dollars in debt. Both parties should be dragged behind a truck. Any one who tries to absolve either party is a moron.

That's only $93k per person and $209k per taxpayer (based on # of returns).

cairns wrote:

Our country is 31 TRILLION dollars in debt. Both parties should be dragged behind a truck. Any one who tries to absolve either party is a moron.

True but it’s rock and hard place now. If they deliver zero for donors and constituents for years to pay everything down, they’ll all be out of a job. Everyone looking out for #1.

cairns wrote:

Our country is 31 TRILLION dollars in debt. Both parties should be dragged behind a truck. Any one who tries to absolve either party is a moron.

What do you understand of the debt ceiling? Do you know how modern capitalist economies structure debt?

Noted liberal Dick Cheney quipped "deficits don't matter" in 2004, and you know, depending on the size of the economy and the size of the deficit, he's totally right. Provided the government is responsibly structuring and securitizing debt, and the growth of the debt does not outstrip the growth of the economy, the economy is healthy. A government operating under modern monetary policy with a capitalist economy is absolutely expected to run a deficit because in those conditions, a government surplus is almost always linked with an economic recession.

Simply, the government puts so much money into the economy today, that when you slow that down, you slow the whole economy down too. When you're the reserve currency for almost every bank in the world, the concept of a default is inconceivable, so essentially the borrowing limit is unlimited, and countries will always give us a favorable borrowing rate. The US government always pays their debts.

Economy's been running fine like this for over a century.

QF7 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Most countries just spend as if debt doesn’t matter.

With respect, I’m not sure that is quite true. But the U.S. is perhaps unique in that a law passed in 1917 (I think it was) placed a cap on the debt and requires an act of Congress to raise it.

However, doing so is non-optional according to the 14th Amendment.

“Section 4 Public Debt
The validity of the public debt of the United States… shall not be questioned.”

In other words, Congress, having already voted for spending, cannot then refuse to pay for it.

Voting the spending, even by Congress’ cockamamie ways, isn't the same as authorizing the debt issuance. Prior to the debt ceiling law, every time the Treasury wanted to issue debt instruments, Congress had to approve the action. We should go back to it, certainly slow the debt.growth down.

See Article I, Section 8; clause 2

bluecrew wrote:

cairns wrote:

Our country is 31 TRILLION dollars in debt. Both parties should be dragged behind a truck. Any one who tries to absolve either party is a moron.

What do you understand of the debt ceiling? Do you know how modern capitalist economies structure debt?

Noted liberal Dick Cheney quipped "deficits don't matter" in 2004, and you know, depending on the size of the economy and the size of the deficit, he's totally right. Provided the government is responsibly structuring and securitizing debt, and the growth of the debt does not outstrip the growth of the economy, the economy is healthy. A government operating under modern monetary policy with a capitalist economy is absolutely expected to run a deficit because in those conditions, a government surplus is almost always linked with an economic recession.

Simply, the government puts so much money into the economy today, that when you slow that down, you slow the whole economy down too. When you're the reserve currency for almost every bank in the world, the concept of a default is inconceivable, so essentially the borrowing limit is unlimited, and countries will always give us a favorable borrowing rate. The US government always pays their debts.

Economy's been running fine like this for over a century.

The US CBO is projecting our primary deficits to increase every year over the next decade, from current 2.3% to 2.9% in 2032; total deficits over 6%. And that’s not projecting interest rates increases or a recession. We’d have to have unprecedented growth rates to control the growth of debt. I’d love to see a link saying we must run deficits. We’re fortunate that we are the reserve currency, but someday that can change when nobody shows up to buy our debt. In the meanwhile, as the holder of the reserve currency has downsides, mostly huge trade unbalances which puts pressure on our domestic labor wages.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58147

As I said what's needed is a golden rule not a debt ceiling. It would be impossible to pass a gigantic tax cut in these circumstances if you don't cut a lot of spending to account for it.

Aesma wrote:

As I said what's needed is a golden rule not a debt ceiling. It would be impossible to pass a gigantic tax cut in these circumstances if you don't cut a lot of spending to account for it.

Simply cutting spending will do zero to the debt. We need income. Taxes. But, for some reason, when taxation comes up, Republicans think we don't need taxes but we can just spend, spend, spend especially for the military. THAT is where cuts need to start. Cutting 500 low level IRS employees will not do a thing.

seb146 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

As I said what's needed is a golden rule not a debt ceiling. It would be impossible to pass a gigantic tax cut in these circumstances if you don't cut a lot of spending to account for it.

Simply cutting spending will do zero to the debt. We need income. Taxes. But, for some reason, when taxation comes up, Republicans think we don't need taxes but we can just spend, spend, spend especially for the military. THAT is where cuts need to start. Cutting 500 low level IRS employees will not do a thing.

You could eliminate the DOD and not come close to closing the deficit. Are you for UK style taxes, to pick one, 40% on income starting at $55,000 and 20% VAT?

I see nothing wrong with keeping the debt ceiling where it is. Maybe in the future, when there is a Democrat majority, we can borrow more money. In the meantime, let's work together to cut spending 20-30%.

The US budget is plenty large enough to take care of all our needs. Put on your financial analyst hat. This is easy. Some countries have money trouble... we do not. What we have is a laziness and backbone issue. Tax revenue is very high and more than sufficient to meet all needs.

In business (and in family life), people solve problems like this every day. Can't afford the $2 million house? Get a $1m house. Can't afford a $350 dinner? Find a $250 dinner instead. This is basically the US's financial situation.

Then why didn't the GOP balance the budget when it controlled all branches of government ? And did instead the exact opposite, make a bigger hole ?

Aesma wrote:

Then why didn't the GOP balance the budget when it controlled all branches of government ? And did instead the exact opposite, make a bigger hole ?

You're right... Bush II spent a lot of money on wars, and Trump spent a lot of money on COVID, which Biden continued and accelerated.

All 4 of the presidents in the 21st century spent a lot of money. It has added up. We need to stop the trend.

I think people often bring up Trump's tax cuts, but revenue nevertheless increased to record levels in 2019. I don't think it was true that the Trump tax cuts cost money. I think they added more money to the treasury, spurred hiring and were excellent policy.

LCDFlight wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Then why didn't the GOP balance the budget when it controlled all branches of government ? And did instead the exact opposite, make a bigger hole ?

You're right... Bush II spent a lot of money on wars, and Trump spent a lot of money on COVID, which Biden continued and accelerated.

All 4 of the presidents in the 21st century spent a lot of money. It has added up. We need to stop the trend.

I think people often bring up Trump's tax cuts, but revenue nevertheless increased to record levels in 2019. I don't think it was true that the Trump tax cuts cost money. I think they added more money to the treasury, spurred hiring and were excellent policy.

Just curious, but what revenue went up after the Trump tax cuts? Federal revenue was noticeably down in 2019, right after they came into play.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/america ... t-revenue/

I never understood why those calling for spending cuts are now sounding the alarm with a Democrat currently in charge. We didn’t hear a peep from these so-called fiscal conservatives during the Trump and Bush years. Really hard to take their “concerns” seriously when they could have done the required changes/cuts themselves when they had the power. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

leader1 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Then why didn't the GOP balance the budget when it controlled all branches of government ? And did instead the exact opposite, make a bigger hole ?

You're right... Bush II spent a lot of money on wars, and Trump spent a lot of money on COVID, which Biden continued and accelerated.

All 4 of the presidents in the 21st century spent a lot of money. It has added up. We need to stop the trend.

I think people often bring up Trump's tax cuts, but revenue nevertheless increased to record levels in 2019. I don't think it was true that the Trump tax cuts cost money. I think they added more money to the treasury, spurred hiring and were excellent policy.

Just curious, but what revenue went up after the Trump tax cuts? Federal revenue was noticeably down in 2019, right after they came into play.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/america ... t-revenue/

I never understood why those calling for spending cuts are now sounding the alarm with a Democrat currently in charge. We didn’t hear a peep from these so-called fiscal conservatives during the Trump and Bush years. Really hard to take their “concerns” seriously when they could have done the required changes/cuts themselves when they had the power. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

2019 being a then-record is clearly visible in the charts in your own link.. and here’s another source.

“ In 2019, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.5 trillion—$133 billion (or 4 percent) more than in 2018.”

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-1 ... R-FY19.pdf

LCDFlight wrote:

leader1 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

You're right... Bush II spent a lot of money on wars, and Trump spent a lot of money on COVID, which Biden continued and accelerated.

All 4 of the presidents in the 21st century spent a lot of money. It has added up. We need to stop the trend.

I think people often bring up Trump's tax cuts, but revenue nevertheless increased to record levels in 2019. I don't think it was true that the Trump tax cuts cost money. I think they added more money to the treasury, spurred hiring and were excellent policy.

Just curious, but what revenue went up after the Trump tax cuts? Federal revenue was noticeably down in 2019, right after they came into play.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/america ... t-revenue/

I never understood why those calling for spending cuts are now sounding the alarm with a Democrat currently in charge. We didn’t hear a peep from these so-called fiscal conservatives during the Trump and Bush years. Really hard to take their “concerns” seriously when they could have done the required changes/cuts themselves when they had the power. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

“ In 2019, the government’s revenues amounted to $3.5 trillion—$133 billion (or 4 percent) more than in 2018.”

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-1 ... R-FY19.pdf

OK, but are you disputing the link from the US Treasury that says revenue went down in 2019?

Look at the tax trends after 2020, when revenue really took off after all the tax changes worked thru the economy. It’s not just one year.

The true “tax” burden government imposes is the spending, not taxes. We need spendingbto decline as a percentage of GDP.

[threeid][/threeid]

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at the tax trends after 2020, when revenue really took off after all the tax changes worked thru the economy. It’s not just one year.

The true “tax” burden government imposes is the spending, not taxes. We need spendingbto decline as a percentage of GDP.

The government goosed up the economy with massive stimulus spending. That had more of an effect on revenue than tax cuts.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Look at the tax trends after 2020, when revenue really took off after all the tax changes worked thru the economy. It’s not just one year.

The true “tax” burden government imposes is the spending, not taxes. We need spendingbto decline as a percentage of GDP.

Okay champ, I'll bite.

We've tried the reduce expenses thing before, and we have a really great example in the last 20 years of a modern economy trying moderate austerity. For their troubles, they've shrunk the economy, tanked the pound, and median income has gone down.

Where do we start? Helpfully, USASpending.gov breaks down the entire budget.

Obviously we'll cut all the foreign aid, sorry Haiti, but that's only going to net $6.4b/yr.
Let's go to food stamps and farm subsidies next. Can all of them, farms will fail, people will go hungry and possibly die, and we'll potentially cause a little international agricultural crisis as we clean out the "dead wood" of farms that can't compete without subsidy, but we'll save a whopping $28.8b. If you cut all benefits, like WIC and child nutrition programs in schools, you can save another $10b.

Maybe HHS, or SSA? SSA has obligations over $200b, but do we really think it's fair to claw back the pathetic COLA, and make sure seniors live on less than $35k/year? With inflation where it is?

It's all well and good to say we just have to spend less. Go look at the budget and tell us where, because cutting will have consequences, both economic and social, and I can't think of an example country that's ever slashed budgets and ended up a more desirable place to live. Austerity is the action that you take as a weak economy without many options to fix the shortfalls. The US is in the absolute opposite position.

Yes’m austerity isn’t necessarily the answer, but reforming 90 year old programs can be the answer. We’re not gonna starve because Big Sugar and Big Corn don’t get their accustomed subsidies. Besides, discretionary spending isn’t the looming problem—SSA and Medicare are and it has shouted from the rooftops for years. The “trust” funds run out of money in the mid-2030s, even the trustees say it’s a problem, this from 2009!

[i]The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.[/i]

If printing money was the answer, everywhere from Argentina to Zimbabwe would be wealthy today. Funny, you bring up the pound—it was the reserve currency for a century, until they spent it all on wars and empire. Sound familiar? Ike called their bluff in 1956.

We need to figure out how to grow the economy at, at least, 3% a year just to cover the primary deficit. 5% a year to cover the entire deficit. Congress is financing 40% of the budget thru debt. Five year debt to pay each month’s SSA and Medicare. This will stop and it will be painful.

The fixes: reform entitlements to be funded, instead of pay-as-we-go; create an entrepreneurial economy to grow it at 3% or greater. That’ll require a new tax code, encourage savings and investment. We have options, we’re in okay now, but the future isn’t a slam dunk.

BTW, Social Security was never intended to be the entire retirement plan—we’ve made it so.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

As I said what's needed is a golden rule not a debt ceiling. It would be impossible to pass a gigantic tax cut in these circumstances if you don't cut a lot of spending to account for it.

Simply cutting spending will do zero to the debt. We need income. Taxes. But, for some reason, when taxation comes up, Republicans think we don't need taxes but we can just spend, spend, spend especially for the military. THAT is where cuts need to start. Cutting 500 low level IRS employees will not do a thing.

You could eliminate the DOD and not come close to closing the deficit. Are you for UK style taxes, to pick one, 40% on income starting at $55,000 and 20% VAT?

But British taxes are also paying for a strong public education and a strong public health care system. Republicans simply want the morbidly wealthy to not pay taxes while paying for things like border walls that fail after six months and wars no one wants to fight. So, give us a respectable public education system and an actual working health care system that works for We The People and not insurance companies, then we can talk.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Simply cutting spending will do zero to the debt. We need income. Taxes. But, for some reason, when taxation comes up, Republicans think we don't need taxes but we can just spend, spend, spend especially for the military. THAT is where cuts need to start. Cutting 500 low level IRS employees will not do a thing.

You could eliminate the DOD and not come close to closing the deficit. Are you for UK style taxes, to pick one, 40% on income starting at $55,000 and 20% VAT?

But British taxes are also paying for a strong public education and a strong public health care system. Republicans simply want the morbidly wealthy to not pay taxes while paying for things like border walls that fail after six months and wars no one wants to fight. So, give us a respectable public education system and an actual working health care system that works for We The People and not insurance companies, then we can talk.

It is not that the poor uneducated Republicans want that. It is what they buy into while chasing the Christian Nationalism that the GOP is pushing.

Most of the folks in rurual areas vote red because they "beleieve" they are self reliant, but they do not recognize the costs associated with providing infrastructure to ""Rural" areas. There fore they do not recognize the costs of : border walls or healthcare, or schools or roads or internet, or communications in general. Much of rural America is subsidized by the denser areas. That is fine. That is how it should be. Howeve Rural areas need to understand that they are not seperate from the cities., but benefit from their success, much as the cities benefit from the rural areas successes.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Simply cutting spending will do zero to the debt. We need income. Taxes. But, for some reason, when taxation comes up, Republicans think we don't need taxes but we can just spend, spend, spend especially for the military. THAT is where cuts need to start. Cutting 500 low level IRS employees will not do a thing.

You could eliminate the DOD and not come close to closing the deficit. Are you for UK style taxes, to pick one, 40% on income starting at $55,000 and 20% VAT?

But British taxes are also paying for a strong public education and a strong public health care system. Republicans simply want the morbidly wealthy to not pay taxes while paying for things like border walls that fail after six months and wars no one wants to fight. So, give us a respectable public education system and an actual working health care system that works for We The People and not insurance companies, then we can talk.

You need to speak to some Brits about their education and NHS, not so strong. Just try campaigning in the US for those tax rates.

Here’s a Twitter thread on the problem

https://twitter.com/brian_riedl/status/ ... YzZvqeeJ7g

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You could eliminate the DOD and not come close to closing the deficit. Are you for UK style taxes, to pick one, 40% on income starting at $55,000 and 20% VAT?

But British taxes are also paying for a strong public education and a strong public health care system. Republicans simply want the morbidly wealthy to not pay taxes while paying for things like border walls that fail after six months and wars no one wants to fight. So, give us a respectable public education system and an actual working health care system that works for We The People and not insurance companies, then we can talk.

You need to speak to some Brits about their education and NHS, not so strong. Just try campaigning in the US for those tax rates.

Here’s a Twitter thread on the problem

https://twitter.com/brian_riedl/status/ ... YzZvqeeJ7g

British schools are teaching science and math instead of banning both for being "woke" and no Brit will need to declare bankruptcy for getting an ambulance ride or having a baby.

The debt ceiling is a tool Congress came up with because it creates a problem that Congress can blame on the president, who needs the solution that only Congress can provide. Congress gets to beat the president and then be seen as the savior, all while extracting concessions. The interesting thing is that anyone who truly understands the system will know that when Congress passes a budget, they're mandating the president to spend it as written. In other words, it's like me budgeting for a project but purposely falling short, handing it off to a project manager, and then blaming the PM when they report that we're short and have to "borrow" to finish the project.

I wonder if a debt ceiling may be ruled unconstitutional given the constitutional clause of public debt. Given that the debt ceiling is a law that would infringe on that clause, a debt ceiling would therefore be unconstitutional.

casinterest wrote:

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?

Because that's their crisis du jour. And I truly wonder if voters in 2022 woke up to that reality of understanding the double face approach that Republicans take when it comes to government spending: increasing spending on defense, proposing cuts to entitlements and welfare, AND cutting taxes to boot without a care about the deficit until a Democrat is in office. They overplayed their hand in 2017 and 2018 which allowed Dems to take the House (two years of unified GOP rule pre-Covid didn't bring down spending; at least Dems spend thinking of how everyone benefits and not just the richest tier).

einsteinboricua wrote:

The debt ceiling is a tool Congress came up with because it creates a problem that Congress can blame on the president, who needs the solution that only Congress can provide. Congress gets to beat the president and then be seen as the savior, all while extracting concessions. The interesting thing is that anyone who truly understands the system will know that when Congress passes a budget, they're mandating the president to spend it as written. In other words, it's like me budgeting for a project but purposely falling short, handing it off to a project manager, and then blaming the PM when they report that we're short and have to "borrow" to finish the project.

I wonder if a debt ceiling may be ruled unconstitutional given the constitutional clause of public debt. Given that the debt ceiling is a law that would infringe on that clause, a debt ceiling would therefore be unconstitutional.

casinterest wrote:

After all the GOP gave Trump cart blance during his term with no issues.
Why do they care now that a democrat is in office? Is it like when they cared when Obama was in office?

Because that's their crisis du jour. And I truly wonder if voters in 2022 woke up to that reality of understanding the double face approach that Republicans take when it comes to government spending: increasing spending on defense, proposing cuts to entitlements and welfare, AND cutting taxes to boot without a care about the deficit until a Democrat is in office. They overplayed their hand in 2017 and 2018 which allowed Dems to take the House (two years of unified GOP rule pre-Covid didn't bring down spending; at least Dems spend thinking of how everyone benefits and not just the richest tier).

No, it came up so the Treasury didn’t have to come begging for permission to issue debt. The budget Congress passes is without funding, as only Congress can pass appropriations. Congress has failed for decades to follow its own budget laws. See Article 1, section 8, clause 2, only Congress can approve debt. The debt ceiling is merely Congress delegating to the Executive authority only it posssesses. Congress should eliminate the debt ceiling and go back to passing bills authorizing the Treasury to auction debt.

We just came out of three years of not much revenue and supply chain issues and communities putting off work they had been promised funding for and now the funding is going through. It happens in a normal fiscal year, anyway. The block up from our house just got paved and new sidewalks. That was years in the making. Budgeting and planning and bids and the price of everything going up because gotta make that profit but let's crash the economy because people who never got a pension because gotta make a profit need to go?

bluecrew wrote:

Obviously we'll cut all the foreign aid, sorry Haiti, but that's only going to net $6.4b/yr.
Let's go to food stamps and farm subsidies next. Can all of them, farms will fail, people will go hungry and possibly die, and we'll potentially cause a little international agricultural crisis as we clean out the "dead wood" of farms that can't compete without subsidy, but we'll save a whopping $28.8b. If you cut all benefits, like WIC and child nutrition programs in schools, you can save another $10b.

That's being a bit dramatic, NZ hasn't had farm subsidies since 1984, some farms failed, other farmers saw an opportunity to increase there land holdings, smaller farms that needed subsidies turned into larger farms that didn't, nobody died as far as I know and we certainly didn't go hungry.

Kiwirob wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Obviously we'll cut all the foreign aid, sorry Haiti, but that's only going to net $6.4b/yr.
Let's go to food stamps and farm subsidies next. Can all of them, farms will fail, people will go hungry and possibly die, and we'll potentially cause a little international agricultural crisis as we clean out the "dead wood" of farms that can't compete without subsidy, but we'll save a whopping $28.8b. If you cut all benefits, like WIC and child nutrition programs in schools, you can save another $10b.

That's being a bit dramatic, NZ hasn't had farm subsidies since 1984, some farms failed, other farmers saw an opportunity to increase there land holdings, smaller farms that needed subsidies turned into larger farms that didn't, nobody died as far as I know and we certainly didn't go hungry.

I can guarantee you that you've consumed something in the last 24 hours that was made with US grain, soybeans, etc.
The US agricultural market is incredibly prolific, uncertainty in that sector will cause massive disruption purely because of the size of the market.

I don't largely support farm subsidies, and haven't since the biofuels subsidies turned out to be a kickback to already wealthy mass-scale corn farmers. There are very valid reasons to support subsidies though, there needs to be a way for the government to nudge agricultural production in a direction, and the numbers aren't even right - farm subsidy budget figures include disaster relief awarded by the government, as well as certain programs to maintain common agricultural areas, like oyster beds.

A disruption in agricultural subsidies would absolutely have a catastrophic inflationary impact on the US economy that would kick it into a recession. Even if it's temporary and buffs out over 5 years, that's the kicker. It certainly won't make the economy go *up.*

QF7 wrote:

If Republicans are stupid enough to actually eliminate Social Security and Medicare, all the Dems will have to do is run one TV spot showing grandma reduced to eating dog food and Florida will instantly become the bluest state in the country.

All Republicans with at least two working brain cells know this.

The Democrats are not smart enough to do that. They still think that the Republicans are their friends

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You need to speak to some Brits about their education and NHS, not so strong. Just try campaigning in the US for those tax rates.

Here’s a Twitter thread on the problem

https://twitter.com/brian_riedl/status/ ... YzZvqeeJ7g

Please don't conflate the current state of the NHS or Education caused by the government of the last 13 years (Tories i.e right wing) over what it was when it was properly funded and managed in the years prior to that. NHS outcomes, average cost per head, wait times etc were all exceptionally good and all of the population have access. If you want private, pay more and go private, nobody stops you.

It's what happens when you have a populist, incompetent government in control and should serve as another warning to the world (as if it needs one, but apparently it does) as to what happens in those circumstances.


Back to the topic at hand, do you not have a serve problem with tax evasion in the US? Wasn't that the whole point of giving the IRS more manpower?

bluecrew wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Obviously we'll cut all the foreign aid, sorry Haiti, but that's only going to net $6.4b/yr.
Let's go to food stamps and farm subsidies next. Can all of them, farms will fail, people will go hungry and possibly die, and we'll potentially cause a little international agricultural crisis as we clean out the "dead wood" of farms that can't compete without subsidy, but we'll save a whopping $28.8b. If you cut all benefits, like WIC and child nutrition programs in schools, you can save another $10b.

That's being a bit dramatic, NZ hasn't had farm subsidies since 1984, some farms failed, other farmers saw an opportunity to increase there land holdings, smaller farms that needed subsidies turned into larger farms that didn't, nobody died as far as I know and we certainly didn't go hungry.

I can guarantee you that you've consumed something in the last 24 hours that was made with US grain, soybeans, etc.
The US agricultural market is incredibly prolific, uncertainty in that sector will cause massive disruption purely because of the size of the market.

I don't largely support farm subsidies, and haven't since the biofuels subsidies turned out to be a kickback to already wealthy mass-scale corn farmers. There are very valid reasons to support subsidies though, there needs to be a way for the government to nudge agricultural production in a direction, and the numbers aren't even right - farm subsidy budget figures include disaster relief awarded by the government, as well as certain programs to maintain common agricultural areas, like oyster beds.

A disruption in agricultural subsidies would absolutely have a catastrophic inflationary impact on the US economy that would kick it into a recession. Even if it's temporary and buffs out over 5 years, that's the kicker. It certainly won't make the economy go *up.*

If the government gives X dollars in subsidies to farmers, very specific subset at that, how is that less inflationary than the public spending those X dollars in food prices. Inflation isn’t rising prices in specific markets, it’s a general increase in the price level. Without more printed money, the rise in food price would be offset by lower prices due to reduced demand in other markets or by consumers buying substitute cheaper goods.

Reinhardt wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You need to speak to some Brits about their education and NHS, not so strong. Just try campaigning in the US for those tax rates.

Here’s a Twitter thread on the problem

https://twitter.com/brian_riedl/status/ ... YzZvqeeJ7g

Please don't conflate the current state of the NHS or Education caused by the government of the last 13 years (Tories i.e right wing) over what it was when it was properly funded and managed in the years prior to that. NHS outcomes, average cost per head, wait times etc were all exceptionally good and all of the population have access. If you want private, pay more and go private, nobody stops you.

It's what happens when you have a populist, incompetent government in control and should serve as another warning to the world (as if it needs one, but apparently it does) as to what happens in those circumstances.


Back to the topic at hand, do you not have a serve problem with tax evasion in the US? Wasn't that the whole point of giving the IRS more manpower?

Apparently not as Republicans cut funding to hire 87,000 new agents

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/10/house-r ... ding-.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardglec ... 26f786ebeb

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

That's being a bit dramatic, NZ hasn't had farm subsidies since 1984, some farms failed, other farmers saw an opportunity to increase there land holdings, smaller farms that needed subsidies turned into larger farms that didn't, nobody died as far as I know and we certainly didn't go hungry.

I can guarantee you that you've consumed something in the last 24 hours that was made with US grain, soybeans, etc.
The US agricultural market is incredibly prolific, uncertainty in that sector will cause massive disruption purely because of the size of the market.

I don't largely support farm subsidies, and haven't since the biofuels subsidies turned out to be a kickback to already wealthy mass-scale corn farmers. There are very valid reasons to support subsidies though, there needs to be a way for the government to nudge agricultural production in a direction, and the numbers aren't even right - farm subsidy budget figures include disaster relief awarded by the government, as well as certain programs to maintain common agricultural areas, like oyster beds.

A disruption in agricultural subsidies would absolutely have a catastrophic inflationary impact on the US economy that would kick it into a recession. Even if it's temporary and buffs out over 5 years, that's the kicker. It certainly won't make the economy go *up.*

If the government gives X dollars in subsidies to farmers, very specific subset at that, how is that less inflationary than the public spending those X dollars in food prices. Inflation isn’t rising prices in specific markets, it’s a general increase in the price level. Without more printed money, the rise in food price would be offset by lower prices due to reduced demand in other markets or by consumers buying substitute cheaper goods.

In an Econ 200 classroom, sure that's exactly how it works.

In reality, the only thing that saves you is that farm subsidies go to large agribusinesses that won't be wiped out, but if you yank subsidies, the price of grain, soy, etc. will drastically increase. It's a basic market correction - the companies will artificially raise prices to make up the profits you just took away. And if you price-fix grain, well, you're on your way to a nationalized economy...
US grain is widely exported, hovers around 100 million tons per year, in addition to sorghum, soy, etc. which are all subsidized. Price instability in the US market means price instability in the global market. Grain, like any other commodity, is traded in futures and options, another complication not considered by basic macroeconomic theory.
And all that to save $40b?

Cutting subsidies doesn't work in a traditional basic macroeconomic model, because the model doesn't account for subsidies. The example is flawed. This is also how a butterfly flaps its wings in Washington and causes a famine in East Africa.

I think farm subsidies are a necessary evil that all countries should be taking part in. Ensuring the population is fed is the most basic government role. And importing food isn't a good solution, it should only be for pleasure (exotic fruits) not the staples.

With that said, I can't understand how subsidies in the US aren't linked to a minimum of environmental rules, farmers can pollute, destroy land, use water until it's depleted, it's crazy.

Aesma wrote:

I think farm subsidies are a necessary evil that all countries should be taking part in. Ensuring the population is fed is the most basic government role. And importing food isn't a good solution, it should only be for pleasure (exotic fruits) not the staples.

With that said, I can't understand how subsidies in the US aren't linked to a minimum of environmental rules, farmers can pollute, destroy land, use water until it's depleted, it's crazy.

Farm subsidies really started as a New Deal effort to keep farms afloat during the Dust Bowl and the Depression, they became a way to keep farms afloat during war, became a way to keep farms afloat during the Baby Boom era, and then eventually became a huge stimulus for giant agribusiness companies that own farms all over America. I have no idea when that happened but I'm going to guess somewhere around 1975.
The problem is that subsidies have become predictable market activity, so if you yank them, even if they're token, there should be a pricing stability impact. Grain has been a pretty reliably sketchy global commodity for decades now - even more so with the removal of most Ukrainian grain exports. Cut farm subsidies here, watch as the baguette at the grocery store goes from $2.99 to $7.99 and then back to $4.99, while the same hike in market prices causes another famine in Somalia.

In terms of the global financial system and commodities, the United States is a blue whale in a tank with perch, tuna, and some whale sharks. A disruption in the US grain supply turns into a purchasing crisis for South Korea because the US firm essentially defaults on the contract. What's more likely is companies prioritize export over domestic consumption, to avoid breaking the contract, so we end up with inflation in US good prices, while the large export-based agriculture companies clean up.

A balanced budget isn't going to solve all the issues. Even since Clinton balanced the budget, a lot of aspects of the economy, investment, and government spending have changed.

Dick Cheney was right. Deficits don't matter. Welcome to Modern Monetary Theory. As long as your economic growth exceeds the growth of your debt, you're fine while you start to collect the unrealized tax income. GDP growth and currency health are the only thing that matter in terms of the country's economic strength.

I would love for someone to name anything the national debt did to them personally. It's skyrocketed over the years while interest rates have plummeted, home ownership increased for a minute until like 2011 (haha lol eat it milennials ), and the productivity of the economy in terms of unemployment rate and median income has been excellent. Sure, property values have increased to the point that nobody below the petit bourgeoisie can buy even an apartment, but the economy looks fine right now, and it's looked fine on a balance sheet side for about 10 years.

There's just no debt crisis. It's not a crisis. This has been laundered to right wingers for the past 14 years (since Obama's inauguration, so 13 years and 360 days ago) as "oh no we can't put all of that on the credit card because you know Bank of America, they charge 25% interest!" That's just entirely unrelated to the way sovereign debt obligation works, and how it's securitized. We all own the debt, all of us, all over the world.

This has nothing to do with trade balances either - that's a talking point. It has nothing to do with anything. The country makes nothing on an import unless there's a tariff, nothing on an export unless there's an export tariff. Currently, US companies will gladly deprive US supply to export to more profitable markets. That's the free market, that's the post-Cold War mechanism we just gratuitously worship.

Didn't intend it to be that long.

If there were no grain subsidies prices might go up a little but as you said it's in great demand so should be profitable, should allow competition to work fine.

FYI a baguette in a French supermarket is about 70 cents and in a boulangerie 1-1,2€.

I said balanced budget but I also said a "deficit limit", as you say if the debt grows less than the economy it's less of a problem. Except that's not the case in the US (and worse elsewhere), 20 years ago debt/gdp was around 60%, now it's 120%.