The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I figure this should be talked about.

It seems to me like we should change the way this works.  Paying the bill doesn't belong to one party or the other, or even to an ideology.  The time to decide whether to spend the money occurs at the spending stage, not the bill-paying stage.

We need to get past this archaic method so that we aren't negatively affectingly the economy every few years for no gain.

Careful there. You're starting to sound like a Republican. Granted not all but a balanced budget is a Republican value. I'm not exactly sure how we've gotten to a place where it's normal to spend more than we can afford but I do know it will be very hard to get back to a balanced budget mentality. Many people today believe it's perfectly ok to continue spending, raising taxes, and printing more money as a way to deal with it.

The debt ceiling has nothing to do with a balanced budget.  Balancing the budget is done at the budgeting stage.

The debt ceiling has to do with paying for the goods and services that Congress has already mandated the executive branch to undertake.

I definitely do not believe in a balanced budget.  It isn't a sound financial strategy for a country.  Spend more sometimes, spend less sometimes, depending on needs of the country, rates, etc.  You can't spend more all the time, though, so I'm with the conservative mindset on that.

Debt Ceiling doesn't change spending though.  You already did the spending.  You're just paying the bill to avoid default.  So, we should always always just do that right away, regardless of who is in power in the various branches.

The debt ceiling is stupid, a political tool only and most likely unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment.

It's the equivalent of me racking up 50k in debt on a credit card .. but my "debt ceiling" is only 30K so i can only pay back 30K .. even tho i already spent 50k .. it's irresponsible .. if you don't want to owe 50K, dont' spend 50K

That's semantics. Had you not spent more than you budgeted it wouldn't need raising to pay bills. The biggest issue is we give too much away to other countries. Until everyone is dependent on the government that will continue to happen.

How can the biggest issue be one of the smallest items on the budget.  Less than 1% of US budget goes to foreign aid.  I an not surprised you got that wrong.  Opinion polls consistently show that most American's *think* that around 25% of the budget is spent on foreign aid.  Those show polls also show most American's feel we should be spend about 10%. 

The biggest issue is how much we spend on defense.  The USA spends a disproportionate amount of the the budget on the military.  And a disproportionately small amount on foreign aid when compared to other countries. 

Military expenditures and foreign aid are to path to for the same purpose - influence decisions beyond our borders.  One way is to invade another country.  Another is aid the country. It is a lot cheaper and much more effective to influence other countries by building them infrastructure than by destroying their infrastructure.  It is how China is gaining influence around the world. 


 Maybe if we had listen to Charlie and spend a million dollars on schools we would have had spend billions to get back to the same spot we started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg3cGwwGX6o

Our foreign policy would be more effective and cheaper if we switched from being the world's cop to being the world's EMT.

It is absolutely not semantics.

The debt ceiling is the decision to pay the bill that's already been charged.

I'm all for a budget fight, but a debt ceiling fight is not a thing.  You have to pay the bill or you default and crash the economy.



You don't want to hear this, but the GOP wants to crash the economy.  They raised the debt ceiling without issue multiple times under Trump.  Under Biden, it's a fight.  They want to weaken the economy and then run against Biden's weak economy.

You are right and not all Republicans were happy about it. I don't think it's political play to make Biden look bad as much as the GOP shifting more back to the conservative side.

Not raising the debt ceiling isn't conservative.  It's just stupid.

The money is already spent.  This is a negotiation about whether we should default on the payment, which lowers our credit rating and tanks our investments.  ...for no gain.

What you are talking about is budget spending -- this ain't that.

You have it exactly backwards: Congress has already budgeted this money to be spent.

To reuse the ill-fitting household budget analogy that mysteriously becomes popular every time a Democrat is in the White House: the current situation is like budgeting money that you absolutely have access to for bills, but then deciding that once you physically run out of checks, you just won't pay any more bills because you've paid enough of them.  It has nothing to do with "budgeting," and everything to do with meeting the obligations you have already committed to.

The GOP only cares about the debt ceiling when a Democrat is in the White House.  This has been proven repeatedly, stretching back to at least GWB.  It is transparently a political play.

Here's an interesting site:  https://www.usdebtclock.org/

The U.S. is currently $32 Trillion in debt!  Annual revenues are less than $5 Trillion and we have been spending in excess of $6 Trillion, so the National Debt has been increasing by between $1 trillion and $2 trillion per year.

In the last 50 years the Annual Budget has only been balanced (took in more revenue than we spent) Five times.  The last time the U.S. had a Balanced Budget was in 2001, over 20 years ago.

Now that the Fed has greatly increased interest rates the deficit will gro at an even faster rate since the government will be paying quite a bit more on the $32 Trillion it has outstanding.

Republicans and Democrats have to get serious about cutting spending.

Here's the problem:

The last time the US gov't got serious about cutting spending and eliminating the deficit (so we can pay down the debt), when Republicans got full control in 2001, their response was, "If we are in a surplus, it means the American people are being taxed too much."  They immediately cut taxes, putting us back into a deficit status.

The debt and deficit are a shell game; the only time anyone cares about them is in the context of cutting spending that they already disagree with.  It is pointless to even discuss the debt/deficit when one of the major parties believes that taxes should only go down, because no matter how much you cut spending, they'll just keep cutting taxes even faster.

Or increasing revenues.  Most progressives see that there is an insane amount of money being hoarded by the crazy wealthy.  Jeff Bezos makes $152,207 a minute.

It's a fallacy and pipe dream to think you can tax the rich enough to keep spending like we do. If you took every single penny the top 1% of Americans ($550,000 or more per household) earn in a year you still wouldn't put a dent into our national debt. The remaining 99% pay very little of the taxes taken.

Sure, it won't erase the debt but you can keep it from going the wrong direction.

There are things we need as a society -- the money exists.  It's just that income disparity is crazy.  Bezos makes double my salary in one minute.  That's unsustainable.

We shouldn't have billionaires.

It's all a show. Both sides are the same, just on different ends of the spectrum. Republicans like to pretend to be fiscally prudent and Democrats like to pretend to care about the citizens. Neither of those two things are even remotely true. And the show goes on. It's amazing to me that so many people fall for it.

But you would put a huge dent in the yearly deficit (turning it into a surplus).  So over time, running many surpluses would erase the debt.

Incorrect.  The 99% pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this country.  They just don't pay the majority of income taxes, which is the main kind of tax the wealthy care about.

Not if it's spent first. The US government (Republicans and Democrats) is incapable of exercising the spending restraint needed for that to be a viable solution.

Incorrect, income taxes is exactly what we're talking about. The federal government is generally prohibited from imposing direct taxes. The 16th Amendment clearly says income tax. It doesn't say wealth, assets or property.

There are two paths to the pipe dream of a wealth tax: Pick one

1 - The SCOTUS rules that direct taxes are constitutional
or
2 - A new constitutional amendment authorizing the US Government to impose a direct tax.

In my opinion, neither of those are viable options in any of our lifetimes.

The 1% pay about 42% of taxes while the top 10% pay almost 75% of the taxes generated. This means 3/4 of the taxes paid are by people making 150k or more. The top 10% also spend the most money generating most of that tax base as well.


(https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FBIP-MAIN-04.jpg)

A lot of truth in this post. Speaking of which it's almost time for black lives to matter again. That was recently brought to my attention from a black coworker. hahaha

You are reinforcing the point I just made.

This chart is clearly labeled INCOME TAXES in two different locations, and yet when I point out that the wealthy only care about income taxes, you post a chart of income taxes as if they are the only kind of taxes that matter.  Q.E.D.

I curious as to what kind of taxes are being discussed besides taxes that the Federal Government can legally impose?

Generational wealth transfers.  

Unrealized capital gains.

The last time we ran a surplus, it wasn't the Democrats that ended it.
The Republican position on surpluses is that if they exist, it means taxes are too high.  This position is factually incompatible with paying down the national debt.  It makes such a goal literally impossible.

No, it's what you're talking about, because it's the only kind of tax that conservatives care about.

This has nothing to do with a claim of "Who pays the most taxes in the US?"  We aren't only counting the kind of taxes that you care about.

Every time you guys respond, you just reinforce what I'm saying about conservative obsession with income taxes.

The vast majority of working class Americans would probably consider the federal payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare that are withheld from their compensation to be pretty substantial, but in the conservative framing of tax policy, those federal taxes are insignificant.  (It is worth noting that the truly wealthy - those who do not have to work for a living, and derive their income from capital gains - pay nothing in SS/Medicare taxes, as those taxes are only levied on wage income.  This explains why these huge tax categories are ignored in virtually all conservative discussions of tax policy.)

Furthermore, there is another premise implied by the framing of the above question: that taxes paid to the federal government are somehow more important than taxes paid to state or local governments.  They are not.

Just to clarify, there are two separate claims being made:

1) The top 1% pays the vast majority of "taxes" in this country.
This is false; they only pay a majority of income taxes, which is far from the only form of taxation.

2) The national deficit (and, over time, the debt) can be reduced by cutting spending.
This CANNOT be true as long as one of the major political parties continues to believe that a budget surplus necessarily means taxes must be reduced until we are back in deficit status.

You're correct it needs to be a combination of raising revenues AND cutting costs.

Explain to me the legal pathway to have the federal government impose a direct tax citizens?

SCOTUS or constitutional amendment. Any other ideas?

The parties argue just to argue.  It was under Clinton from 1998-2001 that the US actually operated with a balanced budget.  The Republicans actually hated Clinton so much because he co-opted their ideas.  It was Clinton that actually instituted some Welfare reform.  The Republicans should have been cheering him on, but it was the derisiveness of people like Gingrich that hurt this country; and it has only gotten worse since then (by both parties).

Really that's why term limits are needed so badly, so that our Representatives (both Democrat and Republican), will work for the people and not their party.

There is no need to create a new legal pathway for the federal government to impose additional direct taxes; the existing legal pathways are sufficient.

We can go from a budget deficit to a surplus (and, over time, eliminate the national debt) the same way we already did so under Bill Clinton: by raising income taxes on the wealthy.  And since the majority of taxes (not just federal income taxes, but ALL TAXES) in this country are paid by the working class already, this seems like a fair arrangement.

Excluding income tax, currently where do all of those other direct taxes go?

I don't particularly care, and I don't see why anyone else should in the context of a discussion about deficits and who pays their fair share of taxes.

If you have a point to make, make it.

Oh, I've already made my point. I'm just trying to unwind all of your word salad and understand your point of view. A wealth tax isn't going to happen. If that's what you're waiting for, I've got some bad news for you

You're trying to argue against a point you wish I would make instead of what I'm saying.

I already clearly stated that we ran a surplus under Bill Clinton.  If we didn't need a wealth tax then, why would we need one now?  The rich are even richer today (in both absolute and relative terms) than they were then.

I guess that I'm misunderstanding your position. Please feel free to clearly explain in detail what exactly you are proposing should happen.

This thread sucks and is the problem.  Defaulting on our debt has nothing to do with taxes and spending.

That's the whole point.

If you default, it fucks up our economy.  So, pass the shit, for God's sake.  Just pass it clean, right now.  Get it done.


Then sure -- let's talk budget and spending and taxes and all that.

Are you actually concerned that they won't pass something? I have zero control over it, therefore there is no need for me to worry about it. As far as I'm concerned it's all optics. How many times has this happened only for it to be resolved at the last minute?

Sure there's a chance we could default. But again, there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. You're just allowing them to pull your chain

To be clear: I agree with Dick Cheney that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."  More specifically: deficits should never stop you from enacting your political goals when you are in power.  Deficits don't stop Republicans from enacting more tax cuts, and deficits shouldn't stop Democrats from enacting more social spending.  The overwhelming majority of the national debt is owed to us, the American people.  So the deficit and debt should not be used as a reason for any spending cuts; if the cut can't be justified on its own merits, it shouldn't be made.

That being said, my tax strategy is simple:

1) return to Clinton-era income tax rates
2) tax capital gains the same as earned income

Clinton-era tax rates were enough to put us in surplus, but we have added a lot more spending, so maybe that won't be enough, which is why I also suggested the capital gains tax change.  If that doesn't work, a transaction tax on stock trades should do it.  A return to Eisenhower-era tax rates would also be ideal.

Let me also add that this I think this tax policy would be effective at reducing the deficit and debt, but I don't really care about that and it's not the main reason why I would want to enact it.  I want to enact this policy to combat wealth inequality, which is a much larger problem than the national debt.  Any collateral effects on reducing the deficit/debt are simply a bonus.

This statement describes nearly all federal politics, which we all discuss at length anyway.

I think that they probably will pass something because the alternative is so damaging.  Also, I can already see that the White House is posturing to not call their current debate "the debt ceiling".  They're calling it "the budget".  So I think they'll probably pass some kind of budget that they were going to pass anyway.  The White House can deny they negotiated on the debt ceiling and the GOP can claim they beat the white house.  I think that's the likeliest setting.

I know none of us have control over it.  We don't have control over anything the government does, but I still get concerned about it.