I saw something yesterday that calls into question the entire narrative around the debt ceiling debate. The narrative is essentially, "If we don't give the DFL a blank check to spend whatever they want, the US will default.", but is this True?
For starters, debt service is the only item on the federal budget that absolutely must be paid, everything else is discretionary. Fortunately, the amount of projected revenue is more than enough to cover the debt service, and save us from default. So, in reality, default IS NOT something likely to happen. The problem then becomes the rest of the budget. The allocation of discretionary funds is then the responsibility of the president. So what we really have is a situation where Biden does not want to be the guy who has to make the hard decisions about who gets what slice of the remaining federal budget pie. It's not about default, it's about fear. There's a reason why social security checks are the threat that the Biden administration is holding over our heads. When you see Biden complaining, remember that he's afraid of having to make tough decisions.
As a side note, when the position of the DFL is that there is absolutely zero possible way to even consider spending even 1% less than we spent last year, even though the COVID spending is or should be over and done with, should tell us all we need to know.
31 comments:
"when the position of the DFL is that there is absolutely zero possible way to even consider spending even 1% less than we spent last year, even though the COVID spending is or should be over and done with, should tell us all we need to know."
Is it actually the case that the Democrats don't support a balanced budget and some cuts, or is that a misrepresentation of their position?
Sounds like the latter.
What Biden has said...
"Any serious budget negotiation must include discussion both of spending and of revenues, but Republicans have refused to discuss revenue. President Biden has lowered the deficit by $1.7 trillion in his first two years in office with this balanced approach and proposed a budget that would cut the deficit by an additional $3 trillion. Republicans, however, are focused on pulling the rug out from under hardworking Americans instead of considering the President’s proposal to cut wasteful spending and cut the deficit by eliminating subsidies for oil and gas companies and pharma and asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share."
The debts we CURRENTLY owe are the result of spending by both Democrats and the GOP. We must pay that. That's not the debate for the Democrats... although it sounds like at least some in the GOP are open to that.
The reality is that we have common expenses. The reality is that some upfront investments save money in the long run. The fact is, if the GOP can't agree to some cuts in the areas they don't want to cut, then raising taxes is the rational adult option. But the GOP also refuses to consider that.
Just to be clear about the facts.
Dan
"One big problem, experts say, is that there's little evidence that such rules actually help people get back to work. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/debt-ceiling-work-requirements-snap-medicaid-tanf-social-security/
The GOP, which in large part created this debt, is holding our economy hostage, saying things like, "we won't pay these bills we helped create UNLESS you take actions that have no positive impact but which will cause harm and strife to poor people..."
How do y'all win ANY elections, being so solidly connected to the cause of the few rich and so invested in actions that harm the poor...?
Just pay your bills. THEN make your case to the people for these anti-poor people policies.
Dan
"The GOP, which in large part created this debt, is holding our economy hostage, saying things like, "we won't pay these bills we helped create UNLESS you take actions that have no positive impact but which will cause harm and strife to poor people...""
Did you actually read the post?
1. The hideously large and growing national debt is not a partisan issue, and I never indicated that it is.
2. The ONLY amount that is statutorily "owed" is the debt service, which FY '24 projected revenues will more than cover.
3. The rest of the budget is "discretionary spending" and is the debt ceiling isn't raised will be reduced at the sole discretion of Biden.
4. In this case the "GOP" was asking that the "discretionary spending" be reduced by approx 1%, while that DFL refuses to even consider this microscopic reduction.
5. But, by all means, defend the continued increase of the national debt and lying about how it works.
"How do y'all win ANY elections, being so solidly connected to the cause of the few rich and so invested in actions that harm the poor...?"
Because incurring more debt, on top of the current overwhelming debt, somehow benefits those who actually pay the majority of the tax revenue and "harms" the poor. Do you really think that engaging in actions that only place the US is a worse financial position help the poor?
"Just pay your bills. THEN make your case to the people for these anti-poor people policies."
Are you really suggesting that these "bills" you speak of are not your bills as well? That the DFL has absolutely ZERO responsibility for these "bills"? Are you really suggesting that NOT borrowing more that we can every pay back is "anti-poor people"?
"Is it actually the case that the Democrats don't support a balanced budget and some cuts, or is that a misrepresentation of their position?"
Well, the GOP negotiating position included a 1% decrease in spending. The DFL which controls all three branches of the federal government, didn't agree to the GOP term. But I'm sure you can construct some made up scenario where the DFL is blameless.
"Sounds like the latter."
Don't care what things "sound like" to you.
""Any serious budget negotiation must include discussion both of spending and of revenues, but Republicans have refused to discuss revenue. President Biden has lowered the deficit by $1.7 trillion in his first two years in office with this balanced approach and proposed a budget that would cut the deficit by an additional $3 trillion. Republicans, however, are focused on pulling the rug out from under hardworking Americans instead of considering the President’s proposal to cut wasteful spending and cut the deficit by eliminating subsidies for oil and gas companies and pharma and asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share.""
Well, if Biden said that then we must uncritically accept it is 100% absolute Truth and cannot even question what Biden "said". No CBO numbers, all based on projections, and more partiasn blindness.
"The debts we CURRENTLY owe are the result of spending by both Democrats and the GOP. We must pay that. That's not the debate for the Democrats... although it sounds like at least some in the GOP are open to that."
Finally an acknowledgement that this is a bipartisan problem. That's a start.
1. The ONLY obligations that are mandated to be paid are those regarding debt service.
2. None of the other government spending is a "debt". It is ALL discretionary. It it NOT required to be paid out.
3. Do you understand that continuing to borrow money to spend more money is NOT fiscally responsible.
4. Borrowing money to increase spending is NOT actually paying down our existing debt.
5. Do you understand that borrowing money, and pending it is if it is revenue is irresponsible?
6. Even when the economy was not burdened with inflation, and it's harmful effects, the US economy does not generate enough money to "pay debts", and to simultaneously spend more.
"The reality is that we have common expenses. The reality is that some upfront investments save money in the long run. The fact is, if the GOP can't agree to some cuts in the areas they don't want to cut, then raising taxes is the rational adult option. But the GOP also refuses to consider that."
The reality is that we have ONE "expense" which is statutorily required to be paid. Everything else is discretionary spending. Do you know what "discretionary" means? Do you understand that we are borrowing money to spend on future discretionary line items. The fact is that the cutting spending is the only way to solve our fiscal problems. The problem is that simply "raising taxes" cannot generate enough revenue to fund discretionary spending. Especially when @50% of Americans pay zero or less income taxes.
"Just to be clear about the facts."
"Because you say so." these "facts" are the only relevant "facts" and must be accepted as "facts" with no questions or with the addition of any other "facts".
I do appreciate your willingness to ignore literally everything in the original post, in favor of spouting your hyper partisan hunches about things.
I have to ask. Do you take any tax deductions? Do you ever pay more than what you are required to pay?
To answer your questions:
Yes, I take tax deductions. No, I don't overpay the IRS.
What does that have to do with anything?
My position - the reasonable position favored by the majority of the nation - is that we should have a progressive tax scheme (which we do) but even more progressive than it is now (which we don't). I/we believe that the very wealthiest are benefiting in obscenely extravagant ways that the rest of us don't and that the wealthiest should pay way more than they are now. To whom much has been given, much is expected.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/396737/average-american-remains-higher-taxes-rich.aspx
It's not irrational to want to see those benefiting the very most from our system to pay far and away the most to keep that system going.
I further would note (and could cite the data) that it makes sense that we, as a great and complex nation, have certain investments we need to make into that system to make it work. We must pay for education, roadways, bikeways, mass transit, police services, fire services, social services, etc to a greater degree than we do to decrease the harms of poverty and other social injustices. This is rational (again, I can cite the data) because it pays off in the long run.
We could get a great deal of the money needed for these sorts of programs from the gigantic "defense" budget, BUT, the GOP won't abide cutting that. Indeed, they insist on increasing it even beyond what the military asks for.
That being the case, then we need to cut somewhere OR increase taxes. Again, the GOP won't abide that.
The point being that cutting spending is only ONE way to pay the bills. But if you're in a household where all the necessities come to $30,000 a year and you can't cut anything without causing greater expenses (cutting medical insurance, for instance, which may result in you getting sick and missing work and losing your job which only makes things worse), THEN the only option is to increase the income. Now, in the struggling family, that may not be possible. BUT, the US is not a struggling family. The wealthiest are getting ever wealthier with obscene unspend-able amounts of money. They can simply pay more.
So, I'm saying that we're in this latter situation where IF the GOP is unwilling to make serious cuts in the military budget AND we have all these other legitimate expenses, THEN the only option is to increase spending. In both cases (decreasing the military budget and increasing the taxes for the richest) the GOP is blocking that progress in opposition to the majority of the US.
So, I don't see what a middle class guy doing tax deductions and paying what is required in taxes has to do with anything.
in favor of spouting your hyper partisan hunches about things.
I am noting the reality that the GOP is not willing to cut the discretionary spending in the defense budget at all and, indeed, they want to increase it even beyond what Defense is asking for.
Nothing partisan about it. That's just the reality.
And I'm noting that it's primarily the GOP that refuses to raise taxes on the rich. Indeed, they keep fighting to DECREASE the taxes for the wealthiest.
Nothing partisan about it. That's just the reality.
Am I mistaken?
On the other hand, in your post you cite the Democrats exclusively, saying...
The narrative is essentially, "If we don't give the DFL a blank check to spend whatever they want, the US will default."
That is not essentially the argument, not in the real world. It is a hyper partisan attack on the Democrats in which you leave out the GOP and THEIR hyper spending and refusal to raise taxes. It is a hyperbolic false claim.
Am I mistaken?
You continue, trying to attack Biden (the Democrat) saying...
The allocation of discretionary funds is then the responsibility of the president. So what we really have is a situation where Biden does not want to be the guy who has to make the hard decisions about who gets what slice of the remaining federal budget pie.
Not sure what you're talking about here. We're talking about spending that's ALREADY done. We've spent this money and don't have sufficient funds to pay for it without raising money somewhere.
And spending money is the jurisdiction of the House and Senate, if I remember my School House Rock correctly.
"What does that have to do with anything?"
It tells me that you are unwilling to go above and beyond on a personal level, while expecting others to be required to to what you will not do voluntarily.
" I/we believe that the very wealthiest are benefiting in obscenely extravagant ways that the rest of us don't and that the wealthiest should pay way more than they are now. To whom much has been given, much is expected."
As long as you "believe" something then it must be True. What an interesting way to go through life. It's also interesting that you seem to believe that the "rich" are "given" their "riches", given by whom?
It's probably useless to reiterate that the vast majority of total tax revenue comes from a very small minority of the population. Its' probably useless to point out the reality that if you confiscated everything that the "rich" have it would be impossible to fund everything you want to fund. It's probably pointless to point out that excessive taxation will inevitably drive those who bear the disproportionate burden to alter their behavior or their location to avoid taxes. You seem to live in a fantasy world where demanding that some subset of people pay their (undefined) "fair share" will magically wipe away decades of borrowing to overspend, without lowering spending at all.
"It's not irrational to want to see those benefiting the very most from our system to pay far and away the most to keep that system going."
It is irrational to pretend that the vast majority of non Med/SS tax revenue is paid by a small minority of the total tax base. It's also not irrational to see DFL legislatures continue to pass regressive taxes and pretend like that is not the case.
"We must pay for education, roadways, bikeways, mass transit, police services, fire services, social services, etc to a greater degree than we do to decrease the harms of poverty and other social injustices. This is rational (again, I can cite the data) because it pays off in the long run."
Again, NONE of those things are required spending by the federal government. The ONLY spending that is mandatory is debt service, everything else is discretionary. Even if it is deemed appropriate to spend some discretionary funds on those things, there is nothing mandating a specific amount. Of course, you do an excellent job of pretending like 100% of all of those expenditures falls on the federal government. Hey, given the fact that the FBI has become so politicized, let's get rid of it. Let's stop spending billions on trains that no one rides. Let's get red of the dept of education and let local districts and states deal with education.
"We could get a great deal of the money needed for these sorts of programs from the gigantic "defense" budget, BUT, the GOP won't abide cutting that. Indeed, they insist on increasing it even beyond what the military asks for."
Well the whole "defense" thing is actually one of the constitutional duties of the federal government, but whatever. This hyper partisan, monomaniacal focus on the defense budget as the only thing that the left wants to cut, just makes y'all look foolish. The notion that cutting defense budget will magically fund all these other things, is stupid when y'all still want to spend more than the amount of revenue generated. I don't see any Biden fans bitching about the billions spent defending Ukraine, why would we defend someone else's country, but not our own?
"That being the case, then we need to cut somewhere OR increase taxes. Again, the GOP won't abide that."
The "It's all 100% the GOP's fault." trope. I see the GOP asking for a 1% across the board cut, and the DFL not agreeing to that at all.
"The point being that cutting spending is only ONE way to pay the bills."
Of course it's the best way to cut one's bills, but there are other worse ways to do so.
"But if you're in a household where all the necessities come to $30,000 a year and you can't cut anything without causing greater expenses (cutting medical insurance, for instance, which may result in you getting sick and missing work and losing your job which only makes things worse), THEN the only option is to increase the income. Now, in the struggling family, that may not be possible. BUT, the US is not a struggling family. The wealthiest are getting ever wealthier with obscene unspend-able amounts of money. They can simply pay more."
OK, now we're making public policy based on fantasy. The factors you leave out are the following.
1. We've been borrowing to overspend for decades, unless we stop borrowing to overspend, we're screwed.
2. "They" simply don't have enough money to pay for your grandiose socialist paradise.
3. "They" aren't going to sit by and let you take what "they" have worked for.
4. For instance. Let's say that we could magically raise taxes on well known liberal Bill Gates without limits. What's to stop him from shutting down his empire and putting millions of people out of work, selling his possessions, and moving to Tonga?
5. Do you really think that "the rich" are just some magical unexhaustible source for money for the stuff you think should be paid for by the government?
6. Why should anyone conclude that your [priorities are the only possible correct priorities for federal spending? Or that your hunches about appropriate amounts to be spent are the perfect amounts?
"So, I'm saying that we're in this latter situation where IF the GOP is unwilling to make serious cuts in the military budget AND we have all these other legitimate expenses, THEN the only option is to increase spending. In both cases (decreasing the military budget and increasing the taxes for the richest) the GOP is blocking that progress in opposition to the majority of the US."
Again with "Because I say so.". But please pretend that the GOP is the only party unwilling to cut, and that the military budget is the only possible place to cut, and that your fantasies are the only possible choice. The GOP doesn't control any of the 3 branches of the federal government, stop with the hyper partisan attempts to blame the GOP for things they don't control.
"So, I don't see what a middle class guy doing tax deductions and paying what is required in taxes has to do with anything."
Of course you don't see how someone who is quick to demand that others be forced to pay for things, but who is unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifice of their own has to do with anything. Maybe if you weren't always trying to make others pay for the things you want, you'd be more realistic.
"I am noting the reality that the GOP is not willing to cut the discretionary spending in the defense budget at all and, indeed, they want to increase it even beyond what Defense is asking for."
Which is not what you said earlier, nor is the defense budget the only place to cut discretionary spending.
"Nothing partisan about it. That's just the reality."
Strangely you always seem to blame everything you find bad on the GOP while ignoring that the GOP does not control the the legislative and executive branches of the government, and ignoring the fact that there are many line items that the DFL refuses to consider cutting. But it's not in any way partisan.
"And I'm noting that it's primarily the GOP that refuses to raise taxes on the rich. Indeed, they keep fighting to DECREASE the taxes for the wealthiest"
As if this is some magical key to unlock panacea.
"Am I mistaken?"
If you think that repeating simplistic, talking points and platitudes is all you need, then maybe not. Of course, cherry picking certain things based on one's political point of view and excluding anything else from discussion, seems like a mistake to me.
"The narrative is essentially, "If we don't give the DFL a blank check to spend whatever they want, the US will default.""
Yes, that is the narrative. Although given the reality that the DFL is in complete control of the legislative and executive branches of government, and that in the event of the debt ceiling not being raised Biden will be the one who decides what discretionary spending adjustments will be made, it has the benefit of conforming to current reality.
"That is not essentially the argument, not in the real world. It is a hyper partisan attack on the Democrats in which you leave out the GOP and THEIR hyper spending and refusal to raise taxes. It is a hyperbolic false claim."
No. It's pointing out that in the specific event of the failure to raise the debt ceiling that it will the 100% the responsibility of Biden to decide how to spend the discretionary funds in ways to acknowledge that reality of what the actual revenue is. It further acknowledges the reality that in 2020 and 2022 the DFL focused on the fact that they wanted to have complete control over the legislative and executive branches of government. They had that for two years and did none of these things, are they not responsible for their lack of action? Is it really responsible governance to wait until the last minute, refuse to give an inch in negotiations, and them blame the other guys for everything?
"Am I mistaken?"
No, it's clearly impossible for you to ever be mistaken. It is however, possible that you fail to consider all sides of a topic before you reach your non mistaken conclusion.
You continue, trying to attack Biden (the Democrat) saying...
"The allocation of discretionary funds is then the responsibility of the president. So what we really have is a situation where Biden does not want to be the guy who has to make the hard decisions about who gets what slice of the remaining federal budget pie."
Yes, in this one specific instance, this is how things work. Is Biden (the DFL candidate) NOt currently POTUS?
"Not sure what you're talking about here. We're talking about spending that's ALREADY done. We've spent this money and don't have sufficient funds to pay for it without raising money somewhere."
With the exception of the debt service, this is not automatically true. FY'23 does not end until 9/30. The feds DO NOT spend every dime of the FY'23 budget on 10/1/22. Your unawareness of how the government operates tends to undermine your credibility on these subjects.
For example, the Feds send out welfare and SS checks on the first of the month. It's insane to claim that the welfare checks that will be send out on 7/1/23 have already been spent.
"And spending money is the jurisdiction of the House and Senate, if I remember my School House Rock correctly."
Under normal circumstances, the house has the "power of the purse", they have the ability to appropriate money. It's the executive branch that actually spends the money. Every month the DOD sends a paycheck to our service members. The DOD is a part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. The executive branch actuality spends the money the legislative branch appropriates.
As I actually look at the rough numbers, it find it strange that people seem so obsessed with spending twice as much as revenues as if that's a good thing. Of course the notion that we can magically conjure up an extra 300 trillion a year as long as we just tax "them" enough seems laughable at this point.
One last thought. It would seem that since the "debt ceiling" is a limit on the amount that can be borrowed, that the actual "shortfall" would likely be smaller than the rough numbers above suggest because it would seem to indicate that some of the difference between revenue and expenses would have already been borrowed already. Of course, the basic math and the basic point still stand.
For example, the Feds send out welfare and SS checks on the first of the month. It's insane to claim that the welfare checks that will be send out on 7/1/23 have already been spent.
The spending has already been committed. It's insane to claim otherwise. People's LIVES depend on getting those promised checks. People have to budget and plan. Maybe you're living in some ivory palace where, "la di dah, it doesn't matter if that check comes this week... I'll just pay it with some of my other money..." But not everyone has that luxury. We TOLD them we'd pay those checks and they're expecting it.
Perhaps you're unaware of budgeting and how the struggling class lives?
Dan
"Committed" and "spent" are not synonymous. It's insane to pretend they are. Hell one of the contentious issues of the debt ceiling is the DFL's unwillingness to release unspent COVID funds to offset future spending.
No, I'm living in a world where my wife and I work hard, earn a living, save for the future, and pay out taxes. We use credit more like it should be, rather than to live beyond our means.
I'm well aware of how people live. I'm one of them. Perversely enough, based on my net worth, I'm also one of the folks you'd like to force to pay massively higher taxes.
So all the experts are wrong and you're the one we should be listening to?
Narcissism, much?
Sometime after that, unless Congress raises or suspends the debt limit, the federal government will lack the cash to pay all its obligations. Those obligations are the result of laws previously enacted by Congress. As our colleagues Len Burman and Bill Gale wrote, “Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated.”
The economic effects of such an unprecedented event would surely be negative. However, there is an enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding the damage the U.S. economy will incur if the U.S. government is unable to pay all its bills—it depends on how long the situation lasts, how it is managed, and the extent to which investors alter their views about the safety of U.S. Treasuries. An extended impasse is likely to cause significant damage to the U.S. economy. Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained—and completely avoidable—damage.
https://www.brookings.edu/2023/04/24/how-worried-should-we-be-if-the-debt-ceiling-isnt-lifted/
The U.S. government could default on its debt in a matter of weeks if it doesn't raise the debt ceiling.
That would spell "economic calamity," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned this weekend.
"Whether it's defaulting on interest payments that are due on the debt or payments due for Social Security recipients or to Medicare providers, we would simply not have enough cash to meet all of our obligations," she told ABC's This Week. "And it's widely agreed that financial and economic chaos would ensue."
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/08/1174703720/debt-ceiling-standoff-economic-calamity-yellen
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/05/03/debt-ceiling-scenarios/
etc, etc, etc.
But rest assured, Craig has told us it's not a problem.
Perversely enough, based on my net worth, I'm also one of the folks you'd like to force to pay massively higher taxes.
You are one of those making more than $400,000 a year (those the Biden plan would like to tax more)? Then, YES, you're doing okay for yourself. You're benefiting fantastically from our system and taking advantage of the poor who've helped make you who you are. YES, you should pay more. Because, of course, you should.
Are you saying you're actually having a hard time making ends meet on $400,000/year?
If so, do you understand why the rest of us want you to pay your fair share? How we may not have much sympathy for your poor "struggles..."?
If not, then you're just mistaken. We're talking about those making hundreds of thousands each and every year. The ones who are benefiting the MOST from our system, of course those should pay more.
Do you disagree?
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/bidens-budget-would-raise-taxes-high-income-households-cut-them-many-others
"Committed" and "spent" are not synonymous.
If I have committed to pay a contractor who has done work for me $10,000, then you bet your ass it IS the same as spent. I can't just ignore the debt I owe like Trump has done routinely.
What world are you living in? Are you really living in that privileged a sphere that you can just IGNORE your commitments?
What ever happened to fiscally responsible conservatives?
I'm also one of the folks you'd like to force to pay massively higher taxes.
And just to be clear: IF you're making more than $400k a year (the amount Biden is talking about increasing taxes for), you're doing all right. My wife and I are making ~$100k a year (less than that) and we're doing very well, thank you. So if you're making $400,000 each and every year, I don't think you can expect much sympathy from the majority of US citizens if you're complaining about your tax rate. You're one of the very privileged, if you are making that much. I am very much one of the privileged at a MUCH lower rate and I recognize that. If I were making more, I'd want to pay more because of course, I would! I'm trying very hard not to be a privileged jerk.
Do you understand that?
It's been shown more than once that rich lefties (and we can include Double Standard Dan, as he's more than once proclaimed himself to be rich) will demand more taxes on the wealthy, but when it's suggested they not wait for such legislation but instead go ahead and send more of their wealth to the feds, the balk. Clearly they're not serious about anything but demonizing better people. No one is stopping Dan from sending in more than his tax obligation, nor from encouraging all his "rich" leftist friends to do likewise. If they truly cared, they'd do so without the whining. Doesn't matter their level of wealth is unlikely to make a great difference. They have much and to whom much is given, much will be expected, except of themselves by themselves. They simply expect others to give much.
"Do you understand that?"
1. I understand that it is impossible to increase taxes on those making $400K/year enough to accomplish what you want to accomplish.
2. I understand that what y'all really want to tax is wealth, not income and that's when I'll be in your sights.
3. When in recent history has an income tax increase ever been limited to what was promised during a campaign?
4. Why wasn't this bill passed during the first two years of the Biden administration?
Art,
Yes, by global standards Dan is rich, as are we all.
Dan has nothing that prevents him from paying more taxes, he simply chooses not to. While at the same time demanding of others what he will not do. Strangely enough, it is very often the case that those on the political left are looking for "the others" to fulfill their political wish list.
"If I have committed to pay a contractor who has done work for me $10,000, then you bet your ass it IS the same as spent. I can't just ignore the debt I owe like Trump has done routinely."
1. It's theoretically only the same if there is an enforceable contract.
2. It's only the same if there's an enforceable contract, and if the contractor has performed on his part of the contract.
3. There are legal processes in place for the contractor to seek redress.
4. Despite your claim, the words are still not synonyms.
"What world are you living in? Are you really living in that privileged a sphere that you can just IGNORE your commitments?"
I'm living in a world where "discretionary" means "discretionary". In a world where people, families, or nations don't simply borrow vast sums of money with no attempt at controlling spending. I'm living in a world where the reality of having the means to pay for a "commitment" actually matters.
"What ever happened to fiscally responsible conservatives?"
They believe that living within our means on a national level is fiscally responsible, and the borrowing vast sums of money that can never be repaid is fiscally irresponsible. They believe that unchecked spending funded by massive increases in debt is fiscally irresponsible.
Once again we see Dan pretending to care by demanding more from others. His nonsense about how the financially well off have benefited by the system is nonsense. They benefited by doing what is possible for the vast majority of Americans. That some succeed far better than others is more often than not the result of their own, unrelenting efforts than any bullshit argument they did it "on the backs of the poor". What an absolute fiction! Morons like Dan think that an employer is exploiting workers because they offered what marxists like Dan refer to as a "less than living wage". Yet, those workers agreed to that wage. What if they didn't? The employer would get the work done in some other manner or they would increase their offer...which is how the successful become successful in business.
And yet somehow, because the covetous marxists see only the consequences of effort rather than the efforts themselves, they stupidly assert the well off are greedy bastards who deserve to have their pockets picked because they "benefited fantastically from our system and taking advantage of the poor who've helped make them who they are". This is what stupidity looks like. This is what lying looks like. This is what Dan should be referring to as a "stupidly false claim", because that's what it is.
Morons like Dan ignore the wasteful spending of our government...mostly by HIS side of the aisle...and stupidly assert we're in trouble if we don't borrow or print more to do more wasteful spending. God have mercy on our nation for producing incredibly stupid people like Dan who abuse their voting privileges.
"These folks are already paying between 42 and 62 percent of total tax revenues, despite being less than 10% of the population. These high earners already pay a disproportionate percentage of tax revenue, but you want them to pay an even more disproportionate percentage of tax revenue."
The top 10% in the USA have 70% of the wealth. Wealth generates wealth. They're doing all right for themselves.
We should reasonably, then, expect them to pay some 70% of our taxes. They are the ones benefitting from it.
"The top ten percent of households own 76% of all wealth in the U.S., while the bottom 50% of households own just 1% of all wealth"
https://financebuzz.com/us-net-worth-statistics
Dan
What an interesting hunch, but let's look a little deeper.
The "top 10%" includes people with incomes as low as $130,000.
Wealth is NOT income. To confiscate that amount of money would require the federal government to force individuals to sell their assets in order to pay that level of taxes, are you really comfortable with forcing people to sell property to pay taxes? Obviously, you understand that this forced sell off would artificially lower the market value of these assets and that the likelihood is that there are not enough buyers to buy the assets anyway. I know that you realize the massive damage that such an asset sell off would do to the larger economy, and con only assume that you are willing to accept that damage as necessary. Would this tax on wealth be a one time thing, or would it happen yearly?
FYI, I knew you'd find a way to come after my families wealth and tax us out of it.
I do like how your true colors show through by changing the basis for taxation from income to wealth, which would only work for a very short period of time as each successive year of a wealth tax would yield diminishing returns.
This ridiculous notion also ignores the fact that if you taxed the top 10% at 100% of their wealth it wouldn't fund the massive government spending spree for more than a year.
Finally, and I know you've thought this through. Most of the "top 10%" who have all of this wealth have it invested in things that actually help the economy. Stocks allow businesses to expand, do R/D and hire new employees. Or how many of these folks own companies that employ people who pay taxes, buy goods and services, and generate economic activity? What about Drs? How long do you think surgeons will practice if folx like you decide to take too much of their income?
Like I said, I'm sure that you've thought all of these consequences through before you decided to advocate taxing people's wealth to the tune of 76% of total tax revenue. I'm sure that your extensive economic education has convinced you that this course of action will be nothing but positive. Seriously, how could taking vast amounts of money from those in society who have been productive, in order to give it to those who have been much less productive. What could possibly go wrong?
This is twice in recent days that Dan has appeared to demonstrate that he isn't aware of the difference between income, wealth, and net worth.
The first time was when I pointed out that my family's net worth put me in his sights as a target for higher taxes, and he immediately defaulted to commenting on what he presumed my income is.
Now, he chooses to use data about wealth/net worth to base his demands for confiscatory taxation on, instead of using income. We currently do not tax wealth, in this country. If for no other reason that the fact that most wealth is accrued with money that has already been taxed at least once or twice. Dan certainly couldn't be advocating for taxing the same dollar multiple times, could he? There are reasons why we don't tax wealth, most notably because wealth is not liquid, and because taxing wealth would destroy the efforts by millions of older Americans who have sacrificed to fund their retirement in such a way as to be free to do what they want.
This thoughtless switching between income and wealth/net worth as if unaware of the differences shows a disturbingly shallow grasp of how the economy actually works and why capitalism is so good at generating and spreading wealth.
Forget Dan's stupidity and lies. I say again that the wealthy become so through efforts most others refuse to expend. They are not "benefiting" in ways not wide open to everyone. The stories of how many rose from nothing to great wealth prove this reality Dan wishes to pretend are cases of exploitation. Well, they exploit the opportunities open to all, and Dan's a freaking moron with no true grasp of truth and Christian teaching. What's more, he personally does nothing to increase his own wealth, pretending he's "more Christian" by being poorer while demanding others do what he chooses not to do. Until Dan gives away every dime he doesn't need to survive, he's a liar and a hypocrite.
Art,
If you look at what Dan is saying, it almost sounds like he thinks that the "rich" are simply given their wealth, as opposed to them doing anything to earn it.
To be fair, simply living in the US gives anyone a significant advantage in accruing wealth over many other countries. But that doesn't mean that becoming wealthy requires no effort, ability, work or anything else.
Finally, let's compare the lot of the "poor" in the US as opposed to (for example) Haiti. The majority of Haitians live on less than $20 per day, while that level of income is incredibly rare in the US. The "poor" in the US are likely to have heat, indoor plumbing, a car or ready access to public transportation, a cell phone, TV, and the like. Haitians are lucky to have "running water" within 100 yards, and windows.
The reality is that the standard of living of the "poor" in the US is a standard of living that the majority of the worlds poor would aspire to.
It seems to me that Dan is more interested in taking down the top 10% than in anything else. He's under the impression that it's possible to tax a nation into prosperity, and that raising taxes to extreme highs can be done with zero negative effects on the economy. It's a matter of cutting spending voluntarily now, or continuing to borrow and spend with little regard for the future.
A lefty with a cause must be appeased in pursuit of that cause, and damn how it is financially supported. We who aren't leftist morons don't get to question whether or not the cause puts any obligation on any level of government, or even on our fellow Americans. We simply must concede that it is because leftist asshats insist it is so.
Dan's interested in picking the pockets of the wealthy and I don't think he gives a flying rat's ass how they came to be wealthy, be it through the sweat of their brows or through the sweat of their fathers' brows. It's just Dan's to take and that's all there is to it. He won't do a damned thing to increase his own net worth. He won't invest in the markets, he won't wager at the track or casinos, he won't shovel snow or cut lawns or get a paper route. He'll just demand of others who sacrificed greatly to achieve as if his sorry ass has the authority or rational argument for doing so.
The worst part is that he'll regard himself as having done good in the world for forcing others to pay for that which he won't lift a finger to provide himself. He'll take credit, think himself as having done God's Will and more than likely continue to demand more from the same people who have provided far more for far more people than Dan ever will in his contemptible life. Indeed, even among the wealthy who are truly greedy bastards, they contribute more in tax revenues than Dan ever will. He's more than a moron. He's an evil bastard in more ways than one. This is just one more.
I agree that Dan appears to see the top 10% as a bottomless well of funding for whatever his ilk decides is the next big thing to fix the problem. Where this line of thinking fails, is that it assumes that the top 10% won't change their behavior to protect their wealth, or that you won't tax large numbers of people out of the top 10%.
It's interesting that I keep hearing intelligent people arguing that the solution for "the poor" is to help them build wealth. To facilitate people buying real estate, starting businesses and the like. These are the things that create wealth. Most of what Dan is talking about is just going to keep people perpetually in relatively low paying jobs while limiting opportunities to build wealth. Why? Because Dan seems to believe that wealth is bad and that it's better to see "rich" people's income come down, instead of "the poor" amassing more wealth.
The very notion that Dan can pronounce that X dollars of income is "enough" for someone else is chilling in it's implications.
Post a Comment