Government Shutdown

huge-O-chavez wrote: Here's a nugget of truth. If we wanted to pay off our debt tomorrow, we could... We have the largest asset base of any other nation. We don't choose too...

Prove it or it isn't real.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't believe that. As I said, though, I don't belive cutting spending can fix it either.

I don't believe it is intellectually valid to maintain duality on this level of thinking.

This is because the proportion of the two things defined in simple terms such as the numbers themselves CLEARLY indicate the gravity and intertia of the problem overwhelmingly is represented by spending, not taxation.

Cutting spending I believe is the only intellectually honest position to hold after weighing such figures in earnest. I seek to convince as many people as possible of this.

I'm trying to convince you, too. When we reduce it to the numbers, the spending problem is not only currently several folds over the tax numbers, the last 25 years have shown us that spending is a consistant problem that is disporportionate to taxes and revenues.

I believe the government should contract inward if it collects fewer taxes because of the condition of the public. Or it should have been governed well enough in the first place to have a SAVINGS to call upon and not be affected. But remember, we keep electing officials that continue to spend more money than taken in. I only know of a handful of local municipalities that actually have emergency funds or savings that are 'hands off,' and can't be loaned out or borrowed against.

But we're borrowing against, and spending away so much that even if we removed a major branch of government completely, we'd still be falling in the hole? The orders of magnitude of difference this represents compared to the tax policy should speak for itself.

madmallard wrote: I don't believe it is intellectually valid to maintain duality on this level of thinking.

Er, uh. Okay.

There are 307,000,550 people in the United States. (Give or take. That's what the google machine said.)

The deficit is about $1,500,000,000,000

1,500,000,000,000/307,000,550=$4,885.98 per citizen.

So, that's a big number. And that's every man, woman and child in the United States. That's more than we can raise taxes. But as part of an overall solution, it's not like it's $200,000 per person. Yes, we can collect some percentage of this in taxes, particularly given the fact that so many aren't paying anything at all. And I can maintain my dually with an intellectual validity all day long on that level. Shoot, all it ever needs is an oil change and some tires from time to time.

The only place we differ is your instance that there's only one solution. It took a lot to get us in this hole. I don't know why cutting spending is the "only solution". We certainly can't solve it without cutting spending in a huge way. We agree on that. But to say that raising more money won't help at all just doesn't make sense.

Too bad that the media already has the populace believing that rich people don't pay "their fair share" of taxes as it is. Nobody in that 50% that doesn't pay taxes - and a lot of lefties well above that line who DO pay taxes - is going to tolerate the thought of taxing some of that 50% who currently don't pay. Not even for a moment.

In reply to Duke:

Taxing the poor is not a very good way of getting reelected.

Eddie, I understand what you think should happen. My guess is there are more than a few of us that agree with you. Unfortunately we have a government that can't be trusted to be responsible. If they increase taxes the chances of them spending that money to reduce the deficit is zero. They will bloat the government more and keep right on spending more than comes in. Until they can prove their ability to be responsible with what they already take I have no interest in giving them more. Since they will never be responsible, tax increases are off the table for a lot of us.

We can't raise taxes much higher because of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

GDP is not a constant, folks.

Toyman01 wrote: Eddie, I understand what you think should happen. My guess is there are more than a few of us that agree with you. Unfortunately we have a government that can't be trusted to be responsible.

I have to tell you, I think this is a problem. We have a deal here in Colorado. They passed a law called TABOR some years ago. Makes it illegal to raise taxes without a public vote.

Think about this. We elect people to legislate. Then we make it illegal for them to pass certain laws. There's a problem here.

This, and what you are saying, is nothing short of saying representative democracy has failed. Basically, the American Experiment is unsuccessful. Maybe so. I don't know.

tuna55 wrote: We can't raise taxes much higher because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve GDP is not a constant, folks.

For God sake. Again with that?

Okay, tell you what. I'll vote for anyone you say if you show me where on the Laffer Curve we are. What does the Laffer curve say is the "sweet spot"? Didn't we lower taxes? Didn't revenue go down? So, the Laffer Curve says we need to raise taxes, right?

Truth is, the Laffer Curve is only another way of saying something obvious. If you tax 100% no one will work anymore. If you tax 0% the government will make no money. The only conclusion it draws is that the "right" place is somewhere between 0 and 100%. Not really all that helpful.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I have to tell you, I think this is a problem. We have a deal here in Colorado. They passed a law called TABOR some years ago. Makes it illegal to raise taxes without a public vote. Think about this. We elect people to legislate. Then we make it illegal for them to pass certain laws. There's a problem here.

Similar situation in California. Congress requires a simple majority to pass a budget. However, they require a 2/3 vote in order to raise taxes.

This was part of Prop 13, meaning the people voted on it, not the legislature.

I see the result as being that we have made it much easier for our legislature to spend money than to earn it, with about the results you'd expect.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: We can't raise taxes much higher because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve GDP is not a constant, folks.

For God sake. Again with that? Okay, tell you what. I'll vote for anyone you say if you show me where on the Laffer Curve we are. What does the Laffer curve say is the "sweet spot"? Didn't we lower taxes? Didn't revenue go down? So, the Laffer Curve says we need to raise taxes, right? Truth is, the Laffer Curve is only another way of saying something obvious. If you tax 100% no one will work anymore. If you tax 0% the government will make no money. The only conclusion it draws is that the "right" place is somewhere between 0 and 100%. Not really all that helpful.

Your mouthy, man. Cut that out. It is making the point that you can't simply raise the tax rate to raise the revenue, over time there is only so much tax a populace can support. I (and a bunch of others) think we're on the wrong side of that already.

Salanis wrote: Similar situation in California. Congress requires a simple majority to pass a budget. However, they require a 2/3 vote in order to raise taxes. This was part of Prop 13, meaning the people voted on it, not the legislature. I see the result as being that we have made it much easier for our legislature to spend money than to earn it, with about the results you'd expect.

They just call them Bonds, or finance what ever scheme they have in there head that day.

California is a sinking ship with the pension problems we have just being the tip of the iceberg.

Greenspan, being a less govt, look the other way , hands off regulatory practices kind of guy constantly lowered interest rates until now, where they are as low as they can go. everyone who claims to know what they are doing, DOESNT. Brookings, mensa, or whatever think tank you can think of dont know up from down. only the corporations know how to collect funding from the populace. so bitching about it is useless at this point--has anyone emailed their cman and senators yet?

wearymicrobe wrote: They just call them Bonds, or finance what ever scheme they have in there head that day. California is a sinking ship with the pension problems we have just being the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, except that most bonds are not proposed by legislature, but by corporate enterprise that will get a fat chunk of change for the money. (Says a guy who got paid to help the High-Speed Rail bond pass.)

I think the right answer for CA would be to get rid of the Proposition/Bond direct democracy system. It won't be the only thing we need to fix, but it will do a lot to keep us from sliding back into our current predicaments.

tuna55 wrote: Your mouthy, man. Cut that out. It is making the point that you can't simply raise the tax rate to raise the revenue, over time there is only so much tax a populace can support. I (and a bunch of others) think we're on the wrong side of that already.

You think. So, we should go with that because you think it might be right. Sorry. Don't mean to be "mouthy", but I did explain exactly what the Laffer Curve is. Sorry if you were offended.

(edit) Yeah, I am getting a little mouthy. Probably means I should stop now. I think I've made whatever point I thought I was trying to make. Probably just made an ass of myself. That's why I try to stay out of politics. Seems like I can't "dip a toe in". I pretty much just go overboard. Hope I raised a couple of good points at least.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: There are 307,000,550 people in the United States. (Give or take. That's what the google machine said.) The deficit is about $1,500,000,000,000 1,500,000,000,000/307,000,550=$4,885.98 per citizen. So, that's a big number. And that's every man, woman and child in the United States. That's more than we can raise taxes. But as part of an overall solution, it's not like it's $200,000 per person. Yes, we can collect some percentage of this in taxes, particularly given the fact that so many aren't paying anything at all. And I can maintain my dually with an intellectual validity all day long on that level. Shoot, all it ever needs is an oil change and some tires from time to time.

I still haven't illustrated the proportion to which the scale of the problem is to be considered... my failing...i reeeely want to convince you.

Lemme offer a thought to start with. This deficit does not include the current outstanding National Debt of $14 trillion. Remember, the current deficit per year of $1.5 trillion. Not a "one time" deficit. This debt will continue to build up indefintely all the way until we hit the national debt ceiling law (currently believed to be in May), unless we spend less than the deficit. This is not a new problem, its taken a longstanding policy of ASS governing to do this.

Here's a quick simplified chart figure. (again, for arguement sake, remove all the military) Social services income tax collected last year was $865 billion, budgeted to spend from that tax pool was $1,900 billion. (for medicare, ss, and medicaid, and federal unemployement. Thats over a trillion dollars in overspending whats collected from the people for the express purpose of funding it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/usa-inc-2010-income-statement

So lets compare this with the taxes already being paid according to that pie chart, thats 2 trillion in individual income taxes (not counting business just for the sake of argument.) 2 trillion collected, and minus the military (for the sake of my point) about 3 trillion being spent. To cover the loss, keeping the same income tax proportions among the people as they are now, everyone's income tax would have to go up %33 of what they pay now (listed as a percentage of the debt), or %50 (listed as a percentage of whats currently being paid). Chose whichever number makes more sense to you since its the same figure.

So lets look at that proportion again, because you can't use the population numbers you've put forth in the manner you're suggesting to make a realistic perspective of the tax base. You have to 'walk it out' further. 75 million of that population figure is children.

13.5 million are unemployed by definition of the BLS. (this figure doesn't count people who have given up or have been searching more than a year. likely 'real' figure is higher.) This leaves about 220 million.

Now, then, how many jobs are there in the us? As of last year, 128,926,000 (again from the BLS). So there's about 90 million people left who don't pay income tax because they don't have income. Fair enough, I suppose?

So we can only collect taxes from the remaining people making money, right? Instead, that figure comes out to about $11,700 per tax payer. And thats not even counting how much taxes they already pay at local levels, and in sales, etc....

But wait, we're not done.

Of the remaining population actually filling those jobs, not all of them end up paying income tax. Many qualify for an Earned Income Tax Credit that ends up washing out their federal tax liability, and then their SS and Medicare liability, and they keep the difference if there is any. For a handful (by comparison) some of those not paying are also retirees or living off of assets instead of income. But as of last year, it works out that %47 percent of those don't end up with any federal tax liability.

This means that 53% of the working population ends up paying for all the federal income tax in the country. 68,330,780 people. Thats it.

$22,000 per tax payer. But thats assuming everyone pays the same in taxes, which of course they don't. Its not -fair-, so instead the rich have to pay more, and others would pay marginally less. So lets say based on wealth percentages you have 1 really wealthy person per 100 people. You basically have 100 people pay $100 less each, and then make one "rich someone" pay $10,000 to cover them, plus $22,000. Then you have 20 or so "sort of rich people" every 100. So you take another $50 less from 80 people, and add $200 to those 20. And so forth and so forth.

And then, to cover the deficit, everyone has to pay %50 more in taxes. That means the average becomes $33,000 per tax payer to work from. Work just as hard for less, even if you've saved for your retirement and medical needs and would never use the social services that are the biggest debt. Also, this would have to be permanent and not a one time thing if the current Democrats and the last session Democrats had their way. This is because they offered no spending cuts against the deficit; they only offered to 'spend less' than the increases originally planned and tried to call that a 'cut'.

Why does a group of about 68 million bear the weight of 307 million?

How is it intellectually honest that we NOT recognise the problem is by orders of magnitude NOT the level of financial burden of tax payers to pay, but overwhelmingly is the overspending of available finances?

This mess really got started with the New Deal when congress was allowed to borrow against the SS surplus (yes there was one at the time,) on the promise to pay it back. Now that SS has grown, there is no more money to borrow, AND all that was previously borrowed must be paid back. But politicians have not reduced their spending in proportion.

Now, we have had an entire generation of politicians whom have grown up lived and now died in an era where governing from debt is an acceptable policy; where existing programs get built-in increases without review, where currently running programs NEVER just end or are cut-off and stopped, and where adding new programs as rapidly as possible is seen as a proof of job performance.

madmallard wrote: This mess really got started with the New Deal when congress was allowed to borrow against the SS surplus (yes there was one at the time,) on the promise to pay it back.

I'm not going to get back in. Just wanted to tell you that you're absolutely right about this and I know a lot more about it because of an earlier discussion we had. Thanks for pointing that out. It's an important bit of history that needs to be revisited.

madmallard wrote: Now, we have had an entire generation of politicians whom have grown up lived and now died in an era where governing from debt is an acceptable policy; where existing programs get built-in increases without review, where currently running programs NEVER just end or are cut-off and stopped, and where adding new programs as rapidly as possible is seen as a proof of job performance.

Well said sir.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

no problem, I just kinda realised i went all war&peace-y there with the post length. -_-

And I hope my 'vigorous' attempts to persuade you on a point or two wasn't mis-read as being angry or anything.

tuna55 wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: Here's a nugget of truth. If we wanted to pay off our debt tomorrow, we could... We have the largest asset base of any other nation. We don't choose too...

Prove it or it isn't real.

What is our GDP... What is our debt?

If we wanted to, we could...

In 2009 all assests in the US were valued at $40 Trillion +.. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/worlds_assets_h.html

If we wanted to pay off the debt we could very easily... Sell stuff, make money.. Pay off debt. It's pretty simple..

huge-O-chavez wrote: In 2009 all assests in the US were valued at $40 Trillion +.. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/worlds_assets_h.html If we wanted to pay off the debt we could very easily... Sell stuff, make money.. Pay off debt. It's pretty simple..

You first!

fast_eddie_72 wrote: There are 307,000,550 people in the United States. (Give or take. That's what the google machine said.) The deficit is about $1,500,000,000,000 1,500,000,000,000/307,000,550=$4,885.98 per citizen. So, that's a big number. And that's every man, woman and child in the United States. That's more than we can raise taxes. But as part of an overall solution, it's not like it's $200,000 per person. Yes, we can collect some percentage of this in taxes, particularly given the fact that so many aren't paying anything at all. And I can maintain my dually with an intellectual validity all day long on that level. Shoot, all it ever needs is an oil change and some tires from time to time.

That's the deficit, not the debt. That's how much we need EVERY year.

The debt is about 10 times that.

So each citizen owes more like $50,000. I don't know about your kids, but mine can't afford it because they don't work. Not to mention there are a lot of poor people who are citizens, or handicapped, or retired, or otherwise unable to handle their share of the debt.

So, it really is more like $200,000 per person. I'm just saying...

Duke wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: In 2009 all assests in the US were valued at $40 Trillion +.. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/worlds_assets_h.html If we wanted to pay off the debt we could very easily... Sell stuff, make money.. Pay off debt. It's pretty simple..

You first!

Ha.. No.. But thats the point, It is possible for us to pay off our debt tomorrow. It's just that we choose to keep borrowing..

huge-O-chavez wrote:

Duke wrote:

huge-O-chavez wrote: In 2009 all assests in the US were valued at $40 Trillion +.. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/worlds_assets_h.html If we wanted to pay off the debt we could very easily... Sell stuff, make money.. Pay off debt. It's pretty simple..

You first!

Ha.. No.. But thats the point, It is possible for us to pay off our debt tomorrow. It's just that we choose to keep borrowing..

I don't think you can go from:

"The government has to take every dime we earn forcefully and not let us have it to spend on silly things like food for nearly an entire year"

to

"we could easily pay off the debt"

There is a reason that we don't live under a kingdom anymore. It is our money. The government has abused it. Abusing it further probably isn't the solution. That's like taking a rod knocking, coolant spewing, misfiring engine without oil and saying "What this thing needs is some nitrous out on the autobahn for about 45 minutes flat out"