Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
So your point is that being corrupt is okay because she is a Clinton? Did you watch the video?
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Laughable. I don't deny that I'm partisan. You want to pretend you aren't by claiming that you would argue the same thing if we were talking about a Republican. If this really is the case please point me to a single post where you have defended a Republican for anything.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
If our national debt really was such a concern for you right wingies, why don't you ever suggest cutting down on the blank checks we're sending to our offensive defense budget and raise taxes? Why must we outspend #2 China 4 times in defense? Or #3 Russia 8 times? Can't we defend ourselves by just spending 2 or 3 times as much as China?
We have one of the lowest effective corporate taxes in the world. Estate taxes are near all time lows.
We have one of the lowest effective corporate taxes in the world. Estate taxes are near all time lows.
I'm gonna bind it to the same reason the rich should be paying a higher tax rate; they have more to protect.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
If our corporate taxes are so favorable then how come the government just had to jump in at the last moment to prevent Phizer from relocating their corporate headquarters to Ireland for tax reasons? If you raise the corporate taxes further get ready for a mass corporate exodus.
As for the defense budget, I don't know the numbers but I've heard Trump ranting about how we are paying to defend all of these other countries (Japan, Germany, etc.) and that has got to stop. Maybe it's time you jumped aboard the Trump Train.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Companies outsource for a variety of reasons. Labor costs, health care costs, regulations, subsidies (corporate welfare handouts).
The truth of the matter is that among the industrialized world, the effective corporate tax rate in our country is among the lowest. And with good reason. Ya think that government would be immune to the millions of free speech corporate lobbyists bribe I mean contribute to their campaigns?
Btw, Phizer moved using a trick called inversion. It allows them to more easily socialize the costs to the American public while privatizing its profits. We could use some tax reform to make this sort of thing illegal/more costly.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Of course it's possible and we will pay it. It's in the Constitution that we have to. It would take a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing so. We actually pay off our debts all the time. Currently we just get new loans to pay back the old ones.
I'm sure though that you're wondering if we could pay it all off. It isn't necessary but it's possible. There are 2 questions that I think are more important. The first question is at what point does the interest on the debt become too much of a burden to taxpayers, because right now the interest is all we are effectively paying anyway. So far this fiscal year we have spent 219 billion dollars on interest service. LINK The answer to this question is basically "Deal with it". Like I said we have to pay it. If we don't want to pay a larger portion of our GDP in the future to interest then we either balance the budget or stimulate growth now. (<between those two is where the political argument lies)
The second question is when do bondholders lose faith in our ability to pay them back faster than inflation eats up their investment or they believe the likelihood that we will ignore/change the Constitution in order to avoid paying them is high enough that they quit buying them at a reasonable interest rate. The answer to this question in Greece(iirc)was about 120% debt to GDP ratio but Greece doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee, Brussels is less fond of Athens than Washington is of Washington, the US doesn't have the kind of social spending that Greece has, and Greece doesn't have the 18 Trillion dollar economy that gives us an economy of scale advantage. The answer to the second question is we don't know at what level the bond market will get spooked but we don't want to find out we have hit our limit in the middle of the next financial crisis, war, or whatever.
I think most people agree that our debt to GDP ratio is too high and needs to come down so that we have a little more breathing room. How we get there? As far as I can tell vitriol seems to be the path most people believe in.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
It's not just trump who has suggested that we slash our offensive budget spending, but Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. It's outrageously out of control.
"The U.S. outpaces all other nations in military expenditures. World military spending totaled more than $1.6 trillion in 2015. The U.S. accounted for 37 percent of the total.
U.S. military expenditures are roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets around the world, combined."
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/us-military-spending-vs-world/
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
If you repubs really want to slash the deficit, slash our offensive budget and raise taxes.
To me, constantly whining about entitlements is such an old broken record. Young people want more government. And old farts aren't giving up their Medicare and Social Security.
So like immigration reform, your calls for entitlement reform to lower the deficit seem disingenuous at best.
The offensive budget? It can be slashed and we can keep our nose out of the Middle East too. Hell, we'll have to. We can't afford anymore republican wars there. They're just too damn costly.
To me, constantly whining about entitlements is such an old broken record. Young people want more government. And old farts aren't giving up their Medicare and Social Security.
So like immigration reform, your calls for entitlement reform to lower the deficit seem disingenuous at best.
The offensive budget? It can be slashed and we can keep our nose out of the Middle East too. Hell, we'll have to. We can't afford anymore republican wars there. They're just too damn costly.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Of course it's possible and we will pay it. It's in the Constitution that we have to. It would take a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing so. We actually pay off our debts all the time. Currently we just get new loans to pay back the old ones.
I'm sure though that you're wondering if we could pay it all off. It isn't necessary but it's possible. There are 2 questions that I think are more important. The first question is at what point does the interest on the debt become too much of a burden to taxpayers, because right now the interest is all we are effectively paying anyway. So far this fiscal year we have spent 219 billion dollars on interest service. LINK The answer to this question is basically "Deal with it". Like I said we have to pay it. If we don't want to pay a larger portion of our GDP in the future to interest then we either balance the budget or stimulate growth now. (<between those two is where the political argument lies)
The second question is when do bondholders lose faith in our ability to pay them back faster than inflation eats up their investment or they believe the likelihood that we will ignore/change the Constitution in order to avoid paying them is high enough that they quit buying them at a reasonable interest rate. The answer to this question in Greece(iirc)was about 120% debt to GDP ratio but Greece doesn't have such a constitutional guarantee, Brussels is less fond of Athens than Washington is of Washington, the US doesn't have the kind of social spending that Greece has, and Greece doesn't have the 18 Trillion dollar economy that gives us an economy of scale advantage. The answer to the second question is we don't know at what level the bond market will get spooked but we don't want to find out we have hit our limit in the middle of the next financial crisis, war, or whatever.
I think most people agree that our debt to GDP ratio is too high and needs to come down so that we have a little more breathing room. How we get there? As far as I can tell vitriol seems to be the path most people believe in.
Inconvenient facts:
Here is a list of federal spending as a percentage of GDP going back for several decades: 1975 — 19.8 percent; 1985 — 21.7 percent; 1995 — 19.7 percent; 2005 — 18.3 percent; 2015 — 20.5 percent.
Does anyone see a huge rise in spending here? Federal spending last year was slightly higher than in 1975, and slightly lower than in 1985. Federal spending has fluctuated in a very narrow range for a long time now. It's time to dump the "out of control" nonsense.
So if spending isn't much more than what it was 30 years ago, why the debt explosion? Lack of tax revenue. Over the past 30 years corporations and the 1 percent have essentially rewritten the tax code... In their favor.
Taxes have become more regressive, hurting the middle class and poor. Labor has been sacrificed in favor of investment. Now, you're charged a higher tax rate by working than by your capital gains (investments). As a result, the rich become richer. While labor continued to take it in the nuts
they have nothing to worry about. A handshake and a smile gets them into the best homes worldwide. Jeb Bush and Prince Abdullah, and anyone else who has a private jet. It's club fascism nd the NWO.
Aztec Bowery Wars. . . . study up on the reality of it all.
Our MIC corps, like Walmart, will favor what brings in the money.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
So you think we should freeze spending and raise taxes?
Edit: BTW that would be called balancing the budget and I never said anything about spending to GDP in my post. I was speaking about our accruing debt which is caused by deficit spending. So... nothing you said refutes anything I did but whatever. vitriol