1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

We don't have a spending problem or a tax problem, we have an interest payment problem. 

service to the debt is inline with historical norms. it's actually on the low side, despite the high debt number.

I don't disagree however that the debt is a problem. it will handcuff the fed if they need to raise rates, because it will then cost us more to borrow.

but let's be intellectually honest here: the nation wants to have its cake and eat it to. you hate these big social programs - great! then lobby your congressperson and senators to end them. see where that gets you.

whether you like it or not, the reality is that Americans want those programs. do 100% want them? no, but if you were to start making drastic cuts you will see that party murdered at the polls.

it's completely disingenuous to then tell the people they can also have a tax cut.  you can be a grown up and tell them that if they want medicare, medicaid, SS, etc. that these are the levels of taxation necessary to maintain those programs. and that if you want your taxes cut, you need to accept program cuts. 

that's democracy.

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

so what you're saying is that social programs that were passed into law by elected representatives of the people, that resulted in mandatory spending that modern Republicans do not like, cannot possibly be cut or downsized because it would cause a backlash from *checks notes* the citizens of the United States, and that in response it's entirely rational for the Republican party to tell the American people "you can have the expensive social programs that you like AND we can also cut taxes, but the deficits are ONLY because of the programs you won't let us cut"?

do you not see a problem here?

Nobody will cut them.  Even Trump despite his blustering about them used Social Security as a political weapon as the election neared...saying that Democrats would cut social security in an attempt to garner last minute votes in Florida.  

This isn't a Republican or a Democrat program today its a national problem that nobody will touch because its political suicide.  I can **** about Biden spending 1.9 trillion largely on things that we don't need just as you can complain about trump cutting taxes.  The reality is that we are both just pissing in the ocean and trying to further our political narratives.  

Until someone addresses the spiraling interest problems on social program debt every president will spend more than the next. 

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

We don't have a spending problem or a tax problem, we have an interest payment problem. 

Net interest is lower than the historical norm thanks to record low interest rates. I know you are allergic to facts, and I want no part of engaging this idiocy, but I just can't let this go.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910#_idTextAnchor005

OK, you may now return to embarrassing yourself and I will watch others dunk on you.

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Nobody will cut them.  Even Trump despite his blustering about them used Social Security as a political weapon as the election neared...saying that Democrats would cut social security in an attempt to garner last minute votes in Florida.  

This isn't a Republican or a Democrat program today its a national problem that nobody will touch because its political suicide.  I can **** about Biden spending 1.9 trillion largely on things that we don't need just as you can complain about trump cutting taxes.  The reality is that we are both just pissing in the ocean and trying to further our political narratives.  

Until someone addresses the spiraling interest problems on social program debt every president will spend more than the next. 

I agree that nobody will cut them. Because they're popular. Political and economic wonks can debate whether they're good or bad, and speculate about how you might be able to cut them. But the reality is that they are popular with those who make the decisions: the voters. 

So you can either accept that 'mandatory spending' is, indeed, mandatory because it's mandated by the people to be spent, and craft your tax policy around this.

Or you can pretend that unicorns and magic exist, and cut taxes while blaming the ensuing deficits entirely on spending. 

In my situation I would be MUCH better off if those programs were erased from existence. I could buy a nice car cash every year with the savings. But I live in the real world where I don't get to play God and magically wish away government programs that are not beneficial to me personally. 

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Net interest is lower than the historical norm thanks to record low interest rates. I know you are allergic to facts, and I want no part of engaging this idiocy, but I just can't let this go.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56910#_idTextAnchor005

OK, you may now return to embarrassing yourself and I will watch others dunk on you.

The "libertarian" speaks. 

We're not talking about the revenue side of the interest the government collects, we're talking about the interest it pays on debt.  Yes, the rates are great (for now) but if you buy a house you can't afford even with a low interest rate you still can't afford it.  Not to mention that interest rates will eventually go up. 

And just so we're clear here...you are defending the country's current 108% GDP debt ratio, right? 

32 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

deficit = taxes collected - spending.

fyp.  

7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I agree that nobody will cut them. Because they're popular. Political and economic wonks can debate whether they're good or bad, and speculate about how you might be able to cut them. But the reality is that they are popular with those who make the decisions: the voters. 

So you can either accept that 'mandatory spending' is, indeed, mandatory because it's mandated by the people to be spent, and craft your tax policy around this.

Or you can pretend that unicorns and magic exist, and cut taxes while blaming the ensuing deficits entirely on spending. 

In my situation I would be MUCH better off if those programs were erased from existence. I could buy a nice car cash every year with the savings. But I live in the real world where I don't get to play God and magically wish away government programs that are not beneficial to me personally. 

On what planet is Social Security popular?  People defend it because they have been forced to pay into it their entire lives and are fearful of losing their money. 

All I'm saying is, if we're all going to score cheap political points on each other by blaming the president's we don't like for their deficit spending then let's at least acknowledge that the majority of their spending is out of their control. 

2 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

The "libertarian" speaks. 

We're not talking about the revenue side of the interest the government collects, we're talking about the interest it pays on debt.  Yes, the rates are great (for now) but if you buy a house you can't afford even with a low interest rate you still can't afford it.  Not to mention that interest rates will eventually go up. 

And just so we're clear here...you are defending the country's current 108% GDP debt ratio, right? 

Dude, that chart has nothing to do with revenue. 

It's showing the amount of interest we are paying on debt as a percentage of GDP.

I could also show a charge of the same against total outlays, and it's lower.  The percentage of spending in interest is less overall than it was 25 years ago.

Again, as both I and Vikas have said, this has everything to do with historically low interest rates. And so there is an issue there, because now the debt has to be part of the considerations for the Fed when they discuss rate changes.

But you're arguing something that is not, at present, an issue: the interest we're paying on the debt. 

1 minute ago, NVeagle said:

fyp.  

stick to spamming the political pics thread with idiotic memes. 

1 minute ago, The Norseman said:

On what planet is Social Security popular?  People defend it because they have been forced to pay into it their entire lives and are fearful of losing their money. 

All I'm saying is, if we're all going to score cheap political points on each other by blaming the president's we don't like for their deficit spending then let's at least acknowledge that the majority of their spending is out of their control. 

if SS was unpopular it would be much easier to cut back. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

stick to spamming the political pics thread with idiotic memes. 

What have you bought directly from the government?  They don't have revenue, they collect taxes.

5 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

The "libertarian" speaks. 

We're not talking about the revenue side of the interest the government collects, we're talking about the interest it pays on debt.  Yes, the rates are great (for now) but if you buy a house you can't afford even with a low interest rate you still can't afford it.  Not to mention that interest rates will eventually go up. 

And just so we're clear here...you are defending the country's current 108% GDP debt ratio, right? 

Net interest is the net payment made on the debt. It's not the "revenue side". It simply nets the interest received (primarily by the Fed) on Treasuries against the interest paid by the Treasury Department. So, wrong again. But, if you put in any effort to understand a thing, you'd see gross interest has grown far slower than spending.

Quote

The largest component of net interest outlays is the interest paid to holders of public debt, or gross interest. Over the past 10 years, the nominal amount of that debt has more than doubled, rising from $9.0 trillion to $21.0 trillion. However, a decline in interest rates over the same period limited the growth in gross interest outlays, which grew by only 26 percent, from $414 billion in 2010 to $523 billion in 2020.

And at no point in my post where I pointed out your stupidity did I defend the current debt/GDP ratio. Stop inventing things in your feeble mind.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

People used to say, "Wouldn't it be great to have a businessman run the country

I guess but that is a bit different than a carnival barker

Just now, DrPhilly said:

I guess but that is a bit different than a carnival barker

I'd still be interested in seeing a SUCCESSFUL business executive in the Oval Office. Someone like, oh I don't know...Mitt Romney.

3 minutes ago, NVeagle said:

What have you bought directly from the government?  They don't have revenue, they collect taxes.

guess you never heard of the IRS ? that's internal "revenue" service in case you cant figure out the acronym. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

I'd still be interested in seeing a SUCCESSFUL business executive in the Oval Office. Someone like, oh I don't know...Mitt Romney.

me too

15 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

The "libertarian" speaks. 

We're not talking about the revenue side of the interest the government collects, we're talking about the interest it pays on debt.  Yes, the rates are great (for now) but if you buy a house you can't afford even with a low interest rate you still can't afford it.  Not to mention that interest rates will eventually go up. 

And just so we're clear here...you are defending the country's current 108% GDP debt ratio, right? 

I love watching CVON dolts stick their chest out and patronize @vikas83 on financial topics. 

School is in session!

31 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

And by this logic Biden will greatly outspend Trump.  Aren't you outraged?  What you don't (or won't) understand is that very little of what we do in terms of taxation and discretionary spending matters.  Its the interest on our debt that represents the large majority of our spending.  This interest grows if we do nothing.  

I understand it just fine. But you've oversimplified your argument to "Spending went up under Trump because of mandatory spending" which I've proven to be patently false. In short...

Spending will increase because of mandatory spending and interest (unless we raise taxes GASP). However, Trump made the deficit much worse because of his moronic tax policy and his spending increases that he himself signed in to law

 

Biden probably will as well. And the next republican president will as well. Unlike you I am not pretending that one party is fiscally responsible. Both parties suck. You've never seen me post anything different. However, the democrats suck because they spend recklessly. Republicans suck because they spend recklessly AND want to overturn American democracy and install a fascist dictatorship... see the difference?

Anyone who uses a clip from The West Wing or The Simpsons gets a like.

It's in the Geneva Convention.

7 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

guess you never heard of the IRS ? that's internal "revenue" service in case you cant figure out the acronym. 

Yea, it's not accurate. What are they selling? They are collecting.  "Revenue" of the government is collecting taxes from citizens, businesses, visitors etc.  It's our money not the government's.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Anyone who uses a clip from The West Wing or The Simpsons gets a like.

It's in the Geneva Convention.

 

20 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

On what planet is Social Security popular?  People defend it because they have been forced to pay into it their entire lives and are fearful of losing their money. 

All I'm saying is, if we're all going to score cheap political points on each other by blaming the president's we don't like for their deficit spending then let's at least acknowledge that the majority of their spending is out of their control. 

Quote

Public Opinions on Social Security

Over the years, polls have consistently shown that the American public strongly supports Social Security, across party and demographic lines.

In January 2013, the Academy released Strengthening Social Security: What Do Americans Want?, a groundbreaking public opinion study focusing on Americans’ attitudes about Social Security and preferences for strengthening the program for the future. The report found that Americans overwhelmingly support Social Security and are willing to pay more to preserve and even improve benefits. In 2014, the Academy released an update this survey, Americans Make Hard Choices on Social Security: A Survey with Trade-Off Analysis, the findings of which are presented below.

With 61 million people receiving Social Security benefits, Americans recognize that Social Security is a critical program. Large majorities of Americans say they don’t mind paying Social Security taxes because of the security and stability the benefits provide to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and children and widowed spouses of deceased workers. These findings hold true across party lines (those agreeing include 87% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans). Americans are also willing to pay for Social Security because they value it for themselves (73%) and their families (73%).

 

I mean, I am vehemently against social security, but there is no doubt that people love it. People will always support getting money stolen from others. It's like polling if a law providing free puppies would be popular.

Just now, NVeagle said:

Yea, it's not accurate. What are they selling? They are collecting.  "Revenue" of the government is collecting taxes from citizens, businesses, visitors etc.  It's our money not the government's.

Pretty sure the U.S. already tried this approach under the Articles of Confederation 

13 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Net interest is the net payment made on the debt. It's not the "revenue side". It simply nets the interest received (primarily by the Fed) on Treasuries against the interest paid by the Treasury Department. So, wrong again. But, if you put in any effort to understand a thing, you'd see gross interest has grown far slower than spending.

And at no point in my post where I pointed out your stupidity did I defend the current debt/GDP ratio. Stop inventing things in your feeble mind.

I understand it perfectly.  Net interest is the net result of interest received vs. interest paid.  If you don't want to call interest received "revenue" then fine...but last I checked, that's what banks call it.  It still doesn't change the fact that we weren't talking about the interest we recieve, we are talking about the interest we pay.  Net interest isn't relevant.   

Just now, vikas83 said:

I mean, I am vehemently against social security, but there is no doubt that people love it. People will always support getting money stolen from others. It's like polling if a law providing free puppies would be popular.

Yeah its become a retirement program. People want to retire whether they've actually saved for retirement or not. Most people with good careers would do better putting the money taken out for SS in their own 401ks, but its amazing how many people don't have a career or a 401K. I remember being shocked that nearly half of adults don't pay income tax. SS isn't going anywhere. I remember when Bush even floated the idea of privatizing it and his own base freaked out over the idea. It's wildly popular. Norse lives in his own reality. He'd do well in the flat earth thread. 

5 minutes ago, NVeagle said:

Yea, it's not accurate. What are they selling? They are collecting.  "Revenue" of the government is collecting taxes from citizens, businesses, visitors etc.  It's our money not the government's.

stop. just stop. 

they sell us lousy infrastructure, antiquated energy sources, a ton of social programs (both good & bad), a superior military (that we are always told is on the brink of collapse) and of course, the space force.