-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Government Debt
- Thread starter Bob Maxey
- Start date
ok simple statement.
If we do not raise the debt limit by august 2nd, we will default on the current debt. The only way to make a payment on the current debt is to raise the debt ceiling. There is no other way to make a payment on the current debt. There is no money in the coffers, there is no way for the government to get a loan, and there is no way to cut spending, because ALL the money is gone. The only way to make a payment on the current debt is to take out a new loan.
By not raising the debt ceiling, you are placing the current debt in doubt. There is no way for the government to pay the current debt unless it borrows money.
In simple terms, you have to pay the car payment on august 2nd. You have no money in the bank what so ever, you don't get paid until august 14th. The only way for you to make the car payment is to take out a personal loan before august 2nd, or you will not make the car payment.
If you follow the constitution as the government has to, you have to take out the loan, to pay the car payment. You can not default on that loan, period.
So please explain to us how you are going to make the payment on the current debt, when there is no money left in the bank to make the payment? Furthermore, please explain how are you going to do it with out either taking out a loan or letting the current debt go into default.
The debt payment is due on august 2nd, it has to be paid by the language in the constitution.
Lastly, I have got infractions for using the same language you used in the quote, so please lets keep the harsher language out of this.
You would think, but history has proven that wrong so many times, it reads like a bad dime store novel.Fixed that for you
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Only private sector jobs pay income and payroll taxes?Fixed that for youdark4181 said:
Gee, maybe I should get a nice government job where I won't have to pay any payroll and federal income taxes.
The treasury has to take in 312 billion dollars to pay for everything next month. It will only take in 172 billion dollars. Please tell me how you are going to get 172 billion dollars to cover 312 billion dollars. Also take note that the consistutition says public debt. Pay roll is a public debt. The light bill is a public debt. We are not only talking about what has been borrowed in the past, but we are also talking about what is due now.
I hate to do this, but I will spell it out.
public debt - the total of the nation's debts: debts of local and state and national governments; an indicator of how much public spending is financed by borrowing instead of taxation.
We are taking in by taxation 172 billion dollars, we need to borrow 140 billion to pay the bills. By definition, that is public debt. We made a promise to pay out some money to "fill in the blank". Just like everyone makes a promise to pay back a loan, house, car, ect. The amount of public spending from taxation is 172 billion dollars. We need 140 billion dollars to finish paying off that loan we already took out.
Only private sector jobs pay income and payroll taxes?
Gee, maybe I should get a nice government job where I won't have to pay any payroll and federal income taxes.
Government job's wages are paid for in the first place with taxes of which some is recouped through their income and payroll taxes. If you think adding government jobs is the way to grow the economy I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
I didn't say it was a way to "grow" anything.
The private sector is very good at collecting government subsidies and avoiding taxes. Outsourcing, foreign investment (and the foreign investment tax credit - not a deduction, a CREDIT), and dozens of other techniques written into law on behalf of corporate interests by their stooges in Washington not only insure that taxation is minimal but also that investment is concentrated overseas or in other tax exempt strategies. Thus government (taxpayer) money spent directly on domestic employment is a more effective generator of tax revenue than corporate America. Corporate America, aside from being routinely bailed out by taxpayers, also incurs huge public expenses in other ways such as environmental degradation, cost increases in basic commodities and services, etc. It receives far more than it gives.
To get back to the topic of government debt: private industry didn't get us out of the Great Depression, government spending did. Private industry, defense in particular, was built on massive debt issued before and during WWII (the debt peaked at 120% of GDP). This debt was successfully paid off during the post war boom, which oddly enough had full employment and HIGH TAX RATES.
The ideas that debt is bad, or that it can never be paid off, or that taxes kill jobs are patently false and have been foisted on Americans for over 30 years by those who profit from low taxes at the expense of working citizens, and today's economy is the direct result of that.
Conservatives complain about trillions in new debt but don't question where it went or why no jobs are being created. Meanwhile banks are investing in Micronesia, Ford is building plants in Vietnam, etc.
It's really not that hard to figure out.
If you look at tax rate vs gdp, you will find that well...
Tax Rates and GDP Growth | AddictingInf
rg
Tax rates of the top 10% have nothing to do with anything near economic growth. If you tax the top 10% more, they will save less. If you tax them less, they will save more. They will not add the tax money back into the economy because they already have saturated the market with enough money, before savings, to make enough in profit. If your company can only do x number of business and cost y amount to do that business, then you are wasting money by adding more money.
A company works efficiency as possible. If they need an extra person or two, they will spend the money to hire them out of savings. Any company that works on the margin where the extra tax money will go to hire a new person, does not fit into the top 10% tax rate anyway.
But if you tax them more, you force the money out of savings and redistribute it to the bottom 90%, which spend it as soon as they get it, growing the economy. Trick down does not work, the money get tricked into savings accounts.
The whole view of tax killing the economy only works on the margin where the amount of money going into the company is equal to the money going out of the company, ie breaking even. If the owner of the business whats to make 1 million dollars a year and starve his company by his wages, then that is his choice (pure capitalism is what killing this country, for profit and nothing else). But a company that is making an owner 100k+ a year probably does not have to worry about the 3,000 or so more dollars in taxes a year, that will come with the higher tax rate. On the other hand, the 3,000 dollars more in taxes usually has a 1 to 1 ratio in return to the business. IE, that money goes to some the bottom 90% that usually spend it directly back into the economy.
Right now there are two groups here. Both of them are feeding off a dead carcass of the American dream. The republicans want to get the few maggots that qualify as "elite" as fat as they possibly can and fly away. The democrats are treating the horse still has alive and you need to redistribute the horse so everyone will starve.
The horse is dead, and the American dream with it. Now what can we make out of the ashes is a different story.
And I know this is going to get some fun comments, but prosperity is the American dream.
Prosperity-a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.
The consumer debt last year was about 11 trillion dollars. The GDP last years was 14 trillion dollars.
What that means is simply that Americans owe about 80% of the money that is made last year. We are borrowing money to make money, not only as a government, but as a society.
Tax Rates and GDP Growth | AddictingInf
rgTax rates of the top 10% have nothing to do with anything near economic growth. If you tax the top 10% more, they will save less. If you tax them less, they will save more. They will not add the tax money back into the economy because they already have saturated the market with enough money, before savings, to make enough in profit. If your company can only do x number of business and cost y amount to do that business, then you are wasting money by adding more money.
A company works efficiency as possible. If they need an extra person or two, they will spend the money to hire them out of savings. Any company that works on the margin where the extra tax money will go to hire a new person, does not fit into the top 10% tax rate anyway.
But if you tax them more, you force the money out of savings and redistribute it to the bottom 90%, which spend it as soon as they get it, growing the economy. Trick down does not work, the money get tricked into savings accounts.
The whole view of tax killing the economy only works on the margin where the amount of money going into the company is equal to the money going out of the company, ie breaking even. If the owner of the business whats to make 1 million dollars a year and starve his company by his wages, then that is his choice (pure capitalism is what killing this country, for profit and nothing else). But a company that is making an owner 100k+ a year probably does not have to worry about the 3,000 or so more dollars in taxes a year, that will come with the higher tax rate. On the other hand, the 3,000 dollars more in taxes usually has a 1 to 1 ratio in return to the business. IE, that money goes to some the bottom 90% that usually spend it directly back into the economy.
Right now there are two groups here. Both of them are feeding off a dead carcass of the American dream. The republicans want to get the few maggots that qualify as "elite" as fat as they possibly can and fly away. The democrats are treating the horse still has alive and you need to redistribute the horse so everyone will starve.
The horse is dead, and the American dream with it. Now what can we make out of the ashes is a different story.
And I know this is going to get some fun comments, but prosperity is the American dream.
Prosperity-a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.
The consumer debt last year was about 11 trillion dollars. The GDP last years was 14 trillion dollars.
What that means is simply that Americans owe about 80% of the money that is made last year. We are borrowing money to make money, not only as a government, but as a society.
sethman88
Well-Known Member
perhaps the person you vote for is not always the correct or better candidate? ever think of that
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
Debt isn't good or evil, what matters is if there is a positive future return. It's generally acknowledged that deficit spending for current consumption doesn't have a positive return. Military spending is considered a current consumption expenditure, which should be paid from current revenue.
It appears many treat economics as a religion, government=evil; private business=good.
Keynes demonstrated the capitalism model does have drawbacks, such as were demonstrated in the late 1800's and especially in the late 1920's.
We are in a period that the Keynes model of government deficit spending is required, but Keynes model also requires government surpluses a majority of the time, which has been mostly ignored for the past 30+ years.
I can remember a time in the late 1970's that a $100 mil deficit was the end of the world, then in the early 1980's, government deficits didn't matter.
Anyway, taxes for the top 20% must be raised. Why ? because they are the ones that select (political donations) the leadership, so to align the elites interest to the economic interest of the country, i.e. higher taxes during a capitalism bust to pay for deficit spending to stimulate demand and to insure government surpluses during periods of boom.
Actaully, a moderate debt is a good thing. Moderate. The government should never break even or turn a surplus, ever. The governments job is to redistribute resources and wealth. The redistribution is done by taxes, laws, fees, and regulations.
With out moderate debt the government doesn't issue bonds. Government bonds are considered "risk free", and pretty much sets the bottom on the interest rates and helps either prop up for bring down rates that are too high or low. The rate interest helps the exchange of currency in private spending/lending.
Debt is a good thing. Even private debt is a good thing, just a moderate amount of debt, not excessive.
If you have a credit card with no debt, it is actually lowering your credit rating, every month it is empty. If you just apply 50 or more dollars to your credit cards a month, and pay it off each month, your credit rating improves.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Government is not business and in fact is the very antithesis of business. It is only because business controls government that we are in such deep trouble.
A government surplus is not a bad thing if it is kept in reserve for times of need. Let's be clear about what needs are: justice, domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare.
Spending shortfalls (ideally for emergency needs) are financed with borrowing. At the end of WWII, US debt was 120% of GDP. 50% higher than today.
The difference? After WW2, progressive tax policy reduced the debt to 92% of GDP in 1950, 55% of GDP in 1960 and 33% in 1980. This shows how large debts are not problematic as long as there are progressive tax policies in place to deal with it. It should be noted that this was a boom period despite what are considered "high" tax rates.
Since 1980, debt has soared. Under Reagan it went from 33% of GDP to over 50%. There was no emergency or need to raise borrow, it was the direct result of Reagan's profligate spending and regressive tax policies that redistributed wealth upwards.
We are going to have to strongly disagree on that statement.
Government is a business. Looking up the definition of business gives us two possible definitions.
business- 3. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service... 5. a building or site where commercial work is carried on, as a factory, store, or office; place of work.
Commercial- 1.of, pertaining to, or characteristic of commerce. 2.engaged in commerce.
Commerce- 1.) an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce). 2.) social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc.
Ok, so if you reread my original comment. The propose of the government is to redistribute wealth, ie goods and commodities, both locally and foreign. Government was constructed to bring together culture, society, and resolve conflicting social view points. Government also provides a service to the people that pay the government.
IE you give the government tax money and in exchange you get not only protection, but all the other civil liberties by that government. Government is a business, just one that is not made to turn a large profit. A small surplus is good, but the government needs to stay in debt most of the time, especially during a recession/depression.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
The purpose of government is (supposedly) to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty". You can read it here.
The principal tools for accomplishing this are 1) the rule of law and 2) taxation. Taxation provides the revenue necessary to operate the government but more importantly influences behavior. Tax policy can be a reward or a punishment.
As an example, the foreign investment tax credit and a host of related laws and loopholes encourage overseas investment by making the profits essentially tax free. If you want to know where the jobs are, these tax policies largely explain it. If you want to have jobs at home, use tax policy to penalize foreign investment and reward domestic employment.
Since federal policy is essentially written by the people who benefit from it, there is zero chance of this happening. In that sense government is a business, or at least the legal arm of business. The US military is the security arm.
Yes it is a really good document. If you ask any ceo of any company if that is what they believe in, I will bet most of them will say yes. But... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railraid In 1886 and 1888 the supreme court made it clear that those values are held up to the companies just as the same of humans. With those decides and hundreds others, the most valuable person in the united states became business and corporations. Once that happen the government because a business that interacts with out business redistributing goods and services. But if you look at the words it is pretty clear that once companies because people, the government, that represents the people, became a business. To this day it acts a business taking in income and distributing goods and services. Was it created to be what it was today? No, it was not. But it is what it is.
Never once.
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
In some cases, it is very true. Some people like myself study the candidates and other voters simply vote according to what they read online, in the papers, and proffered by the leftist press.
I knew all I needed to know about our current president soon after he started running. Actually, he spent very little time doing the People's Work and started campaigning early on.
I did not consider Obama to be a good choice. His lack of experience was one big factor. He was voted in because he promised us "Hope and change" yet nobody could explain what this meant, not even Mr. Obama.
Some of us vote after studying the person and some of us vote for someone we do not like to keep the other guy out of office.
And for the record, the Republican running against him was not my ideal choice, either.
noah way
Android Enthusiast
Please explain in detail how media is "leftist".
Also, now that Glen Beck is off the air, what sources do you "study" - townhall.com and Rush Limbaugh?
Usually leftest means people that believe in change from the old ways.
Rightest usually means people that believe in the old ways or the status quo.
Probably Democrats_are_poopyheads.com. That's where I go.
So, you go to 404 Not Found for political advice?
~~~~~
As for leftist vs. rightist media - I'd say you can find plenty of either, easily.
Hard to find news outside the tech sector (scratch that, anymore you find mostly rumors) and when it comes to the media, I remember when we had news.
Now all we have is infotainment and all of it is inflammatory - either by design or because the producers themselves may actually believe that they're offering news.
It was a joke, man, a joke. You know, something supposed to be funny to make people laugh?
Bob Maxey
Android Expert
Well, they do not report anything bad about the president and they avoid anything considered centrist or to the right. They never report how many broken promises the president has made, the unconstitutional nature of Obama's administration, and on and on. They call Bush a liar when it is not true and they avoid anything that would put the current administration in an unfavorable light.
They discuss the problems Bush created and forget to mention that Obama could take charge and change things to eliminate much of the Bush(s) legacy the left is up in arms over. They blame, blame, blame others for doing things Obama could take care of.
They do not mention Obama's failure to keep his promises and they yell at Bush for minor things. They forget Obama's voting record as well, and make things the fault of the right and forget that their president voted for some of the very things others are hammered for. They do not seem to know that Bush is out of the picture.
They report on Sarah's minor mistakes and avoid the comment Obama made about how we have 57 states. They report Limbaugh as a liar but he is not. They put words in his mouth.
The fact you need to ask tells me quite a bit.
When something the administration does is clearly unconstitutional, you do not hear about it. You hear how great the health care system is, but never any of the problems we will deal with if it comes into full power and control. Like the estimated $2500.00 it will cost everyone of us and collected by the IRS, so avoiding it might be dangerous.
You read about how low the taxes are on the wealthy and why they should pay higher taxes, yet they do not mention that almost half of the people in this country do not pay ANY taxes. They say the poor struggle and the rich have it good and avoid an important bit of data: poor people do not pat taxes, or create business and industry. They do, however, use public services we pay for.
Consider the mortgage problems. The left failed to discuss who was provably responsible for the problem. They did not discuss Barney Frank for example. Yet they give BF plenty of ink to tell us why it failed without telling us that BF was largely responsible. Along with a few others.
They call out Rush Limbaugh in congress over comments Rush made. The news reports it as a good thing but avoids the accuracy issues or if it is reasonable to take up the time of Congress to hurl crap at a private citizen for exercising his ABSOLUTE RIGHT of free speech. The press reports how bad RL is yet it avoids the idea that it is an unfair use of congressional power.
The leftest media did not cover the horrible things Air America had to say; all they do is cover Limbaugh who is fair and balanced. Air America is spotless and the right side is liars, and dangerous, is what they say. God what a pitiful excuse for media we have these days.
The leftist media did not report on some of those self-proclaimed Communists on Obama's staff. Like the avowed Marxist communist Van Jones. You really think it is a great idea to support the idea of communism by employing a commie?
The leftest media hammers Limbaugh for making fun of Michael Fox (Family Ties Star) and his disease and how cruel it is to say Fox stops taking his medication so he looks terrible in front of Congress. Yet they fail to say that RL is reporting what the actor publicly admitted to in his book and on talk shows. They hammer Rush for being cruel and being a liar, yet they avoid mentioning that it is absolutely true; MJF DOES stop taking his pills for effect.
The press never speaks bad of George Soros and how evil Obama's pastor was, and on and on and on. Or Obama's vast numbers of Tzars/Czars; they have almost unlimited power and not answerable to anyone but Obama.
This forum is not big enough to discuss everything the leftest media fails to report.
As for Rush, he is deadly accurate and I guarantee you will be hard pressed to discover a Limbaugh Lie. He reports what the Left is up to and some of what he says scares me. Beck is still with us by the way.
You should read more before you comment on people you have never listened to and read history, so you will understand what you read.