Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The deficit is over a trillion dollars a year. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Stealthycat
Footballguy
true, but the stimulus/bailouts/free money is what tacked on massive debt - trillions
tax everyone 75% of their income for the next 30 years might help - or, STOP spending .... but neither will happen.
This administration / Congress just spent 4 trillion in 10 weeks.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the tax cuts ? i don't know ... but in any household if you cut the money coming in, you better cut spending
our Govt doesn't do that - they spend FAR more than the Fed Govt takes in .... and yet, nobody seems to want to hold them accountable :(
zoonation
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
If that’s the case, isn’t the responsible reaction to raise taxes in the rich, who for the most part won’t even feel the effects of the higher taxes?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Stimulus and bailout are the spikes in the graph. The steady march upward are the tax cuts. And while the graph doesn't show the most recent bailouts, it does explicitly show the debt that was caused by the tax cuts. And the thing with spending 4 trillion in 10 weeks is that it isn't as much of a big deal if you aren't already adding a trillion a year in the "best economy ever".
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
What happens to the demand curve when you reduce the price of something? The Cato foundation realized a long time ago that cutting taxes resulted in higher government spending not less and speculated that there was such a demand curve for government services. Both Cato and others didn't like the results and tried over and over again to change this or that assumption to find different results. But those attempts just reinforced the fact that cutting taxes means more, not less government spending.
So the slogan that "we don't have a taxation problem but a spending problem" is backwards. We spend too much because we don't have to pay the full ticket price of government. Stop holding loss leader sales where we stick the bill on others to pay in the future. And stop with the nonsense that tax cuts pay for themselves and that deficits from tax cuts don't matter or that there is much to be cut from government spending.
A well respected poster once upon a time did a post where he cut a trillion from the budget and that got repeated all the time as how easy it was. But most of that trillion was one time savings or simply passing the burden from the federal government to the states which may be a good policy idea, but doesn't save anything if the program is still mandated. So this belief that there are easy cuts is also wrong. But if you want any cuts then raise taxes high enough to pay for government. We will also get the side benefit of tax avoidance via keeping money in companies and growing them rather than cashing out the profits.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
people die by the millions every year - abortion, car wrecks, 500,000 alone die from smoking ..... death isn't that important really and has NOTHING to do with the Fed Govt spending 25 Trillion MORE dollars than they have to spend
try running your household finances the same way and see what happens
Stealthycat
Footballguy
again, overspending by the Fed Govt is the problem - the core problem - and THAT should be the focus. Reign that spending in, and nobody has to pay higher taxes
the "rich" pay the bulk of taxes anyway - and discriminating against them is insane. Not only that, but everyone is "rich" in the eyes of the people making less money than you.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
no no no
debt isn't cause by less money coming IN - its caused by spending more money than you have to spend
Stealthycat
Footballguy
they have no concept of of fiscal responsibility then and are dreamers
the Fed Govt could slash spending across the board 25% on every program and put a trillion a year towards paying off national debt and in 20 years we'd be in much better shape ..... and yes, people would hurt but when the wound is deep and gaping like it currently is? ignoring treatment because it hurts will eventually lead to a worse wound and eventually death. Wounds don't heal - they need treated - and our national debt is a massive wound and left untreated it will kill the USA IMO
and now ... the GOP has fully committed to unlimited spending along with DNC. I'm different now because of it. I say give every American $1 million dollars. Why not? Tack on trillions more - it doesn't matter anymore. $100 trillion in debt? psffffff big deal, nobody cares, everyone gets free money and happy happy
does anyone really think this will go away ?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
This is just
! "With everything going on right now" you don't think everyday families are going into , or going deeper into debt because of a sudden loss of income? That this new debt has nothing to do with "less money coming IN"?What complete nonsense!
whoknew
Footballguy
The fact that the GOP has somehow convinced some large percentage of the population that they cared about limiting spending is really an amazing testament to their marketing.
That's some Don Draper slide projector level stuff.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Why should government programs like SS and Medicare which ran surpluses for decades (i.e. were paid for and then some) be slashed 25% because over and over again we cut taxes despite running deficits elsewhere in government? Do you not grasp that this is a transfer of wealth from the working class that paid these regressive taxes to the rich who repeatedly received the income tax cuts since 1981? Who doesn't understand fiscal responsibility? Those that paid their own way and now suggest get screwed over or those that have never paid their own way and now aren't satisfied with running up the IOUs but want to shift the burden even more?
The Commish
Footballguy
This is the sort of stuff that happens when people realize they've been duped forever. They rush to find others who have been in same boat with to tell them they are in the same boat as if it's some sort of epiphany.
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
Should Americans be happy with the losses we're taking on practically an hourly basis? No leadership at the top, a president squabbling with governors, constant contradictions from Trump, and we're supposed to just grin and bear it? No, Americans are fed up with the power vacuum.
The Commish
Footballguy
They aren't the USA. We run the planet. We are too big to fail. It was all part of the master plan decades ago.
NREC34
Footballguy
It will either be a global reset where all debt gets erased/ dollar gone as reserve currency/ new electronic world system or WW3. Just a matter of time now and things seem to be moving pretty rapidly.
I expect some sort of Bretton Woods meeting soon if we are going the first route. Good thing we have the guy who wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ in charge if it happens. Can’t think of anyone I’d rather have.
Agreed. I like the Bretton Woods-style idea.
Unfortunately we have not shown a collective ability to take action in anticipation of a crisis (e.g. climate change, coronavirus, financial crisis, etc.). Instead, we ignore the underlying reality of that our current financial system is unsustainable because we haven't yet discovered what the limits are. Hate to sound doomsday but everything points to accelerating down the current path.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
why is the Govt your sugar daddy when it comes to hard times ?This is just
What complete nonsense!
like ... 4-5 Trillion sugar daddy ... think about those numbers and how they'll get paid off
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
How is this question relevant? Your statement was that debt was never a function of money coming in and only a function of money being spent. I once again ask you if it is your belief that those that suffered a sudden loss of income are not suddenly going [deeper] into debt? There is only one honest answer and that answer scales from individuals to businesses to the government. Saying that revenue has nothing to do with the deficits that pile onto the national debt is just ridiculous. Except for crisis spending, the vast majority of the debt is the structural deficits created with tax cuts. I guess we should also blame defense spending (including off the book wars) and Medicare D a bit but I'm not sure how that helps the "both sides" argument.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
If you get a 25% pay cut this week - will you, in the next year, continue to spend the same or increase your spending ?Bottomfeeder Sports said:
If you say yes - then you are going to drive yourself into deep debt because you are spending way more than you bring in. That's reality - you cannot hope or expect 25% MORE or even the same because reality is, you're getting 25% LESS and so, reason and logic dictates you CUT SPENDING
Cut spending because you can control that - right ?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Sure I'll just stop paying the mortgage, or the car loan, or credit card interest because a decade earlier I asked for a few other pay cuts. Oh and I guess I can stop paying more for cable than the top ten neighbors combined except the rest of the family won't allow that. So I guess no I can't control that. Not without breaking promises. Not without those that egged me to cut my income thinking that there is never enough cable. So no! This hypothetical me has a problem paying fixed costs today with my income is going to have a real problem when the income goes down.
Please stop with this nonsense! We cannot fix the deficit problem by cutting spending unless we screw over those that are owed back what they have spent a lifetime prepaying for. We cannot fix the deficit problem by cutting spending unless the word of the United States is meaningless. We have a revenue problem. We either need to raise taxes or grow the economy (which generally follows tax hikes - see 1982, see 1993).
I'm done with the ridiculousness. The nonsensical conservative talking point of "we don't have a tax problem but a spending problem" is not true now, has not been true for a very long time, and well be even less true tomorrow and the next day as this nations unfunded liabilities come due. And everyday we wait to address this revenue problem makes it more likely that we are approaching the day where the "full faith and credit of the United States" becomes just as ridiculous. But I guess for those that elected someone who doesn't care about commitments and cheered on earlier knocking down the nation's credit rating this doesn't matter anyway! ETA: Those that think "starving the beast" is an appropriate strategy to accomplish what they could never convince the electorate to get behind!
Last edited by a moderator:
DocHolliday
Footballguy
We have a spending problem. Cut military spending. Cut federal dept overhead. With such huge budgets, there has to be ways to reduce spending.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
According to the Heritage Foundation (who promotes the idea that"we have a spending problem" in the link) by 2027* you can set military spending and every department to zero and expected tax revenue will not be enough to cover mandatory spending (interest on the debt, SS, Medicare, and other entitlements). Things which I have repeatedly called "promises" or "commitments" by the government. We will need to tax the economy one way or another (bond sales takes from the economy also) more than we collect today even if we don't spend another penny if we are to keep our word, keep our promises as a nation. Sure this spending is a problem, but you can't just cut it if keeping our words is important.
*this was 2040 about a dozen years ago. I'm guessing the day of reckoning is a bit closer today.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
nobody said thatBottomfeeder Sports said:
but you can stop the $100 per month smoking, stop ordering $300 in food, stop going to the liquor store and spending $100, drop the $150 a month in cable bills, change wireless carriers and save $75 a month .....
the Fed Govt isn't going to stop military spending or essentials like mortgage/car loan etc ..... but the pork spending is real, it is there
you don't think the US Fed Govt can make it on $4 trillion a year ? wowBottomfeeder Sports said:
do you REALLY think if the US Fed Govt brought in 8 trillion a year they wouldn't just increase spending ?
you cannot be that naive
Stealthycat
Footballguy
give me the pen, and I'll cut 20% across the board - everyone hurts equallyDocHolliday said:
Death Bytes
Footballguy
Last time I checked, military spending was in decline, yet still multiple times the second highest country's spending.
What's nonsense is to believe that even a single dollar raised by a tax hike would go to any type of debt/deficit reduction.Bottomfeeder Sports said:
It will be spent before the IRS even gets its hands on it for new social programs like college loan forgiveness, Med4All, climate change stimulus, reparations, you name it. Not even unfunded liabilities.
Death Bytes
Footballguy
Just like local governments can tax wealth (real estate taxes) instead of income, so can the US government. They just don't right now.
The US government can continue to borrow and spend like a drunken sailor, because at any point they can decide to tax the wealth and make the debt disappear.
And they have justification for doing it. Just as the Fed can inflate the money supply to encourage people to not hoard cash, the government can tax wealth to encourage people to not hoard wealth. It can also confiscate hand sanitizer from people who hoarded it.
Our country suffers from the idea that hoarding wealth is a good thing, and is something we should all strive for. It's the "American Dream" after all. But hoarding of anything, including cash, hand sanitizer, and even wealth, is not good for any economy. Thus if you think the government won't come out and tax wealth in the future for some moral reason or another, you will be disappointed when it happens. And given how ridiculous our wealth distribution has become in this country, only a small, small, SMALL percentage of the population will be taxed when it happens.
The US government can continue to borrow and spend like a drunken sailor, because at any point they can decide to tax the wealth and make the debt disappear.
And they have justification for doing it. Just as the Fed can inflate the money supply to encourage people to not hoard cash, the government can tax wealth to encourage people to not hoard wealth. It can also confiscate hand sanitizer from people who hoarded it.
Our country suffers from the idea that hoarding wealth is a good thing, and is something we should all strive for. It's the "American Dream" after all. But hoarding of anything, including cash, hand sanitizer, and even wealth, is not good for any economy. Thus if you think the government won't come out and tax wealth in the future for some moral reason or another, you will be disappointed when it happens. And given how ridiculous our wealth distribution has become in this country, only a small, small, SMALL percentage of the population will be taxed when it happens.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
second highest but pales in comparison to the social spending
when is the last time a Govt spends LESS than they take in ?
exceptionally rare - Federal level not in decades
tell me what happens when you tax a rich person ?
rich are rich in large part because they own - and what they own produces goods and services. If I'm rich and you try to tax me hard? I'm using tax shelters, I'm moving my assets, I'm paying politicians to NOT do that but the #1 thing I'll do ? Raise the price of my companies goods/services to off-set the additional taxes and who suffers?
yes - you might make the owner of McDonalds pay high taxes, but a value meal will be $17.50 - congratulations, great game plan :(
the rich didn't spend this country 25 trillion in debt - rich people BUILD wealth ... a Govt bringing in 4 trillion a year and spending 6 trillion is a massive fraud that shouldn't ever be allowed and the accountability will come someday
TripItUp
Footballguy
Spending across the board needs cutting.
I would save education and anything conservation/parks related and that’s about it.
The Republicans have failed us by not sticking to their fiscally conservative values.
Democrats have failed us by moving to the left with a progressive ideology that will destroy the country’s wealth.
Americans have failed by voting in the politicians that approve the spending and that promote socialist agendas like free college and free healthcare.
Almost everybody is to blame.
I would save education and anything conservation/parks related and that’s about it.
The Republicans have failed us by not sticking to their fiscally conservative values.
Democrats have failed us by moving to the left with a progressive ideology that will destroy the country’s wealth.
Americans have failed by voting in the politicians that approve the spending and that promote socialist agendas like free college and free healthcare.
Almost everybody is to blame.
Last edited by a moderator:
Death Bytes
Footballguy
They become less rich.
True. But taxing the value of stocks (which is no different than taxing the value of real estate) doesn't affect the prices of the goods and services. It only affects the price of the stock. It would make the stock less valuable relative to other types of investments. But if all types of investments are subject to wealth tax, then the only value lost from being taxed is the tax itself. Like I said above, they just become less rich.
Tax shelters are just an "I owe you" to the government. It's simply an agreement to pay tax later than now. The hope is the tax will be less in the future.
Given how much the government is going to have to raise taxes to pay for the spending during this crisis, some may find they'll pay more tax in the future on their tax shelters than they would if they just paid the tax on them now. But that is just speculation. Either way, rich people can move their assets all they want. Government will just tax where they're getting moved to.
Good luck with that spending. The fact that it has worked well in the past, does not guarantee it will work in the future, and the post-COVID-19 world is going to look a lot different... A LOT DIFFERENT!!!
If you can raise your prices, then why haven't you already raised them? Are you suggesting that you've been holding back margin simply to have it available to react to increased taxes? I call
Given the wealth distribution in this country is so far out of whack, the government wouldn't even have to come close to taxing the assets of owners of McDonalds franchises to get the revenue it needs to offset this crisis. Only the top 0.01% of the country would be effected by it. And the other 99.99% of the country wouldn't give a #### that it's happening to them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saying ‘everybody’ is to blame is just wrong and you let them off the hook when you say that. Republicans had 100% control of govt for two years. They cut govt income without reducing spending like they always do. Those shiny tax cuts are nothing without equal spending cuts. It’s the same thing they did the last time they had total control (cut taxes and increase spending). I’m 42yrs old, in my lifetime I have yet to see the fiscal conservative side of the Republicans even though people talk about it like they do Bigfoot. Their actions at Fed level have always been the opposite, which is verifiably accurate. Their actions in this century matter to me and there’s no such thing as a fiscal conservative Republican today.
It is false to put any/most of what we see today fiscally on the Democratic Party.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Everyone seems to want to hold "them" responsible. If by "them" we mean politicians who voted for things we disagree with, but "them" doesn't include those who did things that help us individually.
Man I hate this overused line. Federal government spending is nothing like individual families.
LMAO. You go with your partisanship....the House controls spending...if the Democrats didn't like the deficit last year they could have forced a showdown like back in '95.
The House on Thursday passed a bill to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and set budget levels for two years...
The Democratic-held chamber approved the measure in a 284-149 vote. Democrats voted 219-16 in favor of the bill. Republicans opposed it by a 132-65 margin,
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/25/house-passes-debt-ceiling-and-budget-bill-sending-it-to-the-senate.html
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
This is the proposed budget from the White House. I'm looking at Summary Table 4.
This budget has 3.863 Trillion in receipts and 4.829 Trillion in spending for FY2021. Obviously neither are going to be close now after Covid-19, but for sake of this discussion lets ignore this and pretend this is just a normal year like when the proposal was prepared. As prepared it expected a deficit of just under a trillion dollars. And also is still short of the $4 trillion.
Now the question you asked is "the US Fed Govt can make it on $4 trillion a year". Well if I assume that we are going to keep our Social Security and Medicare commitments - programs which had until recently ran annual surpluses in their specialized taxes then that $4 trillion is really 2.127 Trillion ( 4 - 1.151 (SS) - 722 (MC), or 4 - 1.873). Similarly I assume we must pay the interest on the debt (378) which cuts that $4 trillion to 1.749.
The remaining 2.578 Trillion would need to be cut by about 33% to make it work. A little less than 1.1 trillion of that are other mandatory entitlements. These are less "sacred" "third rails" than SS and Medicare but I would not characterize cuts to these as neither "US Fed Govt mak[ing] it on" nor as "everyone hurts equally". But the first statement is the more important one. These are transfers, not money to fund the government. So while maybe we can cut entitlements to the people that qualify, for the purpose of asking if the government can make it I'm subtracting 1.094 trillion (448+646) leaving $655 billion.
So your question restated is can the US Federal Government get by on $655 billion? Per the White House we will spend $754 billion on defense and $732 billion on the rest of the government. I'm going to say "probably not" as in we we cannot cut defense and the federal government to 44% of what it is today anytime soon. Find some cuts to entitlements and there is more to play with of course, but in keeping our promise as a nation and upholding our ideals there are mostly just magic asterisks to cut.
Of course this ignore that every day baby boomers are retiring pushing up the SS and Medicare commitments and that the interest is expected to be the fastest growing portion of the budget. So whatever savings are found today, more are going to be needed tomorrow just to keep up.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
We can only hope. Most everyone of those would improve our long term fiscal health if paid for in full with this hypothetical tax hike. Especially Medicare For All. If paid for that would get rid of most of that unfunded liability.
And why did the debt ceiling need to be raised? Think way back to the trump tax cuts Without sufficient spending cuts many moons ago. Raising the debt ceiling is how they keep the lights on. Otherwise the govt shuts down, remember?
TripItUp
Footballguy
Nopeboofatty said:
Until Americans mandate that Congress balances the budget, they will keep spending.
Americans need to recognize it as a prioritized issue.
Politicians don't do what's in the best interest of the country, they do what gets them re-elected or promoted to higher office.
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually agree with you. My only point is that I think it’s wrong to over generalize and blame ‘everybody’ when there are clear actions taken by a specific group that contributed to what we see today. It’s the same reason specific criminals go on trial rather than society, or another broad group.
We need someone to run the business of govt until an algorithm proves competency. I agree we voters need to do better, but until then we can’t over generalize and let people off the hook for their actions while in office. That’s my only point.
I agree but I think the intent is to serve as some limitation to uncontrollable spending. Doesn’t matter if they just move the goal post all the time. Neither side seems interested in managing to a budget.
but one side does like to claim the high ground on fiscal responsibility even though their actions are complete opposite
Stealthycat
Footballguy
LOL - the rich pay the bulk of taxes paid in right now - and they're less rich because of it? no, they're not, and BTW since when is making people 'less rich" the right thing to do anyway? maybe YOU are rich in some people's eyes, should you get "less" rich because people making less than you you demand it ?
If you can raise your prices, then why haven't you already raised them? Are you suggesting that you've been holding back margin simply to have it available to react to increased taxes? I call
compare prices now on goods/services from what they were 5 -10 years ago ... labor increases directly impact costs, but so does other factors ... like taxation
Stealthycat
Footballguy
BTW, there IS NO WEALTH DISTRIBUTION ..... nobody "distributes" wealth - this isn't a parade and money isn't confetti. You earn it, you deserve it, you work hard for it and if you don't want to do those things?
you don't get much - and that's kinda the right way IMO. it doesn't matter if 0.01% is affected, right is right, wrong is wrong and wealth discrimination is real and needs to be addressed.
taxation should be fair and equal - making it more or less is discrimination
Similar threads
