• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to balance the budget in 3 steps

goldkam said:
I acknowledged that the value of the money is the same. THE DIFFERENCE YOU IGNORE IS IN WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT. The areas of which money is spent by the public are both different and the same as the Government that cannot be denied. You won't see your average citizen putting in billions of dollars into military capabilities, just like you won't see your Government spending billions of dollars on buying from Walmart.

I also find it quite amusing that the only thing you could come up with, that your average citizen spends their money on, is gum and a stripper.
Click to expand...

We could eliminate the taxpayer funded "sexual harassment" fund that has claimed to have paid out about $17 million and require Congresspersons and their aides to pay out of their own pockets like your average citizen. No way to tell IF or how much might be spent on opioids or many other yet unknown expenses picked up by taxpayers in our governments. I did see where the Fed spent $1.3 million on booze in 2013, and not to be forgotten the White House Honey Ale produced by Obama in his spare time beginning in 2011.

But no matter what government spends, it is the average present and future taxpaying citizen who is responsible for making the money available to be spent.
 
Individual said:
But no matter what government spends, it is the average present and future taxpaying citizen who is responsible for making the money available to be spent.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Already explained this.
 
Individual said:
I've only eliminated ONE thing, a Federal agency, the IRS. NO currently paid taxes would cease to be acquired, simply the collection point would change, and then be forwarded to the Treasury Department of the Federal government.
Click to expand...
Shifting tax collection from the federal government to the states is inefficient and inequatible. So you really think Mississippi and Louisiana can afford their own Social Security and Medicare systems? Moreover, if the state’s administer SSA, you’re creating 50 agencies where there was on before. Do you propose going back to state militias too?
 
MTAtech said:
Shifting tax collection from the federal government to the states is inefficient and inequatible. So you really think Mississippi and Louisiana can afford their own Social Security and Medicare systems? Moreover, if the state’s administer SSA, you’re creating 50 agencies where there was on before. Do you propose going back to state militias too?
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that I've proposed none of what you've implied.
 
Individual said:
Except for the fact that I've proposed none of what you've implied.
Click to expand...
You proposed eliminating the IRA, which further implies eliminating federal taxes. By eliminating federal taxes, you can't fund the federal government, which mainly spends money in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. So, yes, your proposal has wide-sweeping ramifications.

Thus, your proposal, such as it is, supposes that the states can assume the role the federal government now provides. The states cannot.

I see no reason, beyond a hatred of the federal government, to go back to the world of 105 years ago. There were valid reasons for creating a federal income tax in 1913.

But there is no reason to argue this. It isn't going to happen.
 
MTAtech said:
You proposed eliminating the IRA, which further implies eliminating federal taxes. By eliminating federal taxes, you can't fund the federal government, which mainly spends money in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. So, yes, your proposal has wide-sweeping ramifications.

Thus, your proposal, such as it is, supposes that the states can assume the role the federal government now provides. The states cannot.

I see no reason, beyond a hatred of the federal government, to go back to the world of 105 years ago. There were valid reasons for creating a federal income tax in 1913.

But there is no reason to argue this. It isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

I've proposed no such thing.
.
.
.
Yet you continue to argue, Then this thread isn't worth your time, is it?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
224 posts in, and I still haven't heard a good reason WHY we should balance the budget.
Click to expand...

At this juncture? Lower debt issuance to service expenses, when unemployment is at all-time lows, would help restrain yield inversion in a rising rate environment. And of course, we are in crowding-out territory.
 
Kushinator said:
At this juncture? Lower debt issuance to service expenses, when unemployment is at all-time lows, would help restrain yield inversion in a rising rate environment. And of course, we are in crowding-out territory.
Click to expand...
"At this juncture?" Are you writing that in honor of G.H.W. Bush? Adding debt at a time of low-unemployment --wouldn't be prudent.
 
MTAtech said:
"At this juncture?" Are you writing that in honor of G.H.W. Bush? Adding debt at a time of low-unemployment --wouldn't be prudent.
Click to expand...

Then cut the fricken spending and stop promoting the nanny state like you do in every post. You don't lower the deficit and work on the debt by increasing revenue and increasing spending. Trump actually cut the Executive Branch budget and has proposed spending cuts in 2019. seems like you are so biased and partisan that you ignored what actually caused the 2018 deficit as it wasn't Trump spending
 
Conservative said:
Then cut the fricken spending
Click to expand...

Why didn't your conservative government cut the fricken spending? Answer: because they are hypocrites (and they still lost the HoR!).
 
MTAtech said:
"At this juncture?" Are you writing that in honor of G.H.W. Bush? Adding debt at a time of low-unemployment --wouldn't be prudent.
Click to expand...

No.

JFC asked and i responded.
 
Conservative said:
Then cut the fricken spending and stop promoting the nanny state like you do in every post. You don't lower the deficit and work on the debt by increasing revenue and increasing spending. Trump actually cut the Executive Branch budget and has proposed spending cuts in 2019. seems like you are so biased and partisan that you ignored what actually caused the 2018 deficit as it wasn't Trump spending
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be prudent. Since the government has the power to create money, use it. Just tel the Fed to pay off all debts using the entire nation as collateral. Since they never have to show a profit or even balance their books for any reason but political reasons, they can rid us of the debt any time they want. Say they did this tomorrow. The next week, there would still be an auction of treasuries...
 
Vadinho said:
Wouldn't be prudent. Since the government has the power to create money, use it. Just tel the Fed to pay off all debts using the entire nation as collateral. Since they never have to show a profit or even balance their books for any reason but political reasons, they can rid us of the debt any time they want. Say they did this tomorrow. The next week, there would still be an auction of treasuries...
Click to expand...

Creating money does what to the value of money? think about it?
 
Kushinator said:
Why didn't your conservative government cut the fricken spending? Answer: because they are hypocrites (and they still lost the HoR!).
Click to expand...

Why don't you post what was spent that added to the deficit? Line items in the budget seem to be a foreign concept to you and the rest of the radical left. You want to blame Trump for spending increases without context. What exactly added to the debt?

Still waiting for anyone on the left to explain how rising revenues cause deficits and revenues have set records this year
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you post what was spent that added to the deficit? Line items in the budget seem to be a foreign concept to you and the rest of the radical left. You want to blame Trump for spending increases without context. What exactly added to the debt?
Click to expand...

That's not an excuse. For years you whined and cried about deficit spending during economic recovery and now want to throw your hands up and pretend like you're not a hypocrite? No chance! Deficits increased because the Republican House failed to follow through with their past 8 years of rhetoric. And we know why!


Still waiting for anyone on the left to explain how rising revenues cause deficits and revenues have set records this year
Click to expand...

Revenues set records nearly every single year. You're not stating anything of value. Perhaps you want to explain why Republicans failed to cut spending... but i seriously doubt it!
 
Conservative said:
Creating money does what to the value of money? think about it?
Click to expand...

What happened to the value of the dollar when the fed expanded their balance sheet by $4 trillion?
 
Conservative said:
Creating money does what to the value of money? think about it?
Click to expand...

Nothing really, we do it every day in every bank in the nation. Now say we created enough dough to give every person in America one million dollars. That would definitely increase prices for some goods but that is not what is going on here. The total debt is upwards of 20 trillion owed to ourselves and a few international lenders. Just pay us all back the money we gave them to get the note in return. No new money, just returning the money we lent them.

"A sovereign government cannot run out of its own liabilities. All modern governments make and receive payments through their central banks. Government spending takes the form of a credit by the central bank to a private bank’s reserves, and a credit by the receiving bank to the account of the recipient. You cannot run out of balance sheet entries."

An MMT View of the Twin Deficits Debate - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives
 
Last edited:
Vadinho said:
Nothing really, we do it every day in every bank in the nation. Now say we created enough dough to give every person in America one million dollars. That would definitely increase prices for some goods but that is not what is going on here. The total debt is upwards of 20 trillion owed to ourselves and a few international lenders. Just pay us all back the money we gave them to get the note in return. No new money, just returning the money we lent them.
Click to expand...

Why is it important to pay us all back the money and issue no new debt instruments?
 
Logical1 said:
1) Cut Fed employees by 25%

2) Cut ALL welfare and payments to illegal aliens

3) Cut all foreign military bases to about 5 world wide.
Click to expand...

So illegals shouldn’t get paid for all the work they do? That doesn’t seem fair. We already pay them low wages. Doesn’t that satisfy you?
 
Kushinator said:
Why is it important to pay us all back the money and issue no new debt instruments?
Click to expand...

For policy reasons which are unclear to me or anyone else for that matter. It is a vestige of an older era IMHO. Remember, the FED debits or credits your account via a keystroke. It does not need to prove it has dollars to pay you. It simply issues the money electronically and has decided to pay interest on that debt. Why does it pay interest? For policy reasons that can be changed anytime we want to change them. Why even bother to issue bonds? What is the point? The FED issues bonds to meet an overnight interest rate they pick, that's it. They can issue short term bonds and long term bonds at different rates to support policies they believe are beneficial. But are they? Well, granny with a fixed income loves the interest payment so that is a good thing. Warren Buffet hardly needs the interest does he? Should we pay interest to foreign bond holders? Why? They are simply returning money our bank issued and in return, our bank gives them interest. Its all so mixed up its kind of insane.
 
Logical1 said:
1) Cut Fed employees by 25%

2) Cut ALL welfare and payments to illegal aliens

3) Cut all foreign military bases to about 5 world wide.
Click to expand...



Fed employees make up only a small portion of the overall budget


As for illegals:

https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-98-30
about $1.1 billion in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp benefits were provided to households with an illegal alien parent for the use of his or her citizen child; (2) this amount accounted for about 3 percent of AFDC and 2 percent of Food Stamp benefit costs;
Click to expand...

Compared to the trillion dollar deficit, 3 per cent of 1.1 billion is a drop in the bucket.

Anyway, not providing nourishment and health care to children for such a tiny savings is not what I believe America is all about.


#3, I"m open to, but I would like to consult with national security and military experts on this one, so I reserve judgment.


I think entitlements need fine tuning, no doubt there is plenty of room to improve, make more efficient, spend dollars more effectively, etc
but you're not going to win any votes if you are telling people like my 92 year old mom who is living on $800 Soc Sec/medicare, etc (or anyone's mom ) should have been left to die when she broke her hip recently.


Milltary has lots of room for savings, but it must be done strategically so our national security is not weekened.

I would repeal all the tax breaks given to the rich which was the last tax bill, restoration of the estate tax, raise taxes on that group to 50%, things of this nature.
 
Vadinho said:
Nothing really, we do it every day in every bank in the nation. Now say we created enough dough to give every person in America one million dollars. That would definitely increase prices for some goods but that is not what is going on here. The total debt is upwards of 20 trillion owed to ourselves and a few international lenders. Just pay us all back the money we gave them to get the note in return. No new money, just returning the money we lent them.

"A sovereign government cannot run out of its own liabilities. All modern governments make and receive payments through their central banks. Government spending takes the form of a credit by the central bank to a private bank’s reserves, and a credit by the receiving bank to the account of the recipient. You cannot run out of balance sheet entries."

An MMT View of the Twin Deficits Debate - New Economic PerspectivesNew Economic Perspectives
Click to expand...

Please stop with this, take a finance course and find out what 20 trillion dollars printed would do to the value of your dollar. No banks don't do it every day, they do not print cash
 
Kushinator said:
That's not an excuse. For years you whined and cried about deficit spending during economic recovery and now want to throw your hands up and pretend like you're not a hypocrite? No chance! Deficits increased because the Republican House failed to follow through with their past 8 years of rhetoric. And we know why!




Revenues set records nearly every single year. You're not stating anything of value. Perhaps you want to explain why Republicans failed to cut spending... but i seriously doubt it!
Click to expand...

9.3 TRILLION added to the debt in 8 years, never achieving 3% annual growth, creating record numbers of part time jobs for economic reasons, seeing only 6 million jobs created in 9 years, leaving Trump with an average GDP Growth of 1.5% over the last 6 qtrs. shows the true Obama economic results which you want to ignore. A stimulus that saw employment drop from 142 million down to 138 million one year later isn't something to celebrate but the reality is you cannot even recognize poor performance.

Pay attention to the 2019 budget and tell me that Trump isn't serious about cutting spending?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom