[W:1422] Federal Deficit Soars

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Do you mind not responding to posts not directed at you if all you're going to do is pollute the thread with drivel? Thanks in advance.

This is not a private e-mail system, dude. I will respond where and when I wish.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Why the hell are you quoting me and countering arguments I'm not making?

I am countering arguments you are making. Pay attention.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

There is actual data at the link I gave you. The graph you provided is so condensed that it's impossible to track changes. Further, the revenues line is total revenues, but you can't lump in, say, payroll taxes which under Reagan saw significant tax rate INCREASES, with personal income taxes and try to show that bringing personal income tax rates down had no effect on revenue. It's the same dishonest crap we see all the time from right wing propaganda outfits.



What the hell does "Static Score fans" mean? Yes, when we have big swings in rate, there are also corresponding legislated big swings in the tax BASE, and tax revenue = tax rate X tax base. TRA 86 is a good example. Rates came down but the bill flattened/broadened the tax base, and so there was no wild swing because more income was subject to tax solely because of changes in the legislation. So you're not showing anything here except perhaps a shallow understanding of the major tax bills and their effect on both rates and the tax base (independent of growth effects).

The data you provided is speculation of assignment of data using speculated data. It is random numbers. It is nothing more than manufactured data.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

It did compared to the revenue that would have been collected at the old rates. The effect was immediate - individual income tax revenues decreased from $1T to less than $800B, long after the brief recession ended. That's "reduced revenue" according to math.

The economy has grown nearly every single year with tax rate increases, with tax rate cuts, and when tax rates didn't change. Also, every year the population grows and we have positive inflation. So, sure, over a long enough period of years the effect of all that will eventually cause revenue to grow even with tax rate cuts, but that's not showing that the tax rate cuts INCREASED revenue. The comparison is the baseline - revenues under the old rates. Simply pointing out that eventually - in Bush II case SIX YEARS LATER - that revenues exceed the old peak, is simply NOT showing that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves and had no cost in lost revenue.



I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't arguing that, so won't comment on someone else's point.



Increasing spending during a boom is less damaging than during a severe recession? Surely that's a typo or you'll have to explain the economic theory behind that absurd conclusion.

So...going back to denying the increased revenue brought about by tax cuts again, are you?

You keep trying to make two different arguments at once that have little relationship to each other.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

They would work, and many of them do - some 2 and 3 jobs, if the Con's would quit sending the good jobs with benefits over seas.

Government policies and taxes send jobs overseas. Not conservatives.

 

[thenotorious]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Why? The one of the primary purposes of the federal government is to provide a common defense.

I said some spending, not all. I thought as much though. :lamo

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

The data you provided is speculation of assignment of data using speculated data. It is random numbers. It is nothing more than manufactured data.

I don't know what that means or why you're inserting yourself into the middle of conversations only to present unintelligible drivel.

 

[rickc]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

we are really not talking about the rich or poor. we are talking about the huge middle. what happened in the 1980's that caused the top 5% and above to expand their wealth while leaving the other 95% to just a 0.45 growth rate?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

It's gibberish from where I sit. What language are you speaking - something from the sovereign citizen movement? It's unintelligible to the rest of us.

Do you know what 'assignment of data' is? Let's start there, since you don't seem to understand how you are making up numbers.

The argument from randU fallacy is the fallacy of making up numbers and using them in your argument as if they actually meant something. A random number of type randU is the type that is thought up out of one's own head, usually to embellish a statement to make it sound more important. It is the only type of random number not directly associated with randR, although an association is there. The term comes from random number mathematics.

An assignment of data is attributing a data point to a source, when multiple sources are being used (such as in the graph you quoted). The assignment of data is by metadata, which is actually just data. Like any data, making it up is a fallacy.

The graph you are showing is making up assignments of data. That is an argument from randU. You are using made up data to assign other data. You are doing so by using made up data to be assigned as well.

If you are going to get into math arguments, you are going to have to understand the math, particularly statistical mathematics, it's dependency on random number mathematics, multiple Domains of mathematics, and the effects of importing across Domains; or it will just sound like gibberish to you.

Most government offices push out bad math and bad statistics all the time. It's what they do. They are bureaucrats. They do not understand the reason it is bad math.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Most of your regurgitated nonsense is being ignored for obvious reasons. I've already proved you to be wrong. However the new point you brought up, capitalism brought "civilization" out of the jungle is factually untrue as well. Most advancements of civilization have occurred outside of capitalism. It was the industrial revolution founded by scholars and socialist policies that brought people out from the wood work they'd been in for 150 years in America and other countries. Capitalism only served as a means of better redistributing wealth and opportunity, to which it has become outdated.

You obviously are not ignoring me. You responded.

If you can't define what a billionaire is, that is your problem. As with the rest, you are simply making an argument of the stone, a fallacy.
The industrial revolution was not brought about by socialist policies or scholars. You really ARE trying to rewrite history here, aren't you?

Capitalism is never outdated. Socialism is never outdated. Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism steals it.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

My comment was clear enough - you attacked a straw man.



The discussion was about "fairness." IMO, you have to look at the economic system as a whole, and not just one small part of the tax burden in this country, which is the individual income tax. And if you look at the system, it works fantastic for the wealthy, and very poorly for the bottom half or more. That's all reflected in any kind of data you want to examine - the bottom half has gone decades really with almost no real increases in wages.

So when you argue the tax system is 'unfair' to the wealthy, the only result that's possible is lowering taxes on the segment of the society already capturing nearly all the wealth and income gains in decades, and RAISING taxes, making poorer, those who have benefitted the least from our economy during that time.

How is that "fair?" I can't see it.

And as to the sarcasm, I just get tired of hearing arguments whining about how the rich are so abused. Give me a break - the rich own nearly ever lever of power in this country, including nearly all our various state and local governments. Too bad they have to give the poor some crumbs off the table every now and then to keep the peace. Boo f'ing hoo. Tired of the whining.

You are not looking at the economic system as a whole. You are fixating alternately on GDP (often using arguments from randU fallacies), and government revenue (again often using arguments from randU fallacies).

It is obvious you are a Marxist. Socialism doesn't work. Neither of it's two forms work. Communism doesn't work. Fascism doesn't work. Both are forms of socialism. They don't work. They can only exist by stealing wealth.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Do you know what 'assignment of data' is? Let's start there, since you don't seem to understand how you are making up numbers.

The argument from randU fallacy is the fallacy of making up numbers and using them in your argument as if they actually meant something. A random number of type randU is the type that is thought up out of one's own head, usually to embellish a statement to make it sound more important. It is the only type of random number not directly associated with randR, although an association is there. The term comes from random number mathematics.

An assignment of data is attributing a data point to a source, when multiple sources are being used (such as in the graph you quoted). The assignment of data is by metadata, which is actually just data. Like any data, making it up is a fallacy.

The graph you are showing is making up assignments of data. That is an argument from randU. You are using made up data to assign other data. You are doing so by using made up data to be assigned as well.

If you are going to get into math arguments, you are going to have to understand the math, particularly statistical mathematics, it's dependency on random number mathematics, multiple Domains of mathematics, and the effects of importing across Domains; or it will just sound like gibberish to you.

Most government offices push out bad math and bad statistics all the time. It's what they do. They are bureaucrats. They do not understand the reason it is bad math.

I'm not making up data - I'm citing my sources.

And if you believe all government data is bad data, then there is no way to legitimately evaluate any claim about the budget, spending, taxes, etc. because there is no source for that data other than government. If that's your position, fine, then ignore all discussions of those subjects and we'll all be better off. You're not presenting an argument except, paraphrased, "you're wrong! bad data!!" It's boring as hell, and tedious to read through for the rest of us having a discussion. I don't care about your opinion if your position depends entirely on dismissing any data any of can produce on these topics.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars


Two points..

One it is fair that the wealthy pay more.. because we use more and depend more on government.. from everything from protection of shipping lanes.. to having a justice system to enforce contracts...[/quote]LOL, I've heard that nonsense for years. It's like the less wealthy don't have contracts, or purchase merchandise that travels on those sea lanes. But I;m pretty sure higher earners aren't using food stamps or ACA subsidies.

Yep.. that's called social mobility and unfortunately social mobility has been decreasing. Which means that the chances for those kids to become millionaires is less today than it was before.

.

https://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-decline-and-with-it-american-dream-2017-7

And yet it's still happening. And the better the economy does the more it will happen. We've had eight years of anti-business, anti-success leadership in the White House, that's changed. Now if we can just get our education system to teach competitiveness and ambition instead of safe spaces and microaggressions we'd create the people ready to charge up the ladder.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Why can't the US just print more dollars, if more revenue is needed? What is the limit?

under Obama, Republicans complained about the increasing US Debt. What has changed under Trump?

The US Dollar in relation to exchange rates seems to not affected by increase debt/ Will there be a cliff?




//

Comparing the US dollar to other currencies is a misnomer. ALL currencies in any major economic bloc are just paper (or bits in a computer somewhere). NONE of them are tied to a commodity value such as gold, silver, diamonds, or anything.

It's an international race to the bottom. The world has never been here before.

China is already divesting themselves from the dollar, pushing the Yuan as the trade currency of choice in the region (and in parts of Europe). It's so far working.
The USSR is likewise trading in currencies other than the dollar.
Iran went back to a gold standard. They are not, however, a major economic power.

The limit for printing dollars is unknown. People are already losing faith in the dollar. If enough lose faith (a surprisingly small amount is sufficient) in the paper currencies that are rapidly losing value, the world will turn to something more substantial. For the dollar, that means all those dollars we've been spending around the world will come back home like ravens, bringing destruction with them.

Will the world turn instead to SDR's? The World Bank currently has the cleanest balance sheet. Will it return to a gold and silver standard?

Printing dollars is already causing inflation. Haven't you noticed?

Yes, there is a cliff. We just don't know where it is. The perception of a money's value is just that...a perception. It doesn't matter if it's paper, bits, gold, silver, diamonds, or any other unit of account.

A lot of this comes down to answering the question, "What is money?".

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Great.. please give me a list of federal benefit programs that have been cut during republican Congresses.

Start with the expansion of Medicare to cover drug benefits for seniors.

Lets see it.

Can't think of a single one, other than ObamaCare.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

You are not looking at the economic system as a whole. You are fixating alternately on GDP (often using arguments from randU fallacies), and government revenue (again often using arguments from randU fallacies).

It is obvious you are a Marxist. Socialism doesn't work. Neither of it's two forms work. Communism doesn't work. Fascism doesn't work. Both are forms of socialism. They don't work. They can only exist by stealing wealth.

Funny, because my argument you quoted isn't about "GDP" but the distribution of GDP growth. They aren't the same thing. And I wasn't making a point about "government revenue" but the allocation of that total burden among its taxpaying residents.

And if levying taxes is to steal wealth, whatever floats your boat. It's a necessary evil in a developed country, and how the bill is allocated is a political decision, influenced by the electorate. If you have a better idea, make an argument. You're just throwing rocks at this point, which is boring.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

I never claimed the rich were born rich. What I'm observing is the fact that in recent DECADES, the vast amount of gains have gone to a small sliver at the top.

And I'll make this simple - if you believe the rich are taxed too much, then the middle class should have their tax rates raised (be made poorer, after decades of anemic or no wage gains as a group) so that Buffett et al. who have enjoyed nearly all the gains in recent decades pay less in taxes and are made wealthier, to be fair.

Fine, let the GOP run on raising taxes on the middle class and poor so the poor, oppressed rich with all the levers of power in this country get wealthier.



That's a bad example because the NFL is close to pure socialism. They share in TV revenues, the worst teams get first pick in the next draft with the best teams the last picks, there are salary caps, unions for the players, etc. So there is an immense effort to level the playing field before the Super Bowl.

And it's just simplistic to say that it's "fair" for a guy working 3 jobs with 2 kids and a wife at home barely making expenses to pay the same rate as Buffett. It's only "fair" if you define fair with the result - everyone paying the same rate. You'd be taking food or clothes off the backs of the poor, but shoveling more wealth and income to a guy who couldn't spend his existing wealth in several lifetimes.



Sure, but that's happening less and less, which is the problem, for lots of reasons. And just for example, you say you're for "equal opportunity" but that's just words if the daughter of a rich person goes to the best public or private HS, gets their pick of colleges they attend, graduate debt free, can do things like go to DC and take a low wage job as intern or lowly staffer to make contacts for three years, with rent paid for by daddy in Georgetown, and then five years later parlay those contacts from college and the staff job into something bigger. None of that is possible for someone poor or middle class who might graduate $150k in debt, and when out can't take that job with Sen. Daddybucks because it doesn't pay the D.C. area rent and service on the school loan. It's just one example of many where "equal opportunity" doesn't exist in reality.

Well, we can't solve all those advantages and wouldn't want to because it would require MASSIVE wealth redistribution. But if you're not willing to consider ways to solve SOME of those inherent disadvantages (such as providing public funding of post K-12 so we're not all graduating with decades of college debt) then "equal opportunity" is just a platitude, meaningless. It doesn't exist and you're not willing to support anything to even begin to make it a reality on the ground.

Ok, this post is far too complex to respond to in detail - I tried and system said I had too many characters: 6257 with a limit of 5000. I tried a couple of edits but only got down to around 5500.

Let's get the basics straight: I have already said I think a progressive tax system is necessary. What I'm debating is the mindset that high earners (which is not necessarily the same as "the rich") aren't paying "their fair share" - by whatever definition you choose to apply. They are, and then some. I'm also trying to counter the mindset that the rich get more because they're rich; they GOT rich because they found ways to earn money and use small amounts to grow into larger amounts and so on. IF you found a company and find ways to make it successful and keep it successful and growing you WILL accumulate more money - any objection to that? Jobs and Wosniak did that. Sam Walton did that. Ray Kroc did that. As I said, right now there are kids in school or college that will repeat those accomplishments.

My definition of fair is equality of opportunity. And enjoying the rewards of whatever success you achieve.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

I am a real conservative.

One of many. Its just that that term conservative has been hijacked so now it applies to right wing liberals.

There are conservatives by the way in the democrat party as well.

(though pretty hidden right now.. and if they came to the forefront in the next election.. they would likely win).


Its kind of like how the label "socialist" and communist".. has been corrupted as well.

Folks like Obama were called "communist".. and "socialist".. when they were not.

Heck.. Obamacare.. which was deemed "communism".. was an attempt at a free market solution to healthcare.

Obama was a socialist. His favorite form was by fascism, not communism. He usually liked oligarchies to implement it. An example is ObamaCare.

Socialism is the distribution of wealth by theft to those who didn't earn it. It can only exist under oligarchies and dictatorships. It can only exist by forcing it upon people.

It takes two forms: communism an fascism.

Under communism, the government outright takes your property. No one owns property except the government. All businesses, factories, etc. are government owned and run. An example of this are the concrete and steel industries owned by the Chinese government.

Under fascism, the government lets you keep the property (or business), but tells you how to run it. They will tell you what product you can make, who you can sell it to, how much you can charge, when you can sell it, etc. But YOU take all the risk for starting the business. It's like stealing your property without actually stealing your property. You may own it, but you have no or very limited control over it.

These are the two forms of socialism (and Marxism). While socialism is older than Karl Marx, Marx did manage to distill down in writing the principles of it.

Marx is wrong. You cannot improve society by stealing wealth from those who produce it and distributing it to those who don't.

Only capitalism can create wealth. It needs no government to function. It conforms to the free market. That market is immortal. You can't kill it. You can drive it underground, but it's still there. It still functions. If capitalism is allowed to run free, prosperity will follow.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Ok, this post is far too complex to respond to in detail - I tried and system said I had too many characters: 6257 with a limit of 5000. I tried a couple of edits but only got down to around 5500.

Let's get the basics straight: I have already said I think a progressive tax system is necessary. What I'm debating is the mindset that high earners (which is not necessarily the same as "the rich") aren't paying "their fair share" - by whatever definition you choose to apply. They are, and then some.

There is little point in debating 'fairness' because it's inherently subjective. Here we're limiting it to 1/3 of the tax burden - the federal income tax - ignoring other taxes and the rest of the economic system.

I'm also trying to counter the mindset that the rich get more because they're rich; they GOT rich because they found ways to earn money and use small amounts to grow into larger amounts and so on. IF you found a company and find ways to make it successful and keep it successful and growing you WILL accumulate more money - any objection to that? Jobs and Wosniak did that. Sam Walton did that. Ray Kroc did that. As I said, right now there are kids in school or college that will repeat those accomplishments.

Some get more because they're rich, there are obviously others self made. Lots of Walton heirs - generations - will be born wealthy and die wealthy and have done nothing to earn a penny if that's what they want.

I don't have an objection to people getting rich because they're successful. I don't think worrying about their tax burden is worth doing because the rich own the levers of power and have all the influence they need to make their own arguments with Congress, state and local legislatures, etc. That's fine, and the bottom 99% can make their case. That's how it works, and I'm not worried in the slightest about them being taken advantage of by a system in which they control all the levers of power.

My definition of fair is equality of opportunity. And enjoying the rewards of whatever success you achieve.

And, again, saying that as a goal is fine, but unless you support measures to make that a reality, just hollow words. Without assistance for college, there can be no "equal opportunity." Should we make college "free" like K-12, or just subsidize federal loans? Who knows, but if you don't find some way to subsidize education for the poor and middle class in this era, college and the rewards from advanced degrees will belong overwhelmingly to kids of rich parents. Healthcare is another example. If a family is a serious illness from bankruptcy, there can be no real economic equality of opportunity. If we don't have safety nets like unemployment insurance and EBT and the like, the only ones who can afford to risk it all are those who aren't risking their family's well being, food on the table, shelter, clothes by investing in a speculative startup.

So in a broad sense what we might call 'socialism' or wealth redistribution is necessary to even approach 'equality of opportunity.' We don't have to guess about this - world history was basically one long example of nearly all of society's rewards reserved for those born into positions of power and wealth. If you were poor, you didn't get an education - kids went to work as kids. The rich got educated and so all positions that required an education went only to them, with incredibly rare exceptions.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Why can't the US just print more dollars, if more revenue is needed? What is the limit?

under Obama, Republicans complained about the increasing US Debt. What has changed under Trump?

The US Dollar in relation to exchange rates seems to not affected by increase debt/ Will there be a cliff?




//

I say we should, and then have the world call in our debt. Our global buying power would drop so dramatically, manufacturing here would become cheaper.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

lol. Productive people don't whine about helping out.

Helping is one thing. Having over $25k out of my pay each year to the government is unnecessary.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

What IF, like me, they were born here, rasied here and plan to stay here? They must stfu and take what is handed to them without a peep?

Like it or leave it. Stop trying to change this nation for the rest of us.

 

[JasperL]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Like it or leave it. Stop trying to change this nation for the rest of us.

That knife cuts both ways.

 

[imagep]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

...I have already said I think a progressive tax system is necessary.

What I'm debating is the mindset that high earners (which is not necessarily the same as "the rich") aren't paying "their fair share" - by whatever definition you choose to apply. They are, and then some....

What makes you think they are? Just because they pay more or than most people do? How do you know that what they pay is more than their "fair share"? I suppose "fair share" is the issue, how do you define that?

 

[imagep]

Re: Federal Deficit Soars

Helping is one thing. Having over $25k out of my pay each year to the government is unnecessary.

Like it or leave it. Stop trying to change this nation for the rest of us. Do you just hate America?