https://www.newsweek.com/defense-debt-us...st-1210907
tax cuts have increased the deficit and risk increasing it to an unsustainable level.
The economic activity that they have stimulated has also stimulated higher interest rates.
soon the government will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid or National Defense.
Turns out that "capitalism" might be more expensive than "socialism".
Also note that nearly all federal interest payments go to very wealthy people in this country.
So don't get too upset, this was all part of the design. They got most of the tax cuts, they get most of the interest payments, the part where a few more people have jobs is not really the object for them, just the means to the end.
(11-12-2018, 08:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.newsweek.com/defense-debt-us...st-1210907
tax cuts have increased the deficit and risk increasing it to an unsustainable level.
The economic activity that they have stimulated has also stimulated higher interest rates.
soon the government will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid or National Defense.
Turns out that "capitalism" might be more expensive than "socialism".
Also note that nearly all federal interest payments go to very wealthy people in this country.
So don't get too upset, this was all part of the design. They got most of the tax cuts, they get most of the interest payments, the part where a few more people have jobs is not really the object for them, just the means to the end.
Isn't the deficit already at an unsustainable level? It's not one presidents fault. It's every politician's fault. They have, and will always have a spending problem.
Higher interest rates signify a stronger economy. Trump has continuously bashed the Fed for raising rates too fast, but at the same time is a natural response to a good economy.
Do you really expect lenders to remain happy getting a 0-3% return on their money? And of course federal interest payments go to the wealthy people, THEY ARE THE ONES LENDING THE MONEY!
As for being part of the design, how do you propose keeping interest rates low in a booming economy?
Gee, another rag blaming Trump. From am economic perspective this is what we get with this type of monetary system. Borrow when economy is bad and pay back when good. Debt selling in the form of bonds will be attractive again...Meh, this article in one tracked and only takes the snippets from the CBO report to meet an agenda. Because most folks are clueless as to how the economic machine churns, the chicken little will be clucking away!
(11-12-2018, 08:15 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 08:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.newsweek.com/defense-debt-us...st-1210907
tax cuts have increased the deficit and risk increasing it to an unsustainable level.
The economic activity that they have stimulated has also stimulated higher interest rates.
soon the government will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid or National Defense.
Turns out that "capitalism" might be more expensive than "socialism".
Also note that nearly all federal interest payments go to very wealthy people in this country.
So don't get too upset, this was all part of the design. They got most of the tax cuts, they get most of the interest payments, the part where a few more people have jobs is not really the object for them, just the means to the end.
Isn't the deficit already at an unsustainable level? It's not one presidents fault. It's every politician's fault. They have, and will always have a spending problem.
Higher interest rates signify a stronger economy. Trump has continuously bashed the Fed for raising rates too fast, but at the same time is a natural response to a good economy.
Do you really expect lenders to remain happy getting a 0-3% return on their money? And of course federal interest payments go to the wealthy people, THEY ARE THE ONES LENDING THE MONEY!
As for being part of the design, how do you propose keeping interest rates low in a booming economy?
I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
(11-12-2018, 09:02 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Gee, another rag blaming Trump. From am economic perspective this is what we get with this type of monetary system. Borrow when economy is bad and pay back when good. Debt selling in the form of bonds will be attractive again...Meh, this article in one tracked and only takes the snippets from the CBO report to meet an agenda. Because most folks are clueless as to how the economic machine churns, the chicken little will be clucking away!
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
(11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 08:15 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the deficit already at an unsustainable level? It's not one presidents fault. It's every politician's fault. They have, and will always have a spending problem.
Higher interest rates signify a stronger economy. Trump has continuously bashed the Fed for raising rates too fast, but at the same time is a natural response to a good economy.
Do you really expect lenders to remain happy getting a 0-3% return on their money? And of course federal interest payments go to the wealthy people, THEY ARE THE ONES LENDING THE MONEY!
As for being part of the design, how do you propose keeping interest rates low in a booming economy?
I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
(11-12-2018, 09:02 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Gee, another rag blaming Trump. From am economic perspective this is what we get with this type of monetary system. Borrow when economy is bad and pay back when good. Debt selling in the form of bonds will be attractive again...Meh, this article in one tracked and only takes the snippets from the CBO report to meet an agenda. Because most folks are clueless as to how the economic machine churns, the chicken little will be clucking away!
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
(11-12-2018, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
That's dogma. I can't dispute it but I will point it out. You can't prove either claim.
(11-12-2018, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
Liberals are all about the government keeping more of our money because they truly believe they know how to spend it better than we do.
(11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 08:15 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the deficit already at an unsustainable level? It's not one presidents fault. It's every politician's fault. They have, and will always have a spending problem.
Higher interest rates signify a stronger economy. Trump has continuously bashed the Fed for raising rates too fast, but at the same time is a natural response to a good economy.
Do you really expect lenders to remain happy getting a 0-3% return on their money? And of course federal interest payments go to the wealthy people, THEY ARE THE ONES LENDING THE MONEY!
As for being part of the design, how do you propose keeping interest rates low in a booming economy?
I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
(11-12-2018, 09:02 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Gee, another rag blaming Trump. From am economic perspective this is what we get with this type of monetary system. Borrow when economy is bad and pay back when good. Debt selling in the form of bonds will be attractive again...Meh, this article in one tracked and only takes the snippets from the CBO report to meet an agenda. Because most folks are clueless as to how the economic machine churns, the chicken little will be clucking away!
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Don’t twist my words. You own your ignorance alone.
(11-12-2018, 09:21 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
That's dogma. I can't dispute it but I will point it out. You can't prove either claim.
You misspelled F-A-C-T there. Never mind that all taxation is theft, that's just the moral argument, the practical one is that Government is at best a necessary evil and every opportunity to choke it should be taken.
(11-12-2018, 09:23 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Don’t twist my words. You own your ignorance alone.
You said we would "pay back when times are good."
When does that start?
(11-12-2018, 09:26 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:21 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's dogma. I can't dispute it but I will point it out. You can't prove either claim.
You misspelled F-A-C-T there. Never mind that all taxation is theft, that's just the moral argument, the practical one is that Government is at best a necessary evil and every opportunity to choke it should be taken.
Government is not immortal. Our current government did not exist before time and is capable of death. "Choking" it seems like a move that could actually kill it, leading to warlords and despotism.
(11-12-2018, 09:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:23 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Don’t twist my words. You own your ignorance alone.
You said we would "pay back when times are good."
When does that start?
I’m sure you understand a fiat monetary system doesn’t operate like your household budget, right?
(11-12-2018, 09:36 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You said we would "pay back when times are good."
When does that start?
I’m sure you understand a fiat monetary system doesn’t operate like your household budget, right?
I definitely do. What did I say to make you think I don't?
(11-12-2018, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:36 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]I’m sure you understand a fiat monetary system doesn’t operate like your household budget, right?
I definitely do. What did I say to make you think I don't?
Your post infers that a specific amortization exists.
(11-12-2018, 09:57 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I definitely do. What did I say to make you think I don't?
Your post infers that a specific amortization exists.
You're the one who introduced the phrase "pay back". What does that mean, if not some sort of amortization?
(11-12-2018, 09:22 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
Liberals are all about the government keeping more of our money because they truly believe they know how to spend it better than we do.
He’s a Republican, remember?
One of those pro-tax Republicans...
The Fed is in charge of interest rates.
(11-12-2018, 09:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:23 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Don’t twist my words. You own your ignorance alone.
You said we would "pay back when times are good."
When does that start?
(11-12-2018, 09:26 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You misspelled F-A-C-T there. Never mind that all taxation is theft, that's just the moral argument, the practical one is that Government is at best a necessary evil and every opportunity to choke it should be taken.
Government is not immortal. Our current government did not exist before time and is capable of death. "Choking" it seems like a move that could actually kill it, leading to warlords and despotism.
I tried to say "[BLEEP]", but that is cancelled by the filter.
(11-12-2018, 11:45 AM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]The Fed is in charge of interest rates.
Incorrect.
The Fed is in charge of setting a minimum interest rate.
The actual interest rate that the government will actually pay on a bond is set by an auction process.
The more new debt issued at one time, the higher the interest rate will be for that batch; supply and demand.
The Fed can also manipulate the bond market by buying some of the treasuries. This is called quantitative easing, and when Obama did it, Republicans said it was very, very, bad.
(11-12-2018, 11:00 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
The corporate tax cuts were absolutely necessary. The US had one of the highest (if not the highest) corporate taxes in the free world. Businesses were relocating to foreign countries, meaning a loss of jobs and a loss of business tax revenue. You leftists don't seem to understands that 100% of nothing is still nothing.
The other tax cuts were insignificant to the deficit, and necessary to put the corporate tax cuts through.
And the debt was so high that just keeping a smaller deficit wouldn't have have helped. The problem is too much spending, not a lack of taxes.
Right, Obama also proposed lowering the corporate rate for that reason.
There was a way to do it that would have less impact on the debt.
(11-12-2018, 10:15 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:22 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Liberals are all about the government keeping more of our money because they truly believe they know how to spend it better than we do.
He’s a Republican, remember?
One of those pro-tax Republicans...
I'm not pro-tax.
I'm also not pro-all-tax-cuts, like flsportsgod.
I try to analyze things case by case.
(11-12-2018, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-12-2018, 09:12 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I propose that the tax cuts were neither necessary nor good.
If we had simply left taxes alone, the debt would be at a more sustainable level, interest rates would be higher than they were in 2016 but not as high as today, and employment would still be high.
We borrowed more under Obama because times were bad.
We were supposed to borrow less once times were good. Obama was tapering down the level of borrowing. Then Trump increased borrowing even though times were good.
So I agree with you. By your own words, Trump is not doing things the way they are supposed to be done.
Tax cuts are always necessary and always good.
Unless we're talking about a flat consumption tax that replaces income tax.