welfare neighborhoods wrote:
I'm not a single mother with 10 different kids.
Do you suggest having 10 of the same kid instead?
-
20
-
OH...TX wrote:
Ken Lay-Bankmen-Fried wrote:
The idea that debt you owe to other members of your household is not real debt isn't real debt worked well for Enron.
The idea that debt in a currency you control the supply isn't real debt worked well for FTX.
No one said it isn't real debt. I just pointed out that comparing it to household debt is simple-minded and not suitable for educated debate.
The comparison is valid. Most people have no concept of billions or trillions - their eyes glaze over.
When presented in more easily relatable numbers, the argument becomes more clear.
One side is trying to spend more money, one side is trying to save money.
21 -
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
OH...TX wrote:
No one said it isn't real debt. I just pointed out that comparing it to household debt is simple-minded and not suitable for educated debate.
The comparison is valid. Most people have no concept of billions or trillions - their eyes glaze over.
When presented in more easily relatable numbers, the argument becomes more clear.
One side is trying to spend more money, one side is trying to save money.
You just perfectly illustrated my point. You are dumbing the subject down to the point of being nonsense.
Your factually incorrect conclusion follows directly from your faulty logical analysis. If Republicans were trying to save money, they shouldn't have already spent the money.
32 -
Conundrum wrote:
Let's talk facts about the debt ceiling, what it means to raise (and not raise it) and the national debt.
First, raising the debt ceiling is NOT about future spending its about paying for past spending and obligations. Not to raise the debt ceiling is to say we won't pay what we already owe. That will precipitate a lack of confidence in our financial system and will create a huge depression. Government revenue of course would go down and the national debt would increase greatly.
Secondly, the threat of the freedom caucus potentially causing the US not to meet financial obligations creates a lack of confidence and can result in an economic down turn.
Thirdly, The m'aga loving Freedom Caucus is playing the American people by pretending to be concerned about the debt. Question, which president in his four years resulted in a 25% increase in the national debt. He raised our national debt that had taken 230 years to get to the level it was, BY 25% MORE IN JUST FOUR YEARS! Yes it was Donald Trump and these m'aga Republicans were not concerned then.
Fouthly, the American public knows that the Freedom Caucus is a group of tear down the system republicans that don't worry about consequences to others. They will be held accountable, not Biden. They never learned from the recent m'aga election defeats.
What's "m'aga" a contraction of?
20 -
MАGA is banned if you don’t know how to get around the filters
00 -
OH...TX wrote:
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
The comparison is valid. Most people have no concept of billions or trillions - their eyes glaze over.
When presented in more easily relatable numbers, the argument becomes more clear.
One side is trying to spend more money, one side is trying to save money.
You just perfectly illustrated my point. You are dumbing the subject down to the point of being nonsense.
Your factually incorrect conclusion follows directly from your faulty logical analysis. If Republicans were trying to save money, they shouldn't have already spent the money.
Exactly.
If one really wanted to work from the household budget comparison, it would be like one side wanting to declare bankruptcy and not pay its bills.
30 -
Yellen tells us the govt is broke as of today.
Yet the market is up in pre opening trading
10 -
This “debt showdown” has become somewhat political theatre and used as a bargaining chip for other initiatives. Raising the debt ceiling is about paying the bill for spending that has already happened. If politicians want to fight about the budget, they should be doing that during budget negotiations.
As a note, the DC has been raised over 100 times since 1960.
50 -
Grassrunner wrote:
This “debt showdown” has become somewhat political theatre and used as a bargaining chip for other initiatives. Raising the debt ceiling is about paying the bill for spending that has already happened. If politicians want to fight about the budget, they should be doing that during budget negotiations.
As a note, the DC has been raised over 100 times since 1960.
Almost 100 times (how do you edit?)
10 -
Imagine if we capped the debt ceiling in the '80s when the debt went from $1 trillion to $2 trillion under Reagan.
How crippled would the US be right now if we hadn't put/kept the additional $30 trillion in the economy?
03 -
Grassrunner wrote:
Grassrunner wrote:
This “debt showdown” has become somewhat political theatre and used as a bargaining chip for other initiatives. Raising the debt ceiling is about paying the bill for spending that has already happened. If politicians want to fight about the budget, they should be doing that during budget negotiations.
As a note, the DC has been raised over 100 times since 1960.
Almost 100 times (how do you edit?)
Yesterday there was an edit option once you posted a comment
00 -
Newname wrote:
Grassrunner wrote:
Almost 100 times (how do you edit?)
Yesterday there was an edit option once you posted a comment
And there it is....at the bottom line (where the up and down votes reside) in the middle
00 -
El El wrote:
Imagine if we capped the debt ceiling in the '80s when the debt went from $1 trillion to $2 trillion under Reagan.
How crippled would the US be right now if we hadn't put/kept the additional $30 trillion in the economy?
You assume too much. How much of that was wasted in foreign nations where it did next to nothing for our economy or even our foreign relations?
The rule is you can either tax and spend or not tax and not spend. It’s not that difficult a concept.
31 -
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
The country is about to run out of funding on Thursday or thereabout. Solution:
1. Republicans do not negotiate with WH on debt limit increase. WH does not have authority to increase the limit.
2. Cap spending on military at current budget until this is resolved. Cut funding on all entitlements.
3. Stop funding Ukranian proxy wars. Hold Europe accountable to protect their Ukranian neighbors. Russia isn't strong and formidable as they've shown - just persistent. The EU and Ukraine should contain this on their own.
We have a spending problem. If you had a credit card and hit the limit, what would you do?
No negotiations. Stop spending. If a government shutdown happens, great. We need to minimize government.
Nope. No such option.
00 -
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
The country is about to run out of funding on Thursday or thereabout. Solution:
1. Republicans do not negotiate with WH on debt limit increase. WH does not have authority to increase the limit.
2. Cap spending on military at current budget until this is resolved. Cut funding on all entitlements.
3. Stop funding Ukranian proxy wars. Hold Europe accountable to protect their Ukranian neighbors. Russia isn't strong and formidable as they've shown - just persistent. The EU and Ukraine should contain this on their own.
We have a spending problem. If you had a credit card and hit the limit, what would you do?
No negotiations. Stop spending. If a government shutdown happens, great. We need to minimize government.
Not sure you have thought this out really. Sounds like crap college kids spout off in a dorm late at night.
Yes we have a spending problem.
You do not understand what an "entitlement" is do you? So let's say your dad is retired and getting $1500/month from Social Security. Do you just tell dad "sorry"?
21 -
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
Cold War Warrior wrote:
I agree very little with your post but I will only address Conflict in Ukraine.
U.S. and U.S. technology make Russian military look bad.
I am for U.S. withdrawing from Ukraine but I know Ukraine would be defeated in weeks. You obviously have no idea how much U.S. is helping Ukraine.
We are helping them quite a bit. Why aren't their adjacent neighbors helping? Itd be like if we were getting attacked by Canada and asking the Phillippines for help.
What the hell sense does that make?
🤡🤡🤡
Their neighbors are helping. A simple google search will show you how much.
10 -
OH...TX wrote:
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
We have a spending problem. If you had a credit card and hit the limit, what would you do?
Sounds to me like we have a revenue problem. Let's eliminate all of the Trump, Bush, & GOP tax cuts that exploded the deficit.
Also, we should cut spending to match the revenue per state. No more rural welfare states living off of the hard work of urban states.
That would not make as much difference as you think.
00 -
off-budget wrote:
Jamb innnnnnn wrote:
2. Cap spending on military at current budget until this is resolved. Cut funding on all entitlements.
Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT part of the discretionary budget. Republicans cannot touch it. Those are self-funded, and the government relies and borrowing from that extra money in the funds to get be cheapest interest rate possible.
The military budget is more than 45% of the budget. $773B out of $1.7T for 2023.
Not sure where you are getting that percentage. The piece below has defense spending at 10% (usually seems like it is closer to 15%) of the OVERALL budget, but yes about 50% of the discretionary spending.
00 -
Xbxbxnx wrote:
We should stop subsidizing things that we want to discourage, such as pollution, it shouldn’t be free to pollute.
This would disincentivize pollution, generate revenue, and alleviate expenditures associated with pollution, such as asthma care and Superfund spending. A sort of three-birds-with-one-stone situation.
Massive federal taxes on tobacco and alcohol would also help.
These things should be considered before social security “entitlement” cuts that were directly contributed to, some times in excess, over the course of a person’s working life.
The federal tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.01. Some states add more (as much as $2 from a quick search). The avg price is $6.28 per pack. So how much more? Also taxing it more does not mean more collections either as some people will reduce their usage (a good thing for their health and even the economy) and others will turn to black markets.
The alcohol tax is a little more complicated since it is tiered based on type and production. But for beer there is a $16 tax on each barrel produced for the first 6 million produced.
Interesting tid bit: there is a $3.50/barrel tax on the first 60,000 barrels produced. The 60,001 barrel is then taxed at $16/barrel. I bet that makes for interesting decision making for a small brewer.10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
-
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
-
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
-
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
-
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?