That's called a balanced budget amendment but it's a non-starter for most politicians because it removes their ability to monkey with the economy like they all do now.
The national debt continues to rise
- Thread starter bamacpa
- Start date
-
HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two) Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation) if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!
Its not about spending as much as who is paying the taxes. Its is proven over and over again the top 1-2% pay a lower share of their income in income tax than you and I do while reaping the rewards of lower taxes and reaping the investment and capital gains of inflation.
I will ask another question...
As projected, if AI displaces the middle class jobs. Who is going to pay the income taxes in an increasing AI driven economy? Our income tax system is built on personal output and production.
That is quickly no longer the case and no one in government is even considering the implications of an outdated inequitable tax system for our society.
As projected, if AI displaces the middle class jobs. Who is going to pay the income taxes in an increasing AI driven economy? Our income tax system is built on personal output and production.
That is quickly no longer the case and no one in government is even considering the implications of an outdated inequitable tax system for our society.
I don’t think that AI will displace middle-class jobs. It will displace some existing jobs while creating new jobs. We’ve seen that happening in the past with every new technology
OTOH, an idiot in charge, who adds tariffs and kills free trade, is a much bigger threat to the job creation
OTOH, an idiot in charge, who adds tariffs and kills free trade, is a much bigger threat to the job creation
Every population gets the government they deserve.
We're screwed.
After the Great Recession, the European Union underwent austerity economic measures to avoid their national debt ballooning. I think it lasted about 5 years but worked. There were drawbacks of course as it spawned the resurgence of right wing populism sort of go it alone politics.
We didnt engage in economic austerity. Our economy recovered quickly at the expense of ballooning national debt and yet right wing populism still found its way to our shores because of the inflation that came with our strategy.
There is no way to fix this problem without significant cuts in spending and significant increase in taxes through a new tax system. Otherwise, even at this pace even the 1% will hear inflation knocking at their door.
This really can collapse on us really quickly. And we have the largest contingent of morons in government ever assembled leading us further into the abyss.
We didnt engage in economic austerity. Our economy recovered quickly at the expense of ballooning national debt and yet right wing populism still found its way to our shores because of the inflation that came with our strategy.
There is no way to fix this problem without significant cuts in spending and significant increase in taxes through a new tax system. Otherwise, even at this pace even the 1% will hear inflation knocking at their door.
This really can collapse on us really quickly. And we have the largest contingent of morons in government ever assembled leading us further into the abyss.
I think it is as much about spending because you've got a government who proves over and over they'll spend money they already know they don't have. When an entity will do that then it gives you a good indication of what they would do if they got "more money". Behaviors don't change just because you give them more money. It would be naive to believe otherwise. Any effort to cut spending needs to be accompanied (side by side) with tax increases on the rich. One doesn't need to happen without the other. IMO, that is a great compromise between the parties. One gets some of what they want in taxing the rich more and the other gets some of what they want by cutting spending. But no way I would be on board with raising taxes on the rich and not cut spending at the same time. There are suckers on every block, I'm just not one of them. Both sides need to give up something they want and both sides need to get something they want. It's called negotiating and working it out.
I see your supposition that one party will ALWAYS spend more, but I counter with the opposite idea. We're WAY UNDER INVESTING in our populace and smart infrastructure right now with FAR TOO LOW MINIMUM WAGES. One party clearly sees this and always tries to fill in the missing economic pieces of the puzzle with gov. programs. So, when you're not paying people enough to live and eat, they have to have help/subsidies/programs. But, if we raised the minimum wage to a point where our 40 hour a week jobs guaranteed a living wage, then a lot of these programs get a lot smaller/go away. Will this happen? I'd put it far more likely than the trickle down fantasy (that clearly doesn't work), since much of Western Europe already shows this type of economic system does work when you pay workers enough and tax enough of the top earners to pay for the infrastructure, instead of over taxing the middle class to accommodate too-low taxes of the wealthiest. I could be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong and make life better for the lower and middle classes than be right watching so many people go without their basic needs being fulfilled.
Last edited:
No doubt, I'm actually for a higher minimum wage that is adjusted by current inflation. You won't get an argument from me on that one. I'll just say that the moment you raise minimum wage to a truly liveable wage, you'd get higher quality applicants for those jobs and those who are currently in them would be looking for something else. In most things, we get what we pay for. The higher wages are the more qualified applicants become interested. You also won't get an argument from me on investing in infrastructure and our own people. As much money as we send out of this country on a yearly basis, I'd rather that money be used to ensure anyone who wanted to go to college or a trade school could on our dime. We don't invest enough in our own people, imo. We have a massive crisis in the trade industry in this country where we have no idea where our next generation of plumbers, electricians, HVAC workers etc are going to come from. I think we can use some of the billions that we send out of the country every year on those type of programs and giving our own people a chance to succeed.
It's an all of the above approach to me. Raise taxes, spend wisely (on trades for sure), elect intelligent politicians (even boring compromise kinds of folks, but get rid of TT and MGT types), cut under-performing programs, deficit spend when you have to, save money when you can, etc. Throw out the single-minded political ideologies and focus on what works through actual data. Create big ideas, try them, see if they work, update them, throw out what doesn't work. But most of all, invest in our country and the working classes, as the billionaires will take care of themselves. If the billionaires hate taxes and move way, good riddance, and we'll simply replace them with the next billionaire who pays their employees enough to live above the poverty line. If you can't be a billionaire AND pay your employees well above a true living wage, then you just don't deserve your wealth in any way.
I don't believe it's a coincidence that the states with the lowest minimum wages (those that essentially follow the federal minimum of $7.20-ish/hour) are also the poorest overall.
I've long been against minimum wage laws, I think they're largely counterproductive and generally drive inflation. That said, like you, I'm sick of seeing wealth trickle upwards, and as inflation is already an issue, let's focus on lifting up those that could use the help.
Top Companies Who Benefit from Employees on Welfare
This is a dated article but this is the kind of opportunity that needs to be eliminated. Walmart and McDonalds are receiving substantial tax benefits while at the same time not paying a livable wage to their retail staff. Taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of the companies with welfare benefits to their employees who then spend the benefits at their stores. Its a triple windfall for the companies.
This kind of thing has gone on for decades and is growing more prevalent and causing our national debt to explode. It is this sort of shadow economic strategy that is giving rise to Mandami and the like and is splintering our nation.
This is the crux of our spending problem. They want us to think there a whole bunch of working age people not working where in reality it is working age people having to supplement their income with welfare benefits to feed, clothe, house, and care for their children.
This is your real waste, fraud, and abuse.
Congress should bow up and tell these companies you 2 choices pay your employees or pay us...
This is a dated article but this is the kind of opportunity that needs to be eliminated. Walmart and McDonalds are receiving substantial tax benefits while at the same time not paying a livable wage to their retail staff. Taxpayers are subsidizing the profits of the companies with welfare benefits to their employees who then spend the benefits at their stores. Its a triple windfall for the companies.
This kind of thing has gone on for decades and is growing more prevalent and causing our national debt to explode. It is this sort of shadow economic strategy that is giving rise to Mandami and the like and is splintering our nation.
This is the crux of our spending problem. They want us to think there a whole bunch of working age people not working where in reality it is working age people having to supplement their income with welfare benefits to feed, clothe, house, and care for their children.
This is your real waste, fraud, and abuse.
Congress should bow up and tell these companies you 2 choices pay your employees or pay us...
Last edited:
I agree that it would be good for the country if more people made a living wage. However, you can't just dictate that all McDonalds workers will now make enough money to have the wife stay home, raise three kids and have enough money left over for a three bedroom house. It will be so out of whack with the rest of the world that it will make things even worse vis-a-vis, immigration-wise. How many people will show up at the border when minimum wage in the U.S. is $25/hour, or higher. It will be mass hysteria.
The answer is to get people into jobs that are "worth" $25/hour. Jobs where they have to use smarts and training to create value for their companies. Intervention at the middle-school and high-school level to get people on the right track towards a good job so that they start to think about their future and not thinking about the next blunt or hooking up with that girl from school above all else.
Having said that, the current minimum wage is too low.
Nobody said anything about paying them a wage where a parent stays at home and they can purchase a home. We are talking about them earning a wage where they can afford a used car to get to their job, get unsubisidized housing, unsubsidized utility assistance, and unsubsidized food and healthcare. We are not even talking about them being able to afford being a spouse or parent.
Walmart's whole strategy has been to always pay 80%-90% of your cost on the premise you can make it up elsewhere. They know what subsidies are out there and how much they pay. They figure that into the calculus of what they pay their retail employees. What they are doing is on purpose and integral to their profit model.
Last edited:
I once heard an interview where the guy said he saw Indians (in India) cutting grass with scissors because the minimum/prevailing wage was so low. But, if you raise the minimum wage, then it becomes too expensive to hire people to use scissors, and they will lose those coveted grass cutting jobs. However, what a lot of people don't realize is someone will buy a lawn mower and pay far fewer people to mow. And, that mower has to be made by someone, so a factory will be built to make more lawnmowers since it's much cheaper to mow grass with a lawn mower. Then a company will start that services and maintains lawnmowers. Both the factory and the service station will pay much better wages for the employees, and in the end, the grass will still be cut, and now workers will have more fulfilling/higher paying jobs. The transition isn't smooth or easy, but it pays off in the end.
That is the moral of the story here. Reasonable wages may eliminate the many of the most menial jobs, but automation and invention will make better and higher paying jobs. That's why we have computers instead of typewriters, cars instead of carriages, gas/electric lawn mowers instead of reel mowers, etc.
If we keep wages low (really too low) jobs don't replaced with more valuable work. But, the trick is to train and educate the workforce, which is a difficult thing to do and takes an all levels of government coordination/taxes. We've done it before in the 1930s-1960s, before the "not on my dollar" group took hold and stopped the progress of our nation's investment loop by stalling public education funding and dramatically lowering taxes for the wealthiest/pushed the tax burden on to the middle class.
At its simplest, a Treasury Bill is a promise by the federal government to give the holder $10,000 (or whatever denomination is agreed-upon) in 30 year's time.
In exchange for this promissory note, the holder gives the federal government a certain sum today. What that amount today is depends on how trustworthy the federal government is and the projected inflation rate between now and the maturation of the T-bill.
For example, if the lender believes that inflation will average (only) 10% per year over the next 30 years, then they would only agree to give the federal government $573.09 today (i.e. pre-inflation) in exchange for being paid $10,00 (post-inflation) in 30 years. Yes, that is right, to raise money today, if 10% will be the average inflation rate, the US government would only get $573.09 for a $10,000 30-year T-bill. And, inflation can easily go over %10/year. Way over.* The lender has to balance the risk of inflation and the likelihood of eventual repayment on one hand and the amount lent today on the other. The government cannot just offer 30-year T-bills and demand lenders buy them at rates the government would like. The Treasury make them available and has to accept whatever lenders offer.
When the federal government appears likely to repay the principle and the public expects low average inflation, then today's 30-year T-bills will fetch a lot more money todaay. If, however, the federal government is printing money like there's no tomorrow and is even in danger of not paying back the principle at all, the risk premium goes up, and the amount of money lent to get a 30-year T-bill goes down.
The federal government can screw around with this (running huge deficits and just printing money for the difference) a little in the short run, but eventually, the risk starts to creep up and cost of borrowing goes up with it.
When that happens servicing existing debt will crush current federal spending on other things like medicare, medicaid, social security, defense, unemployment, homeland security, national parks, etc. etc.
So go ahead and screw around, Congress, Treasury officials, and Fed bankers. Just go ahead and watch the economic carnage unleashed on the United States. Future generations will curse your memory.
* If anticipated inflation goes up to 20%, then the $10k 30-year T-bill will only fetch $42 today.
In exchange for this promissory note, the holder gives the federal government a certain sum today. What that amount today is depends on how trustworthy the federal government is and the projected inflation rate between now and the maturation of the T-bill.
For example, if the lender believes that inflation will average (only) 10% per year over the next 30 years, then they would only agree to give the federal government $573.09 today (i.e. pre-inflation) in exchange for being paid $10,00 (post-inflation) in 30 years. Yes, that is right, to raise money today, if 10% will be the average inflation rate, the US government would only get $573.09 for a $10,000 30-year T-bill. And, inflation can easily go over %10/year. Way over.* The lender has to balance the risk of inflation and the likelihood of eventual repayment on one hand and the amount lent today on the other. The government cannot just offer 30-year T-bills and demand lenders buy them at rates the government would like. The Treasury make them available and has to accept whatever lenders offer.
When the federal government appears likely to repay the principle and the public expects low average inflation, then today's 30-year T-bills will fetch a lot more money todaay. If, however, the federal government is printing money like there's no tomorrow and is even in danger of not paying back the principle at all, the risk premium goes up, and the amount of money lent to get a 30-year T-bill goes down.
The federal government can screw around with this (running huge deficits and just printing money for the difference) a little in the short run, but eventually, the risk starts to creep up and cost of borrowing goes up with it.
When that happens servicing existing debt will crush current federal spending on other things like medicare, medicaid, social security, defense, unemployment, homeland security, national parks, etc. etc.
So go ahead and screw around, Congress, Treasury officials, and Fed bankers. Just go ahead and watch the economic carnage unleashed on the United States. Future generations will curse your memory.
* If anticipated inflation goes up to 20%, then the $10k 30-year T-bill will only fetch $42 today.
Surely you're not implying we don't spend enough on education. We spend more per capita on public education that any other country on the planet and our results are an embarrassment. I agree that in order for the standard of living in the US as a whole to rise we have to get people educated and trained for all the new technology. The answer is to 1) transform our schools back into teaching the three Rs and stop with the social justice crap and 2) give some tough love to those parents that just produce kids and make very little effort to raise them properly with morals and the drive to succeed. It is a well known that parental involvement is the number 1 determiner of success in school and in life. We, as a society, need to demand parents be involved with their children's upbringing in a positive way. I'm not saying punish the deadbeat parents with laws but punish with social stigma. It is the only way out of our education slump.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Colorado to start freshman QB Lewis against WV- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
TideFans: MBB: Alabama Cruises Past North Dakota in Season-Opening Rout, 91-62- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Opening CFP first-round game to start at 8 ET
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 1
-
ESPN: Heisman Trophy race: Does Sayin, Mendoza, Simpson or Reed have best chance to win?
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0