If we run deficits now, it means cuts in the future

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by kazenatsu, Nov 8, 2017.

  1. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    16,112
    Likes Received:
    1,586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are correct. That said the premise of the OP is still belied by the facts.
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,237
    Likes Received:
    332
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good point. A two income household isn't necessarily better if there's not someone in the home to prepare the food and the family has to hire a childcare service, all the while the price of housing has doubled.

    If problems in society create additional costs and burdens, that just gets counted as more consumption.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  3. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Please, enlighten us with the facts which you appear to feel proves the OP to be nonsense.
    Note that we accept as fact that the debt keeps going up. The deficit is easily seen as having varied upward/downward perpetually since 1958. With that out of the way what are the additional/remaining facts which prove the OP to be nonsense?
     
  4. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    16,112
    Likes Received:
    1,586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is the first sentence of the OP:

    " If you spend now more than you take in in taxes, it means spending cuts in the future.
    You'd have to be brain dead not to realize this."

    Anyone who can find a single example of where the defecit has resulted in spending cuts is welcome to post the data.
     
  5. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you're saying that because spending cuts have not occurred in the past because of deficit spending, proves it cannot happen in the future?

    Suppose interest rates on our debt were to rise to what they were in the past, 5% or more?

    Someone claims they have always exceeded the speed limit by 20 or more mph and have never been ticketed. Proves they can continue to do so in the future and avoid being ticketed?
     
  6. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I work in construction, and will be up to about $200,000(the retail, hire a contractor price) into home renovations in two years, which has added about $140,000 in equity. The nice thing about that is that I did $100,000 of that work myself, for nothing, and lucked into getting another $10,000 in free work/materials because a contractor we hired was a complete ****ing idiot.

    Then there's all the small things. I love cooking, and therefore garden, and once the remodels done and can focus on my garden, should be able to grow about half my own food, particularly the pricey stuff such as herbs. I can then make my own tea, soap, beer, wine, essential oils, and slash my extremely expensive, all organic, grocery bill by 50-75%.

    My family does DIY birthdays/Christmas, I plan on significantly expanding my garage to add a wood/weld shop, and have solar panels on the roof.

    When all is said and done on my home, I'll have a set up where I'm able to meet just about all of my basic needs for a comfortable life, and all it really cost me was the interest on the HELOC and my labor. Not to mention that these days you can automate most home crafts, and in 10 years I might have robots working my garden and doing everything else.
     
    Merwen likes this.
  7. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with almost everybody who has posted in this thread. It's ridiculous for Republicans to cut taxes, until they halt the deficit spending.
     
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    23,183
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    '
    So you would support a balanced budget amendment?
     
    roorooroo and Ndividual like this.
  9. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In theory yes, but I'd have to see the specifics. I'll remind you that Clinton and Gore were the last to take the Budget Deficit into the green.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017 at 4:54 PM
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    23,183
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In theory. OK!
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  11. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,202
    Likes Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're right, Eisenhower was the last, FY 1956 and FY 1957 actually decreasing the Federal debt owed.
     
  12. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    12,366
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wrong. Clinton increased the total debt every year. What he did do was decrease the debt held by the public for a few years - but he did it by driving up the intragovt debt, net result was an increase the total debt. It was a PR scam.
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  13. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,888
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please provide a reputable link. Doesn't make much sense to me. Revenue and taxes aren't rocket science. Revenue - Expenses = Deficit.
     
  14. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    65,262
    Likes Received:
    7,307
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am all for keeping income tax the way it is but think it is paramount to lower corporate taxes as more US global companies move their financial headquarters overseas which kills jobs here and lowers federal revenue.
     
  15. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    12,366
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/...tYear=1993&endMonth=01&endDay=05&endYear=2001
    or
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (see table 7)

    From the tables, you can see the total debt increased every year. In 1999,2000,2001 the debt held by the public decreased but it was because money was "borrowed" from the govt which increased the intragovt debt. Clinton did not balance the budget, or reduce the national debt, or run a surplus. It was a shell game.

    Total federal debt by year
    1993 4,351,044
    1994 4,643,307
    1995 4,920,586
    1996 5,181,465
    1997 5,369,206
    1998 5,478,189
    1999 5,605,523
    2000 5,628,700
    2001 5,769,881
    2002 6,198,401
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  16. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    23,183
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yeah I could have kept personal income tax rates as they were but our corporate taxes were too far above the OECD average to make us competitive globally.
     
  17. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,136
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Is it that simple? http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7931.pdf
     
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    23,183
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ndividual likes this.
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,136
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Bit obvious in the introduction. The idea that a tax cut will necessarily improve competitiveness is naive.
     
  20. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    23,183
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well you're not really making an argument, you're stating an opinion. So thank you for your contribution to this topic.
     
    Ndividual likes this.

Share This Page