The National Debt

[BigRob]

.....aka More-O'-The-$AME.

I notice you have had nothing constructive to say about the original topic of the thread. If you do not want to actually discuss the solution, then stop responding in this thread.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I notice you have had nothing constructive to say about the original topic of the thread. If you do not want to actually discuss the solution, then stop responding in this thread.

Yeah, let's simply give the Bush-family one o' their (own) "passes", for being THE common-denominator for EXCESSIVE FEDERAL-DEBT, since 1980!!!

Ya' got a small-problem with the obvious, huh?

 

[BigRob]

Yeah, let's simply give the Bush-family one o' their (own) "passes", for being THE common-denominator for EXCESSIVE FEDERAL-DEBT, since 1980!!!

Ya' got a small-problem with the obvious, huh?

The thread started by saying this is for debate on solutions only. Then a possible solution was offered and the floor was open to tweaks and other ideas.

Your solution: "It was Bush's fault."

Well OK. So what now? The solution to the problem is say "Bush did it" and it will be fixed?

Seems to be an acute lack of actual solutions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The thread started by saying this is for debate on solutions only. Then a possible solution was offered and the floor was open to tweaks and other ideas.

Your solution: "It was Bush's fault."

Well OK. So what now?

Make damned sure those a$$holes never-again get NEAR The Whitehouse!!

That'd suit ME!!!

Besides....dealing with the Debt requires no magic. It's BEEN DONE!!!!!!

 

[The Scotsman]

Shaman you may like to read this............

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention on Monday night, President Clinton spoke of his record in managing the national economy. He most emphatically took credit not only for the size and shape of the current economic expansion, but also magnified his achievement by characterizing the economy he inherited in 1993 as an abysmal one: “Our economy was in trouble, our society was divided, our political system was paralyzed. Ten million of our fellow citizens were out of work. Interest rates were high. The deficit was $290 billion and rising. After 12 years of Republican rule, the federal debt had quadrupled, imposing a crushing burden on our economy and our children.”

full essay here
http://www.polyconomics.com/ssu/ssu-000818.htm

 

[BigRob]

Make damned sure those a$$holes never-again get NEAR The Whitehouse!!

That'd suit ME!!!

That would also make no difference in the debt. The object is to pay it down with this thread. Bush out of the White House does not mean you suddenly have money appear to pay it.

Besides....dealing with the Debt requires no magic. It's BEEN DONE!!!!!!

This article is from 2000 and highly outdated and basically irrelevant to present day solution discussions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman you may like to read this............

I've often said.....It's like 1992.....all-over-AGAIN!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This article is from 2000 and highly outdated and basically irrelevant to present day solution discussions.

Keep tellin' yourself, that. ​

 

[BigRob]

Keep tellin' yourself, that. ​

Uhm... an article talking about how Clinton wanted to pay down the debt is relevant because Obama put together an economic team? What great logic.

It is not relevant because of the economic state, and the massive spending we are currently undergoing.

I also see in your article the "plans" Obama puts forth are basically more and more spending.

How exactly does that reduce the debt?

I don't think anyone believes that the solution is "I blame Bush." Blame him all you want, but the problem is not solved while you blame him.

 

[Andy]

1) National debt currently sits in excess of 10 trillion dollars.

2) This means that your "share" sits at something like $30,000 a person. (give or take) I would argue however that based on income distribution throughout the country, the actual "per share" is somewhat different per person.

3) Given this, if a taxpayer was given an incentive to "pay their share", would they do it?

4) If offered the option to "pay off their share" of the debt in exchange for further tax breaks and other incentives, like double or triple the amount paid qualifies for a tax write-off that can be carried over year to year and spread out, would anyone take it?

For example if I paid $50,000 to pay off my share, I could then write $150,000 dollars off my tax returns whenever I wanted. In small increments, or one lump sum, and it never expired.

5) While obviously we need tax revenue to still run the country, we would need to stagger the years that people could qualify to do this.

For example:
Year 1: Tax bracket X
Year 2: Tax bracket Y
Year 3: Tax bracket Z

and so on, until everyone has been encompassed into the system.

6) I think that the lower tax rates as an incentive and the big tax write-offs are a good incentive to get people on board perhaps with this idea. Lower tax rates, over time do generate more revenue in a good economy, so if given time to implement the entire plan, I think the revenue boost would offset the small timeframe that might have a shortfall.

7) Of course this would require spending to be somewhat more controlled as well, but I feel that even if this plan only successfully dropped the debt 30-50% it would have been a huge success. Also, we could set a goal of simply shaving off a few trillion, as opposed to paying it all off, and I think we would have success.

Also, we should take into account the debt of other countries that we own, which could lower this figure a bit, and then attempt to tackle that figure.


Thoughts, comments, other ideas? I am anxious to hear the response.

The plan is brilliant. I'd actually go for this plan... if it would work.

Problem is, I know for a fact it will not. In fact, it likely won't even get supported, sadly enough.

The upper middle class and upper class, will dig this big time. A major deduction plus long term tax reduction, will more than offset the short term debt payment. The economics of this idea are perfect.

However, therein lies it's demise.

Will not Pass:
Remember all socialists view all income as their income. It's their money. Thus they will always be for a tax, and against a tax cut. Some tax cuts they can't argue against, and begrudgingly support. But any tax cut that effects the 'rich', will automatically be opposed on the basis of class warfare. The ignorant public, at least half of which is ignorant enough to believe what they are told, will always buy that argument.

Just look at Shaman. He still believes the lies that there was a balanced budget, that Clinton policies helped curtail spending, and on and on. Even when the facts and evidence show otherwise.

If Passed, will be dismantled.
Provided the plan were to pass, it is automatic that all those with any wealth will undoubtedly take advantage of it. However, the middle class, lower middle, and lower class, will likely not take advantage of it.

This is because, most of the people in those classes, are in those classes because they make poor financial choices. For example, a college student who blows his money on a flashy sporty car, that by the end of college will be worthless, instead of saving the money for a down payment on a home when he gets married. OR for example a guy working at a car dealership as a janitor, who blows his money on beer and lotto tickets, instead of buy a book on car repair and learning a skill that will move him out of the lower class bracket.

These people, and those like them, are nearly all notoriously have a negative net worth, meaning they own more money in debts, than they have in assets and cash. I too have a negative net worth due to massive screw ups eight years ago. Although I cut up all my credit cards, closed all my loans out, and am nearly paid off.

Point is, these people are likely not going to make wise financial choices, given they have not done so yet. And many, even if they now are wise enough to do so, don't have the net worth to do it, like myself.

In under a year, the democrats, anxious to end all reduction in taxes, will look at the numbers and realize that the plan has benefitted more rich people than poorer people, and eliminate the whole thing. Although it will be true, it will be true because of the choices of the people, not because the plan was bad. But that doesn't matter to a socialist.

It will not ultimately solve the problem:
Although, once again, a brilliant plan mathematically, you correctly state that it will only succeed if spending is curtailed. This won't happen. Look back at the supposed 'surplus' in the late 90s. Even though there was no actual surplus, even with the fabricated surplus, the politicians looked, not to reducing our debt, but to what they might spend it on.

This will happen no matter what method they use to get a surplus. If they implement this plan, and billions roll in, they will not use it to pay down the debt, but rather to what new "voter bribe" program they can fund. Or even if they do use it to pay down the debt, they will over spend in the general budget even more, knowing that debt payments will conceal their massive deficits.

This is why I am generally always against us having to take action for spending the government did. The left always claim we need higher taxes to pay for what we have spent. But if we followed that plan, they would never have a reason to not over spend. They could just rack up trillions more in debt, and claim we have to pay for it in more taxes. Instead, lets cut taxes repeatedly until the government is forced to cut it's spending. Eventually other nations will realize our government can't pay back it's debt, and stop lending money. When that happens, the idiots on the left will finely realize they need to stop blowing our money.

Of course this leads me to my solution, which is simply, the constitution as written. By simply eliminating all programs that are not constitutionally the duty of the federal government, the budget can be reduced by trillions, all of which could be used to pay off debt. The entire national debt could be eliminated in roughly 8 years, by simply following the constitution.

 

[Andy]

....Until it directly-affects you....right?

I'd settle for ZERO Federal-subsidies for PRIVATELY-OWNED COMPANIES!

No, not until it directly affects me. I am self sufficient. I don't sit on my butt waiting for government to fix my life, like some ignorant liberal dog.

I have said endlessly on this forum that I am against alternative energy subsidies. You liberals, are the one constantly wanting to give up subsidies to private corporations. Not me.

Ironically, my company gets subsidies from the government. Both in alternative energy subsidies, and grants. Yet, I'm still against them, and always will be. Why? Because I'm not like you liberals. I think for myself, not believe stupidity fed me by some dumb opinion pieces from 1997.

 

[Andy]

Make damned sure those a$$holes never-again get NEAR The Whitehouse!!

That'd suit ME!!!

Besides....dealing with the Debt requires no magic. It's BEEN DONE!!!!!!

No, actually it wasn't. There never was a balanced budget, and the debt never went down... ever. You can not show me one single year in which the debt was lower, than the year prior.

Clinton lied (shocking) when he passed a fudged numbers budget that raided social security, and used money that was supposed to be for retirement accounts, to count as income on the general budget, thus making it look as though there was a positive budget, when in fact our debt had increased.

The fact you don't know this, tells me you are not qualified to talk about this subject.

 

[BigRob]

The plan is brilliant. I'd actually go for this plan... if it would work.

Well the biggest hurdle is getting people on board, so at least one hurdle has been passed.

Problem is, I know for a fact it will not. In fact, it likely won't even get supported, sadly enough.

I think it will run into some problems with support, but you have basically a big tax cut (in the form of deductions and write-offs) for conservatives, and you have the idea of paying down the debt for the Democrats. I think it would take a lot of explaining, but it could pick up traction among both parties.

The upper middle class and upper class, will dig this big time. A major deduction plus long term tax reduction, will more than offset the short term debt payment. The economics of this idea are perfect.

I agree, depending on the percent return that you will get back, (150%, 120% etc) it is basically like buying an ensured bond from the government at a really good return.

Given the state of the stock market, I think even lower middle class people would seriously think about getting on board.

Imagine also if you add business into the equation. Set it up by giving them the tax credits and then allow them to buy and sell them on the private market to hedge their investments in other ways. Business would love this idea as well.

Will not Pass:
Remember all socialists view all income as their income. It's their money. Thus they will always be for a tax, and against a tax cut. Some tax cuts they can't argue against, and begrudgingly support. But any tax cut that effects the 'rich', will automatically be opposed on the basis of class warfare. The ignorant public, at least half of which is ignorant enough to believe what they are told, will always buy that argument.

Everyone who buys into the plan would get the same rate of deductions. It does not favor anyone, it would be a voluntary program that gives the same rate of return on your investment regardless of size. It does not support "rich" any more than "poor."

Provided the plan were to pass, it is automatic that all those with any wealth will undoubtedly take advantage of it. However, the middle class, lower middle, and lower class, will likely not take advantage of it.

Well as I said earlier, I think we are sitting on a golden opportunity. People are desperate for a place to put their money that will get a decent rate of return.

This is because, most of the people in those classes, are in those classes because they make poor financial choices. For example, a college student who blows his money on a flashy sporty car, that by the end of college will be worthless, instead of saving the money for a down payment on a home when he gets married. OR for example a guy working at a car dealership as a janitor, who blows his money on beer and lotto tickets, instead of buy a book on car repair and learning a skill that will move him out of the lower class bracket.

These people, and those like them, are nearly all notoriously have a negative net worth, meaning they own more money in debts, than they have in assets and cash. I too have a negative net worth due to massive screw ups eight years ago. Although I cut up all my credit cards, closed all my loans out, and am nearly paid off.

Point is, these people are likely not going to make wise financial choices, given they have not done so yet. And many, even if they now are wise enough to do so, don't have the net worth to do it, like myself.

No one will require them to participate in the plan. These same low income people regardless of reason would not be paying much in to begin with, so their voluntary exclusion would not mean much I think, they simply miss out on the rewards.

In under a year, the democrats, anxious to end all reduction in taxes, will look at the numbers and realize that the plan has benefitted more rich people than poorer people, and eliminate the whole thing. Although it will be true, it will be true because of the choices of the people, not because the plan was bad. But that doesn't matter to a socialist.

I do not think they will be able to do so. The plan would be voluntary, if a lower income person chooses not to be involved, it is not an upper class person's fault. I also think that tangible reductions in the debt would make a strong case among Democrats that the plan should be left in place.

Although, once again, a brilliant plan mathematically, you correctly state that it will only succeed if spending is curtailed. This won't happen. Look back at the supposed 'surplus' in the late 90s. Even though there was no actual surplus, even with the fabricated surplus, the politicians looked, not to reducing our debt, but to what they might spend it on.

I agree that spending needs to be curtailed. I also agree that it will most likely not be curtailed by either party. That said, the plan will benefit conservatives through tax deductions and write-offs, and for the average investor they can see that their "investment" will get them a 20-30-40-50% return (depending on the agreed upon rate) and it is a no-brainer to get in the program.

With Democrats, they will be happy because the debt is being paid down. It will give the large write-offs (basically tax cuts) a chance to work, which will raise tax revenue. Democrats can spend the additional revenue if they would like, but at least it would be there, and the debt would be a bit reduced.

This will happen no matter what method they use to get a surplus. If they implement this plan, and billions roll in, they will not use it to pay down the debt, but rather to what new "voter bribe" program they can fund. Or even if they do use it to pay down the debt, they will over spend in the general budget even more, knowing that debt payments will conceal their massive deficits.

I agree, but as stated above, at least the money will be there, and the debt will be lower, all while giving conservatives the basic option of paying for a large tax write off.

Of course this leads me to my solution, which is simply, the constitution as written. By simply eliminating all programs that are not constitutionally the duty of the federal government, the budget can be reduced by trillions, all of which could be used to pay off debt. The entire national debt could be eliminated in roughly 8 years, by simply following the constitution.

Well, this might be the best plan, but it is also the least practical.

I think that my plan will not end debt by any means, but it will at least bring it down (which at the very least buys us more time). Even if we bring it down to 6 trillion dollars, it will is a good thing. Also, it allows conservatives and businesses to buy themselves worthwhile tax breaks to get the economy going, and at the same time makes Democrats happy by paying down the debt and increasing revenue that they can spend for their social programs.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is not relevant because of the economic state, and the massive spending we are currently undergoing.

BEEN there!!!!!

"Clinton thought he was inheriting a $360 billion federal budget deficit when it was in fact twice as much. He thought he was inheriting a nation with a $5.6 trillion debt and it turns out to be a $14 trillion debt."

TELL 'im, Oddball...............

 

[BigRob]

BEEN there!!!!!



TELL 'im, Oddball...............

I know you would rather post youtube videos than work to hash out a real solution, but please, do it on another thread.

Your opinions on the actual plan set out are more than welcome, if you do not have one on it, please do not comment in this thread.