Talk-Polywell.org

It is that simple.

Personally, I think this is a much more important issue than whether we raise taxes on the wealthy or extend the same entitlements over time. No matter which camp you're in, if you think ignoring our debt is okay, you're part of the problem.

I propose as a test of validity for buying on credit: Is the value of what is bought reasonably expected to outlast the resulting debt? For the vast majority of what the federal government is spending today I have to answer a resounding NO.

GIThruster wrote:Personally, I think this is a much more important issue than whether we raise taxes on the wealthy or extend the same entitlements over time. No matter which camp you're in, if you think ignoring our debt is okay, you're part of the problem.

I definitely agree with the second part, but I don't understand the first. Raising taxes and cutting entitlements is how we address the debt.

I think what has to stop is either side claiming we need to do one but not the other. Doing both isn't even likely to do the entire trick.

All the countries in the world should follow the lead of Iceland, refuse to pay the debt on the grounds it was created through fraudulent means, then put out an arrest warrant on the banksters.

Seriously, it worked out fine, economy recovered nicely and the same banksters are trying to get Iceland to borrow more money from them. At the very least, governments should stop loaning money as QE to banksters for a fraction of a percent and then have to borrow it back for more with the taxpayers stuck paying the compound interest difference.

The governments printing money already, why not at least cut out the middle man.

Maui wrote:

GIThruster wrote:Personally, I think this is a much more important issue than whether we raise taxes on the wealthy or extend the same entitlements over time. No matter which camp you're in, if you think ignoring our debt is okay, you're part of the problem.

I definitely agree with the second part, but I don't understand the first. Raising taxes and cutting entitlements is how we address the debt.

I think what has to stop is either side claiming we need to do one but not the other. Doing both isn't even likely to do the entire trick.

All Americans have a constitutional obligation to support necessary governmental expenditures. These consist of Defense and Law Enforcement. Regulation of Interstate disputes and commerce.

They do not consists of the entitlement spending created by Democrats for the purpose of bribing people into voting for them. All of those expenditures are illegitimate and we have an obligation to REFUSE TO GIVE IT TO THEM!!!!!!!


To quote Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.


Forcing me to be a partial slave so that others may enjoy the largess of the government is NOT a legitimate expenditure of the Federal government. If it falls to any government, it would be the State, or even the County, where it can be closely regulated by the votes of the community which would have to pay the bill for supporting it.

In addition to this, the very act of paying people to do nothing encourages the creation dysfunctional children who grow into dysfunctional adults. Crime shot up dramatically a decade after LBJ's "War on Poverty" because it encouraged the condition of children being created and raised in homes without fathers.


This is wrong on so many levels, and you want me to pay for it too?


The Democrat created this mess. They should have to pay for it.

Maui wrote: Raising taxes and cutting entitlements is how we address the debt.

I think what has to stop is either side claiming we need to do one but not the other. Doing both isn't even likely to do the entire trick.

Finally someone I can agree with completely. The only way forward is for everyone to compromise. Otherwise we end up like Greece.

diogenes wrote:All of those expenditures are illegitimate and we have an obligation to REFUSE TO GIVE IT TO THEM!!!!!!!

Americans decide when they vote what is a legitimate expenditure. They voted for these entitlements. If those who understand the issues cannot convince American to stop granting themselves benefits from the national treasury, our democracy is doomed. There is no third option, and defining between "legitimate" and illegitimate" is a useless and emotionally inflammatory distinction.

Maui wrote:

GIThruster wrote:Personally, I think this is a much more important issue than whether we raise taxes on the wealthy or extend the same entitlements over time. No matter which camp you're in, if you think ignoring our debt is okay, you're part of the problem.

I definitely agree with the second part, but I don't understand the first. Raising taxes and cutting entitlements is how we address the debt.

I think what has to stop is either side claiming we need to do one but not the other. Doing both isn't even likely to do the entire trick.

Raising taxes lowers economic efficiency. So not only are we poorer now but we will be much poorer later than we could have been.

It does matter how it is done.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Well OK. Does that mean I am being tyrannized to pay for prohibition?

Guns, drugs, 32 oz sodas. Don't matter to me. I don't believe in substance prohibitions.

MSimon wrote:Raising taxes lowers economic efficiency. So not only are we poorer now but we will be much poorer later than we could have been.

It does matter how it is done.

I think what you mean to say is raising spending lowers economic efficiency (in the long run). Taxes are solely to realize our obligation to pay for what we have already spent.

I don't argue with my wife about paying the credit card bill despite the fact that our short-term household economic "efficiency" would be better if we were not to pay it. We have no better right to argue with raising taxes to pay for the choices that have already been made (whether you agree with those choices or not).

IMO, the best way to control spending is to dispense with having taxes rates be decided by politicians and instead have them determined by the previous years spending. Next year we get the bill for this year's spending. That's that. Yes, you heard me-- balanced budget amendment (but one that's unpolluted with partisan requirements such as 2/3rds vote requirement to raise taxes).

Diogenes,

I could go on and on about why it is wrong to cut SS and Medicare, but that would make no more difference than you rattling on like this to me.

Regardless of what "facts" we think we have on our side, we are a democracy allows people to disagree with one another. We should act like responsible adults, agree to disagree, and trade concessions to fix what everyone agrees needs to be fixed.

Maui wrote:

MSimon wrote:Raising taxes lowers economic efficiency. So not only are we poorer now but we will be much poorer later than we could have been.

It does matter how it is done.

I think what you mean to say is raising spending lowers economic efficiency (in the long run). Taxes are solely to realize our obligation to pay for what we have already spent.

I don't argue with my wife about paying the credit card bill despite the fact that our short-term household economic "efficiency" would be better if we were not to pay it. We have no better right to argue with raising taxes to pay for the choices that have already been made (whether you agree with those choices or not).

IMO, the best way to control spending is to dispense with having taxes rates be decided by politicians and instead have them determined by the previous years spending. Next year we get the bill for this year's spending. That's that. Yes, you heard me-- balanced budget amendment (but one that's unpolluted with partisan requirements such as 2/3rds vote requirement to raise taxes).

Well of course spending matters. Let me make it clear.

Lower spending below income - pay off the debt with growth.

Taxes reduce investment.

MSimon wrote:

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Well OK. Does that mean I am being tyrannized to pay for prohibition?

No. Drugs are an existential threat. A government which cannot keep itself alive is dysfunctional by default.

MSimon wrote: Guns, drugs, 32 oz sodas. Don't matter to me. I don't believe in substance prohibitions.

Nukes, nerve gas, anthrax, dynamite, Rohypnol.


Let freedom ring!

Maui wrote:Diogenes,

I could go on and on about why it is wrong to cut SS and Medicare, but that would make no more difference than you rattling on like this to me.

I am not suggesting cuts in SS and Medicare, I am pointing out that both programs are outside the mandate of constitutionally granted powers vested in the Federal government. Those programs should never have existed in the first place. (At the Federal level anyway. If states wanted to do such a thing, they were entitled to do so.)


These programs got their start from Roosevelt. Nothing like them ever existed before he became president. They were NEVER economically viable, and his Republican opponents pointed this out at the time. Now here we are, some 80 years later, and the predicted financial mess is starting to manifest itself.

Maui wrote:
Regardless of what "facts" we think we have on our side, we are a democracy allows people to disagree with one another. We should act like responsible adults, agree to disagree, and trade concessions to fix what everyone agrees needs to be fixed.

But nothing can be fixed by trading concessions. When one side is absolutely wrong, compromising with them is never going to fix anything. The math doesn't work. The math never worked. The math cannot be made to work.

How do you compromise with math? Entitlements will collapse because it will become impossible to pay them. (Well, we could pay them with fake, newly printed paper, but that really wouldn't fix anything.)