Balancing the Budget

[barfbag]

Decrease the maximum amount of property subject to tax credits to $270,000.
0.5% tax credit for businesses who contribute to stock ownership plan.
Increase taxes on foreign earned income by 7%.
Freeze maximum estate and gift tax at 55%.
22.5% windfall tax rate on newly discovered oil.
Continue cell phone taxation.
Increase alcohol tax by 20%.
Double tax percentage of cigarettes and tobacco.
Eliminate investment tax credits for property used by foreign governments.
Tax revenue made on bonds as income.
Increase recovery period for dilapidated property by 3 years.
Prohibit property from being used as payment to a spouse in place of alimony.
Children of divorced parents may be claimed by one parent or the other.
$50 penalty for late alimony and child support payments.
Property transfers during a divorce not subject to the gift tax. 
Raise federal debt limit from $14.3 trillion to $16.7 trillion.
Freeze budget at 2.3 trillion annually until debt situation improves.
Five year payment plans for each bill that goes through congress. 

[Lambsbread]

Obliterate foreign military spending.

[Lief 🗽]

There's no need to balance the budget.

[ElectionsGuy]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's no need to balance the budget.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Lambsbread]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

Almost? What need be said to make it actually explode?

[ElectionsGuy]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

Almost? What need be said to make it actually explode?

lol. It was just a figure of speech. I was basically saying what was said was so painful to logic that my mind either need to be re-examined (which many of you would agree with) or I just have a really hard time understanding it. Can someone explain it to me?

[Associate Justice PiT]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

Almost? What need be said to make it actually explode?

lol. It was just a figure of speech. I was basically saying what was said was so painful to logic that my mind either need to be re-examined (which many of you would agree with) or I just have a really hard time understanding it. Can someone explain it to me?

     It's leftist cant. Not much to be explained there.

[King]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

Almost? What need be said to make it actually explode?

lol. It was just a figure of speech. I was basically saying what was said was so painful to logic that my mind either need to be re-examined (which many of you would agree with) or I just have a really hard time understanding it. Can someone explain it to me?

See this chart right here?



Look at how much our debt decreased between 1945 and 1981.  We must have really run some huge surpluses after WWII, right?

Wrong.  We ran deficits every year from 1945-46, 1949-1959, and 1961-1996.  And the 1947, 1948, and 1960 surpluses were minutely small.  In fact, if you add up all the surpluses and deficits from 1945-1981, our lost $660 billion nominal during that period.  When you adjust for inflation, it explodes in trillions of dollars in deficit spending today... yet our debt went down.

Deficits don't create debt, inefficient deficits create debt.  When the deficit spending you perform does not result in huge growth in GDP, you waste money and create debts you cannot payback.  When you take out a $300k mortgage and by the time you pay it off, your house is worth $1 mil, you come out a winner.

The deficits of the past 30 years have been inefficient because the amount of stimulus Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have created has been minute compared to the growth of the debt.  This is because over the past 30 years our deficit spending has been tied up in garbage: tax credits for the rich, the military-industrial complex, pumping up Wall Street and keeping 90 year olds on life support.  It's stuff that doesn't promote rapid growth and consumption.

$500 billion dollar deficits like we have now are bad, but if we cut and replaced all of our spending with a $500 billion deficit that featured infrastructure spending, education, help for the working class consumer, and small business investment, we could keep that deficit going infinitely.

[Lambsbread]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

Almost? What need be said to make it actually explode?

lol. It was just a figure of speech. I was basically saying what was said was so painful to logic that my mind either need to be re-examined (which many of you would agree with) or I just have a really hard time understanding it. Can someone explain it to me?

And I'm saying I want your head to actually explode. I would very much enjoy that. Please film it.

[courts]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

there really isn't. then again there technically isn't really a 'need' for (real) unemployment to not be in the double digits. it's bad for you and me, but not so much for the people that really profit off the 'global economy.' for now, anyway.

[bedstuy]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The only people who care about this problem are deluded morons or people wealthy enough to think about public policy in abstract terms in which a budget surplus is an embodiment of ethics because we should all be good thrifty merchants who attend calvinist-influenced protestant denominations every week and hate the jewy money spenders who infiltrate society with usury, profligacy, and idol-worship.

[courts]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

tbh i think the issue has been framed the wrong way. something like infrastructure spending isn't going to immediately translate to jobs created. particularly when you consider all the new regulations in place now (e.g. environment) that didn't exist back when things like the tva or wpa were around. if intelligently done it definitely will in the future. in fact its pretty much a net gain. the us has to do radical renovation of its cities and infrastructure regardless. what we have now increasingly looks flat out 3rd world in a lot of the country.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

tbh i think the issue has been framed the wrong way. something like infrastructure spending isn't going to immediately translate to jobs created. particularly when you consider all the new regulations in place now (e.g. environment) that didn't exist back when things like the tva or wpa were around. if intelligently done it definitely will in the future. in fact its pretty much a net gain. the us has to do radical renovation of its cities and infrastructure regardless. what we have now increasingly looks flat out 3rd world in a lot of the country.

The impact of regulations on job growth is miniscule.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

Just as a note, large investments in those arenas are a poor remedy for cyclical downturns but are great at increasing potential output and making future booms even more fruitful. If your main concern is ending the long-term unemployment crisis that is making an entire section of the population a useless portion of the labor force, I'd advise throwing money out of a helicopter ala hidden tax cuts.

Liberals have this tendency to try to kill too many birds with one stone. You can't optimally increase an economy's short-run output and increase its potential output with one policy change.

[© tweed]

one time wealth tax, 50% over $25m, 75% over $100m, 95% over $500m.  done

[courts]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

tbh i think the issue has been framed the wrong way. something like infrastructure spending isn't going to immediately translate to jobs created. particularly when you consider all the new regulations in place now (e.g. environment) that didn't exist back when things like the tva or wpa were around. if intelligently done it definitely will in the future. in fact its pretty much a net gain. the us has to do radical renovation of its cities and infrastructure regardless. what we have now increasingly looks flat out 3rd world in a lot of the country.

The impact of regulations on job growth is miniscule.

actually my point was more that because of the new standards in place the amount of 'shovel ready' jobs you can create through government projects is less so than in the past. even obama has admitted as much. although yes, i do think regulations are often excessive or unnecessary barriers to entry... much of the time they're written by corporate lobbyists to keep out competition, regulatory capture and all that.

[courts]

that doesn't mean i reject the idea of government infrastructure/public works projects being a key part of economic reform and recovery. just that i'm somewhat less optimistic about how immediate the relief offered by them than a lot of (neo)keynesians and 'heterodox' people are.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

Just as a note, large investments in those arenas are a poor remedy for cyclical downturns but are great at increasing potential output and making future booms even more fruitful. If your main concern is ending the long-term unemployment crisis that is making an entire section of the population a useless portion of the labor force, I'd advise throwing money out of a helicopter ala hidden tax cuts.

Liberals have this tendency to try to kill too many birds with one stone. You can't optimally increase an economy's short-run output and increase its potential output with one policy change.

I think that these investments better prepare an economy for cyclical downturns.  As for as ending them altogether goes, well, downturns are still yet to be understood and as far as we know is just part of the business cycle.

I concur with what has been said previously.  The basic idea is that government needs to make large investments in education, infrastructure and health-care.  If we make those investments, we're going to create economic activity, thus more tax revenue.  The idea that "We don't have the money" for a smart, long-term investment is just garbage.

Also, I would add that debt isn't a terrible thing.  We need to have a good amount of US government backed securities in the system to allow finance to operate.

tbh i think the issue has been framed the wrong way. something like infrastructure spending isn't going to immediately translate to jobs created. particularly when you consider all the new regulations in place now (e.g. environment) that didn't exist back when things like the tva or wpa were around. if intelligently done it definitely will in the future. in fact its pretty much a net gain. the us has to do radical renovation of its cities and infrastructure regardless. what we have now increasingly looks flat out 3rd world in a lot of the country.

The impact of regulations on job growth is miniscule.

actually my point was more that because of the new standards in place the amount of 'shovel ready' jobs you can create through government projects is less so than in the past. even obama has admitted as much. although yes, i do think regulations are often excessive or unnecessary barriers to entry... much of the time they're written by corporate lobbyists to keep out competition, regulatory capture and all that.

Regulatory capture is a problem, yes, but regulations need to be evaluated on how they fulfill their intended purpose and if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Otherwise, can you give an example of a government-created job that we can't have because of environmental standards?

Bonus points if it has nothing to do with coal, which has been on decline for decades.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

There's no need to balance the budget.

My head almost exploded.

there really isn't. then again there technically isn't really a 'need' for (real) unemployment to not be in the double digits. it's bad for you and me, but not so much for the people that really profit off the 'global economy.' for now, anyway.

the fear will soon enough remind the comfortable cosmopolitans to act responsibly. at least, i hope so. if they can't see how their engendered inequality is destroying the fabric of society they claim to embody and love, then they're fools.

[bedstuy]

Regulatory capture is a problem, yes, but regulations need to be evaluated on how they fulfill their intended purpose and if the benefits outweigh the costs.  Otherwise, can you give an example of a government-created job that we can't have because of environmental standards?

Bonus points if it has nothing to do with coal, which has been on decline for decades.

I have an example.  The government cancelled the Westway project in Manhattan.  The plan would have buried the west side highway under a part of Manhattan, creating a big park area along the waterfront and improving the air quality of Manhattan.  However, the original plans didn't make any estimates on the impact on bass in the Hudson river so it got tied up in NEPA litigation and was eventually cancelled.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

one time wealth tax, 50% over $25m, 75% over $100m, 95% over $500m.  done

i'm guessing you got a c in econ 101 or something.

[© tweed]

one time wealth tax, 50% over $25m, 75% over $100m, 95% over $500m.  done

i'm guessing you got a c in econ 101 or something.

B-, fwiw.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

one time wealth tax, 50% over $25m, 75% over $100m, 95% over $500m.  done

i'm guessing you got a c in econ 101 or something.

B-, fwiw.

Idk bro you just seem like yr phoning it in at this point. You should find a new ideological phase to embody, this one is boring.