Tea Party Enraged! Taxes Avoided By Rich Could Pay Deficit!

[_sabotage_]

Patches, are you suggesting it's Obama's incurred debt? Kind of strange...
I'm not going to bother with trying to reason with that.

Give an enemy a dollar, and it's a cheap way to rid yourself of an enemy. Give him 1,000,000 and it's a good way to turn your enemy into your protector.

The US has used debt as a foreign policy for a long ass time. Lend to those we dominate, borrow huge amounts from those we fear.

[Juan_Bottom]

That was insanely fast of you. I was just reading about this.

[patches70]

Then why would anyone buy our Bonds?

The Fed buys the majority of the long term bonds.

Patches, are you suggesting it's Obama's incurred debt?

I'm not suggesting that. The US government is incurring debt in our name. Who pays the interest on the debt? The government? HA! Where does the government get the money from to pay the debt? They take it from you, and the rest of us.
You should ask Juan if he is suggesting that Obama has cut the debt by some $2 trillion or so like his chart says. Even though our debt went from 15$ trillion to $16 trillion completely under his administration. If it Juan's chart were true, then our debt would be at $13-$14 trillion, wouldn't it?
Besides, it's Congress who controls the purse strings.

How long would you put up with your neighbor borrowing money and having you pay the interest on it and having you being responsible for the principle?

Give him 1,000,000 and it's a good way to turn your enemy into your protector.

You really saying China is our "protector"? Umm, ok.....

The US has used debt as a foreign policy for a long ass time. Lend to those we dominate, borrow huge amounts from those we fear.

Sure. It's a good plan. If we go down then China loses out on all that money. Link the two of us together so that to harm the other is to harm yourself.
It's a good plan, but ask yourself, is your enemy too stupid to see what you are doing?

If you were China, and you see what we are doing, what would you do, knowing full well that this charade is unsustainable?

You'd do what China is already doing, undermining the dollar to position herself as the new major economic power. Now, I don't know if they can do it, China has a lot of problems and they lie like nobody else can.
But, the Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone is building. China is trending down in holding of US debt. They won't be the biggest holder US debt for much longer. They have been quietly dumping for over a year now. They are careful not to dump too much, but they are moving to relieve their position. The Chinese are not stupid.

The days of the US dollar being the reserve currency are coming to an end. It's that status that gives us our edge economically and without it Americans, well, then we'll be in for a wild ride won't we?

The point is, we have reached a level of debt that must rapidly expand to keep up. It's exponential debt and it's a consequence of spending like drunken sailors on shore leave.
If you, as an individual, reach a level of debt that your income can not support so you get another credit card to make payments on your other credit card. Your debt starts increasing quicker and quicker because you wouldn't let yourself cut your spending. You kept saying to yourself "Well, I'm up for a promotion soon which means I'll make more money" or "I've applied for a new job that pays more". You don't worry so much at first, because you are borrowing on future anticipated income. But you finally get to the point that even if you did get a raise, or a promotion, or a new job that paid more, it's too late. You are too far in debt. So much debt that you have no ability to ever pay it back.

That's the level we've reached in the US.

Today, the debt is at $16 trillion.
at current debt growth this is the picture-
$17 trillion in June, 2013
$18 trillion in March, 2014
$19 trillion in January, 2015
$20 trillion in October, 2016

and so on and so on.

And that's if nothing major bad happens! Like a big war, or severe natural disaster or any other number of things that can (and will) come up.

If people think this is sustainable, if people think this is wise, if people think "this is no big deal", if people think this won't affect them, if people think Congress or our politicians will fix this-
then those people are in for a rude awakening.

[_sabotage_]

I just find it strange that you say

$16,000,000,000,000BAMA.

This gives the impression that you hold him responsible which contradicts your earlier post, and latest one.

I lived in China for many years, and though American by descent and birth, have never paid taxes and never will.

I was watching George Carlin earlier today, (to be honest, I'd never heard of him before, one f the cultural drawbacks of living overseas), he actually predicted this quite a few years back and since I'm too lazy to find the quote, I'll paraphrase:

The owners of this country will find a way to rob the middle class of its social security.

[patches70]

I was watching George Carlin earlier today, (to be honest, I'd never heard of him before, one f the cultural drawbacks of living overseas), he actually predicted this quite a few years back and since I'm too lazy to find the quote, I'll paraphrase:

The owners of this country will find a way to rob the middle class of its social security.

If by "this" you mean the rampant debt spiraling out of control until it finally endangers our standard of living, lots of people have predicted this. Nobody seems to listen, or care though.

$16,000,000,000,000BAMA.

This gives the impression that you hold him responsible which contradicts your earlier post, and latest one.

Of course he's responsible. He's the President isn't he? The buck stops here and all. He's as responsible as all the politicians, Dem and Rep alike. Right along with them is the American people themselves, just as responsible. Hell, the American people are responsible for the bill aren't they?
It's the American people who have to pay back that $16 trillion dollars. Don't they?

Regardless, when TSHTF it's whoever is in charge who gets the blame, rightly or wrongly so. Doesn't matter. The reverse is true as well, when things go well, even if the POTUS didn't do a thing, he gets the credit. I mean, after all, it was practically as if Obama himself helicoptered into Bin Laden's compound and wasted him. "Obama got Bin Laden!" I'm pretty sure it was a Navy Seal who did the deed...but it doesn't matter, the POTUS gets the credit when it's bad and when it's good.

That's what they get paid the big bucks for.

Let's hope these politicians are worth it, cause we're paying for them.

This debt is nothing more than theft from our children and our children's children. We are stealing their money and spending it today.
That's what borrowing is, spending future earnings today. And to do it at the levels we've been doing it is immoral, unethical and plain disgusting. There is no growing or taxing our way out of this.
We are stealing from our children and trying to blame this party or that party or this guy or that guy. Wanna know who's ultimately responsible? One need only look in the mirror.

Oh, and The Fed as well. The Central Banker's are the real bad guys. Everyone else is just trying to do what they think is right. Even if the effort may or may not be misguided. It's all doomed to failure anyway. And when this current 41 year incarnation of our monetary system implodes, we'll just shackle ourselves to a new one with the same end results.

[thegreekdog]

"Unfunded wars and tax cuts don't cause debt."

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending money causes debt (yes, unfunded wars cause debt).

[Symmetry]

"Unfunded wars and tax cuts don't cause debt."

Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending money causes debt (yes, unfunded wars cause debt).

Surely spending out more than you're taking in causes debt. Cutting the amount you take in causes debt too, TGD. Hence tax cuts cause debt as they're a source of governmental income. I understand your skepticism, but let's be fair.

[BigBallinStalin]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."


Tax cuts don't cause debt. They reduce revenue. If your costs are higher than you're revenue, then you're incurring a loss. How does the government "fix" this problem? Does it reduce spending? No, it takes on more debt; it borrows money. So, it's clear that primary agents responsible for causing debt are the politicians. In turn, many voters could also be blamed, but the point is that it's obviously incorrect to say that tax cuts cause debt.

That's almost similar to saying that your 5th grade teacher caused you to fail to understand cause-and-effect relationships.

[Symmetry]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

No, I would not have to say "yes". Reducing your income does not cause debt, reducing income to the point where you're spending more than you're taking in is a cause of debt.

[Night Strike]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

No, I would not have to say "yes". Reducing your income does not cause debt, reducing income to the point where you're spending more than you're taking in is a cause of debt.

Then why not cut your spending so there is no more debt?

[Symmetry]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

No, I would not have to say "yes". Reducing your income does not cause debt, reducing income to the point where you're spending more than you're taking in is a cause of debt.

Then why not cut your spending so there is no more debt?

Why not earn more and cut spending?

[Night Strike]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

No, I would not have to say "yes". Reducing your income does not cause debt, reducing income to the point where you're spending more than you're taking in is a cause of debt.

Then why not cut your spending so there is no more debt?

Why not earn more and cut spending?

Because most likely, by cutting the taxes they will earn more because there will be more private sector spending and jobs created.

[BigBallinStalin]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

No, I would not have to say "yes". Reducing your income does not cause debt, reducing income to the point where you're spending more than you're taking in is a cause of debt.

For failing to account for the rest of my post, I am as well as others are justified in ignoring your erroneous post.

Perhaps you can blame your 5th grade teacher for your failure to understand cause-and-effect relationships?

[Woodruff]

When I reduce my income, do I cause debt?

Symmetry would have to say, "yes."

Tax cuts don't cause debt. They reduce revenue. If your costs are higher than you're revenue, then you're incurring a loss. How does the government "fix" this problem? Does it reduce spending? No, it takes on more debt; it borrows money. So, it's clear that primary agents responsible for causing debt are the politicians. In turn, many voters could also be blamed, but the point is that it's obviously incorrect to say that tax cuts cause debt.

That's almost similar to saying that your 5th grade teacher caused you to fail to understand cause-and-effect relationships.

In my opinion, this is a disengenuous argument. You're trying to use the "technical excuse" that a tax cut simply cannot cause debt because no spending is involved. While that may be technically true, it ignores the reality that previous spending is predicated on the previous tax rate such that the tax cuts can absolutely cause debt when spending cuts don't happen simultaneously to those tax cuts.

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree. Tax cuts don't cause debt. Failure to adjust spending to meet reduced incomes leads to the necessity of incurring debt or filing for bankruptcy/default/payment rescheduling. There's a difference between saying "tax cuts cause debt" and the previous sentence.

Besides, this whole argument from you and Symmetry makes less sense when you think about it: even without tax cuts, the government borrows money. It's been doing this since the US became a debtor nation (roughly 30 years now?)

[Woodruff]

I disagree. Tax cuts don't cause debt. Failure to adjust spending to meet reduced incomes leads to the necessity of incurring debt or filing for bankruptcy/default/payment rescheduling. There's a difference between saying "tax cuts cause debt" and the previous sentence.

You seem to be wanting to disagree with me while agreeing with me.

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree. Tax cuts don't cause debt. Failure to adjust spending to meet reduced incomes leads to the necessity of incurring debt or filing for bankruptcy/default/payment rescheduling. There's a difference between saying "tax cuts cause debt" and the previous sentence.

You seem to be wanting to disagree with me while agreeing with me.

I'll disagree while agreeing with you for as long as it takes. Do you agree or disagree?

[Woodruff]

I disagree. Tax cuts don't cause debt. Failure to adjust spending to meet reduced incomes leads to the necessity of incurring debt or filing for bankruptcy/default/payment rescheduling. There's a difference between saying "tax cuts cause debt" and the previous sentence.

You seem to be wanting to disagree with me while agreeing with me.

I'll disagree while agreeing with you for as long as it takes. Do you agree or disagree?

It's a definite maybe.

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree. Tax cuts don't cause debt. Failure to adjust spending to meet reduced incomes leads to the necessity of incurring debt or filing for bankruptcy/default/payment rescheduling. There's a difference between saying "tax cuts cause debt" and the previous sentence.

You seem to be wanting to disagree with me while agreeing with me.

I'll disagree while agreeing with you for as long as it takes. Do you agree or disagree?

It's a definite maybe.

[Juan_Bottom]

I was watching George Carlin earlier today, (to be honest, I'd never heard of him before, one f the cultural drawbacks of living overseas), he actually predicted this quite a few years back and since I'm too lazy to find the quote, I'll paraphrase:

The owners of this country will find a way to rob the middle class of its social security.

If by "this" you mean the rampant debt spiraling out of control until it finally endangers our standard of living, lots of people have predicted this. Nobody seems to listen, or care though.

$16,000,000,000,000BAMA.

This gives the impression that you hold him responsible which contradicts your earlier post, and latest one.

Of course he's responsible. He's the President isn't he? The buck stops here and all. He's as responsible as all the politicians, Dem and Rep alike. Right along with them is the American people themselves, just as responsible. Hell, the American people are responsible for the bill aren't they?
It's the American people who have to pay back that $16 trillion dollars. Don't they?

Regardless, when TSHTF it's whoever is in charge who gets the blame, rightly or wrongly so. Doesn't matter. The reverse is true as well, when things go well, even if the POTUS didn't do a thing, he gets the credit. I mean, after all, it was practically as if Obama himself helicoptered into Bin Laden's compound and wasted him. "Obama got Bin Laden!" I'm pretty sure it was a Navy Seal who did the deed...but it doesn't matter, the POTUS gets the credit when it's bad and when it's good.

That's what they get paid the big bucks for.

Let's hope these politicians are worth it, cause we're paying for them.

I call bullshit.

The president doesn't set the budget, he only proposes one for his bureaucracy.
Obama also took command and helped plan the Laden operation. If Obama doesn't deserve any credit, then neither does Patton.

[Night Strike]

Obama also took command and helped plan the Laden operation. If Obama doesn't deserve any credit, then neither does Patton.

Obama didn't help plan the operation. He may have given them permission to plan it and then we know he gave them the order to execute the op, but he had nothing to do with actually planning it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Of course he didn't plan anything. He's the head of the military and didn't even know Laden was dead. Similarly, The US army invaded Iraq and then told Bush about it the next day.

[Night Strike]

Of course he didn't plan anything. He's the head of the military and didn't even know Laden was dead. Similarly, The US army invaded Iraq and then told Bush about it the next day.

Did I ever say he didn't even know about it? NO. I stated that he did not actively plan out how the mission would be executed: the approach vector, the entry points, the room-clearance sequence, etc.

[Juan_Bottom]

I never said that you said that.

But that is a good argument for why we should implement a fairer tax system on the rich to redistribute the wealth.

[Woodruff]

Obama also took command and helped plan the Laden operation. If Obama doesn't deserve any credit, then neither does Patton.

Obama didn't help plan the operation. He may have given them permission to plan it and then we know he gave them the order to execute the op, but he had nothing to do with actually planning it.

You seem decidedly childish here, I have to tell you.