STIGGY
Well-Known Member
Ok I wiped away my tears
Brett Support Therad.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
TheGreenGreek
Active Member
again, you’re blind and in denial. Enjoy November. Make sure to save the salt.
doublejj
Well-Known Member
Lets see trumps taxes.....hes a fraud and a traitor...
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Did you ever think that maybe these people are so dumb that the only way they can put their trust and faith in somebody is if they are a fraud? I mean, these are the same people addicted to tabloids and giving money to crooked churches and televangelists.
The douchebags behind the Enquirer and the fucking horrible fraud televangelists figured it out long ago - Trump is just an extension of the brand.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Taxes do not fund federal spending.
Take even a basic freshman level college economics class before you come in acting like you know shit about economics.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Well, yes it does.
Roughly 47% of all Federal Spending Funds comes from individual income taxes. 34% comes from payroll taxes on those same people (the 98%).
That means that roughly 81% of all Federal Funds comes from the working poor and middle class. Only 9% comes from corporate taxes (even less now, thanks to Trump) and the other 10% from excise (import and duty) taxes.
To put that into perspective, back in the heyday of the United States, during the 50's after the war when this country started BOOMING and everybody was doing well, roughly 51% of all Federal Funds came from corporate taxes alone.
And there were still a lot of very wealthy people in the U.S., but it simply wasn't enough. It wasn't enough being millionaires, they wanted to be billionaires, so little by little they've gotten rid of all their tax burdens and put them all on us.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. None of this is true at all. Nor does total debt matter (deficit does).
The government spends funds into existence. Taxes remove funds from the economy to keep the value of the currency stable.
The discrepancy between the amount of money and created vs the amount taxed is based on projected gdp growth. I did a whole thread on this months ago and I would rather not repeat it all so I will bump that thread and tag you.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Incorrect.
The government spends our taxes, and on top of that spends in addition to what our taxes provide, which is written into the national deficit. Why do you think our national deficit is only 666 billion dollars in 2017?
It's because our taxes paid for pretty much everything except the ridiculous defense budget.
If you were correct, the national deficit for 2017 would have been around 2.4 trillion.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I will also say that your misconception is shared by millions of people and I would not blame you for it. It is a bit of a propaganda tool that has been used by elected leaders and media pundits on both sides of the aisle and many of these people who use the false information don't even know it's false. Please the other thread.
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Again, if you were correct, the national deficit would be in the trillions every single year. It isn't.
What you're thinking about are loans. Loans are in fact created out of thin air, with absolutely no money to back them up. But as far as paying employees of the federal government, paying for roads and hospital programs and all that jazz, that's real money coming from real taxes paid by real people from the federal government.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No. The federal government does not spend tax dollars. Federal tax dollars are not spent.
So, the next logical question should be, what does the gov't spend if not tax revenue? Well it seems logical in any case, as we will see, it is intuitive, but actually assumes incorrectly regarding the creation of money.
To answer this, I must first point out that "tax revenue" is an oxymoron. You see, it is very intuitive to assume that the gov't taxes the people to generate revenue and this is an assumption I have long made as well. It is intuitive, but completely wrong. In fact it is backwards. Gov't spending is revenue.
Taxation does not generate revenue. Taxation removes dollars from the money supply. The gov't can create dollars whenever it wants to. It does so by spending. Gov't spending is the creation of dollars. So an expansion of the money supply only occurs when the gov't spends more than it taxes. The gov't must not expand the money supply in such a way that outpaces GDP growth, otherwise inflation occurs. Taxation can then remove those dollars from the supply in order to control inflation, restoring their value. However, if it does so excessively, this can lead to a form of recession, falling aggregate demand.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
For a simple example, we "borrow" money by spending more into existence than we tax. The amount we "borrow" for that arbitrary period of time is not something we necessarily promise to repay, but we're making a bet that the economy will grow by a certain amount within that time period.
In the housing bubble recession of 07-08, we borrowed more than we produced. It had nothing to do with the debt or even the deficit, but that our spending did not stimulate economic growth. We then we got ourselves out of it by spending ourselves out of it. Economy moving, GDP growing, dollar stabilized, aggregate demand stabilized, yet "OMG Obama ruined the economy", said no educated economist ever.
It's just political dog whistling. It's not something the DNC could exactly respond to in the media either since they've been known to use debt rhetoric as well. Now debt ceiling issues, yes those can cause problems. It's like saying "you may not spend that dividend", so congress forced the debt ceiling issue just to be dicks. This led to the sequester.
The national debt is more like a mound of discarded oyster shells than a bank balance. It represents the productivity of the working class which was taken to service the national budget. To literally pay it back would entail investing in the safety net, public works, maybe forgiving student debt, what ever would improve the purchasing power of the proletariat keeping wealth in the hands of those who create it with their labor. Even so, the mound would grow. However, it is possible to increase spending on public works and the safety net (investing in the working class) while achieving and maintaining a budget surplus. Still the debt itself is of no relevance.
The best reason to maintain a budget surplus is to improve credit rating, which will allow the gov't to react to crisis better. It ensures economic stability
In the housing bubble recession of 07-08, we borrowed more than we produced. It had nothing to do with the debt or even the deficit, but that our spending did not stimulate economic growth. We then we got ourselves out of it by spending ourselves out of it. Economy moving, GDP growing, dollar stabilized, aggregate demand stabilized, yet "OMG Obama ruined the economy", said no educated economist ever.
It's just political dog whistling. It's not something the DNC could exactly respond to in the media either since they've been known to use debt rhetoric as well. Now debt ceiling issues, yes those can cause problems. It's like saying "you may not spend that dividend", so congress forced the debt ceiling issue just to be dicks. This led to the sequester.
The national debt is more like a mound of discarded oyster shells than a bank balance. It represents the productivity of the working class which was taken to service the national budget. To literally pay it back would entail investing in the safety net, public works, maybe forgiving student debt, what ever would improve the purchasing power of the proletariat keeping wealth in the hands of those who create it with their labor. Even so, the mound would grow. However, it is possible to increase spending on public works and the safety net (investing in the working class) while achieving and maintaining a budget surplus. Still the debt itself is of no relevance.
The best reason to maintain a budget surplus is to improve credit rating, which will allow the gov't to react to crisis better. It ensures economic stability
TacoMac
Well-Known Member
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're partly right, but mostly wrong.
If the Federal Government didn't actually use any of our tax dollars to fund anything at all, our national deficit would rise by approximately 3.5 trillion dollars every single year and would presently be somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 trillion dollars in just the last 20 years.
It isn't. At all. Not even close.
The total deficit is actually projected to be right at 21 trillion dollars by years end, inclusive of the last 241 years of spending by the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government didn't actually use any of our tax dollars to fund anything at all, our national deficit would rise by approximately 3.5 trillion dollars every single year and would presently be somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 trillion dollars in just the last 20 years.
It isn't. At all. Not even close.
The total deficit is actually projected to be right at 21 trillion dollars by years end, inclusive of the last 241 years of spending by the Federal Government.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You can try to use a hypothetical syllogism on your made up premises to shoot down established economic policy but I will just laugh at you for choosing to live outside of reality.
Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
It is oozing from your lip ...Tissue?
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
jesus christ, the fucking world we live in. enough frat boy republican senators confirmed this rapist, lying, hateful piece of shit that he got on the supreme court. this really is two countries. i say it's time for a division. let the sensible, reasonable, non hating among us have everything west of the mississippi, and the traitorous, lying, hateful, racist, misogynist, fucks can have everything east of it.
i just don't believe what has become of our country, or our government. and i can't believe there are enough hateful, evil fucks to keeps this shit happening. this country apparently is predominately fuckface assholes, and i guess we deserve what we get for letting it get this way to begin with. the fall of the American empire has begun, get your popcorn and a ringside seat, you'll never see it's like again
i just don't believe what has become of our country, or our government. and i can't believe there are enough hateful, evil fucks to keeps this shit happening. this country apparently is predominately fuckface assholes, and i guess we deserve what we get for letting it get this way to begin with. the fall of the American empire has begun, get your popcorn and a ringside seat, you'll never see it's like again
TheGreenGreek
Active Member
Have a nice day. And welcome Supreme Court Justice, Brett “I am the Law” Kavanaugh.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
NOOOOOO. Let them have only the south. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana ( going to miss the fishing ), North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Florida. USoH United States of Hate
TheGreenGreek
Active Member
I won’t even begin with how wrong you are lol.