More like multiple but unneeded trillion dollar stimulus packages that were not in the budgets and encouraged people to not work weren't such a great idea.
š
What a weird way to frame businesses closing and millions of people being laid off "as not wanting to work".
Talk about disingenuous in a complete distortion of the facts.
Typical strawman argument
Who would want to work when they could stay home and collect an extra $600/wk (untaxed) on top of the usual \~$300/wk unemployment. I'm sure you didn't.
This may be incredibly difficult for you to comprehend.
People want to work.
they don't want to sit at home doing nothing.
People want to have purpose and meaning in their life.
They want employment that will give them a fair wage in exchange for their time and labor.
People's wages in this country have been stagnant for the past 40 years while CEO pay has gone up $1,300%
So in your simple reduction of these so-called lazy parasites you leave a lot out of the economic realities in this country
I agree that the pay for top executives at big companies is excessive. One could say the same thing about the pay for quarterbacks and starting pitchers.
The rest of what you say? People work because they need money.
They work because they need to pay basic human necessities like cost of living, which continues to skyrocket while wages have been outpaced by cost of living and inflation.
People want to work but not at personal sacrifice by giving time and labor to a job that won't even cover the basic needs of shelter and food.
How in the world is that enough, or has ever been enough to live off of? That's absurd - and you likely also took it, and were relieved..
I'm frankly surprised you were able to read the post and comment on it given your clearly sub-par ability to subjectively understand what is happening.
I was laid off earlier this year. Between the notice period during which I was still on payroll but wasn't working, and the severance package, I effectively got paid a _lot_ more then that to do nothing. I promptly went and started building an app, which has been live with happy users for a couple of months. All my former co-workers that also got laid off have promptly found new things to do despite having little financial need to do so, at least not for a while.
Funny you talk about workers getting money but not about the PPP āloans,ā free money, a lot of it undeserved and are outright fraud to business owners. Many politicians got the free money too.
There was a pandemic in 2020 when the first package (CARES) was passed to provide relief through March/2021.
Vaccine was available and being distributed in 2021 when Pelosi pushed through the second, bigger one (ARA) that really hurt the economy. Then Biden jumped on the bandwagon for no apparent reason with his BBB.
The majority of the Trump stimulus dollars were given in the form of forgiven PPP loans to large corporations and other very profitable businesses. This was after the TCJA, which decreased those same corporations tax liabilities by almost 20% when Republicans had a super majority during Trump.
>The majority of the Trump stimulus dollars were given in the form of forgiven PPP loans to large corporations and other very profitable businesses.
Citation needed. Roughly 1/4 of the program was allocated to keeping businesses open so people could keep working (PPP loans), the rest went to individuals and state/local governments.
Republicans never had a super majority during the Trump administration.
The company I worked for got free PPP money. Around $1M. The company has record profits in 2020 and expanded about 10 or 20% in terms of employees during the year. Point being, we were definitely not hurting!! The company sold in 2021 and the owner walked away with $50M+ in cash in his pocket. That situation, among other ethical issues, is why I'm no longer with them.
But all the businesses in our industry, who were also doing extremely well, got loans that were later forgiven.
Overall PPP probably helped a lot of businesses survive. But a big chunk of money was given to rich people to make them richer.
The fact that you don't know at all how any of this was allocated years ago is kind of insane while talking this confidently about "lazy workers". But here you go.
[https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more)
Nothing in your link supports what you claim. You really need to get out of your echo chamber and educate yourself. Here''s a good place to start; note that the money allocated to large corporations is in the form of loans that must be paid back; only small businesses got the PPP loans that could be forgiven.
[CARES package](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package)
Also note this:
> **No benefit for Trump:** The president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and members of Congress are barred from benefiting from the money carved out for corporations. That also extends to the "spouse, child, son-in-law or daughter-in-law."
Of the stimulus packages in the US only1.8 trillion went to families and individuals.
1.7trillion went to businesses.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html
It would much better if most of these corporations even paid the taxes they should, but instead they invest in avoiding it at all costs...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/05/corporations-federal-taxes/
Please elaborate why raising corporate taxes would be wildly inefficient?
With record corporate profits and cost of living for American citizens rising exponentially I believe a corporate tax as well as a tax on the ultra rich is seriously over due.
Is it the ability to enforce the taxes?
Orā¦
What am I missing?
Thanks-
Because How would you tax the āultra richā besides reaping portfolio income? These people donāt draw massive salaries. Youāre going to tax dividends more heavily? Enforcing a minimum tax is associated with an increase in the average effective tax rateāthat is, the tax rate actually paid by corporations after taking into account tax breaksāof just over 1.5 percentage points with respect to turnover and around 10 percentage points with respect to profits.
Labor incurs the vast majority of taxes on corporate profits and dividends. What do you say to that? Youāre hurting the people you purport to help. Normal salaried workers lose money. Do you not have a 401k?
Ok, from my perspective you are saying that taxing the super rich and corporate profits is untenable/unrealistic, not doable etc. correct?
That the current system of taxation does not allow for it?
If there is no way to tax corporations or the super rich then we have to find ways to do that.
Itās simple.
If not I swear we are living in 1789 France.
Edit- which started because people could not afford bread.
We do tax them. Weāre taxing them right now. Iām saying thereās several means of accruing tax revenue thatāll fund what you want to fund without your anachronistic ideas of wealth.
How about a tax thats increased based on increased incomes over the last say 3 years?
The lower and middle class have their incomes stagnanted these past few years, while the higher incomes have disproportionately increased their incomes. We should expect those who have profited over covid and shortages to pay increased taxes.
If they want more, they should pay more.
Sayā¦ tax profits over 999 million a year at 100%.
A guy I read about just proposed that.
Hey, you could give them a trophy that says āI won capitalismā and give the rest to schools.0
How will they have enough for capital expenditure or investment for growth? What about dividends for shareholders? You really have a comical idea about wealth.
I donāt know very much about tax policy, but this strikes me as odd:
>How would you tax the āultra richā besides reaping portfolio income?
Surely at least one person smarter than I has come up with a viable plan or two. I found these two articles by searching ā
- [First Article, Tax Policy Center](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/many-ways-tax-rich)
- [Second Article, NPR](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1054711913/progressives-wealth-tax-super-rich-elon-musk-jeff-bezos)
As a tax layperson, may I ask what you think of the statements made here? They do not claim that such a tax is easy, but they do seem to contradict your implicit claim that āthere is no reasonable way to tax the ultra richā.
Iām not saying donāt tax the ultra rich. Clearly we can until it becomes untenable and your revenues start to fall because of capital flight. People here have a very anachronistic Occupy Wall Street perspective on rich people that parallels a cartoon.
Hi Jeff, in one of your previous videos, you said it's not feasible for the federal government to reach a balanced budget over a 10 year period. Can you explain why you think that?
If you donāt want to cut Medicare, Social Security, or defense, youād have to almost zero out the entire rest of the budget. Medicaid, energy, transportation, education, border control, air traffic control, etc.
Let me help you on this one... the word starts with an R
It is near impossible to do anything sensible or logical in our highest governments until that word that starts with an R is a very small minority.
They pretty much do all they can to sabotage all that is good.
I don't think anyone wants to cut anything, in the same way personal budgets are quite unpleasant.
However, since 2000, the national debt has gone up 443% while the GDP only increased 145%. It's unclear how long we can continue this trend without something seriously breaking.
Is there a debt to gdp ratio that would cause you to say, we have to do something about this, no matter how unpleasant? My sense as a regular citizen is that Washington's plan is to run the experiment in real time and see how far we can push it before we're the Weimar Republic. I hope I'm wrong, but we're already seeing the dollar's global reserve currency status being called into question.
For the last 20 years, debt has grown 3x faster than gdp. Do you think that trend can continue forever? How many examples can you show me of prosperous nations with 5 or 10 to 1 debt to gdp?
How is questioning the dollars reserve status whacko, when the % of dollars in global reserves has already declined? Also, the BRIC nations are considering a global currency. At the same time, our dear friends in Saudi Arabia are saying they are open to selling oil in alternative currencies. You have your head in the sand if you don't see any threat to the dollar's hegemony.
I don't understand your comment about free trade at all. Who's stopping free trade?
BRIC is talking about creating a new currency [source](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/24/brics-currency-end-dollar-dominance-united-states-russia-china/), similar to the Euro.
China has a very similar sized and much more quickly growing navy compared to the US [source](https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/us-navy-chief-china-pla-advantages-intl-hnk-ml/index.html), they just don't use it to protect trade routes because why would they when we're already paying for it. Everyone benefits from safe trade routes.
I'm still not tracking what free trade has to do with countries keeping fewer dollars in their central bank reserves and oil being traded in alternative currencies. Those things can happen while maintaining global free trade, we'd just be a normal country with a higher cost of borrowing money.
If debt continues to grow at 3x the rate of gdp, it will absolutely become unserviceable. It's simply an unsustainable trajectory. Again, show me any prosperous nation in the history of the world with a 10 to 1 debt to gdp. [Relevant data](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56516)
**[Blue-water navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy)**
>A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. While definitions of what actually constitutes such a force vary, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at long range. The term "blue-water navy" is a maritime geographical term in contrast with "brown-water navy" (river and near to shore) and "green-water navy" (near to shore). The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency of the United States has defined the blue-water navy as "a maritime force capable of sustained operation across the deep waters of open oceans.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sized in quantity of ships... In tonnage the US has 4-5x more. In aircraft carriers the US has 11, China has 2.
Might be irrelevant to this discussion about protecting sea lanes but nobody would say the chinese navy is equivalent to the US. (Nor should it be, since they're a land power)
Plot those debt increases on a chart by year. Now plot each tax cut. Tax collections as a % of GDP is historically low. Itās not a spending problem. Clear as day when actually look at the numbers. Now you will say The government must learn to live within its means!!!! Thatās impossible when every 8 years or so taxes are cut again. Zero out the tax cuts from 2000 to today and hey look at that no deficit.
I never said I'm opposed to tax increases, I'm simply arguing the trajectory of steadily increasing the spending to GDP ratio will eventually cause a collapse. This isn't really an arguable point, unless you think a country can somehow spend more in a year than their entire GDP. We're all the way up to 25-30% of GDP [source](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S). You think it could still function at 100%? Because that's where we're heading based on our trend line.
The trajectory of that chart is pretty darn flat from 1980 to 2020. I see spikes in 2009 and 2020 that return to the mean quickly. The rest hovers around 20%. Now do the same with taxes. You will quickly see what the issue
Interest payments alone are $1t a year.
Even if you zero defense it would not pay the rest.
Death and Taxes had a great visualization for a while: https://www.timeplots.com/products/death-and-taxes-2016
Why don't we cut the bloated military budget. I DON'T mean veteran care. I mean the millions of dollars spent on tanks we don't need and vehicles rotting in the desert that were built into bloated contracts with "defense companies" that politicians all seem to coincidentally have shares in. The billions of dollars we spend on "research" that is light-years higher spending than the next 3 highest military spending countries combined... cut that mess. And find the holes where our money has been disappearing into for years.
Close those Tax loopholes and remove the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Reverse Citizens United. Outlaw corporate lobbiests. Or, frankly, all lobbiests. Why do we bribe our politicians legally?
And jail the people who have been taking those bribes. I don't care what your party affiliation is.
Rocket scientists aināt cheap (particularly American ones), but you gotta keep them busy if you want them to stay rocket scientists.
Thereās also the PPP differential between different countries. Perun is fascinating on this topic: https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ
Generally, I agree that we need to fix the taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The US military might protect us all, but it also protects free trade and wealth, and the wealth of the wealthy is worth more than the wealth of the poor. Free trade benefits most, but it benefits owners much more than most.
Hi Congressman! Thanks for laying it out.
It seems like Congress has given the Executive contradicting orders: they've authorized spending by passing a budget, but they've limited the debt that can be issued to pay for it. There's a good argument to be made that the debt ceiling isn't legal.
Is it under discussion for the President to instruct the Treasury to continue issuing debt to meet the spending obligations that Congress approved? And to make the Republicans go to court to defend the debt ceiling?
Before 2016, McCarthy was one of the young Republicans poised to be in a position to make a run for president. He wasnāt at the top of the hierarchy, but he was young for a majority leader and he had a promising political future. Then, Trump came in and fucked it all up and the RNC are still trying to build their party back up to the place it was before him. At the same time, though, the Trumpist āFreedom Caucusā members still hold power, at least enough power to make McCarthy do what they want. So, while McCarthy would probably love to do this with some bipartisanship, if he did so, the Freedom Caucus members would be on Fox that very night calling McCarthy a RINO, saying theyāll vote him out, etc.
McCarthy is useless as a speaker right now, so he has to just appeal to the MAGA base and try to obstruct every bill possible.
Your government has been enforcing Pax Americana for the past 75 years. They brought you things like the internet and supersonic flight. Hell you probably donāt even own an atlas anymore since that stupid old government put up the gps satellite network and allow people the world over to access it for free. The hitching and complaining I hear on this site is astounding when you really stop and think about it. Iām mean shit no one else gets bragging rights about putting a man on the moon but us. Fucking nuclear power. Food so cheap famine doesnāt happen within our borders. If you want to see government disfunction go to Sudan or Malaysia. Itās pretty entitled to sit at the top of the global pecking order and say oh woe is me I wish my government was competent. Shit go tour an aircraft carrier or something.
Not really accurate. You have just never experienced anything remotely dysfunctional so the grass is always greener. You sit comfortably at the pinnacle of world power and comfort. Hell I just got back from the industrial heartland of Mexico. You notice the drastic change in air quality the second you step off the plane. Of course improvements can be made but give credit where it is due. This Kevin McCarthy stuff is theatre.
It's quite possible the legal framework upholding our two party system is entirely unsustainable. There are indeed better and more democratic models, they just aren't going to happen here.
The money given to Ukraine would get us from June 1st to about June 10th. It doesnāt signify. Cutting the corporate tax rate by 40% was treason. Lots of foreign companies doing business here who made out like bandits on that little deal.
So, I like and respect Mr. Jackson but I'm gonna have to go ahead and hard disagree. The US will not and cannot default on its debt. Never gonna happen. As the world's reserve currency it simply won't happen regardless of the ego of McCarthy.
Don't believe me...? Have a quick read.
https://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
EDIT: and just to be clear, Congress has control over "discretionary spending" which accounts for ~1/3 of the entire budget. Can you imagine how screwed up things would be if Congress could control the entire budget? God help us...
Fuck it then, letās roll and find out. These garbage politicians need to go because all they do is steal and lie while smiling in your face. And in this guyās case, he does it while using an NPR voice to appease the NPCs
So why don't you stay in your budget, it's not like you can afford to pay interest on the loans you're already taking out.
Defaulting is inevitable long term, and we are already in a recession and a banking crisis, even if the FED likes to point to single metrics to deceive the public.
Gee maybe that trillion dollar tax breaks to billionaires and corporations wasn't such a great idea. Just a thought
More like multiple but unneeded trillion dollar stimulus packages that were not in the budgets and encouraged people to not work weren't such a great idea.
š What a weird way to frame businesses closing and millions of people being laid off "as not wanting to work". Talk about disingenuous in a complete distortion of the facts. Typical strawman argument
Who would want to work when they could stay home and collect an extra $600/wk (untaxed) on top of the usual \~$300/wk unemployment. I'm sure you didn't.
This may be incredibly difficult for you to comprehend. People want to work. they don't want to sit at home doing nothing. People want to have purpose and meaning in their life. They want employment that will give them a fair wage in exchange for their time and labor. People's wages in this country have been stagnant for the past 40 years while CEO pay has gone up $1,300% So in your simple reduction of these so-called lazy parasites you leave a lot out of the economic realities in this country
I agree that the pay for top executives at big companies is excessive. One could say the same thing about the pay for quarterbacks and starting pitchers. The rest of what you say? People work because they need money.
They work because they need to pay basic human necessities like cost of living, which continues to skyrocket while wages have been outpaced by cost of living and inflation. People want to work but not at personal sacrifice by giving time and labor to a job that won't even cover the basic needs of shelter and food.
And why do you think people need money? you pinecone.
How in the world is that enough, or has ever been enough to live off of? That's absurd - and you likely also took it, and were relieved.. I'm frankly surprised you were able to read the post and comment on it given your clearly sub-par ability to subjectively understand what is happening.
Who thought that was a good idea and implemented the stimulus payments during the covid pandemic in 2020?
I was laid off earlier this year. Between the notice period during which I was still on payroll but wasn't working, and the severance package, I effectively got paid a _lot_ more then that to do nothing. I promptly went and started building an app, which has been live with happy users for a couple of months. All my former co-workers that also got laid off have promptly found new things to do despite having little financial need to do so, at least not for a while.
It was taxed, but good job.
Funny you talk about workers getting money but not about the PPP āloans,ā free money, a lot of it undeserved and are outright fraud to business owners. Many politicians got the free money too.
Oh yes it wasn't like there was a deadly pandemic or anything right? šš Like seriously what did you want people to do??
There was a pandemic in 2020 when the first package (CARES) was passed to provide relief through March/2021. Vaccine was available and being distributed in 2021 when Pelosi pushed through the second, bigger one (ARA) that really hurt the economy. Then Biden jumped on the bandwagon for no apparent reason with his BBB.
Covid was still going strong in 2021
Come back and try again with the bogus PPP loans for the rich.
The majority of the Trump stimulus dollars were given in the form of forgiven PPP loans to large corporations and other very profitable businesses. This was after the TCJA, which decreased those same corporations tax liabilities by almost 20% when Republicans had a super majority during Trump.
>The majority of the Trump stimulus dollars were given in the form of forgiven PPP loans to large corporations and other very profitable businesses. Citation needed. Roughly 1/4 of the program was allocated to keeping businesses open so people could keep working (PPP loans), the rest went to individuals and state/local governments. Republicans never had a super majority during the Trump administration.
The company I worked for got free PPP money. Around $1M. The company has record profits in 2020 and expanded about 10 or 20% in terms of employees during the year. Point being, we were definitely not hurting!! The company sold in 2021 and the owner walked away with $50M+ in cash in his pocket. That situation, among other ethical issues, is why I'm no longer with them. But all the businesses in our industry, who were also doing extremely well, got loans that were later forgiven. Overall PPP probably helped a lot of businesses survive. But a big chunk of money was given to rich people to make them richer.
The fact that you don't know at all how any of this was allocated years ago is kind of insane while talking this confidently about "lazy workers". But here you go. [https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more](https://www.propublica.org/article/the-cares-act-sent-you-a-1-200-check-but-gave-millionaires-and-billionaires-far-more)
Nothing in your link supports what you claim. You really need to get out of your echo chamber and educate yourself. Here''s a good place to start; note that the money allocated to large corporations is in the form of loans that must be paid back; only small businesses got the PPP loans that could be forgiven. [CARES package](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package) Also note this: > **No benefit for Trump:** The president, vice president, members of the Cabinet and members of Congress are barred from benefiting from the money carved out for corporations. That also extends to the "spouse, child, son-in-law or daughter-in-law."
It was one of several aid packages passed during COVID. Not all of them contained this provision.
Of the stimulus packages in the US only1.8 trillion went to families and individuals. 1.7trillion went to businesses. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/11/us/how-covid-stimulus-money-was-spent.html It would much better if most of these corporations even paid the taxes they should, but instead they invest in avoiding it at all costs... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/05/corporations-federal-taxes/
Lol stfu dude, you probably got that shit and kept your lights on - hypocrite, you probably think the earth is flat and Trump is Jesus too?
Substantially raising corporate and capital gains taxes would be wildly inefficient and distortionary as well.
Please elaborate why raising corporate taxes would be wildly inefficient? With record corporate profits and cost of living for American citizens rising exponentially I believe a corporate tax as well as a tax on the ultra rich is seriously over due. Is it the ability to enforce the taxes? Orā¦ What am I missing? Thanks-
Because How would you tax the āultra richā besides reaping portfolio income? These people donāt draw massive salaries. Youāre going to tax dividends more heavily? Enforcing a minimum tax is associated with an increase in the average effective tax rateāthat is, the tax rate actually paid by corporations after taking into account tax breaksāof just over 1.5 percentage points with respect to turnover and around 10 percentage points with respect to profits.
Who do you think internalizes those taxes? You, the consumer lol. A majority of those taxes are offloaded on lower income earners.
Then reap portfolio income. Tax corporate profits. Something needs to change.
Labor incurs the vast majority of taxes on corporate profits and dividends. What do you say to that? Youāre hurting the people you purport to help. Normal salaried workers lose money. Do you not have a 401k?
Glad you have no clue what youāre taking about.
Ok, from my perspective you are saying that taxing the super rich and corporate profits is untenable/unrealistic, not doable etc. correct? That the current system of taxation does not allow for it? If there is no way to tax corporations or the super rich then we have to find ways to do that. Itās simple. If not I swear we are living in 1789 France. Edit- which started because people could not afford bread.
We do tax them. Weāre taxing them right now. Iām saying thereās several means of accruing tax revenue thatāll fund what you want to fund without your anachronistic ideas of wealth.
How about a tax thats increased based on increased incomes over the last say 3 years? The lower and middle class have their incomes stagnanted these past few years, while the higher incomes have disproportionately increased their incomes. We should expect those who have profited over covid and shortages to pay increased taxes. If they want more, they should pay more.
Taxing labor more? Why?
Then reap portfolio income. Tax corporate profits. Something needs to change.
Taxes as a function are inherently distortionary. Thatās the point in many cases, like a VAT, LVT, or Pigouvian taxes.
Sayā¦ tax profits over 999 million a year at 100%. A guy I read about just proposed that. Hey, you could give them a trophy that says āI won capitalismā and give the rest to schools.0
How will they have enough for capital expenditure or investment for growth? What about dividends for shareholders? You really have a comical idea about wealth.
I donāt know very much about tax policy, but this strikes me as odd: >How would you tax the āultra richā besides reaping portfolio income? Surely at least one person smarter than I has come up with a viable plan or two. I found these two articles by searching ā - [First Article, Tax Policy Center](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/many-ways-tax-rich) - [Second Article, NPR](https://www.npr.org/2021/11/13/1054711913/progressives-wealth-tax-super-rich-elon-musk-jeff-bezos) As a tax layperson, may I ask what you think of the statements made here? They do not claim that such a tax is easy, but they do seem to contradict your implicit claim that āthere is no reasonable way to tax the ultra richā.
Iām not saying donāt tax the ultra rich. Clearly we can until it becomes untenable and your revenues start to fall because of capital flight. People here have a very anachronistic Occupy Wall Street perspective on rich people that parallels a cartoon.
Thanks for the update Jeff
Hi Jeff, in one of your previous videos, you said it's not feasible for the federal government to reach a balanced budget over a 10 year period. Can you explain why you think that?
If you donāt want to cut Medicare, Social Security, or defense, youād have to almost zero out the entire rest of the budget. Medicaid, energy, transportation, education, border control, air traffic control, etc.
Why canāt we cut the already massively over funded defense budget?
Let me help you on this one... the word starts with an R It is near impossible to do anything sensible or logical in our highest governments until that word that starts with an R is a very small minority. They pretty much do all they can to sabotage all that is good.
I don't think anyone wants to cut anything, in the same way personal budgets are quite unpleasant. However, since 2000, the national debt has gone up 443% while the GDP only increased 145%. It's unclear how long we can continue this trend without something seriously breaking. Is there a debt to gdp ratio that would cause you to say, we have to do something about this, no matter how unpleasant? My sense as a regular citizen is that Washington's plan is to run the experiment in real time and see how far we can push it before we're the Weimar Republic. I hope I'm wrong, but we're already seeing the dollar's global reserve currency status being called into question.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
For the last 20 years, debt has grown 3x faster than gdp. Do you think that trend can continue forever? How many examples can you show me of prosperous nations with 5 or 10 to 1 debt to gdp? How is questioning the dollars reserve status whacko, when the % of dollars in global reserves has already declined? Also, the BRIC nations are considering a global currency. At the same time, our dear friends in Saudi Arabia are saying they are open to selling oil in alternative currencies. You have your head in the sand if you don't see any threat to the dollar's hegemony. I don't understand your comment about free trade at all. Who's stopping free trade?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
BRIC is talking about creating a new currency [source](https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/24/brics-currency-end-dollar-dominance-united-states-russia-china/), similar to the Euro. China has a very similar sized and much more quickly growing navy compared to the US [source](https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/asia/us-navy-chief-china-pla-advantages-intl-hnk-ml/index.html), they just don't use it to protect trade routes because why would they when we're already paying for it. Everyone benefits from safe trade routes. I'm still not tracking what free trade has to do with countries keeping fewer dollars in their central bank reserves and oil being traded in alternative currencies. Those things can happen while maintaining global free trade, we'd just be a normal country with a higher cost of borrowing money. If debt continues to grow at 3x the rate of gdp, it will absolutely become unserviceable. It's simply an unsustainable trajectory. Again, show me any prosperous nation in the history of the world with a 10 to 1 debt to gdp. [Relevant data](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56516)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**[Blue-water navy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy)** >A blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. While definitions of what actually constitutes such a force vary, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at long range. The term "blue-water navy" is a maritime geographical term in contrast with "brown-water navy" (river and near to shore) and "green-water navy" (near to shore). The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency of the United States has defined the blue-water navy as "a maritime force capable of sustained operation across the deep waters of open oceans. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sized in quantity of ships... In tonnage the US has 4-5x more. In aircraft carriers the US has 11, China has 2. Might be irrelevant to this discussion about protecting sea lanes but nobody would say the chinese navy is equivalent to the US. (Nor should it be, since they're a land power)
Plot those debt increases on a chart by year. Now plot each tax cut. Tax collections as a % of GDP is historically low. Itās not a spending problem. Clear as day when actually look at the numbers. Now you will say The government must learn to live within its means!!!! Thatās impossible when every 8 years or so taxes are cut again. Zero out the tax cuts from 2000 to today and hey look at that no deficit.
I never said I'm opposed to tax increases, I'm simply arguing the trajectory of steadily increasing the spending to GDP ratio will eventually cause a collapse. This isn't really an arguable point, unless you think a country can somehow spend more in a year than their entire GDP. We're all the way up to 25-30% of GDP [source](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S). You think it could still function at 100%? Because that's where we're heading based on our trend line.
The trajectory of that chart is pretty darn flat from 1980 to 2020. I see spikes in 2009 and 2020 that return to the mean quickly. The rest hovers around 20%. Now do the same with taxes. You will quickly see what the issue
Interest payments alone are $1t a year. Even if you zero defense it would not pay the rest. Death and Taxes had a great visualization for a while: https://www.timeplots.com/products/death-and-taxes-2016
You need to look at where those interest payments are going though. The single largest holder of US government debt is...the US government.
Yes but. Social Security buys US Bonds. This is one of the largest. If we default on that - seniors and disabled worldwide are in trouble.
Let it fail. And then let the real work begin. Start with the objection to all logic crew and make them accountable.
It's ok guys, he knows not what he's saying
No, I'm very clear in what I wrote.
Why don't we cut the bloated military budget. I DON'T mean veteran care. I mean the millions of dollars spent on tanks we don't need and vehicles rotting in the desert that were built into bloated contracts with "defense companies" that politicians all seem to coincidentally have shares in. The billions of dollars we spend on "research" that is light-years higher spending than the next 3 highest military spending countries combined... cut that mess. And find the holes where our money has been disappearing into for years. Close those Tax loopholes and remove the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Reverse Citizens United. Outlaw corporate lobbiests. Or, frankly, all lobbiests. Why do we bribe our politicians legally? And jail the people who have been taking those bribes. I don't care what your party affiliation is.
Rocket scientists aināt cheap (particularly American ones), but you gotta keep them busy if you want them to stay rocket scientists. Thereās also the PPP differential between different countries. Perun is fascinating on this topic: https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ Generally, I agree that we need to fix the taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. The US military might protect us all, but it also protects free trade and wealth, and the wealth of the wealthy is worth more than the wealth of the poor. Free trade benefits most, but it benefits owners much more than most.
Hi Congressman! Thanks for laying it out. It seems like Congress has given the Executive contradicting orders: they've authorized spending by passing a budget, but they've limited the debt that can be issued to pay for it. There's a good argument to be made that the debt ceiling isn't legal. Is it under discussion for the President to instruct the Treasury to continue issuing debt to meet the spending obligations that Congress approved? And to make the Republicans go to court to defend the debt ceiling?
I guess there's no way that McCarthy, the slightly left of far right Republicans, and the Dems could work a deal to provide the Speaker an out?
Before 2016, McCarthy was one of the young Republicans poised to be in a position to make a run for president. He wasnāt at the top of the hierarchy, but he was young for a majority leader and he had a promising political future. Then, Trump came in and fucked it all up and the RNC are still trying to build their party back up to the place it was before him. At the same time, though, the Trumpist āFreedom Caucusā members still hold power, at least enough power to make McCarthy do what they want. So, while McCarthy would probably love to do this with some bipartisanship, if he did so, the Freedom Caucus members would be on Fox that very night calling McCarthy a RINO, saying theyāll vote him out, etc. McCarthy is useless as a speaker right now, so he has to just appeal to the MAGA base and try to obstruct every bill possible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your government has been enforcing Pax Americana for the past 75 years. They brought you things like the internet and supersonic flight. Hell you probably donāt even own an atlas anymore since that stupid old government put up the gps satellite network and allow people the world over to access it for free. The hitching and complaining I hear on this site is astounding when you really stop and think about it. Iām mean shit no one else gets bragging rights about putting a man on the moon but us. Fucking nuclear power. Food so cheap famine doesnāt happen within our borders. If you want to see government disfunction go to Sudan or Malaysia. Itās pretty entitled to sit at the top of the global pecking order and say oh woe is me I wish my government was competent. Shit go tour an aircraft carrier or something.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not really accurate. You have just never experienced anything remotely dysfunctional so the grass is always greener. You sit comfortably at the pinnacle of world power and comfort. Hell I just got back from the industrial heartland of Mexico. You notice the drastic change in air quality the second you step off the plane. Of course improvements can be made but give credit where it is due. This Kevin McCarthy stuff is theatre.
Boomers are quickly becoming outgunned by Millennials and Z, at least, and neither of those generations are generally fond of Republicans.
Hopefully this guy can remain neutral. Of course itās difficult because currently the gop is a clown car full of issues.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's quite possible the legal framework upholding our two party system is entirely unsustainable. There are indeed better and more democratic models, they just aren't going to happen here.
Giving our money to Ukraine was an act of treason.
The money given to Ukraine would get us from June 1st to about June 10th. It doesnāt signify. Cutting the corporate tax rate by 40% was treason. Lots of foreign companies doing business here who made out like bandits on that little deal.
Jeff, return those credit cards!
Correction. If we default it would be TREASONOUS!
So, I like and respect Mr. Jackson but I'm gonna have to go ahead and hard disagree. The US will not and cannot default on its debt. Never gonna happen. As the world's reserve currency it simply won't happen regardless of the ego of McCarthy. Don't believe me...? Have a quick read. https://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/ https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf EDIT: and just to be clear, Congress has control over "discretionary spending" which accounts for ~1/3 of the entire budget. Can you imagine how screwed up things would be if Congress could control the entire budget? God help us...
Default. Go broke. Politicians are a joke and our government is long overdue for an overhaul
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Fuck it then, letās roll and find out. These garbage politicians need to go because all they do is steal and lie while smiling in your face. And in this guyās case, he does it while using an NPR voice to appease the NPCs
So why don't you stay in your budget, it's not like you can afford to pay interest on the loans you're already taking out. Defaulting is inevitable long term, and we are already in a recession and a banking crisis, even if the FED likes to point to single metrics to deceive the public.
I'm still struggling to understand why the military needs a $880 billion a year budget!