Time to tax the wealthy big time.

[jbander]

All you are doing is coveting their success, you can splain all you want, even if they inherited it you have no right to it! Earn your own and quit waiting on someone elses!

I don't want it goofball. Your like talking to a brick.

[LV426]

Why even put this up it has nothing or very little to do with National debt. Our biggest by far GDP and Profits came after that debt was established.

Flash has it in his small mind that all forms of debt are a bad thing, regardless if you have anything to show for that debt.

So according to him, no one should ever mortgage a house because that is taking on a debt load that would be at least 2x your current wage.

Flash also has it in his small mind that once debt reaches a certain percentage of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff"...and he got that in his small mind because of a 2010 report called "Growth in the Time of Debt" that turned out to be a gigantic crock of shit because the study's authors deliberately fudged and fixed the data to produce conclusions that they already had.

Variations of that stupid argument have persisted since the study was debunked because people like Flash aren't willing to ditch their preconceived notions that were formed around A Big Lie.

Flash falls for Big Lies because he's very naive.

FAQ: Reinhart, Rogoff, and the Excel Error That Changed History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hanged-history

[Wolverine]

I don't want it goofball. Your like talking to a brick.

Quit whining, and the name calling is ridiculous, I have not insulted you, and have exposed your desire to take from earners!

[LV426]

The economy does not have to "fall off a cliff" have slow growth and it could be much worse with higher interest rates.

First of all, we have had at least debt levels this high for the past decade, and not once have those debt levels ever resulted in a higher interest rate.

In fact, the opposite has occurred the last 20 years, where the economy experiences longer periods of sustained growth as the government increases its debt level and cuts interest rates.

So the central theory to your argument has been totally debunked by the last 20 years of economic activity.

So where does that leave you now? Back to the simplistic debt = bad hurr durr derp.

So Flash, if the federal government shouldn't borrow above its GDP because "slow growth", then do you also believe that no one should mortgage a home because that ads a debt load far more than a % of a borrower's income or wealth? I bet you mortgaged your home, didn't you? You took on debt if you did, and that debt far exceeded your income and savings. In fact, it probably exceeded it by at least 2x.

[jbander]

You know what wolverine , I'm going to take my time and tell you why, the way it is set up now is bad. Here's a fact , in the last 40+ years since literally day one of the trickle down lie all the new wealth of the richest country in the world has gone to the golden few at the top. Which is by far the biggest threat possible for capitalism. Why is that? it is simple, The prime reason that capitalism is the only way is because it offers the incentive for the possibility to get ahead. That separates it from all other economy's. That has been something that the trickle down lie has taken away completely over the last 40+ years. You want capitalism brought down , this will do it. This money was distributed to the top with tax law, law and tax rates. You can direct wealth anyway you want and to anyone you want in this country through taxation, tax law and tax rates. Now I know You will have none of this for some silly reason but you now have had it explained to you in easy terms.

[jbander]

Quit whining, and the name calling is ridiculous, I have not insulted you, and have exposed your desire to take from earners!

The people at the top are free riders ,I said nothing about taxing earners. I'm talking about the group at the top that do 1 dollars worth of work and get $1000 for doing it . That person isn't a earner. That person is a pig. The trickle down lie is what allows them to do this. Tax them to the max. They didn't need it earn it or deserve it,

[jbander]

First of all, we have had at least debt levels this high for the past decade, and not once have those debt levels ever resulted in a higher interest rate.

In fact, the opposite has occurred the last 20 years, where the economy experiences longer periods of sustained growth as the government increases its debt level and cuts interest rates.

So the central theory to your argument has been totally debunked by the last 20 years of economic activity.

So where does that leave you now? Back to the simplistic debt = bad hurr durr derp.

So Flash, if the federal government shouldn't borrow above its GDP because "slow growth", then do you also believe that no one should mortgage a home because that ads a debt load far more than a % of a borrower's income or wealth? I bet you mortgaged your home, didn't you? You took on debt if you did, and that debt far exceeded your income and savings. In fact, it probably exceeded it by at least 2x.

Flash literally has no idea what he is talking about , you force interest rates lower by printing money, and deficits spending is all printed money , he literally has no clue what he is talking about.

[Flash]

Why even put this up it has nothing or very little to do with National debt. Our biggest by far GDP and Profits came after that debt was established.

Of course is has to do with national debt--those are projections of how the debt will affect GDP and other economic factors. That debt will continue to rise at a rapid pace--it has doubled since 2010. The point is that GDP grows at a slower rate as debt increases. The interest on that debt is $378 billion which will also continue to grow and crowd out other spending.

[Flash]

First of all, we have had at least debt levels this high for the past decade, and not once have those debt levels ever resulted in a higher interest rate.

In fact, the opposite has occurred the last 20 years, where the economy experiences longer periods of sustained growth as the government increases its debt level and cuts interest rates.

So the central theory to your argument has been totally debunked by the last 20 years of economic activity.

So where does that leave you now? Back to the simplistic debt = bad hurr durr derp.

So Flash, if the federal government shouldn't borrow above its GDP because "slow growth", then do you also believe that no one should mortgage a home because that ads a debt load far more than a % of a borrower's income or wealth? I bet you mortgaged your home, didn't you? You took on debt if you did, and that debt far exceeded your income and savings. In fact, it probably exceeded it by at least 2x.

Because the Fed has been keeping low interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. That is not "my" economic theory but long-term projections by the CBO. You haven't noticed that annual GDP growth has been declining?

"If in the 50’s and 60’s the average growth rate was above 4 percent, in the 70’s and 80’s dropped to around 3 percent. In the last ten years, the average rate has been below 2 percent and since the second quarter of 2000 has never reached the 5 percent level."

[Flash]

You just have an inherent bias that debt = bad because you probably fucked up at some point in your life and ended up with debt.

More personal attacks based on stupid assumptions with no support.

Which has nothing to do with debt!!

The CBO here doesn't even link that to debt.

Except that it comes under a section called:

Consequences of High and Rising Federal Debt

"If federal debt as a percentage of GDP continued to rise at the pace that CBO projects it would under current law, in the long term the economy would be affected in two significant ways:

• That debt path would raise borrowing costs, reduce business investment, and slow the growth of economic output over time,8 and
• Rising interest costs associated with that debt would increase interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt.

Persistently rising debt as a percentage of GDP would also pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook, although financial markets currently do not reflect those concerns. In particular, that debt path would have these economic and financial effects:

• It would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis—that is, a situation in which investors lose confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to service and repay its debt, causing interest rates to increase abruptly, inflation to spiral upward, or other disruptions—and
• It would increase the likelihood of less abrupt, but still significant, adverse effects, such as expectations of higher rates of inflation, an erosion of confidence in the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency, and more difficulty in financing public and private activity in international markets."

It appears LV426 wants to slow down economic growth.

[LV426]

Because the Fed has been keeping low interest rates in order to stimulate the economy. That is not "my" economic theory but long-term projections by the CBO. You haven't noticed that annual GDP growth has been declining?

It hasn't been declining, it changes every year.

For instance, in 2015, annualized GDP growth was 2.89%; while in 2018, annualized GDP growth was 2.85%.

You can't draw a connection between debt levels and economic performance.

But you CAN draw a connection between tax rates and economic performance, which you helpfully showed everyone with the link explaining growth between 1951-2021 is higher than growth from 2021-2051.

All the periods of sustained economic growth followed higher tax rates...certainly from 1951-1963, again from 1993-2001, and again from 2013-2017.

Every single recession we've had since 1980 have always followed tax cuts, and that's not a coincidence.

"If in the 50’s and 60’s the average growth rate was above 4 percent, in the 70’s and 80’s dropped to around 3 percent

What was the top tax rate in the 50's and 60's, vs what was the top tax rate in the 70's and 80's?

Because if you're going to draw a conclusion through correlation, as you're doing here, then low tax rates correlate to lower economic performance than higher tax rates.

So is that the argument you are sure you want to make?

In the last ten years, the average rate has been below 2 percent and since the second quarter of 2000 has never reached the 5 percent level."

Because of the massive economic collapses caused by Conservative policy.

And also, Obama surpassed 5% quarterly GDP growth twice, both in 2014 (Q2 2014 - 5.5%, and Q3 2014 - 5.1%). He also came within striking distance of 5%, first in Q4 2009 (4.5%) and Q4 2011 (4.7%).

[LV426]

More personal attacks based on stupid assumptions with no support.

Well, Flash, we've routinely had debt levels in this country at or above 90% of GDP, and yet all the economic catastrophe came after we CUT TAXES and CUT REVENUE.

You haven't explained why you think you favor low taxes because if you tried, you'd end up just regurgitating trickle down economics.

[LV426]

"If federal debt as a percentage of GDP continued to rise at the pace that CBO projects it would under current law, in the long term the economy would be affected in two significant ways:

OK, first off....the part you left out is that assumes no changes to the tax code for 30 years.

It assumes no changes to federal spending levels.

It assumes no changes to economic activity by outside factors (like a pandemic).

It assumes a lot.

That debt path would raise borrowing costs, reduce business investment, and slow the growth of economic output over time,8 and

Except that the last 10 years proves this is bullshit.

The only thing that reduced business investment over the last ten years were the 2017 Tax Cuts.

No business decides to expand or whatever based on government debt levels. That's just stupid.

Rising interest costs associated with that debt would increase interest payments to foreign holders of U.S. debt.

Again, interest rates have gone DOWN, not up, despite US debt exceeding GDP.

It would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis—that is, a situation in which investors lose confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to service and repay its debt, causing interest rates to increase abruptly, inflation to spiral upward, or other disruptions—and

Which only happens if one party decides to not raise the debt ceiling. So this is an artificial concern. Now, which party refuses to raise the debt ceiling?

It would increase the likelihood of less abrupt, but still significant, adverse effects, such as expectations of higher rates of inflation, an erosion of confidence in the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency, and more difficulty in financing public and private activity in international markets."

Except we've been hearing this warning since 1991 and it has never come to pass.

Instead, we've seen higher debt levels correspond to higher economic activity. And actually, when "Growth in the Time of Debt" was corrected for the deliberate errors and omissions, higher debt levels correspond to higher economic growth than lower debt levels do. Which isn't a surprise because government spending boosts GDP.

[Flash]

So Flash, if the federal government shouldn't borrow above its GDP because "slow growth", then do you also believe that no one should mortgage a home because that ads a debt load far more than a % of a borrower's income or wealth? I bet you mortgaged your home, didn't you? You took on debt if you did, and that debt far exceeded your income and savings. In fact, it probably exceeded it by at least 2x.

The bank also believes a mortgage should not exceed a person's income by more than a certain amount and why they have a debt ratio.

[jbander]

Basic economics tells us huge government borrowing and debt is not good policy. The economy does not have to "fall off a cliff" have slow growth and it could be much worse with higher interest rates.

As projected by the Congressional Budget Office:

"In CBO’s extended baseline projections, growth in potential (or maximum sustainable) GDP over the next 30 years is slower than it has been over the past 70 years (see Figure 5). From 2021 to 2051, real potential GDP increases at an average rate of 1.6 percent per year, whereas it grew at an average annual rate of 3.1 percent from 1951 to 2020."

And this is only one of the projected negative effects of a large debt.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57038

Basic economics tell you nothing of the sort.there isn't any private sector borrowing that is crowded out by U.S. Treasury borrowing right now. There is tons of money in the world willing to buy our Debt , there is enough in this country alone to buy our debt/