Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 10% figure can fluctuate a little but, overall, you hit the nail on the head. High tax states are losing residents and revenue while people move to lower tax states, which are seeing increased tax revenues. But, the left are far too stupid to see this because they have blinders on.Said the financial neophyte. When taxes are over 10%, tax cuts always pay for themselves. Government gets the most revenue with 10% taxes because people think they are fair and avoid them. When they raise above 10%. it jacks up the economic damage and provide no more revenue.
I'd recommend some books to you, but you're a leftist ideologue and any effort to explain it to you would be wasted, though I just gave you the principle. 10% taxes are overwhelmingly considered reasonable. Above that, it's about government power
LOL. Now you're back to saying that the tax cuts decreased revenue. What a flip flopper. Did you stay out too late last night? It was a Wednesday night for God's sake.
We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.The law was created so that Congress must increase the debt ceiling, which means it was intended to be debated. There is nothing Congress does which is just an automatic rubber stamp. Everything is debated, which is how government works.
The 10% figure can fluctuate a little but, overall, you hit the nail on the head. High tax states are losing residents and revenue while people move to lower tax states, which are seeing increased tax revenues.
Under the tax cuts, revenue grew slightly while spending increased exponentially, causing higher deficits and debt. The left would have you ignore that spending went up exponentially and falsely claim that our debt went up due to tax cuts. If our spending hadn't gone up dramatically, our debt would not have skyrocketed. But the left are stuck in their ideology and fact denials.Saying that tax cuts increase debt is not the same as saying tax cuts decrease revenue.
Take $100 in taxes in the current year. In the next year taxes would be $110 based on growth. However give a $5 tax cut and revenue is less than projected ($105 v. $110), there was a $5 tax cut, and yet revenue still increased year over year ($105 v. $100).
The term is "missed opportunity cost", which in the above example is $5 in revenue not realized.
WW
Saying that tax cuts increase debt is not the same as saying tax cuts decrease revenue.
Take $100 in taxes in the current year. In the next year taxes would be $110 based on growth. However give a $5 tax cut and revenue is less than projected ($105 v. $110), there was a $5 tax cut, and yet revenue still increased year over year ($105 v. $100).
The term is "missed opportunity cost", which in the above example is $5 in revenue not realized.
WW
Under the tax cuts, revenue grew slightly while spending increased exponentially, causing higher deficits and debt. The left would have you ignore that spending went up exponentially and falsely claim that our debt went up due to tax cuts. If our spending hadn't gone up dramatically, our debt would not have skyrocketed. But the left are stuck in their ideology and fact denials.
You guys are stuck in a feedback loop. Don't you think we should decrease our runaway spending? This has nothing to do with 5 years ago, 25 years ago, or 125 years ago. This is May of 2023 and our spending is out of control.We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.
We didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.
I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCrittersYou guys are stuck in a feedback loop. Don't you think we should decrease our runaway spending? This has nothing to do with 5 years ago, 25 years ago, or 125 years ago. This is May of 2023 and our spending is out of control.
I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCritters
decimal error. ApologiesCost of WWII war debt in todays dollars was 4 trillion. Want to try again?
It looks to me like the House has done its job and passed a bill that the Senate and White House are sitting on. Ergo, it's not the Republicans in the House that are blocking anything.Yes.
They're the ones (the House specifically) who approve the spending.
I don't think a balanced budget amendment is realistic, particularly when it comes to emergencies such as Covid or recessions. Often, the best way out of recession is to spend money.I've advocated for a balanced budget amendment since I understood federal deficit spending, as well as Term limits CongressCritters
And our borrowing costs to go upWe didn't default the last time the GOP played Russian Rolette with the economy but their antics in just questioning the debt caused our credit rating to drop.
Obviously you'd need a plan for emergency spending in case of a declared war of natural catastrophe. If Congress can set term limits on the Executive, then the people should be able to do the same with Congresscritters. What we don't need is an exclusive fraternity of career legislators sucking off the public teat. Public service shouldn't be a springboard to riches.I don't think a balanced budget amendment is realistic, particularly when it comes to emergencies such as Covid or recessions. Often, the best way out of recession is to spend money.
I don't think term limits are a good idea either. First, having a constant set of rookies is not a good idea when it comes to national intelligence and security. Second, if anyone thinks it will change the makeup of Congress, I believe they are mistaken. The place will still be filled with nothing but R's and D's, just having a constant supply of new names. Their respective parties will still have full control over their flocks. Third, if anyone thinks it will have any effect on being bribed by lobbyists, etc. then I believe they would be gravely mistaken. I believe it would actually make that situation even worse. I used to work in retail and during the fourth quarter we would have to hire a bunch of questionable workers, with them knowing they would only have jobs for a month or two and then be gone, which means they would have to try stealing as much as they could during their short time there. If Congress critters knew they were only going to be there for X number of years and then be gone, it would encourage them to take as many bribes as they could during the time they had. It's not like voters could replace a bad apple with a good apple when everyone running for the new opening would be beholden to their respective crooked parties.
Yes, by Biden Mr. independentThey bent over for Trump nice and easy.
This is a partisan political move, period.
why?Further, I find it fairly amusing that some Democrats want to use the 14th amendment from 1868 to override a law from 1917.
As I said, term limits don't change anything and may make things worse and I laid out the reasons. Yeah, you get a bunch of different names but R's are still R's and D's are still D's. So, no difference, other than their names. In fact, since you mentioned the executive, it's exactly what I predicted, nothing but R's and D's with different names but the same ole same ole. So what? You replace Biden with Desantis. Then you replace Desantis with Harris. Then you replace Harris with an R and the R with a D and all you get is the same old shit. Same would go for Congress. Different names, same shit.Obviously you'd need a plan for emergency spending in case of a declared war of natural catastrophe. If Congress can set term limits on the Executive, then the people should be able to do the same with Congresscritters. What we don't need is an exclusive fraternity of career legislators sucking off the public teat. Public service shouldn't be a springboard to riches.
Not exactly sure what you're saying. Simplified, a 1917 law usually would trump an 1868 law and set new precedent. Sure, an amendment is an amendment but the 1917 law was passed when they knew what the 14th amendment was and not one person has questioned that in over 100 years. So, to question it now would be a rather high bar.why?
Just as a for example, Citizens United, from wiki
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed a prohibition on election spending by incorporated entities, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had upheld restricted corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The ruling effectively freed corporations (including incorporated non-profit organizations) to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government".[2]
The Courts use the const and/or BoR to overturn laws fairly commonly.
