The national debt is 19.3 trillion dollars. How do we fix it?

[Toddsterpatriot]

You just proved you don't even know what a tax credit is.

Tax credits for businesses are deducted at quarterly filings.

That proves nothing. Define "tax credit."

That proves nothing. Define "tax credit."

I'm debating US tax credits with a Canadian?

To debate, you'd actually have to define "tax credit".

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

 

[OnePercenter]

That proves nothing. Define "tax credit."

That proves nothing. Define "tax credit."

I'm debating US tax credits with a Canadian?

To debate, you'd actually have to define "tax credit".

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

A corporation that PAYS 4% federal tax?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That proves nothing. Define "tax credit."

I'm debating US tax credits with a Canadian?

To debate, you'd actually have to define "tax credit".

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

A corporation that PAYS 4% federal tax?

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

 

[OnePercenter]

To debate, you'd actually have to define "tax credit".

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

A corporation that PAYS 4% federal tax?

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Revenue is income. It's called a different name because of the additional deduction.

 

[Fishlore]

Before trying to "fix" the national debt, we have to understand what is broken. How is the average American today hurt by our national debt ? Please be specific.

National debt is not like personal financial debt. Governments print money, debtors can't. Every advanced economy has a national debt, most are a bigger portion of GDP than ours is. Are they all wrong? Please explain.

Our national debt allows the government to borrow against future productivity to increase present productivity, without which future productivity is unlikely. It's like a college loan or a home mortgage. Are these bad things too? Help us understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

A corporation that PAYS 4% federal tax?

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Revenue is income. It's called a different name because of the additional deduction.

Revenue is income. It's called a different name because of the additional deduction.

Additional deduction? Like Cost of Goods Sold? LOL!
No, revenue is not income.

WalMart sales are revenue. WalMart sales are not income.

The revenue from your "trust" is not your "trust" income, because you'd have to deduct distributions.
The distribution from your "trust" is not tax free, that's why the tax on your "trust" earnings is not 4%.

When you post your definition of tax credit, I'll show you the stupidity of your business deduction plan.

 

[bripat9643]

To debate, he would have to be capable of honesty. He has not demonstrated that at any point.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

That's a bit deceptive when you nor anyone can refute anything I post.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

I've refuted your claims about the taxes you pay, thanks to your "trust", many times.

A corporation that PAYS 4% federal tax?

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Yes, your insistence that revenue is the same as income was also easy to refute.

Revenue is income. It's called a different name because of the additional deduction.

Revenue is income. It's called a different name because of the additional deduction.

Additional deduction? Like Cost of Goods Sold? LOL!
No, revenue is not income.

WalMart sales are revenue. WalMart sales are not income.

The revenue from your "trust" is not your "trust" income, because you'd have to deduct distributions.
The distribution from your "trust" is not tax free, that's what the tax on your "trust" earnings is not 4%.

When you post your definition of tax credit, I'll show you the stupidity of your business deduction plan.

This guy claims he has a company the has $420 million in revenues, and he doesn't even know what income is?

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[g5000]

Before trying to "fix" the national debt, we have to understand what is broken. How is the average American today hurt by our national debt ? Please be specific.

National debt is not like personal financial debt. Governments print money, debtors can't. Every advanced economy has a national debt, most are a bigger portion of GDP than ours is. Are they all wrong? Please explain.

Our national debt allows the government to borrow against future productivity to increase present productivity, without which future productivity is unlikely. It's like a college loan or a home mortgage. Are these bad things too? Help us understand.

The people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest.

Eventually, we will not be able to repay our debt.

And you need it explained to you why this is a bad thing?

Really?

 

[g5000]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

 

[bripat9643]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

Previously you claimed you wanted to lower marginal rates so banning tax expenditures were revenue neutral. I knew you were lying when you said, and now you just confirmed it.

The government doesn't need any additional tax revenues. The idea that we don't pay enough is ludicrous. The government needs to cut spending. In fact all it really has to do is stop spending increases. The taxpayers shouldn't even think of sending an additional dime to Washington.

 

[g5000]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

Previously you claimed you wanted to lower marginal rates so banning tax expenditures were revenue neutral. I knew you were lying when you said, and now you just confirmed it.

You need to read my post again, or else you are still ignorant how tax expenditures work.

Banning tax expenditures would increase revenues. It would actually provide about $800 billion surplus.

Rather than running that surplus, we could lower EVERYONE's tax rates. That's how you can tell your tax credits, deductions, and exemptions come at everyone else's expense. They are government gifts which other people have to pay for.

 

[bripat9643]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

Previously you claimed you wanted to lower marginal rates so banning tax expenditures were revenue neutral. I knew you were lying when you said, and now you just confirmed it.

You need to read my post again, or else you are still ignorant how tax expenditures work.

Banning tax expenditures would increase revenues. It would actually provide about $800 billion surplus.

Rather than running that surplus, we could lower EVERYONE's tax rates. That's how you can tell your tax credits, deductions, and exemptions come at everyone else's expense. They are government gifts which other people have to pay for.

Eliminating "tax expenditures" means increasing taxes. It's as simple as that. You said you would use the money to pay off the deficit. That's not lowering anyone's taxes. When did politicians ever use new revenue to lower the deficit? Never.

You're a tax and spend liberal. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[g5000]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

Previously you claimed you wanted to lower marginal rates so banning tax expenditures were revenue neutral. I knew you were lying when you said, and now you just confirmed it.

You need to read my post again, or else you are still ignorant how tax expenditures work.

Banning tax expenditures would increase revenues. It would actually provide about $800 billion surplus.

Rather than running that surplus, we could lower EVERYONE's tax rates. That's how you can tell your tax credits, deductions, and exemptions come at everyone else's expense. They are government gifts which other people have to pay for.

Eliminating "tax expenditures" means increasing taxes. It's as simple as that. You said you would use the money to pay off the deficit.

I said I would use it to pay off the DEBT (not the deficit) AND TO LOWER EVERYONE's TAX RATES.

Then, when the debt is paid off, we can LOWER EVERYONE'S TAX RATES EVEN MORE.

There, can you see that now, willfully blind monkey?

 

[WheelieAddict]

The answer should be tax increases for those that can afford them and spending cuts across the board. Of course this won't happen because both "sides" won't budge.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

WE dont. The government just has to go bankrupt. It is pretty clear they don't want to shrink the bearcracy and they are not interested in balancing the budget because BOTH parties have contributed to it. It is really hard to point out who is responsible for what when the deficit and debt increases under both parties. I'm tired of defending bad policies of XYZ party when they are doing something I don't agree with.

 

[Fishlore]

Before trying to "fix" the national debt, we have to understand what is broken. How is the average American today hurt by our national debt ? Please be specific.

National debt is not like personal financial debt. Governments print money, debtors can't. Every advanced economy has a national debt, most are a bigger portion of GDP than ours is. Are they all wrong? Please explain.

Our national debt allows the government to borrow against future productivity to increase present productivity, without which future productivity is unlikely. It's like a college loan or a home mortgage. Are these bad things too? Help us understand.

The people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest.

Eventually, we will not be able to repay our debt.

And you need it explained to you why this is a bad thing?

Really?

I'm afraid I still need an explanation. You continue to treat sovereign debt as consumer debt. This is false reasoning. You assert that "people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest." Actually, this isn't quite how it works.

Treasury bonds (the "paper" to which refer) are sold at auction, often at a price above or below the face value depending on several factors. This is because such bonds are used not as a way to make money of the interest -- the way your bank does with your credit card -- but as a hedge against future conditions. For this reason, the federal debt is not paid down or paid off but "rolled over" as holders of maturing securities use them to purchase new ones.

So, you see, thinking of sovereign debt as consumer debt is a fundamental fallacy. Most of sovereign debt is never repaid, the can is merely kicked down the road. It is having that can down the road that makes the foreign countries and Federal Reserve Banks, who buy almost all of that debt, happy to do so

Now that you have had it eplained to you why the national debt is a good thing, it may help you understand why all those folks who think it is a bad think can never explain their belief with anything more than a misleading analogy to private debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Before trying to "fix" the national debt, we have to understand what is broken. How is the average American today hurt by our national debt ? Please be specific.

National debt is not like personal financial debt. Governments print money, debtors can't. Every advanced economy has a national debt, most are a bigger portion of GDP than ours is. Are they all wrong? Please explain.

Our national debt allows the government to borrow against future productivity to increase present productivity, without which future productivity is unlikely. It's like a college loan or a home mortgage. Are these bad things too? Help us understand.

The people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest.

Eventually, we will not be able to repay our debt.

And you need it explained to you why this is a bad thing?

Really?

I'm afraid I still need an explanation. You continue to treat sovereign debt as consumer debt. This is false reasoning. You assert that "people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest." Actually, this isn't quite how it works.

Treasury bonds (the "paper" to which refer) are sold at auction, often at a price above or below the face value depending on several factors. This is because such bonds are used not as a way to make money of the interest -- the way your bank does with your credit card -- but as a hedge against future conditions. For this reason, the federal debt is not paid down or paid off but "rolled over" as holders of maturing securities use them to purchase new ones.

So, you see, thinking of sovereign debt as consumer debt is a fundamental fallacy. Most of sovereign debt is never repaid, the can is merely kicked down the road. It is having that can down the road that makes the foreign countries and Federal Reserve Banks, who buy almost all of that debt, happy to do so

Now that you have had it eplained to you why the national debt is a good thing, it may help you understand why all those folks who think it is a bad think can never explain their belief with anything more than a misleading analogy to private debt.

You assert that "people who hold the paper on our debt expect to be repaid, with interest." Actually, this isn't quite how it works.

That's weird, I expect to be repaid, with interest, on all the debt I hold.
You have a list of people who don't expect to be repaid? Could you post it?

This is because such bonds are used not as a way to make money of the interest -- the way your bank does with your credit card -- but as a hedge against future conditions.

That hedge only works if the debt is repaid, with interest.

For this reason, the federal debt is not paid down or paid off but "rolled over" as holders of maturing securities use them to purchase new ones.

Some roll over, some don't. So what?

It is having that can down the road that makes the foreign countries and Federal Reserve Banks, who buy almost all of that debt

That's an interesting claim. Can you prove it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

1: Consistently elect liberals to a majority in Congress, and to the White house.
2: Let them spend as much as they want
3: Eventually, the crushing debt will collapse the government, the economy, society, and the world as we know it.
4: Pick up the pieces and use these liberals, their actions and the results of same as a warning of what NOT to do.

 

[OnePercenter]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

No. You implement my $23.50/hr plan raising wages and placing billions per week back into the economy.

 

[9aces]

We fix the debt very easily. We ban all tax expenditures, thus creating about $800 billion in surplus revenues every year.

Then the hard part. How do we spend all that extra cash?

I suggest using some to lower EVERYONE's tax rates, and the rest to pay down the debt. Then, once the debt is paid off, we lower EVERYONE's tax rates even more.

See how easy that is?

No. You implement my $23.50/hr plan raising wages and placing billions per week back into the economy.

And you dramatically increase the costs everyone pays for things, forcing the federal government to redefine what poverty is, and have yet another massive increase in federal social spending because people's buying power decreases.

Yeah....let's do something that fisking stupid.