Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

no_hypocrisy

(45,795 posts)
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 06:01 AM Sep 2017

A tax cut when the Federal Debt is more than $20 trillion?

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedstates

The interest is $8,111 per second. Each of us owes $62,237.

We're not even keeping up on paying the interest.

What kind of cognitive dissonance -- or mendacity -- is at play here?

Tax cuts (permanent or temporary) would be removing revenue for existing and future budgets as well as paying down the debt.

Even if tax cuts are "balanced" by raising taxes on other than the rich, it's still a loss of revenue.

We have empirical evidence from the Shrub and Reagan years that when you cut the taxes of corporations and rich individuals, that extra money is NOT re-invested into the economy. The money is used to buy other corporations, buy back the corporation's own stock, put offshore in bank accounts, etc. for the most part. So much for the promise that tax cuts will boost revenue. It won't. And the projected new tax revenue won't appear as there is no growth in business with the tax cuts. (You see how circular this is?)

And how about the Debt? Interest rates are projected to rise above 3 percent in 2018, according to the Office of the Management and Budget. They are expected to increase to nearly 4 percent by 2020. By then, the interest on the debt will almost double, to $474 billion. It will consume almost 9.7 percent of the budget. By 2026, the interest on the debt will be $787 billion, and take up 12.2 percent of the budget. 

That means the government will spend more on interest than on national defense by 2021. The following year, it will surpass all other discretionary spending. That's everything except the mandatory budget, which includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. (Source: "The Legacy of Debt," The Wall Street Journal, February 5, 2016.)


https://www.thebalance.com/interest-on-the-national-debt-4119024 

The numbers I initially gave for the Federal Debt are based on the interest charged today (6.7% of the Federal Budget). That interest rate will double in 9 years with the Fed raising interest rates. And the Debt will of course keep rising as well.

And we're talking about TAX CUTS ??!!
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A tax cut when the Federal Debt is more than $20 trillion? (Original Post) no_hypocrisy Sep 2017 OP
The discussion by redumbliCONs on tax cuts really shows how fiscally irresponsible democratisphere Sep 2017 #1
RepubliCONs are the Borrow-and-Spend party. They are shysters who lie about revenue & deficits. nt Bernardo de La Paz Sep 2017 #10
Bankruptcy is the Dotard's specialty. peacebuzzard Sep 2017 #2
Sorry. I fixed the link. Try it now. no_hypocrisy Sep 2017 #4
The deficit only matters when a Dem is in the WH Freddie Sep 2017 #3
Of course the cuts will increase the debt canuckledragger Sep 2017 #5
We just had three very expensive and devistating hurricanes which will add considerably Dustlawyer Sep 2017 #6
They'll just blame it on immigrants and poor people IronLionZion Sep 2017 #7
Fiscal conservative? Soxfan58 Sep 2017 #8
Trump was elected mgardener Sep 2017 #9
If Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution PatrickforO Sep 2017 #11
Please refrain from using "shyster." ehrnst Sep 2017 #13
Sorry. You know, most people must have me on 'ignore' because PatrickforO Sep 2017 #17
I looked up the origin of the slang term: PatrickforO Sep 2017 #18
Another source ehrnst Sep 2017 #21
I gotta say this list is pretty...exhaustive. PatrickforO Sep 2017 #22
I can see why people, as you say, stop reading your posts. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2017 #23
Just being genuine. PatrickforO Sep 2017 #24
it's all about donald's income. spanone Sep 2017 #12
Fiscal Conservative. HughBeaumont Sep 2017 #14
Given history, you guys are screwed. arthritisR_US Sep 2017 #27
The 20 Trillion debt is mostly because of Bush. Joe941 Sep 2017 #15
Especially since he inherited a surplus TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #26
The budget deficit is the immediate concern. Orsino Sep 2017 #16
Driving us further into debt .. ananda Sep 2017 #19
The classic bait and switch. jalan48 Sep 2017 #20
Drive us to the brink and sell..... California_Republic Sep 2017 #25
They are dancing on a vulcano. Turbineguy Sep 2017 #28

democratisphere

(17,235 posts)
1. The discussion by redumbliCONs on tax cuts really shows how fiscally irresponsible
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 06:14 AM
Sep 2017

these buffoons really are. We have been down this yellow brick road before with disastrous consequences. They need to be stopped before they take our current really bad situation and push it over the cliff. redumbliCONs need to stop serving their donor masters that have destroyed this country.

canuckledragger

(1,632 posts)
5. Of course the cuts will increase the debt
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 06:37 AM
Sep 2017

It's by republican design.

How else can they justify destroying the institutions they hate unless they gut the funding and plead poverty?

It's why they blow up the debt massively whenever they seize power.

Dustlawyer

(10,493 posts)
6. We just had three very expensive and devistating hurricanes which will add considerably
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 07:13 AM
Sep 2017

more to the deficit and they talk of tax cuts as if they are unrelated to expenditures. That shows how corrupt and bought off they all are!

We must fight for real campaign finance reform NOW!!! We no longer have Representative Democracy, the Republicans and some Democrats represent Donors, not us, this MUST CHANGE!!!

IronLionZion

(45,275 posts)
7. They'll just blame it on immigrants and poor people
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 07:14 AM
Sep 2017

and cut services down to the bone and keep on cutting. Normal people will suffer more while the rich get tax cuts. Don't worry though, it will trickle down all over us eventually if we weren't so ungrateful.

No pain, no pain!

PatrickforO

(14,520 posts)
11. If Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 08:41 AM
Sep 2017

gives Congress the power to coin money, and the 'national debt' is money we owe to ourselves,' then WHY ARE WE PAYING IT BACK WITH INTEREST TO BANKERS? Or maybe more precisely, why is the vehicle used to 'borrow' money a bond? (T-Bills).

Seems like that's a shyster system whereby the few get rich at the expense of the many.

I mean, think about it. I work and I pay a lot of taxes, but I don't get to say where my taxes go, so they get spent on useless shit that doesn't benefit me at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a strong military and all that. But I am saying that cutting taxes and then 'borrowing' the shortfall by issuing T-bills whereby we taxpayers have to pay back mostly foreign interests who buy the T-bills is a really bad policy over the long term.

Don't you think?

These Republicans are snake oil people, because they are saying tax cuts trickle down through more job creation and more job creation creates more revenue because more people are paying in just doesn't make sense. It has never worked. One of the few things Reagan got right is that he called it 'voodoo economics.'

But the money supply system we have now? It's STRANGULATION ECONOMICS. Because we're letting 'investors' strangle our government that we pay taxes into in return for services that make our lives better.

Just saying...it is a house of cards.

PatrickforO

(14,520 posts)
17. Sorry. You know, most people must have me on 'ignore' because
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 01:38 PM
Sep 2017

some of what I think are my best posts

GET


NO


ATTENTION


WHATSOEVER

So, I'm delighted you at least read it. Thank you.

PatrickforO

(14,520 posts)
18. I looked up the origin of the slang term:
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 01:51 PM
Sep 2017

"Shyster" Source: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-shy1.htm

Q From Annie Grieshop; a related question came from Morandir Armson: In a recent online discussion about singing masters and hymn-book salesmen of the 19th century, the word shyster was used to describe certain members of that fraternity. Someone objected to the term as anti-Semitic. And now, of course, all sorts of opinions and etymologies are popping up. Would you be so kind as to clarify the term’s history for us?

A The supposed anti-Semitic origin links the word to the name of the vengeful money lender Shylock in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, with the occupational ending -ster added. This is untrue.

It is also often claimed to come from the name of a New York lawyer named Scheuster; in the 1840s, his unscrupulous ways are said to have so annoyed Barnabas Osborn, the judge who presided over the Essex Market police court in that city, that he supposedly began to refer to Sheuster practices. No such lawyer has been traced and it’s clearly just a folk tale. Unsuccessful attempts have also been made to link it to a Scots Gaelic word and to bits of English slang.

Whatever its origin, we use shyster to mean a person who uses unscrupulous, fraudulent, or deceptive methods in business. Historically, it has mainly been applied to lawyers. There’s good reason for that, as Gerald Cohen discovered when he traced its true origin some 25 ago. Professor Cohen found that shyster appeared first in the New York newspaper The Subterranean in July 1843, at first in spellings such as shyseter and shiseter but almost immediately settling down to the form we use now.

The background is the notorious New York prison known as the Tombs. In the 1840s it was infested by ignorant and unqualified charlatans, who pretended to be lawyers and officers of the court. Before shyster came into being, pettifogger was the usual term for them, a word of obscure origin for lawyers of little scruple or conscience that dates from the sixteenth century. Mike Walsh, the editor of The Subterranean and the first user of shyster, summed up these plaguers of the Tombs in this passage:

"Ignorant blackguards, illiterate blockheads, besotted drunkards, drivelling simpletons, ci-devant mountebanks, vagabonds, swindlers and thieves make up, with but few exceptions, the disgraceful gang of pettifoggers who swarm about its halls."

Mike Walsh described shyster as both obscene and libellous. The circumstances surrounding its first appearance suggest that in New York underworld slang it was a term for somebody incompetent, so a potentially libellous description, and that only later — largely through the publicity that Walsh gave it in his newspaper in the years 1843-1846 — did it come to refer specifically to a crooked lawyer.

Professor Cohen concluded the word derives from German Scheisser for an incompetent person, a term known in New York through the many German immigrants there. Mike Walsh considered it obscene because it derives from Scheisse, shit, through the image of an incontinent old man. This is plausible, because British slang at the same period included the same word, meaning a worthless person; the usual spelling was shicer, though it appeared also as sheisser, shiser and shycer. It’s recorded first in print in Britain in 1846, but must be significantly older in the spoken language. (It was taken to Australia and from the 1850s was used there for an unproductive gold mine.) It may have been exported to New York by London low-lifers.

But, alas, no Jewish people. So I won't use the word again, but these connotations may be in your mind.

PatrickforO

(14,520 posts)
22. I gotta say this list is pretty...exhaustive.
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 02:32 PM
Sep 2017

I'm chuckling now because AMF is a bowling alley. Dial really is a soap. Firewood is what I buy for my patio fireplace. We bake gingerbread men with my little granddaughter. Etc.

While I hear this concern, and will doubtless get punished in some way for having the temerity to argue with you, if we keep going down this pathway, we won't have any words left to use.

Consider the term 'thug.' It is now politically correct to not use it because some people claim it is a pejorative term for black gangsters. However, that isn't how I was raised. My grandfather was a union organizer during the 20s and 30s. When he went down to Southern Colorado during the bloody miner's strike, and when we talked about that violence, he always referred to the private for-profit 'police' hired by management as 'Pinkerton thugs.' And, according to all accounts of labor history I've read, management DID hire thugs to go in swinging truncheons and even shoot into crowds of honest workers just trying to get better wages and working conditions.

Then, my parents were WWII generation people. My mom was a 'rosie the riveter' who worked for National Biscuit company during the war, and Dad was in the US Army. Whenever they talked about Hitler, his criminal henchmen (and women) and the Nazi brownshirts, they always used the words, "Nazi thugs."

I made several posts around the Charlottesville violence that referred to 'nazi thugs.' No one said anything.

So there it is. As I say, I will not use the 's' word again, but if we go down this path where we are so sensitive that we forbid ourselves a significant portion of the word options in this wonderful, poetic language, then we are the worse for it. On the other side, Republicans know that words matter, too. They use lots of dog whistles. We know what those are. They also mis-name things. Anti-abortion people become 'pro-life,' because, hey, EVERYONE is pro-life! They call healthcare 'socialism' or 'government controlled health care' while we call it 'single payer.' Fortunately, Bernie has been starting to say 'Medicare for all Americans,' which polls better.

But think of it. We are the 'good guys,' but we are allowing Republicans to use our precious words to frame the debate in ways that, in effect, lie to the American people, and we ourselves are allowing our own political correctness to further diminish our vocabularies. And it can go to extremes, too. I can remember years ago I spoke before a group of people at a community college, and I was telling the story of how I got my job...long story short, I mentioned my wife and a friend of hers, whose husband got me on to where I was working at the time, as 'girls.'

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'd have though I had uttered the 'n' word, which I would never, ever do, but the fecal material hit the fan blades for sure. This one lady said she was 'offended' and 'hurt' by that, and the point I was making was gone, gone, gone, gone in bullshit. Which is why I facetiously replied thanking you for even reading my post.

During this whole back and forth, NO ONE has said a word concerning the actual merits of what I'm saying in terms of money-supply and fiscal economic policy. Think of that for a minute. Because my question is a very good one and still stands: if the national debt is money we owe to ourselves, then why are we paying it back to 'investors' and bankers with interest? We are being strangled by the very way we run our monetary and fiscal ship.

No offense or anything, just pointing this stuff out.

 

Joe941

(2,848 posts)
15. The 20 Trillion debt is mostly because of Bush.
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 09:09 AM
Sep 2017

While its true 10 trillion of the 20 happened under Obama that its only because Bush was so irresponsible and the wars he got us into.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,049 posts)
26. Especially since he inherited a surplus
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 11:21 PM
Sep 2017

Supporting tax cuts while fighting 2 wars isn't conservative. It's wreckless. Even my Republican boss at the time agreed with me.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
16. The budget deficit is the immediate concern.
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 09:15 AM
Sep 2017

We need more revenues, not less. We need the government to be able to do more, not less.

ananda

(28,784 posts)
19. Driving us further into debt ..
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 01:52 PM
Sep 2017

.. will be the excuse to cut all entitlement
and social programs.

Most of the rich won't care.

California_Republic

(1,826 posts)
25. Drive us to the brink and sell.....
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 11:00 PM
Sep 2017

An sell our assets.

This is my belief, at the brink they will convince us all to sell Yosemite and everything else to the rich people and they will be living in our parks. And They Will build their luxury houses on our beaches pick up Land for fraction of its value


We be told it needs to be done the balance the budget

Turbineguy

(37,218 posts)
28. They are dancing on a vulcano.
Fri Sep 29, 2017, 11:58 PM
Sep 2017

I've often wondered if there were aristo's in France who saw what was coming their way.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A tax cut when the Federa...