How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Just throwing this out there to those who like to talk money and national debt and future credit spending:


With the world on edge over Chinese and Russian aggression, should we cut more, yes I said more, military spending?


House passes $768bn National Defense bill to tackle Russia and China: Authorizes new fighter jets, warships and submarines


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rom%20%251%24s

In May, the Pentagon requested 12 F-15EX fighter jets, but the bill passed on Tuesday provided funding to allow for the purchase of 17 planes.

Congress put funding for 12 Boeing-made F/A-18E/F Super Hornets into the bill, after the Pentagon requested zero.

Breaking a trend, the bill did not increase funding for the number of F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin.

The bill funds the procurement of 13 battle force ships including two Virginia-class submarines made by Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics, and three DDG 51 Arleigh Burke destroyers also made by General Dynamics.

. . . and a dead owl in an old tree.

Military Spending Should Get the Exact Same Scrutiny That the Build Back Better Bill Gets


https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...ture-spending/

You may remember we exited the ground-war quagmire in Afghanistan this year, and yet we're set to spend more on the military next year than we did in 2021. And again, this is treated like a foregone conclusion in the news media and throughout the ranks of our two major political parties.


There are also some tax cuts involved, including some, in the House version, that would primarily benefit the rich in blue states. Bernie Sanders and some other Senate Democrats are trying to address this before the bill comes to a vote in that chamber.

Esquire. Right.

Tax the billionaires. Or maybe enforce the laws already on the books.

According to Tiny and Lustylad...we should either raise the SS/Medicare tax or cut those benefits so that we can spend MORE on military spending without lustylad realizing how we are doing so. I did not include Tiny in the realization because I think he is coming around to why they have been cooking the books for decades

https://tucson.com/business/national...ed9bb3567.html

By pulling off this bookkeeping maneuver, by adding the Social Security funds to the government’s overall ledgers, LBJ was able to disguise the growing deficit caused primarily by all the spending for the Vietnam War. Originally Posted by WTF

According to Tiny and Lustylad...we should either raise the SS/Medicare tax or cut those benefits so that we can spend MORE on military spending without lustylad realizing how we are doing so. I did not include Tiny in the realization because I think he is coming around to why they have been cooking the books for decades Originally Posted by WTF

After trying to understand what the fuck is going on, this was my takeaway:

Financial Infidelity


https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f...infidelity.asp

Money is a sensitive topic and can even be so amongst two individuals that are close. If both partners are not on the same page about money, financial issues can often lead to the couple splitting up or being extremely unhappy in the relationship.

For example, if one partner works hard to save money to buy a house while the other partner is spending hundreds of dollars a week on clothes, this can lead to significant tension. It's important to always be on the same page about your financial situation, especially when working towards a goal, such as buying a house.

Lustylad and now Tiny are wanting to spend while we true fiscal conserative are pulling the curtain off Oz and exposing supply side economics for what it is. Voodoo Economics as PresidentBush correctlycalled it!

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v...oeconomics.asp


In the years that followed, some of Bush Sr.’s earlier criticisms of Reaganomics were validated. President Reagan’s policies contributed to a near doubling of national debt, in part due to his commitment to increase military spending to fight communism.

The expectation that decreased taxes on the wealthy and businesses would result in increased spending on their part for goods, services and payment of salaries also failed to materialize. Moreover, President Reagan’s relaxed regulation contributed to the Savings and Loan Crisis and, by the early 1990s, the U.S. economy fell back into recession.

Lustylad and now Tiny are wanting to spend while we true fiscal conserative are pulling the curtain off Oz and exposing supply side economics for what it is. Voodoo Economics as PresidentBush correctlycalled it!

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v...oeconomics.asp


In the years that followed, some of Bush Sr.’s earlier criticisms of Reaganomics were validated. President Reagan’s policies contributed to a near doubling of national debt, in part due to his commitment to increase military spending to fight communism.

The expectation that decreased taxes on the wealthy and businesses would result in increased spending on their part for goods, services and payment of salaries also failed to materialize. Moreover, President Reagan’s relaxed regulation contributed to the Savings and Loan Crisis and, by the early 1990s, the U.S. economy fell back into recession. Originally Posted by WTF

Thank you, thank you THANK YOU for this lead up:


I don't hate you, or anyone, on their fiscal policy. But I loathe Reagan for his social policy. Sir!

Military Spending Should Get the Exact Same Scrutiny That the Build Back Better Bill Gets


https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...ture-spending/ Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I agree, 100%.

Tax the billionaires. Or maybe enforce the laws already on the books. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The billionaires right now who live in Texas have a marginal tax rate of 40.8%. For Californians it's 54.1%. If the Build Back Better (BBB) bill that passed the House goes into effect, the rates for Texas and California will be 48.8% and 62.1%. That's too high. I'd proposed a third option. Close the loopholes. Don't add more.

The BBB bill is an example. It provides favors for special interests who support the Democratic Party. It doesn't do jack to end the carried interest treatment of fees receive by private equity fund managers. It gives special treatment to plaintiffs lawyers in how they're able to deduct costs for cases they take on a contingency basis. Greenies get an extra $4500 tax credit for electric vehicles, but only the ones manufactured with union labor. And then there are the proposals to raise or eliminate the SALT cap, to benefit blue state voters. That's not to say that the Republicans aren't guilty too. They are.

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

There are countries that provide universal health care with better outcomes than we have here in the USA, while spending less as a % of GDP than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care, and Obamacare alone. If we had a way to do what they're doing I'd be all for it. Also yes, homelessness is an issue that should be dealt with. The problem however is that the federal government and politicians like Sanders fuck up everything they touch. The solutions should come from city, county and state governments, the private sector and charities.

Thank you, thank you THANK YOU for this lead up:

I don't hate you, or anyone, on their fiscal policy. But I loathe Reagan for his social policy. Sir! Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The argument is over the shape of the curve, not the principle. There is a rate that maximizes government revenues. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Commission on Taxation believe a capital gains tax rate of around 28% maximizes revenues. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, advisors to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, believe a tax rate of around 75% maximizes revenues from taxes on ordinary income. They're full of shit btw, the level is lower.

My problem with setting tax rates at revenue maximizing levels is that it treats taxpayers like cattle or slaves. They're here to be milked for the benefit of the government. The government is more important than the people. That's just not right. And considering how wasteful the federal government is, it's just stupid to design tax policy around that.

According to Tiny and Lustylad...we should either raise the SS/Medicare tax or cut those benefits so that we can spend MORE on military spending without lustylad realizing how we are doing so. I did not include Tiny in the realization because I think he is coming around to why they have been cooking the books for decades Originally Posted by WTF

HAHAHAHAHA! Have you been taking lessons from Trump in how to alter people's perception of reality? That's ass backwards, the exact opposite of the truth. LustyLad said nothing about social security or Medicare. My only comment was that government securities held by social security trust funds are not included in public debt.

The truth is I agree, given the realities in America, the tax will have to be raised and/or benefits will have to be cut. I'd prefer transitioning to a system like what Singapore, Australia and Chile have, where people have their own retirement accounts, but that's not going to happen. I believe George W. Bush tried to get something like that off the ground but the geniuses in Congress made short shrift of the idea.

I agree, 100%.




The billionaires right now who live in Texas have a marginal tax rate of 40.8%. For Californians it's 54.1%. If the Build Back Better (BBB) bill that passed the House goes into effect, the rates for Texas and California will be 48.8% and 62.1%. That's too high. I'd proposed a third option. Close the loopholes. Don't add more.

The BBB bill is an example. It provides favors for special interests who support the Democratic Party. It doesn't do jack to end the carried interest treatment of fees receive by private equity fund managers. It gives special treatment to plaintiffs lawyers in how they're able to deduct costs for cases they take on a contingency basis. Greenies get an extra $4500 tax credit for electric vehicles, but only the ones manufactured with union labor. And then there are the proposals to raise or eliminate the SALT cap, to benefit blue state voters. That's not to say that the Republicans aren't guilty too. They are.




There are countries that provide universal health care with better outcomes than we have here in the USA, while spending less as a % of GDP than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health care, and Obamacare alone. If we had a way to do what they're doing I'd be all for it. Also yes, homelessness is an issue that should be dealt with. The problem however is that the federal government and politicians like Sanders fuck up everything they touch. The solutions should come from city, county and state governments, the private sector and charities. Originally Posted by Tiny

The argument is over the shape of the curve, not the principle. There is a rate that maximizes government revenues. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Commission on Taxation believe a capital gains tax rate of around 28% maximizes revenues. Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, advisors to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, believe a tax rate of around 75% maximizes revenues from taxes on ordinary income. They're full of shit btw, the level is lower.

My problem with setting tax rates at revenue maximizing levels is that it treats taxpayers like cattle or slaves. They're here to be milked for the benefit of the government. The government is more important than the people. That's just not right. And considering how wasteful the federal government is, it's just stupid to design tax policy around that. Originally Posted by Tiny

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the point of diminishing returns? Tax returns. Is that a dumb question? (I'm day drinking.)

Chiquito,

Well established here that I'm a light weight when it comes to this topic. Money. Come at me with ethics.

This is a Hell of a fucking thread. I'm just waiting until December 31st to bump your other masterful thread. I just add a little flavor here and there here.

Your ignorance on the oil industry is showing. I suppose next you'll try and convince me the Rooster is the reason for Sunrise?

Do you understand all the infrastructure it took to get that oil to market? The length of time it took to build that infrastructure?

Do you have a clue the money invested (and lost) that the flooding of the market caused? How long do you think that could have gone on?
Covid put an abrupt end to the inevitable. There is so much more but giving credit to Trump is like giving credit to a QB and ignoring all the other factors involved such as drafting, the offense line, Defense. injuries, coaching.

It is just ignorant AF to make statements such as yours. To be fair, you're not the only one believing such malarkey. Maybe I should forgive you because of your background Originally Posted by WTF

Yes maybe Salty's background, as an Australian, is the reason why he doesn't understand why Democratic politicians want to kill jobs, businesses and exports derived from our fossil fuels industries, in ways that won't make a significant dent in worldwide emissions of carbon.

In Australia, the national government has encouraged oil and gas production on government lands, as well as exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal. Australia is the number one exporter in the world of high quality coal, and it's got to be up there pretty high for LNG too. Want to build a pipeline from East Timor to Northern Australia to process and liquefy natural gas? Not a problem. The Australians are not trying to reduce carbon emissions by reducing Australian exports of coal and natural gas, which would be displaced anyway by exports from the USA, South Africa, Qatar, Indonesia, etc. Instead they put limits on coal burning power plants.

Compare to policies proposed by Democrats. Warren, Sanders and other Democratic candidates for president in 2016 want to ban fracking immediately. This would reduce our oil and gas production greatly and we'd have no LNG exports because every molecule would be needed here in the USA.

Biden campaigned on banning drilling and leasing on federal lands and the federal offshore. He might have actually implemented that if not for challenges in the courts.

Biden nixed the Keystone Pipeline. So now perhaps Canadians will pursue exports of their oil to Asia, instead of sending the oil that would have flowed through Keystone to our refineries.

And finally Senate Democrats until they ran up against a brick wall with Manchin wanted to implement a carbon tax that would be imposed not on consumers and power companies, but rather at the gas processing plants and coal mines. What would be the effect of this? To shut off all our LNG and coal exports. The U.S. exports would be displaced by exports from other countries, and there would be no effect on carbon emissions. Just an effect on our jobs and producers and trade balance.

I can understand why Salty is confused.

This is a Hell of a fucking thread. I'm just waiting until December 31st to bump your other masterful thread. I just add a little flavor here and there here. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I presume you're referring to the COVID death guess game. You're going to be the winner, undoubtedly. I think we may have to give adavas28 honorable mention, because if you use excess death estimates instead of the official death count, he might have won. Who would have thought that? We were all making fun of him.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the point of diminishing returns? Tax returns. Is that a dumb question? (I'm day drinking.) Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I agree, it doesn't make sense. I'd like for all to pay a fair rate. And we should all agree that tax rates shouldn't be set at a level so high that it would reduce revenues.

I presume you're referring to the COVID death guess game. You're going to be the winner, undoubtedly. I think we may have to give adavas28 honorable mention, because if you use excess death estimates instead of the official death count, he might have won. Who would have thought that? We were all making fun of him. Originally Posted by Tiny

Yes, that's exactly what I was alluding to. I had already given adavas28 the win upon your estimation on a previous post. I was proud, so to speak, to come in second. I'll definitely take the win on this "won", as sad as it may seem.

My calculation was a stupid one. But it worked.

Your clairvoyance is worthy of extreme commendation. Sir!


clairvoyant

a person who claims to speak with or for the spirits of the dead

Yes maybe Salty's background, as an Australian, is the reason why he doesn't understand why Democratic politicians want to kill jobs, businesses and exports derived from our fossil fuels industries, in ways that won't make a significant dent in worldwide emissions of carbon.

In Australia, the national government has encouraged oil and gas production on government lands, as well as exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal. Australia is the number one exporter in the world of high quality coal, and it's got to be up there pretty high for LNG too. Want to build a pipeline from East Timor to Northern Australia to process and liquefy natural gas? Not a problem. The Australians are not trying to reduce carbon emissions by reducing Australian exports of coal and natural gas, which would be displaced anyway by exports from the USA, South Africa, Qatar, Indonesia, etc. Instead they put limits on coal burning power plants.

Compare to policies proposed by Democrats. Warren, Sanders and other Democratic candidates for president in 2016 want to ban fracking immediately. This would reduce our oil and gas production greatly and we'd have no LNG exports because every molecule would be needed here in the USA.

Biden campaigned on banning drilling and leasing on federal lands and the federal offshore. He might have actually implemented that if not for challenges in the courts.

Biden nixed the Keystone Pipeline. So now perhaps Canadians will pursue exports of their oil to Asia, instead of sending the oil that would have flowed through Keystone to our refineries.

And finally Senate Democrats until they ran up against a brick wall with Manchin wanted to implement a carbon tax that would be imposed not on consumers and power companies, but rather at the gas processing plants and coal mines. What would be the effect of this? To shut off all our LNG and coal exports. The U.S. exports would be displaced by exports from other countries, and there would be no effect on carbon emissions. Just an effect on our jobs and producers and trade balance.

I can understand why Salty is confused. Originally Posted by Tiny

Sounds like you're confused.

There is a huge difference from what a candidate promised and reality.

Trump promised to pay off our debt!

Biden promises to be carbon neutral
Don't make investment choices on idiotic pie in the sky promises.

The reality is importing Canadian oil does not help our trade balance. One might argue it does the opposite Plus we can still get it here by rail. Which will please Warren Buffet

And drilling is now being guided by sound lending principles....have you looked at the monetary loss wall street recieved with that drill baby drill mantra? That was not sustainable.

But yes...I agree. Salty does not know shit about the history or economics of the oil industry

I agree, it doesn't make sense. I'd like for all to pay a fair rate. And we should all agree that tax rates shouldn't be set at a level that would reduce revenues. Originally Posted by Tiny

As much as I think Laffer semi nutty with this supply side crap....his curve actually is prudent.

It basically says the optimum rate is fluid depending in economic conditions. Keynesian like in that you raise the rates as times are good and lower them in bad time but that going to far in either direction is not the way to optimize tax revenue.