The National Debt

[Andy]

I think it will run into some problems with support, but you have basically a big tax cut (in the form of deductions and write-offs) for conservatives, and you have the idea of paying down the debt for the Democrats. I think it would take a lot of explaining, but it could pick up traction among both parties.

Remember, with democrats, everything is about political power. Democrats do not care about the national debt. They claim they do, they say they do, but in reality, democrats don't give a crap about the national debt. They only care about political points, and a foot ball to kick around at their opponents.

Thus, ultimately, they would rather have the debt to use as a stick to beat republicans with, rather than fix the problem. And they would rather use your plan as a stick to beat on republicans as being "for the rich".

Everyone who buys into the plan would get the same rate of deductions. It does not favor anyone, it would be a voluntary program that gives the same rate of return on your investment regardless of size. It does not support "rich" any more than "poor."

Doesn't matter to socialists. I got a much larger percentage reduction in my tax rate, than any rich guy from Bush's tax cuts. Yet they claimed that all the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 5%. I guess my $19K income makes me the upper class.

No one will require them to participate in the plan. These same low income people regardless of reason would not be paying much in to begin with, so their voluntary exclusion would not mean much I think, they simply miss out on the rewards.

Again, the rheteric of the left, said that the lower class didn't benefit from Bush's tax cut. Yet the research showed the reason they didn't benefit is because they didn't pay any taxes to begin with. That hasn't stopped the left from advocating against the tax cuts, and even a plan to repeal the tax cut.

I do not think they will be able to do so. The plan would be voluntary, if a lower income person chooses not to be involved, it is not an upper class person's fault. I also think that tangible reductions in the debt would make a strong case among Democrats that the plan should be left in place.

You and I know this... the stupid ignorant left does not. Just read through Shaman, and Sih posts.

I agree that spending needs to be curtailed. I also agree that it will most likely not be curtailed by either party. That said, the plan will benefit conservatives through tax deductions and write-offs, and for the average investor they can see that their "investment" will get them a 20-30-40-50% return (depending on the agreed upon rate) and it is a no-brainer to get in the program.

The problem here is, the American public is not united on cutting spending. We have many people who live off the public dole, and couldn't care less if the rest of the country is flushed down the drain, as long as they get their government checks. The politicians know this.

Remember Obama's chruch of hate with people showing signs saying "G-d d-mn America"? Do you think people like this give a crap about anything but collecting their government checks?

With Democrats, they will be happy because the debt is being paid down. It will give the large write-offs (basically tax cuts) a chance to work, which will raise tax revenue. Democrats can spend the additional revenue if they would like, but at least it would be there, and the debt would be a bit reduced.

You give democrats more credit than I do. I don't think they care a wit about the debt. It's only useful to them as a political stick to beat opponents with. This is why you don't hear jack about the growing debt during the Clinton years. Or during the Carter years. Or during LBJ, or FDR. Instead you hear about all the wonderful programs they enacted. Then as soon as a republican get in, doesn't matter if they made the EPA, or any other program, it's all about the debt.

I agree, but as stated above, at least the money will be there, and the debt will be lower, all while giving conservatives the basic option of paying for a large tax write off.

What happens if they pay the lump sum, and then democrats repeal the tax break?

Well, this might be the best plan, but it is also the least practical.

I used to think that too, but former communist countries have done basically this, without needing to follow a constitution. Why we only learn the worst economic choices from these countries, and not the best, I don't know.

 

[Andy]

I know you would rather post youtube videos than work to hash out a real solution, but please, do it on another thread.

Your opinions on the actual plan set out are more than welcome, if you do not have one on it, please do not comment in this thread.

But see, Shaman accurately represents his leadership. They are not interested in actually fixing a problem, than they are in having a political football to kick around. The debt is far to useful in justifying their acquisition to power.

 

[BigRob]

Remember, with democrats, everything is about political power. Democrats do not care about the national debt. They claim they do, they say they do, but in reality, democrats don't give a crap about the national debt. They only care about political points, and a foot ball to kick around at their opponents.

I am willing to bet that there are some Democrats who fundamentally want to make this country better. They simply have a different viewpoint on the whole process. I think especially a group like the BlueDog Democrats would be a good place to take this plan first, after getting Republicans on board.

Thus, ultimately, they would rather have the debt to use as a stick to beat republicans with, rather than fix the problem. And they would rather use your plan as a stick to beat on republicans as being "for the rich".

I agree that it can be a valuable political tool. It will be a problem, but I think it can be overcome. Of course I am sure it will get packed full of other garbage when trying to pass Congress, which will really hurt its practical implementation.

Doesn't matter to socialists. I got a much larger percentage reduction in my tax rate, than any rich guy from Bush's tax cuts. Yet they claimed that all the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 5%. I guess my $19K income makes me the upper class.

Yea the argument sadly turns into a who got more in terms of real dollars, which ignores the whole issue, since the upper class pay so much more in terms of real dollars.

Again, the rheteric of the left, said that the lower class didn't benefit from Bush's tax cut. Yet the research showed the reason they didn't benefit is because they didn't pay any taxes to begin with. That hasn't stopped the left from advocating against the tax cuts, and even a plan to repeal the tax cut.

Well, I think it can be sold as a middle class tax cut as well. The middle class can take advantage of this same as everyone else. I doubt many upper class people care what you call it as long as it does the same thing for them.

The problem here is, the American public is not united on cutting spending. We have many people who live off the public dole, and couldn't care less if the rest of the country is flushed down the drain, as long as they get their government checks. The politicians know this.

Remember Obama's chruch of hate with people showing signs saying "G-d d-mn America"? Do you think people like this give a crap about anything but collecting their government checks?

True, but how many of these people do we actually expect to participate? Business and middle to upper class people getting on board is the key, as that will generate the most revenue to pay down the debt, and at the same time will boost the economy.

You give democrats more credit than I do. I don't think they care a wit about the debt. It's only useful to them as a political stick to beat opponents with. This is why you don't hear jack about the growing debt during the Clinton years. Or during the Carter years. Or during LBJ, or FDR. Instead you hear about all the wonderful programs they enacted. Then as soon as a republican get in, doesn't matter if they made the EPA, or any other program, it's all about the debt.

This is true, but I think if Republicans are able to reframe the issue, it will force the Democrats hand to either make a stand on the debt one way or the other.

Pushing this plan as debt reduction will mean either A) Democrats get on board or B) Democrats do not get on board, thus giving Republicans a huge opportunity to take the lead on the debt issues.

What happens if they pay the lump sum, and then democrats repeal the tax break?

It would be set up as you pay your lump sum (25,000) and then you own a tax credit for whatever the percent determined would be. So say at certain levels they would own a tax credit worth 75,000. This cannot be repealed. Further, for business a market can be created in the private sector to trade these tax credits, and business can hedge with them.

I used to think that too, but former communist countries have done basically this, without needing to follow a constitution. Why we only learn the worst economic choices from these countries, and not the best, I don't know.

Most of those countries that I can think of off hand also underwent a revolution or some drastic change. I might be forgetting one sure, but the idea is to maintain the American way of life, while giving benefits to all involved.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But see, Shaman accurately represents his leadership.

.....And, Lil' Dumbya....hi$!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But see, Shaman accurately represents his leadership. The debt is far to useful in justifying their acquisition to power.

I'd say....it's time!!!

"Just listen to Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as he explained how the legal guardians of fair and honest play had made those principles go away. On September 26, he announced that “the last six months have made it abundantly clear that voluntary regulation does not work.” Now listen to how he enlarges on this somewhat lame statement. It seems to him on reflection that “voluntary regulation”

"...was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, because investment banks could opt in or out of supervision voluntarily. The fact that investment bank holding companies could withdraw from this voluntary supervision at their discretion diminished the perceived mandate of the program and weakened its effectiveness."

Yes, I think one might say that. Indeed, the “perceived mandate” of a parole program that allowed those enrolled in it to take off their ankle bracelets at any time they chose to leave the house might also have been open to the charge that it was self-contradictory and wired for its own self-destruction. But in banana-republicland, like Alice’s Wonderland, words tend to lose their meaning and to dissolve into the neutral, responsibility-free verbiage of a Cox."

 

[BigRob]

I'd say....it's time!!!

Yet again, nothing to add in terms of actual debate.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yet again, nothing to add in terms of actual debate.

Thats why people like him vote Democrat... Let someone else do all the thinking. They can then tell people like Shaman what to think, what talking points to use, who's to blame (Anyone but Democrats), and how America would be an Utopia if only it weren't for those waskly wepublicans always screwing things up.

I'm actually suprised Shaman hasn't begun advocating that those who don't agree be put into Political Re-Education Camps, or drug out into the street and shot... I guess we'll have to wait for an Obama administration before such "Progressive" actions are taken to quell dissent.

 

[BigRob]

After a little more tweaking here is the current form of the plan:

1) The national debt currently sits in excess of 10 trillion dollars.

2) Most people will tell you that this does need to be paid down, at least a portion of it.

Here is my tweaked solution:

- Offer every person and every business the ability to pay any amount up front in return for tax credits totaling a 50% return on the initial investment.

Example: I pay $1000 dollar up front and I receive a tax credit valued at $1500.

- To ensure that the government does not end up with a year of collecting $0 in tax revene the offer will be staggered to certain groups over a period of a few years.

2009: Income under 20,000
2010: Income under 40,000
2011: Income under 60,000
2012: Income under 100,000
2013: Income under 250,000
2014: All other incomes

- If people are thinking that they are unable to put up a lump sum to buy into this plan consider this. A market could be set up to sell these tax credits to businesses on the open market.

For example: I put $1000 dollars into the plan, and get a tax credit for $1500. I then turn around the next day and sell my tax credit to GE for $1400. I have immediately benefited with the payout, and GE immediately benefits by having a $1500 dollar tax credit purchased for $1400.

These can be bundled together for lower income groups to ensure they are sold.

- When the legislation is written, it must stipulate exactly that the money paid into the plan will immediately go to pay down the debt, and cannot be borrowed against for "other purposes."

- Given the current state of economic affairs, the following is what would occur. People would buy into the plan right away and sell their tax credits to companies right away. This puts money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, and at the same time simultaneously gives tax cuts to businesses.

Why Democrats will go for it:
- Lower income brackets will start the initial payoffs. Basically it gives direct benefits to lower income people.

- The debt will begin to be paid down.

Why Conservatives will go for it:
- Upon implementation, business will immediately get tax breaks due to the purchase of bundled tax credit from the lower brackets.

- This will stir economic growth as business get a tax cut, as well as people getting tax cuts as well, should they choose not to sell their tax credit.


Further:
- Given that historically lower tax rates have helped the economy and actually increased tax revenues, this plan should work on all counts.

- As tax revenues increase, Democrats can increase their spending (which is inevitable, or Republicans as well).

- So, in the current slowdown, offering people the ability to put more money in their pockets, which they will spend, and offering more tax credits to business seems to be an all around good solution.


Thoughts, comments, concerns?

 

[Andy]

After a little more tweaking here is the current form of the plan:

1) The national debt currently sits in excess of 10 trillion dollars.

2) Most people will tell you that this does need to be paid down, at least a portion of it.

Here is my tweaked solution:

- Offer every person and every business the ability to pay any amount up front in return for tax credits totaling a 50% return on the initial investment.

Example: I pay $1000 dollar up front and I receive a tax credit valued at $1500.

- To ensure that the government does not end up with a year of collecting $0 in tax revene the offer will be staggered to certain groups over a period of a few years.

2009: Income under 20,000
2010: Income under 40,000
2011: Income under 60,000
2012: Income under 100,000
2013: Income under 250,000
2014: All other incomes

- If people are thinking that they are unable to put up a lump sum to buy into this plan consider this. A market could be set up to sell these tax credits to businesses on the open market.

For example: I put $1000 dollars into the plan, and get a tax credit for $1500. I then turn around the next day and sell my tax credit to GE for $1400. I have immediately benefited with the payout, and GE immediately benefits by having a $1500 dollar tax credit purchased for $1400.

These can be bundled together for lower income groups to ensure they are sold.

- When the legislation is written, it must stipulate exactly that the money paid into the plan will immediately go to pay down the debt, and cannot be borrowed against for "other purposes."

- Given the current state of economic affairs, the following is what would occur. People would buy into the plan right away and sell their tax credits to companies right away. This puts money in the pockets of ordinary Americans, and at the same time simultaneously gives tax cuts to businesses.

Why Democrats will go for it:
- Lower income brackets will start the initial payoffs. Basically it gives direct benefits to lower income people.

- The debt will begin to be paid down.

Why Conservatives will go for it:
- Upon implementation, business will immediately get tax breaks due to the purchase of bundled tax credit from the lower brackets.

- This will stir economic growth as business get a tax cut, as well as people getting tax cuts as well, should they choose not to sell their tax credit.


Further:
- Given that historically lower tax rates have helped the economy and actually increased tax revenues, this plan should work on all counts.

- As tax revenues increase, Democrats can increase their spending (which is inevitable, or Republicans as well).

- So, in the current slowdown, offering people the ability to put more money in their pockets, which they will spend, and offering more tax credits to business seems to be an all around good solution.


Thoughts, comments, concerns?

You might be able to get businesses to buy it. I wager with income staggered brakes, it will get canceled later on.

 

[BigRob]

You might be able to get businesses to buy it. I wager with income staggered brakes, it will get canceled later on.

If it is working, I do not see how they can justify canceling it. The brackets can be rearranged, because the upper income ones would make the biggest impact I think.

 

[GenSeneca]

Rob, the tweaked plan has been greatly improved, Kudos.

I agree whole heartedly with Andy... Dems could care less about the debt - as long as THEY get to spend the money. Its only a big deal if they aren't in charge... I think they would be the toughest ones to get on board for such a proposal.

I like the tax credit market idea... its like Cap & Trade (Tax & Cripple) in reverse.

You are right, this plan could greatly spur economic growth but to increase that effect, rather than have the brackets staggered as they are, what about offering them in a different way...

Here was your setup:
2009: Income under 20,000
2010: Income under 40,000
2011: Income under 60,000
2012: Income under 100,000
2013: Income under 250,000
2014: All other incomes

Not until 2014 would we really see dramatic movement in the paydown so here's my idea... Over a 5 year period, your eligibility is based on the last digit in your SS number OR, in case of a business, your Federal ID number:

1st year: 0,1
2nd year: 2,3
3rd year: 4,5
4th year: 6,7
5th year: 8,9

This would have the effect of covering ALL income brackets in the same year, and continue every year - What do you think about this idea?

 

[Andy]

I agree whole heartedly with Andy... Dems could care less about the debt - as long as THEY get to spend the money. Its only a big deal if they aren't in charge... I think they would be the toughest ones to get on board for such a proposal.

Just look at how they reacted to this thread. Not one single democrat had anything of substance to discuss on the merits of the plan. Rather the focus of every post from the left on this thread was about bashing republicans and praising democrats, regardless of truth or the issue.

They are not interested in solutions, only political points and the acquisition of more power.

Look at how they handled Fannie Mae. In the video, the decried the whole investigation as merely an attempt to dismantle GSEs (loss of power), and when the republicans all turned out correct, and Fannie crashed, the solution was to bring Fannie Mae back under direct government control (more power).

You are right, this plan could greatly spur economic growth but to increase that effect, rather than have the brackets staggered as they are, what about offering them in a different way...

Your modification of the plan was a good idea. That said, this comment bugs me. I hope you mean it will spur economic growth by reducing the tax burden.

Some people drive me crazy with the idea that paying down the debt will increase economic growth. Thus far I have not heard anything supporting this. The national debt, and the national economy are not directly connected. If the government over spends by half a trillion, that doesn't hurt the economy, nor does having a surplus help the economy.

Remember, the final years of Clintons presidency, the deficit was at it's lowest point since 1994, yet Clinton left office with the economy in a recession. There are other nations that have not had a national debt in 50 years, and their economies go up and down like all economies do.

The key problem with debt is that it leads to higher taxes, or something much much worse. In this case, the American public has fairly well said they won't take much more taxes. But there is a danger in having foreign countries owning our debt, that they could possibly wage economic warfare that could cause a massive devaluation of our currency.

But short of this, there is no real connection between economy and national debt. If there is, explain it to me, because no one has been able to yet.

 

[GenSeneca]

Just look at how they reacted to this thread. Not one single democrat had anything of substance to discuss on the merits of the plan. Rather the focus of every post from the left on this thread was about bashing republicans and praising democrats, regardless of truth or the issue.

They are not interested in solutions, only political points and the acquisition of more power.

In all fairness, Bunz chimed in without bashing republicans or praising democrats.

Your modification of the plan was a good idea. That said, this comment bugs me. I hope you mean it will spur economic growth by reducing the tax burden.

Thanks, and yes... that's exactly what I meant by the statement. Staggering eligibility, as suggested in my proposal, would allow business and individuals of all income brackets to take part from year one. This broad range of tax incentives would have more immediate impact on the whole of the economy than going from the bottom up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Rob, the tweaked plan has been greatly improved, Kudos.

I agree whole heartedly with Andy... Dems could care less about the debt - as long as THEY get to spend the money.

Hey.....someone's gotta pay-the-bill$....especially after a Bu$h-Admin!!!

"Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

They are not interested in solutions, only political points and the acquisition of more power.

Ouch!!!

That had to hurt....paraphrasing Dwight D. Eisenhower!!!!

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity."