Egan-Jones Downgrades U.S. Debt

[Dr.Who]

This is why you can't win with the Right...you can't even get them to agree that if you raise taxes...it brings in more money...based on this theory if the tax rate was 1% we would make the same amount in Taxes to pay for things...you think thats true?

Based on this application of real data which is based on data from the 60's we would not know what a 1% tax rate would do because taxes have never been that low from the 60's through now. A 1% rate would have to allow the economy to improve by a whole whole lot for the revenu from that improved economy to be greater than 18%. I doubt this would happen and I think so do most others here.

But tax rates above the lowest they have been since the 60's are not in any way shape or from justified (provided that when we compare rates we also compare the various loopholes too. I high rate with a lot of loopholes {Cinton and Reagan} could be the same as a low rate with no loopholes. I prefer no loopholes since they are just ways for politicians to hand out money with favoriitism)

 

[Dr.Who]

According to what system of morality are taxes "immoral"?

The morality of John Lock which was a major influence on our constitution. Basically Lockean morality and our constitution say that each person has an inalienable right to keep the fruits of his labor. The state may raise taxes but with a host of limitations.

Lets see how just a few of our founders applied Lock's ideas:

Thomas Jefferson:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

John Adams:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

James Madison:

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Note that the founders basically say, here and elsewhere, that the purpose of gov is to protect our property, not to take it.

Included here are some longer passages from Thomas Paine's "The rights of man" which describes more clearly the view that high taxes are evil:

http://texaslynn.wordpress.com/2010...ers-believed-in-limited-government-low taxes/

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

The morality of John Lock which was a major influence on our constitution. Basically Lockean morality and our constitution say that each person has an inalienable right to keep the fruits of his labor. The state may raise taxes but with a host of limitations.

Lets see how just a few of our founders applied Lock's ideas:

Thomas Jefferson:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

John Adams:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.

James Madison:

As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated.

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

Note that the founders basically say, here and elsewhere, that the purpose of gov is to protect our property, not to take it.

Included here are some longer passages from Thomas Paine's "The rights of man" which describes more clearly the view that high taxes are evil:

http://texaslynn.wordpress.com/2010...ers-believed-in-limited-government-low taxes/

OK, well, I'll agree that excessively high taxes can constitute a grave evil (though Locke was an idiot and his ideas should be disregarded). I simply read "taxes are oppressive and immoral" as a categorical statement.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, well, I'll agree that excessively high taxes can constitute a grave evil (though Locke was an idiot and his ideas should be disregarded). I simply read "taxes are oppressive and immoral" as a categorical statement.

Categorically ALL taxes are a confiscation of personal property and are thus a necessary evil our government should avoid burdening people with as much as possible. The role of government as set forth by our founders was as a protector of rights - one of them being the right to personal property. It is necessary to sacrifice some of ones personal property to ensure that the government can protect the rest of ones property. Therefore, our founders believed in a limited gov both in terms of its scope and role but also in terms of the amount of taxes it would take.

I suppose I went to far when I categorically said that ALL taxes are oppressive. Only high taxes are oppressive - and today when one adds all the various taxes one pays they have become oppressive. I should therefore not say that taxes are categorically oppressive but only that the tax burden we experience today is oppressive. After all, if the purpose of gov as founded and authorized in the constitution is to protect private property (among other rights) then when the "payment" for protection becomes higher than the amount protected it ceases to make sense. Would you hire a guard to protect your home if his salary were half as much as the value of your home?

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, well, I'll agree that excessively high taxes can constitute a grave evil (though Locke was an idiot and his ideas should be disregarded). I simply read "taxes are oppressive and immoral" as a categorical statement.

Perhaps some of his ideas are.

Do you disagree with the idea that when a person takes a free resource from nature outside of government jurisdiction and without harming anyone that he owns that resource: i.e. if in a wilderness one picks an apple then one owns that apple and has a right to it?

Do you disagree that individuals in that wilderness would suffer from the threat of stronger men who would take that apple from them thus violating their rights?

Do you agree that people form governments to protect their rights and that that was the purpose listed in our founding documents for the formation of ours?

 

[clarkatticus]

I have no idea what you're talking re: mortgages. The minimum payment is simply the minimum amount that must be paid in order to amortize the loan according to the agreed-upon schedule. If you are foreclosed on despite making the minimum payments, then obviously the "minimum payments" changed (probably due to changing interest rates) or the bank committed fraud. I'd wager the latter, given the balance of the evidence.

But whatever. We currently pay about $3-400 billion in debt service. Double that if you it makes you more comfortable. We still bring in $2 trillion in tax revenue -- more than enough to pay for it.

By the minimum, I assumed you meant paying the accrued interest, not the balance, as Bachmann suggested. We pay over the minimum to preserve our AAA rating. Without that rating bond returns go up and increase our debt. We have enough to pay 70% of our scheduled expenditures without bond sales, the question is, what part of the 30% will we not pay? Loss of bond sales or increased cost will eat away at any savings we would make in a short term deal with the GOP, we must raise the debt limit, pass a big budget that includes revenue-the offers on the table now are the best the GOP will ever get.

 

[clarkatticus]

"What substitute can there be imagined for this ignis fatuus in finance, but that of permitting the national government to raise it's own revenues by ordinary methods of taxation, authorized in every well ordered constitution of civil government? Ingenious men may declaim with plausibility on any subject; but no human ingenuity can point out any other expedient to rescue us from the inconveniences and embarassments, naturally resulting from defective supplies in the public treasury." A Hamilton

"-in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation in every stage of it's existance will be found at least equal to it's resources." again, A Hamilton

 

[clarkatticus]

In the Federalist (#21), Hamilton explained the reason the Articles of Confederation failed in it's attempt to raise revenues. In 30-36 he detailed the Constitutions allowance of such power and the needs arising. After ratification Hamilton became the First Sec of the Treasury under Washington. In a span of 45 days he designed most of the banking system we use today. The above quotes are just snippets of a well reasoned dialogue. It goes without saying, Hamilton became the mortal enemy of Madison and Jefferson, and as he had higher moral charactor than both I believe him to be our greatest Forefather.

 

[Dr.Who]

"What substitute can there be imagined for this ignis fatuus in finance, but that of permitting the national government to raise it's own revenues by ordinary methods of taxation, authorized in every well ordered constitution of civil government? Ingenious men may declaim with plausibility on any subject; but no human ingenuity can point out any other expedient to rescue us from the inconveniences and embarassments, naturally resulting from defective supplies in the public treasury." A Hamilton

"-in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation in every stage of it's existance will be found at least equal to it's resources." again, A Hamilton

I agree that taxes are necessary. That is why they are called a necessary evil.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Categorically ALL taxes are a confiscation of personal property and are thus a necessary evil our government should avoid burdening people with as much as possible.

I admit I've never understood the "necessary evil" formulation. If a goal can necessarily only be achieved by doing evil, it would be better not to achieve it at all.

But then I don't believe property rights are unlimited so I don't see reasonable taxation as evil at all, necessary or no.

Perhaps some of his ideas are.

Do you disagree with the idea that when a person takes a free resource from nature outside of government jurisdiction and without harming anyone that he owns that resource: i.e. if in a wilderness one picks an apple then one owns that apple and has a right to it?

I don't believe that one's labor is sufficient to justify a right to private property at all.

If I drop a diamond into a panel of wet cement laid on a sidewalk, do I own that panel of sidewalk? Of course not.

At any rate, even the Founders acknowledged the limitations of the right to private property; that's why they put eminent domain right there in the Constitution.

Do you disagree that individuals in that wilderness would suffer from the threat of stronger men who would take that apple from them thus violating their rights?

Do you agree that people form governments to protect their rights and that that was the purpose listed in our founding documents for the formation of ours?

If I disagree with the premise, then obviously none of these follow.

Locke believed our natural rights accrue from our stewardship of God's property. I think that's a foolish statement. For one thing, what counts as stewardship? If I take the apple and eat it, is that stewardship or mere destruction of God's property? You cannot get an answer without appealing arbitrarily to divine authority.

It's much easier simply to rely on the Aristotelian-Thomist conception of natural law to derive natural rights, but no one today wants to do that because it doesn't yield up the unlimited conception of freedom that our fallen, degenerate society wants to believe in.

By the minimum, I assumed you meant paying the accrued interest, not the balance, as Bachmann suggested. We pay over the minimum to preserve our AAA rating. Without that rating bond returns go up and increase our debt. We have enough to pay 70% of our scheduled expenditures without bond sales, the question is, what part of the 30% will we not pay? Loss of bond sales or increased cost will eat away at any savings we would make in a short term deal with the GOP, we must raise the debt limit, pass a big budget that includes revenue-the offers on the table now are the best the GOP will ever get.

Whether what we're paying now is the minimum or more than the minimum is irrelevant. The point is we only spend 15-20% of our tax revenue on debt service. We have more enough to continue paying.

I still don't see why we don't simply revert to the 1999 federal budget and make 5-10% of cuts on top of that. Blood didn't run through the streets then; surely it wouldn't be that catastrophic now.

 

[ProudLefty]

Exactly.

Go to Ronald Reagan's tax rates.
Recognize that wars from now on will be different. We will never have the great battles on the plains of Germany. Those days are past. Our military needs a very large cutting, and a refocusing of goals and methods, coupled with a new and well funded Department of Peace. Cut the military budget by 65% and give a chuck to the Department of Peace and reduce spending by 50% on the military.
Bring health care costs as a percent of GDP down, or at the very least not let it suck up more of the GDP than it does now.
Do whatever it takes to put Americans back to work.


But most of all, its time for the wealthy to cough up a few bucks.

 

[Dr.Who]

I admit I've never understood the "necessary evil" formulation. If a goal can necessarily only be achieved by doing evil, it would be better not to achieve it at all.

But then I don't believe property rights are unlimited so I don't see reasonable taxation as evil at all, necessary or no.



I don't believe that one's labor is sufficient to justify a right to private property at all.

If I drop a diamond into a panel of wet cement laid on a sidewalk, do I own that panel of sidewalk? Of course not.

At any rate, even the Founders acknowledged the limitations of the right to private property; that's why they put eminent domain right there in the Constitution.



If I disagree with the premise, then obviously none of these follow.

Locke believed our natural rights accrue from our stewardship of God's property. I think that's a foolish statement. For one thing, what counts as stewardship? If I take the apple and eat it, is that stewardship or mere destruction of God's property? You cannot get an answer without appealing arbitrarily to divine authority.

It's much easier simply to rely on the Aristotelian-Thomist conception of natural law to derive natural rights, but no one today wants to do that because it doesn't yield up the unlimited conception of freedom that our fallen, degenerate society wants to believe in.



Whether what we're paying now is the minimum or more than the minimum is irrelevant. The point is we only spend 15-20% of our tax revenue on debt service. We have more enough to continue paying.

I still don't see why we don't simply revert to the 1999 federal budget and make 5-10% of cuts on top of that. Blood didn't run through the streets then; surely it wouldn't be that catastrophic now.

Apparently you do not respect property rights very much. However, your beliefs are not those of the constitution, yes there are limits on all rights, but it is still the goal of gov to protect those rights and only to infringe on them as necessary and as little as possible.

Not liking that, you may strive to change the constitution but skirting it should never be an option.

 

[Dr.Who]

But most of all, its time for the wealthy to cough up a few bucks.

More class warfare.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Apparently you do not respect property rights very much. However, your beliefs are not those of the constitution, yes there are limits on all rights, but it is still the goal of gov to protect those rights and only to infringe on them as necessary and as little as possible.

Not liking that, you may strive to change the constitution but skirting it should never be an option.

I respect them plenty insofar as they actually exist, and I think the Founders did a reasonably good job of establishing them. Certainly, I think taxes (and spending) are too high and I'd like to see both lowered.

I just don't see that there's a Constitutional prohibition on high taxes, much less that taxation itself constitutes an evil.

 

[Dr.Who]

I respect them plenty insofar as they actually exist, and I think the Founders did a reasonably good job of establishing them. Certainly, I think taxes (and spending) are too high and I'd like to see both lowered.

I just don't see that there's a Constitutional prohibition on high taxes, much less that taxation itself constitutes an evil.

I suspect that your respect for them is demonstrated by your arguments and that you don't really respect them.

But tell us what does establish that private property rights exist and what does the right confer upon a person?