Yes, a lot of people avoiding bankruptcy would be nice. Glad you agree.
yeah he should know you are a socdemAlso: ultra-leftists
The defense budget is around 700billion. A cut on it for 20%, and you pay the debt needed for Eboue's relief bill after ... 25 years.
exactly. if you really want to means test pandemic relief for some reason, you can easily do so by just taking the money back at tax season.
Listen here you little shit
Not really. Any covid relief bill should be linked with balancing the budget (increasing taxes for the rich, cutting expanses by making the government smaller, cutting foreign aid and lowering the defense budget should be prime candidates).
I like how you think this supports your argument that it's a crazy idea.
So cut that and raise taxes for the rich. Would help in general to cut back the deficit.
Ok, I play your game.
ok good. would you press the button if it killed 100 random citizens?
I think the defense budget should have been cut long ago and that money be spent on paying the debt.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If you really want to look at this on the country-level scale, then another consideration: interest rates on country loans are close to zero now. Making this investment in the country is likely to lead in some economic gain, plus that part of the money may be clawed back through taxes (not sure how that's done for these checks; do they count as taxable income?). Even if that gain very small, the US would still make a net profit out of its investment.
You're treating this like simple household economics. It's nowhere near the same. And even so, an individual can take out loans with the idea to make an investment that will repay the loan (or just save a life).
Bison dollars!
Yes, the interest rates are low, which probably has been a reason why the debt has increased like mad. Investing money in the country can get some economic gain, depending on how you invest it. Putting it in infrastructure for example, or in small businesses, likely archives that. Not sure about giving it directly to people.(yes, it is nice for those, especially those who really need it, but does that really returns some economical gain)?
My point is that the debt is way pass what should be to have a healthy economy. The alarm bells should have been sound during Obama's administration, but they didn't do anything about it. And Trump was even worse (despite that GOP pretends to care about it). You cannot go forever with 'we're fecked, what does it matter if we get fecked even more'.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Isnt part of the problem all the money given to rich people through tax breaks? It's handy for getting their votes and donations, but also good for losing tax income.
Yes, of course. The US taxes less than it should (especially the rich).
Easily the most dystopian posts I've seen.
Who does the US owe 138% of its GDP to though?
your argument isTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It can be found here: https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns...er $21,insurance companies, and savings bonds.
My argument is that it is such an insane idea that no respectable politician has even thought about it.
"this cant be a good idea, no politicians are doing it"
incredible stuff
you havent answered the question about reducing the national debt by killing 100 citizens?
Both domestic and foreign investors. The largest single foreign investor is the Chinese Govt and associated entities, but I don't think China accounts for even half of the foreign owned portion.
So $6tn owed to other governments and a couple of trillion owed to what the Fed? Doesn't make an awful lot of sense does it? Plus nearly a quarter is intragovernmental debt - why would you count that? How can a government owe itself money and we're somehow worried about that?
Its funny, in college they don't have a class called 'pointless morality tests' under the economics department.
wasnt in the economic department, too busy throwing rocks at trains
I don't know if there's a quirk in public sector finances that means it should be counted.... but definitely in general you consider "intracompany" debt a wash.
They didn't even have to say that, and they would've won. Hell, Trump trying to do the same shit.
This fits in with my point about a state's economy being nothing like household economy. It's very hard to determine cause and effect in national economies, plus every state existing in the context of the world means that much is outside your control (much more than at home).
In principle, I agree that it's better if states stay within their means as much as possible. Well, in good times: to my mind, part of a state's raison d'être is to be there in bad times (as I mentioned above). I disagree that the way to do that is to limit or cut costs though. Rather, the state should determine what standard of living it considered the minimum acceptable for its residents (and not the bare minimum; something truly livable), consider what that costs, and set taxes accordingly.
But they should. Well, not pointless morality. But from my reading on economic theory, my sense is that economy is taught in relatively theoretical and mathematical sense, too divorced from 'life'. But economy is not a natural science, it's a social science. And hence societal implications should be taught. For example, I couldn't imagine studying economy without being taught about the humongous shortcomings of the GDP as an important economic indicator. That's probably an obvious one, but there is much beyond that.
I believe that money is owed by Social Security. Which was supposed to invest that money (so the boomers, when they retire have money), but instead loaned it to the government. With the number of boomers retiring supposed to increase, Social Security needs money to pay for their pensions.
