We "could" do lots of things, but no one does. This could really be the end of US dominance. It's fixable and yet we won't fix it. |
Keep up. Republicans are not proposing to raise the contribution cap to shore up SS. But they are giving even more tax cuts to the wealthy. US govt is already tapping the trust fund. This is terrible time speed up the revenue loss to the federal Govt. But republicans know that and they are doubling down on it. |
We could wipe it out if the government stopped giving huge corporations 3 billion per day.
Yet, it does keep giving it. |
Exactly. Now they won’t even consider capping corporate SALT. Remember how maga “owned the libs” by capping SALT for homeowners and sold it as punishing blue states for high tax rates. But not a peep about limiting SALT for corporations - who got a permanent tax cut in 2017! |
That's a long standing myth. Disbursements from those funds (there are two) can only go to program benefits and administration. The rest, by law, is used to buy treasury bonds. There are many ways to look at this. Spending as a % of GDP since 1930 was highest in 1944-1945, 200 probably took until the 1970s for the costs incurred during WW2 to have been completely zeroed out (not thinking in terms of specific debt instruments, just the cost and federal spending and debt service). In 2024 it was also less than 1 percentage point higher than during Reagan's first term. Since 1960, total tax revenues have been between 15% and 20% and in 2024 a little over 16%. > 65 population currently around 17% and will go to around 22% of population by 2050. I think we are far enough away from a debit cliff to fix it. Interest rates for the past 20 years have been lower than they were from Nixon to the beginning of GW, so we've had a grace period. But we have to fix our political system, and that does NOT mean using Trump, DOGE, and craven republicans in Congress to do it. |
I am totally for eliminating subsidies. Tariffs are fine, subsidies are not. |
This is another way the analogy breaks down. Carried interest doesn't work for the US government. EG if we have a low interest loan, we can't invest in a high return investment and make money. EG we can't use excess from student loans or thirty-year mortgages to take out high yield CDs or put it in a 401K and make money on the cheap loans. There is no net benefit to cheap loans for the government. It's just throwing money down the drain. |
With all these layoffs why was the jobs report so good this past week? Why has the S&P 500 gone up the past 9 days? |
The arguement from the borrow cheap money crowd is that the government can invest in things that build productivity - education, infrastructure etc.. of course Congress is not disciplined and you just end up with more spending on everything. But a huge reason we have $37 trillion in debt is tied to the very low interest rates we’ve enjoyed because of safety US securities. |
And education is nominally beneficial, definitely not enough to get people in a high enough tax bracket to recoup the costs. Businesses might make more money, but they have nominal tax rates, barely accounting for 7% of the total income. Most people can barely pay off the loans. Then they bring a bunch of poor people or skilled immigrants, not paying taxes but using services. The "skilled" immigrants in most cases do the "skilled" work for less wages so actually make the income investment worse. I could see if people came out of college with high earning degrees, but most of the people that the government invests in don't command all that great of a wage after matriculating, eg poor people are still poor after they have degrees. |