|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction.
|
On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction.
Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt.
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes.
|
On February 21 2026 05:25 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2026 04:55 farvacola wrote:On February 21 2026 04:41 LightSpectra wrote:
Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s. Only quibble I have with this is that it is actually fairly easy to hide property like stocks and real estate under current US tax laws, especially when it comes to use of vehicles like partnerships and trusts (REITs being a prime example). Beneficial ownership rules that requires those entities to report who their owners are started to take off a few years ago and made things somewhat easier, but they’ve mostly been rendered a dead letter and didn’t solve the more fundamental moral hazards created by easy, effectively limitless pass through structures. + Show Spoiler +And just like that, the Hamster Wheel returns. 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system + Show Spoiler +6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Math, political, education, whatever the problems, figuring out a way off the wheel is a necessary step to addressing them.
Anyone got any ideas for getting off the Hamster Wheel everyone finds themselves on at the end of discussing something like this? Or will we just go back to 1. shortly? I think the closest to finding the first step to fix the system is what Newsom is doing with redistricting. You have a national problem that can only be solved at the state level across every state. You aren't going to remove state control over how elections are run (well, Trump is floating that idea but for nefarious reasons). So you are stuck in the prisoner's dilemma where no-one wants to be the one to reform how redistricting works in their state. The only solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to play nice first. And then if it is not reciprocated, absolutely smack them down. And then make a new offer and smack again if an open offer is taken advantage of. Redistricting in favour of Democrats in California is a warning shot across the bow though unfortunately making the bad system worse. But a few more follow ups might be necessary to put the fear of God into Republican states. There is then a slim chance for a sit down in the equivalent of the First Minister meeting to negotiate some sort of accord/ armistice to commit to reform whereby redistricting is done through an independent body (by state- never going to get one independent body for all in the US) with an agreed upon representation formula. It will also never happen. It won't happen under Trump because the man has only thoughts for accruing power and none for how to reform the system to make it better in the long run- just better for him personally. So he would only be a hindrance to chairing/ mediating the Governors' meeting. And even without Trump, I just don't see everyone putting down their swords at this point. But however slim, I think playing hardball with the threat to make redistricting worse across all Democrat run states, if Republican states don't back down is the only way forward. I guess, either that or bite the bullet and try and change the constitution so that a federal independent agency (the equivalent of Elections Canada) operates federal elections. We might bring peace to the Middle East before then though. But it is still Newsom redistricting to force a compromise in Congress and Senate to get an independent Elections USA. I'm no less skeptical of your redistricting bullying idea than you are, but at least it is something.
I'm curious if that's a plan people here would organize behind, if they have another/better idea/modifications, or find it counterproductive/undemocratic/something else?
|
On February 21 2026 11:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 05:25 Falling wrote:On February 21 2026 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2026 04:55 farvacola wrote:On February 21 2026 04:41 LightSpectra wrote:
Taxing the wealthy is a solved problem. Capital gains (only realized is necessary if we ban taking out loans on the basis of unrealized gains, but taxing unrealized gains isn't impossible either) and non-first-home property worth over $1m in increasing brackets until it's 99.9% on amounts over $20m or something along those lines. That takes zero dollars from the working class, has zero risk of capital flight (which has been wildly over-stated even on income taxes), doesn't reward firing employees for stock buybacks, and it's exceedingly difficult to hide stocks and property from the IRS.
It's not a math problem, it's a political problem sprouting from an education problem. Politicians just don't want to do that because swing voters don't realize how bad wealth inequality has gotten and all the cool stuff we could have if the Epstein class had tax rates like they did in the 1950s. Only quibble I have with this is that it is actually fairly easy to hide property like stocks and real estate under current US tax laws, especially when it comes to use of vehicles like partnerships and trusts (REITs being a prime example). Beneficial ownership rules that requires those entities to report who their owners are started to take off a few years ago and made things somewhat easier, but they’ve mostly been rendered a dead letter and didn’t solve the more fundamental moral hazards created by easy, effectively limitless pass through structures. + Show Spoiler +And just like that, the Hamster Wheel returns. 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system + Show Spoiler +6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Math, political, education, whatever the problems, figuring out a way off the wheel is a necessary step to addressing them.
Anyone got any ideas for getting off the Hamster Wheel everyone finds themselves on at the end of discussing something like this? Or will we just go back to 1. shortly? I think the closest to finding the first step to fix the system is what Newsom is doing with redistricting. You have a national problem that can only be solved at the state level across every state. You aren't going to remove state control over how elections are run (well, Trump is floating that idea but for nefarious reasons). So you are stuck in the prisoner's dilemma where no-one wants to be the one to reform how redistricting works in their state. The only solution to the prisoner's dilemma is to play nice first. And then if it is not reciprocated, absolutely smack them down. And then make a new offer and smack again if an open offer is taken advantage of. Redistricting in favour of Democrats in California is a warning shot across the bow though unfortunately making the bad system worse. But a few more follow ups might be necessary to put the fear of God into Republican states. There is then a slim chance for a sit down in the equivalent of the First Minister meeting to negotiate some sort of accord/ armistice to commit to reform whereby redistricting is done through an independent body (by state- never going to get one independent body for all in the US) with an agreed upon representation formula. It will also never happen. It won't happen under Trump because the man has only thoughts for accruing power and none for how to reform the system to make it better in the long run- just better for him personally. So he would only be a hindrance to chairing/ mediating the Governors' meeting. And even without Trump, I just don't see everyone putting down their swords at this point. But however slim, I think playing hardball with the threat to make redistricting worse across all Democrat run states, if Republican states don't back down is the only way forward. I guess, either that or bite the bullet and try and change the constitution so that a federal independent agency (the equivalent of Elections Canada) operates federal elections. We might bring peace to the Middle East before then though. But it is still Newsom redistricting to force a compromise in Congress and Senate to get an independent Elections USA. I'm no less skeptical of your redistricting bullying idea than you are, but at least it is something. I'm curious if that's a plan people here would organize behind, if they have another/better idea/modifications, or find it counterproductive/undemocratic/something else?
It is highly undemocratic. The problem in the US is that the constitution needs re-writing to fix its democracy or a majority of states need to change their voting laws. Until that happens a lot of strange stuff will keep happening trying to keep the system going. You need some mechanic to push back against bad actors, I don't know if this is the best one but you do need some.
|
On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt. The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes. I should congratulate you on cutting the deficit in more than half by narrowing the focus to only discretionary spending! But you've brought to the fore that cutting the entire defense spending to zero doesn't even cover the interest on the debt. It becomes progressively more difficult to try to highlight "You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way" when talking about a spending category below the interest on the debt. When you're willing to yield that serious people have to talk about categories amounting to more than 15% of the budget, then you're one step closer to finding out why both parties do jack shit about it.
|
On February 21 2026 04:11 Falling wrote:You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end.
A VAT is not regressive. It's a proportional tax. Savings are future consumption. If you look at only disposable income then that's not taken into account.
|
United States44245 Posts
On February 21 2026 17:53 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 04:11 Falling wrote:that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure. make your case. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end. A VAT is not regressive. It's a proportional tax. Savings are future consumption. If you look at only disposable income then that's not taken into account.
That’s not correct. If worker A has 20% of his income go in tax and trust fund billionaire B has 1% of his income go in tax while the rest compounds to infinity then you’re not going to convince us that actually B pays more tax because imagine how much tax he’ll eventually pay when he’s infinitely rich.
|
On February 21 2026 18:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 17:53 RvB wrote:On February 21 2026 04:11 Falling wrote:that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure. make your case. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end. A VAT is not regressive. It's a proportional tax. Savings are future consumption. If you look at only disposable income then that's not taken into account. That’s not correct. If worker A has 20% of his income go in tax and trust fund billionaire B has 1% of his income go in tax while the rest compounds to infinity then you’re not going to convince us that actually B pays more tax because imagine how much tax he’ll eventually pay when he’s infinitely rich.
If one thinks of a government as an investment engine for society it becomes even worse. Even if you get more money in 20 years from that person, that means 20 years of less infrastructure and education. Which then compounds into earning less money at that mark since you have no research, rail or harbors.
The other question is always how much investment in the future you can afford without draining the current economy more than it can sustain without collapsing.
Basically the same argument people make against short term thinking for companies. Where stock buy backs are used instead of R&D or plants.
|
United States44245 Posts
If you think about it the highest tax rate is really 0%. Every time the government takes money from you they reduce the money you have available to invest. Less capital = fewer capital gains = lower taxes owed.
|
Ah they're just biding their time to reap as much reward as possible. Big brained 10d chess moves here, government.
|
An article about a British grand mother doing tourism being detained by ICE for six weeks without any reason at all and extorted a fair bit of money in the process.
Oh and obviously no access to a lawyer because she was “detained, not arrested”. The ice guards actually told her they were getting a bonus everytime they detained someone so eh, tough luck.
It will be a cold day in hell before i set foot in that country. And the people who voted for that can get fucked. They shouldn’t be welcome anywhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/karen-newton-valid-visa-detained-ice
|
On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt.
The same is true if you cut ALL defense spending because as you just explained they're both comparable around 50%. It wouldn't cover interest and it wouldn't cover the deficit.
On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes.
They wouldn't cut defense either though, nobody has.
Defense, non-defense discretionary, and interest are all roughly the same ballpark. Any of them individually is less than the deficit.
Neither party has expressed any real effort to decrease spending in any of the 3 categories of defense, non-defense discretionary, or non-discretionary/entitlements in Congressional budgets. They do not want to. Because of the way budgets and Congress work, they either both need to in order to make a deal, or a large Senate majority of a unified government needs to be committed to cutting spending. Which is the opposite of they tend to do when they get unified power, they just spend more using the control they have.
Since neither of them wants to cut any of the 3, you can't just list defense last and say that's the one that needs to be cut, that's the only option (plus raising taxes). Like someone can just as easily say "Neither party will ever reduce defense spending, and neither party will ever reduce entitlements. That only leaves cutting non-defense discretionary spending, plus raising taxes." Except they also don't want to cut non-defense discretionary, it's just that saying that one last makes it seem like it's the only remaining option because you "eliminated" the others, when really none of them are options to begin with, they're all non-starters, they're all out with both parties for the moment. Like if a guy is allergic to peanuts, cheese, and caramel and you have a menu of peanuts, cheese, and caramel, you can't conclude "Well he's allergic to peanuts and caramel. So that just leaves cheese." He will still die.
For the math to work, you have to cut from more than one. For a deal to work, you have to cut from all three probably.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On February 22 2026 00:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:An article about a British grand mother doing tourism being detained by ICE for six weeks without any reason at all and extorted a fair bit of money in the process. Oh and obviously no access to a lawyer because she was “detained, not arrested”. The ice guards actually told her they were getting a bonus everytime they detained someone so eh, tough luck. It will be a cold day in hell before i set foot in that country. And the people who voted for that can get fucked. They shouldn’t be welcome anywhere. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/karen-newton-valid-visa-detained-ice
It’s ridiculous and insidious in equal measure.
It’s not exactly great treatment for anyone, it’s especially galling when people who are legally allowed to be there are still subject to it regardless.
What a fucking shitshow
|
On February 22 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt. The same is true if you cut ALL defense spending because as you just explained they're both comparable around 50%. It wouldn't cover interest and it wouldn't cover the deficit. Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes. They wouldn't cut defense either though, nobody has. Defense, non-defense discretionary, and interest are all roughly the same ballpark. Any of them individually is less than the deficit. Neither party has expressed any real effort to decrease spending in any of the 3 categories of defense, non-defense discretionary, or non-discretionary/entitlements in Congressional budgets. They do not want to. Because of the way budgets and Congress work, they either both need to in order to make a deal, or a large Senate majority of a unified government needs to be committed to cutting spending. Which is the opposite of they tend to do when they get unified power, they just spend more using the control they have. Since neither of them wants to cut any of the 3, you can't just list defense last and say that's the one that needs to be cut, that's the only option (plus raising taxes). Like someone can just as easily say "Neither party will ever reduce defense spending, and neither party will ever reduce entitlements. That only leaves cutting non-defense discretionary spending, plus raising taxes." Except they also don't want to cut non-defense discretionary, it's just that saying that one last makes it seem like it's the only remaining option because you "eliminated" the others, when really none of them are options to begin with, they're all non-starters, they're all out with both parties for the moment. Like if a guy is allergic to peanuts, cheese, and caramel and you have a menu of peanuts, cheese, and caramel, you can't conclude "Well he's allergic to peanuts and caramel. So that just leaves cheese." He will still die. For the math to work, you have to cut from more than one. For a deal to work, you have to cut from all three probably.
Of course I can single out defense because Republicans would rather cut non-discretionary spending like cutting medicare and social security than they would cut a single dollar from defense.
Republicans are also against pretty much all forms of revenue enhancements.
If the Republican philosophy of cutting the deficit is by cutting government spending and not raising revenue, AND they refuse to cut defense spending. Then there is only one other place for them to cut, and that's from non-discretionary spending IE: Medicare, and Social Security.
The fact that Republicans refuse to touch the defense budget despite believing only in cutting spending, says everything about how actually serious they are in reducing the deficit. Their only option is to cut mandatory spending and that would be political suicide so they're never going to do it.
Democrat methods for solving the deficit do include raising revenue.
|
On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt. The same is true if you cut ALL defense spending because as you just explained they're both comparable around 50%. It wouldn't cover interest and it wouldn't cover the deficit. On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes. They wouldn't cut defense either though, nobody has. Defense, non-defense discretionary, and interest are all roughly the same ballpark. Any of them individually is less than the deficit. Neither party has expressed any real effort to decrease spending in any of the 3 categories of defense, non-defense discretionary, or non-discretionary/entitlements in Congressional budgets. They do not want to. Because of the way budgets and Congress work, they either both need to in order to make a deal, or a large Senate majority of a unified government needs to be committed to cutting spending. Which is the opposite of they tend to do when they get unified power, they just spend more using the control they have. Since neither of them wants to cut any of the 3, you can't just list defense last and say that's the one that needs to be cut, that's the only option (plus raising taxes). Like someone can just as easily say "Neither party will ever reduce defense spending, and neither party will ever reduce entitlements. That only leaves cutting non-defense discretionary spending, plus raising taxes." Except they also don't want to cut non-defense discretionary, it's just that saying that one last makes it seem like it's the only remaining option because you "eliminated" the others, when really none of them are options to begin with, they're all non-starters, they're all out with both parties for the moment. Like if a guy is allergic to peanuts, cheese, and caramel and you have a menu of peanuts, cheese, and caramel, you can't conclude "Well he's allergic to peanuts and caramel. So that just leaves cheese." He will still die. For the math to work, you have to cut from more than one. For a deal to work, you have to cut from all three probably. Of course I can single out defense because Republicans would rather cut non-discretionary spending like cutting medicare and social security than they would cut a single dollar from defense.
You just said it's political suicide that they would never do.
On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
The fact that Republicans refuse to touch the defense budget despite believing only in cutting spending, says everything about how actually serious they are in reducing the deficit. Their only option is to cut mandatory spending and that would be political suicide so they're never going to do it.
"Republicans would rather [Do a thing that they're never going to do] than cut defense spending."
All that tells me is no single party is going to cut anything. Democrats have not and would not cut defense either because that would be donor and crony suicide.
You can only get there by crossing factions from both parties who will cut. Neither party will cut a single thing by themselves even though Democrats certainly have the edge on willingness to raise taxes on the revenue side. I'm not trying to be dramatic. When is the last time Congress ever net cut anything...?
On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Republican philosophy of cutting the deficit is by cutting government spending and not raising revenue, AND they refuse to cut defense spending. Then there is only one other place for them to cut, and that's from non-discretionary spending IE: Medicare, and Social Security.
There is still the other half of discretionary spending which slightly exceeds defense spending. There's say 12% defense 13% other discretionary 14% interest 61% nondiscretionary. Of those you can cut from any 3 except interest payments (which you'd have to try to affect via monetary policy).
On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
Democrat methods for solving the deficit do include raising revenue.
Sure. Like raising corporate taxes. But the current Republican president has been taxing corporations through tariffs and you just said it caused problems for everyday Americans.
|
On February 22 2026 02:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 22 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt. The same is true if you cut ALL defense spending because as you just explained they're both comparable around 50%. It wouldn't cover interest and it wouldn't cover the deficit. On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes. They wouldn't cut defense either though, nobody has. Defense, non-defense discretionary, and interest are all roughly the same ballpark. Any of them individually is less than the deficit. Neither party has expressed any real effort to decrease spending in any of the 3 categories of defense, non-defense discretionary, or non-discretionary/entitlements in Congressional budgets. They do not want to. Because of the way budgets and Congress work, they either both need to in order to make a deal, or a large Senate majority of a unified government needs to be committed to cutting spending. Which is the opposite of they tend to do when they get unified power, they just spend more using the control they have. Since neither of them wants to cut any of the 3, you can't just list defense last and say that's the one that needs to be cut, that's the only option (plus raising taxes). Like someone can just as easily say "Neither party will ever reduce defense spending, and neither party will ever reduce entitlements. That only leaves cutting non-defense discretionary spending, plus raising taxes." Except they also don't want to cut non-defense discretionary, it's just that saying that one last makes it seem like it's the only remaining option because you "eliminated" the others, when really none of them are options to begin with, they're all non-starters, they're all out with both parties for the moment. Like if a guy is allergic to peanuts, cheese, and caramel and you have a menu of peanuts, cheese, and caramel, you can't conclude "Well he's allergic to peanuts and caramel. So that just leaves cheese." He will still die. For the math to work, you have to cut from more than one. For a deal to work, you have to cut from all three probably. Of course I can single out defense because Republicans would rather cut non-discretionary spending like cutting medicare and social security than they would cut a single dollar from defense. You just said it's political suicide that they would never do. Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
The fact that Republicans refuse to touch the defense budget despite believing only in cutting spending, says everything about how actually serious they are in reducing the deficit. Their only option is to cut mandatory spending and that would be political suicide so they're never going to do it. "Republicans would rather [Do a thing that they're never going to do] than cut defense spending." All that tells me is no single party is going to cut anything. Democrats have not and would not cut defense either because that would be donor and crony suicide. You can only get there by crossing factions from both parties who will cut. Neither party will cut a single thing by themselves even though Democrats certainly have the edge on willingness to raise taxes on the revenue side. I'm not trying to be dramatic. When is the last time Congress ever net cut anything...? Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
If the Republican philosophy of cutting the deficit is by cutting government spending and not raising revenue, AND they refuse to cut defense spending. Then there is only one other place for them to cut, and that's from non-discretionary spending IE: Medicare, and Social Security. There is still the other half of discretionary spending which slightly exceeds defense spending. There's say 12% defense 13% other discretionary 14% interest 61% nondiscretionary. Of those you can cut from any 3 except interest payments (which you'd have to try to affect via monetary policy). Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:
Democrat methods for solving the deficit do include raising revenue.
Sure. Like raising corporate taxes. But the current Republican president has been taxing corporations through tariffs and you just said it caused problems for everyday Americans.
Weve discussed this before but Tariffs are not like raising taxes on corporations. Tariffs are a tax on revenue potentially. Raising corporate taxes would be on profits only. Theres a huge difference.
|
On February 22 2026 01:08 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2026 01:00 oBlade wrote:On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:On February 21 2026 11:15 dyhb wrote:On February 21 2026 10:04 Vindicare605 wrote:
I love how the deficit and the debt only matter to Republicans when it's convenient. They'll pass a gigantic tax cut on the rich and for corporations but when they do that, there's no problem with the deficit. They'll balloon federal spending on defense and homeland security, and then there's no problem with the deficit.
But when it ever inconveniences their bullshit policies, that's when they whine about the debt and the deficit.
If they actually were serious about cutting the deficit I could respect it and we could have some serious hard discussions. But they're not. They want to pass tax cuts and cut spending without cutting defense spending. You are NEVER going to get anywhere with deficit reduction in any meaningful way that way. If the estimate of 175 billion dollars raised is true, that's not even 10 percent of the deficit for one single year. Think of all of the problems for every day Americans those tarrifs cause, that's not even 10 percent of 1 year of our deficit.
It's inefficient policy even when it works, and it doesn't because it was blatantly illegal from the beginning. Defense spending is something like 15% of the federal budget, so even cutting it to literally 0 dollars would barely touch the debt. It's entitlements that's driving it and that's why I don't expect either party to really deliver on reduction. Defense eats up roughly half of all government discretionary spending. Republicans love to talk about the other 50% of discretionary spending, but even you cut the ENTIRETY of all non-defense discretionary spending you wouldnt even cut enough to pay for how much we pay in interest on our debt. The same is true if you cut ALL defense spending because as you just explained they're both comparable around 50%. It wouldn't cover interest and it wouldn't cover the deficit. On February 21 2026 11:26 Vindicare605 wrote:
The point here, is that Republicans who claim to care about the deficit, but only ever talk about cutting discretionary spending programs are talking about nothing but air. There is no solution to the deficit without either significantly raising revenues or cutting entitlement programs or both. Democrats would never do the latter, but neither would the Republicans.So what are we left with? Either doing nothing at all, or cutting defense and raising taxes. They wouldn't cut defense either though, nobody has. Defense, non-defense discretionary, and interest are all roughly the same ballpark. Any of them individually is less than the deficit. Neither party has expressed any real effort to decrease spending in any of the 3 categories of defense, non-defense discretionary, or non-discretionary/entitlements in Congressional budgets. They do not want to. Because of the way budgets and Congress work, they either both need to in order to make a deal, or a large Senate majority of a unified government needs to be committed to cutting spending. Which is the opposite of they tend to do when they get unified power, they just spend more using the control they have. Since neither of them wants to cut any of the 3, you can't just list defense last and say that's the one that needs to be cut, that's the only option (plus raising taxes). Like someone can just as easily say "Neither party will ever reduce defense spending, and neither party will ever reduce entitlements. That only leaves cutting non-defense discretionary spending, plus raising taxes." Except they also don't want to cut non-defense discretionary, it's just that saying that one last makes it seem like it's the only remaining option because you "eliminated" the others, when really none of them are options to begin with, they're all non-starters, they're all out with both parties for the moment. Like if a guy is allergic to peanuts, cheese, and caramel and you have a menu of peanuts, cheese, and caramel, you can't conclude "Well he's allergic to peanuts and caramel. So that just leaves cheese." He will still die. For the math to work, you have to cut from more than one. For a deal to work, you have to cut from all three probably. Of course I can single out defense because Republicans would rather cut non-discretionary spending like cutting medicare and social security than they would cut a single dollar from defense. Republicans are also against pretty much all forms of revenue enhancements. If the Republican philosophy of cutting the deficit is by cutting government spending and not raising revenue, AND they refuse to cut defense spending. Then there is only one other place for them to cut, and that's from non-discretionary spending IE: Medicare, and Social Security. The fact that Republicans refuse to touch the defense budget despite believing only in cutting spending, says everything about how actually serious they are in reducing the deficit. Their only option is to cut mandatory spending and that would be political suicide so they're never going to do it. Democrat methods for solving the deficit do include raising revenue. Sorry, but talking about such a pathetically small spending category of the budget is exactly how you indicate that you're not serious about the deficit and just repeating one party's talking points.
That particular step is necessary to establish credibility. Then, you can move on to actual debatable topics like raising taxes on the middle class and the rich while also cutting entitlement spending. Entitlements aren't some bugaboo that only evil people want to cut instead of defense, entitlements are what drives the debt. Defense is what people point to with a bumper sticker understanding of the topic.
|
Canada11594 Posts
Trump's administration is like a Sovereign's Citizen's approach to law.
Have a thing in mind that you want to do.
Search for some obscure law that you blatantly misinterpret to do what you want.
Never admit defeat but just jump to another old and/or outdated law to misinterpret.
Upon having his tariffs struck down that he was trying to justify using the 1977 IEEPA, which didn't mark out tariffs as an emergency power, now he pivots to 10-15% tariffs on the world using the 1974 Section 122.
But it's not a trade deficit emergency... it's for a balance of payments deficit. Which includes trade deficit, but includes all economic transactions includes investments in America, loans, and assets purchase. It was used as a measure to stabilize the American finances when transitioning off the gold standard when much of the world had not, so they were dealing with fixed interest rates. Basically nobody is on the gold standard anymore; the potential crisis the 1974 law sought to remedy simply doesn't exist.
Trump will not be able to demonstrate 'large and serious' balance of payment deficits because there is no crisis no matter how much he tries to manufacture one. But I guess we'll have to wait 150 days, or midterms, before the newest abuse of laws is shut down. Or maybe the next all night rage posting spree on Truth Social, he'll change his mind. Who can penetrate the mind of geniuses? In Trump We Trust.
Trump's Section 122 Tariffs are Illegal
US Balance of Trade Payments Deficit is Basically Zero
|
On February 21 2026 18:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 17:53 RvB wrote:On February 21 2026 04:11 Falling wrote:that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure. make your case. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end. A VAT is not regressive. It's a proportional tax. Savings are future consumption. If you look at only disposable income then that's not taken into account. That’s not correct. If worker A has 20% of his income go in tax and trust fund billionaire B has 1% of his income go in tax while the rest compounds to infinity then you’re not going to convince us that actually B pays more tax because imagine how much tax he’ll eventually pay when he’s infinitely rich.
It's correct. If wealth would just compound into infinity we'd see Yoshiaki Tsutsumi topping the lists of richest persons in the world.
|
United States44245 Posts
On February 22 2026 15:20 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 18:20 KwarK wrote:On February 21 2026 17:53 RvB wrote:On February 21 2026 04:11 Falling wrote:that is why the Warren Buffett item is in a separate paragraph. You might want a transition sentence then because the way that reads is paragraph one is your claim, paragraph two is the support to your claim. But, sure. make your case. More or less just did. If the current US tax regime is as Warren Buffet lays out, I would support his proposed changes for the reasons he lays out. I would reject getting rid of income tax in favour of a super sales tax as I doubt it would raise sufficient revenue, and if it's a high flat sales tax, it would be a regressive tax. (A greater portion of a low income goes to basic cost of living purchases that a sales tax would hit. Whereas a progressive income tax can ease the tax burden on the first $50,000 you make with an adjustable basic personal amount to carve out more space for people barely making ends meet.) A balance of progressive income tax combined with sales tax, property tax etc allows revenue raised without putting undue burden on those at the bottom end. A VAT is not regressive. It's a proportional tax. Savings are future consumption. If you look at only disposable income then that's not taken into account. That’s not correct. If worker A has 20% of his income go in tax and trust fund billionaire B has 1% of his income go in tax while the rest compounds to infinity then you’re not going to convince us that actually B pays more tax because imagine how much tax he’ll eventually pay when he’s infinitely rich. It's correct. If wealth would just compound into infinity we'd see Yoshiaki Tsutsumi topping the lists of richest persons in the world.
One group of people saves. One group of people spends. You’re arguing that a spending tax does not disproportionately hit the group of people paying the tax. It’s absurd a priori. I look forward to their next paper on whether the child tax credit disproportionately favours families with children over families without.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
