r/tuesday • u/cyberklown28 Environmentalist • 6d ago
Kasich: It’s finally time to tackle the national debt
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5051229-kasichits-finally-time-to-tackle-the-national-debt/37
u/Ihaveaboot Right Visitor 5d ago
I like Kasich. A lot, actually - enough to write him in as my 2016 presidential vote even though he had already lost in the primaries.
I appreciate his message on the dangers of overspending. Uncle Sam is probably only a hair away from an S&P or Moody's credit downgrade.
But he stops short of suggesting anything on the revenue side (taxes), and seems to indirectly support the Musk "efficiency" fluffy stuff instead.
-8
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 5d ago edited 5d ago
But he stops short of suggesting anything on the revenue side (taxes
Why do we need more revenues? Revenues have gone up every year except 2008 and 2020.
https://www.cato.org/blog/federal-tax-revenues-soar
We don't have a revenue problem, so we don't need more taxes. We have a big spending problem.
And the bigger problem is that we know the solution. Everyone is too cowardly to implement it:
Privatize social security or raise the age of retirement to 80.
Austerity measures on welfare (which every other European country can apparently manage, but not America).
Medicare and Medicaid completely defunded.
23
u/Healingjoe Left Visitor 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'd like to see inflation adjusted revenues. This CATO analysis doesn't seem to include that. (Nevermind that it's out of date from 2021)
Revenues as a % of gdp was below the 50-year average last year.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/2023-revenue-plunge-confirms-2022-surge-was-fluke
Raising the retirement age makes sense but what austerity measures do you suggest for Medicaid? It's already an incredible burden for poor people to apply and receive benefits.
If you're not referring to Medicaid, I'm not even sure which federal program you're referring to. The federal gov't provides very little in terms of "safety nets" other than perhaps the EITC ... which is already a pittance.
6
u/a157reverse Left Visitor 5d ago
Inflation adjusted revenues isnt gonna be that interesting. Revenues as a percent of GDP is more informative, but bear in mind that both are endogenous so you have to be really careful about what conclusions you draw.
5
u/Healingjoe Left Visitor 5d ago
Inflation adjusted revenues isnt gonna be that interesting.
More interesting than non-adjusted.
I agree on the latter.
-10
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 5d ago
I'd like to see inflation adjusted revenues.
I'm sure you would. The fact is that revenues continued to increase, in spite of the disinformation from those on the left who say that tax cuts decrease revenue.
So, again, tax cuts clearly do not "cost" anything. What costs money is reckless spending.
It's already an incredible burden for poor people to apply and receive benefits.
It's not at all. Again, look to European countries for actual austerity measures. Means-testing is child's play.
The federal gov't provides very little in terms of "safety nets" other than perhaps the EITC
And yet they happen to make up 60% of our debt. Clearly not that "little" when it's 60% of 35 trillion.
11
u/Healingjoe Left Visitor 5d ago edited 5d ago
The fact is that revenues continued to increase
Relative to what? This requires context.
disinformation from those on the left who say that tax cuts decrease revenue.
Again, this requires context. I suspect you're hand waving around the 'lauffer curve' - in which case, please show CBO research for TJCA not reducing tax revenue. Which would be absurd because reducing revenues was quite literally the goal.
Again, look to European countries for actual austerity measures.
Give me an example. I'm not sure that we understand the same definition of "austerity" here.
And yet they happen to make up 60% of our debt.
EITC does not make up 60% of our debt. If you consider SS and Medicare cuttable services akin to Medicaid, I question your understanding of social safety nets especially with respect to European 'austerity'.
eta: I guess I would consider significant SS, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts if EITC was significantly increased for those at 1x-3x the poverty line, with dependents and other COL adjustments accounted for. Seems like /r/tuesday should agree considering it has been supported by Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., and W.
-6
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 5d ago
Relative to what? This requires context.
No, it doesn't. If revenues are increasing, that means we definitely do not have a revenue problem.
The only problem we have is people who want to not only continue the current level of spending, but increase it even more.
Sorry, but that's just unsustainable. The only answer is cuts here. We can't tax our way out of this, no matter how hard you try.
I'm not sure that we understand the same definition of "austerity" here.
Cutting costs, rationing, making things less expensive when provided by the government.
I suspect you're hand waving around the 'lauffer curve' - in which case, please show CBO research for TJCA not reducing tax revenue.
No, context needed, just look at the link I provided. This is data straight from the government revenues.
If you consider SS and Medicare cuttable services akin to Medicaid, I question your understanding of social safety nets especially with respect to European 'austerity'.
They must be cut, otherwise we'll be in debt in perpetuity. I'm sorry, that's just a fact.
Seems like /r/tuesday should agree considering it has been supported by Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., and W.
Seems like the debt is much higher and much more out of control than it was during the times of Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
Interesting how that works. Dire conditions involve dire cuts. Maybe we shouldn't have let it get this far?
9
u/Healingjoe Left Visitor 5d ago
We can't tax our way out of this, no matter how hard you try.
Considering our effective tax rate is far lower than many other advanced democracies, this is demonstrably false.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/taxing-high-income-2019/
Cutting costs, rationing, making things less expensive when provided by the government.
Are we referring to the same Europe? Lol
No, context needed, just look at the link I provided. This is data straight from the government revenues.
Misleading. TCJA reduced income relative to what revenues would've been to the tune of roughly $2.5T over 8 years.
Interesting how that works. Dire conditions involve dire cuts. Maybe we shouldn't have let it get this far?
Misleading as well. Effective tax rates have decreased substantially since then.
3
u/lnkprk114 Left Visitor 4d ago
Effective tax rates have also been going down since 1980, just to further your point: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1hkuc9z/oc_average_total_effective_federal_tax_rate_by/
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
12
u/BroBeansBMS Left Visitor 5d ago
Most people have no business being in a job until 70 let alone 80. This isn’t congress where they can disappear to a memory care facility for 6 months while still collecting a paycheck.
-2
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 4d ago edited 4d ago
The average life expectancy of a US citizen in 1935 was 65. The retirement age was 65. If people were able to work until the average person died in 1935, why isn't that true now?
If social security worked the same way it did in 1935, the age of retirement would match the average life expectancy (which is now 80). And it would only be in effect during a recession. As usual with the left, this was just a feel-good program that was never meant to actually work in any sort of long-term capacity.
Regardless, most people have office jobs now. This isn't 1910 where everyone was in the mines. Yes, you can absolutely work into your 80s at a desk job.
Your grandkids certainly will be because you selfishly want to suck up all of their retirement money for yourself.
3
u/BroBeansBMS Left Visitor 4d ago edited 4d ago
Do you not understand how aging can impact a person’s cognitive abilities?
There are big drops after 70, but they can start at around 65 or younger. Pushing the retirement age up that high would mean people would literally be dying in place at work.
Also, I don’t think “most” people is accurate for office work. You’re ignoring huge chunks of the workforce in health, service jobs, hospitality, food, etc
How productive do you think those last 10-15 years would be for them or any company employing them?
1
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 4d ago
Do you not understand how aging can impact a person’s cognitive abilities?
We literally picked an 80-year-old to be president, so I'm not sure why you're suddenly so concerned about aging.
Pushing the retirement age up that high would mean people would literally be dying in place at work.
Not if they actually had a plan besides leeching off the government for 30 years.
Again, social security was never meant to be collected, it was meant as a safety net in case of a market crash, so why do you think that should be the case now? Why do you disagree with FDR?
How do you expect to pay for a system that wasn't meant to pay out a dime, and for 30-40 years of someone's life? That's just insane. We don't have that kind of money.
How productive do you think those last 10-15 years would be for them or any company employing them?
More productive than sucking up money for 30 years with no output, that's for sure.
Like I said, Ol' Johnny isn't in the coal mines anymore. This isn't the late 1800s. Update the talking points.
1
u/BroBeansBMS Left Visitor 4d ago
“We” didn’t, but maybe you did. Just because a cult decided to elect a 78 year old orange goon doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to have people working until they collapse.
You seem to think people should just be pushed off on an iceberg and die. Maybe instead of making sure no one can collect it there are reforms for social security that could be enacted instead? That sounds a lot less radical than leaving people to die in the streets who have paid into a system their entire working lives.
0
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 4d ago
“We” didn’t, but maybe you did. Just because a cult decided to elect a 78 year old orange goon
You're telling me you didn't vote for Biden or Bernie?
You seem to think people should just be pushed off on an iceberg and die
I think 80 years aren't these frail little leaves like you seem to be implying, considering the most powerful position in the land has been commanded by an 80 year old for over a decade now.
So if we think an 80-year-old can be trusted with the presidency (again, if you've voted for Bill Weld, Biden, Bernie or Trump, which covers just about everyone), why can't they be trusted with a desk job?
1
u/BroBeansBMS Left Visitor 4d ago
I’m glad you think 80 year olds aren’t frail or suffering from cognitive decline. You may be one of these people yourself based on the ability to use logic and reason that have been shown in the last few posts, so I’ll back off as I don’t want to commit elder abuse.
0
u/TheDemonicEmperor Social Conservative 4d ago
It's amazing that you've been unable to refute anything, so you just fall back on insults.
It was a simple question. Guess it was too hard for you.
→ More replies1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
8
u/WheresSmokey Christian Democrat 5d ago
Look, I loved Kasich. But this article isn’t gonna help much of anything. It reads as a call to action that is heavy on fluff and light on substance.
I also don’t really think the debt itself is the problem. As long as the economy and revenue don’t stop growing, we can catch up and put that debt back into a healthier proportion. The big thing is we have to stop jacking it up significantly faster than we’re growing; put another way, we need to get the deficit under control.
I’m under no allusions that we’re going to run a perfectly balanced budget anytime soon. But I’m also not convinced the GOP will even come close to it without raising taxes (directly or indirectly), without entitlement reform (~1/2 of the budget) and without cutting military spending (~1/4 of the budget). They want to grow the economy, and that’s good, but you can’t outgrow the problem when you’re adding onto the deficit this quick.
I think a wiser approach would be mild tax increases in key sectors, mild entitlement reform focused on regulatory changes (things like the recent windfall change don’t help) while also growing the economy. Unfortunately, given the geopolitical situation and the issues in recruiting the military is having, there’s not a ton you can do there, but you can still work to increase efficiency and drive down administrative burdens (stop the shutdown brinksmanship for one)
18
u/owdee00 Social Conservative 6d ago
Thats not gonna happen with Musk as president.. sorry
12
u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Left Visitor 5d ago
And it’s not gonna happen anytime soon. The national debt is like gas prices. Another thing that a president likes to dangle saying they’ll fix but they really won’t. Because they really can’t.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
All top level comments are reserved for those with a C-Right flair.
This comment and all further top level comments in this submission will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Rule 3 Violation.
This comment and all further comments will be removed until you are suitably flaired. You can easily add a flair via the sidebar, on desktop, or by using the official reddit app and selecting the "..." icon in the upper right and "change user flair". Alternatively, the mods can give you a flair if you're unable by messaging the mods. If you flair please do not make the same comment again, a mod will approve your comment.
Link to Flair Descriptions. If you are new, please read the information here and do not message the mods about getting a non-Visitor flair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Just a friendly reminder to read our rules and FAQ before posting!
Rule 1: No Low Quality Posts/Comments
Rule 2: Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
Rule 3: Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on our Flairs.
Rule 4: Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.