Interest Rates On The Federal Debt Won't Stay Low Forever
Comments
-
Terrible idea on repatriation, especially for a one-time tax windfall of $300b on a national debt that's 60x that amount.HFNY said:https://youtube.com/watch?v=vnZkXf_viLM
And the 2015 Federal Deficit increased for the first time since 2009...not good.
If the next President is a moderate, he could combine business tax reform with a foreign profits repatriation agreement. There are hundreds of billions of profits abroad that companies would bring back to the USA with comprehensive reform. A 15% one-time tax on those profits could yield over $300 billion in tax revenues.
Moreover it would set a precedent that encourages more international tax sheltering behavior in the future, making the deficit worse. -
Greece????doogsinparadise said:What if I told you that as long as the US economy maintains certain benchmarks, and the political class doesn't ruin our credit by artificially defaulting, that the deficit is entirely immaterial and exists largely to prevent the middle class from raising taxes on the wealthy.
TRUE?!?!?!
-
I'll translate.Swaye said:I don't understand this thread. Please stop.
Non heh wah tun dokie doka Obama shee un wanna fok den Putin. Bernie socie wana boom boom free shit yeh oonga boonga TRUMP boom boom Ivanka. -
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.GreenRiverGatorz said:The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea... -
Wanna cuddle first? #fagjSwaye said: -
No, you missed the part of the repatriation being part of a comprehensive business tax code overhaul.
The problem right now is that Democrats want to use the reform to raise tax revenues and Republicans maintain that sensible reform would keep revenues flat for the first year or two but that a more efficient / reasonable code would lead to growth and thus naturally higher tax revenues (due to growth) in the subsequent years.
The latter approach is more sensible and with a lower rate (15% or 20%), companies would have little to no incentive to store profits abroad because a 15-20% rate is lower than most other countries. So, no, it wouldn't be a one-time deal if done properly. But someone like Charlie RangelFS might try to screw it up for political purposes.BallSacked said:
Terrible idea on repatriation, especially for a one-time tax windfall of $300b on a national debt that's 60x that amount.HFNY said:https://youtube.com/watch?v=vnZkXf_viLM
And the 2015 Federal Deficit increased for the first time since 2009...not good.
If the next President is a moderate, he could combine business tax reform with a foreign profits repatriation agreement. There are hundreds of billions of profits abroad that companies would bring back to the USA with comprehensive reform. A 15% one-time tax on those profits could yield over $300 billion in tax revenues.
Moreover it would set a precedent that encourages more international tax sheltering behavior in the future, making the deficit worse. -
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.GreenRiverGatorz said:The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea... -
Your good point was marred by the term "debt hostage crisis".
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:
GreenRiverGatorz said:
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.GreenRiverGatorz said:The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea... -
Why don't you show the chart out to 2015?HFNY said:Your good point was marred by the term "debt hostage crisis".
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:GreenRiverGatorz said:
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.GreenRiverGatorz said:The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
Odd -
Couldn't find a chart that has 2015 data in it. Why don't you show the chart out to 2015? Odd.
Here's one at least with 2013 (Federal Spending increasing as a % of GDP from 2012 to 2013):
2001400ex said:
Why don't you show the chart out to 2015?HFNY said:Your good point was marred by the term "debt hostage crisis".
2/3 of all Federal Spending is on entitlements so those in Congress worried about runaway entitlement spending were correct to emphasize the runaway problems with the programs.
Of course, the Republicans then later wrong-footed the Democrats by agreeing to the sequester to trim Federal spending. Dems thought Republicans wouldn't agree to reduced defense spending but they did because the Federal Government has become such a monster.
Per the graph below, the sequester slightly helped return Federal Spending closer to the roughly 20% of GDP after Big Government politicos like Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Lizzie Fauxchahontas Warren blew it open:GreenRiverGatorz said:
Yes, that explains why Standard and Poor's downgraded our credit rating to AA+ immediately following the debt hostage crisis. Do you have the slightest understanding of how credit risk works?HoustonHusky said:
There is so much stupid in this I have no clue where to start. The Fed govt would never have defaulted...they still take money in. Huge amounts. It would have just gone first to paying on the bonds before it went to all the other govt spending programs. Nobody with an IQ over 50 thought the govt was close to default.GreenRiverGatorz said:The only material threat that the debt poses is if bond investors think there's a possibility that we default. The Tea Party's "let the government default" kabuki theater of several years ago gave real credence to the idea that we may in fact have political leaders who are stupid enough to let our government default on it's debt. Thankfully Boehner, Cantor, and the rest of the GOP leadership were aware of just how disastrous that would have been, and did everything they could to squash that movement. Unfortunately the Tea Party fad has not died out, and there is still reason for legitimate concern about our creditworthiness as long as they hold any political influence.
But while a certain faction of the GOP has almost single-handedly destroyed the credit of our country, the Republicans are the only one who are even willing to address the large entitlement elephant in the room. Most of the Presidential candidates have bit the bullet and proposed unsavory reforms that will reign in SS and Medicare spending in the long-term. You will see no such proposals from the dems, who have no desire to take on the AARP behemoth and are turning a blind eye to our ever growing national debt.
To not understand that is just sad...leaving the rest of that post nothing but typing diarrhea...
Odd
