Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Solution to Debt

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:49:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I read something quite amusing in a column. "A tourist stops at a small hotel, puts a $100 bill on the counter, and goes to inspect a room. The owner takes the bill and rushes off to pay the butcher, to whom he owes $100. The butcher races to his wholesaler and pays off his own $100 debt. The wholesaler hurries to the farmer and gives him $100 for the pigs he bought. The farmer hands over $100 to the party planner who set up his bachelor bash. The party planner heads to the hotel to pay the $100 she owes for the party room and lays the bill on the counter. At that point, the tourist returns to the front desk, says that the room is unsatisfactory, picks up the $100, and departs. The tourist has his money back, and everyone else is $100 ahead by reducing his or her debt by that amount. Could this be the answer to the debt crisis?"

Consider this: There are 5 people in a room, each named alphabetically. A owes B $100, B owns C the same, C owns D, and D owes E. Imagine if I gave A $100 to pay his debt. He'd eliminate his debt by giving it to B. B (except E) would have the same amount of money left as when they were in debt, they'd have NO debt left because they would pay it off.

Just some random amusement.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:54:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Having delay, correcting a mistake in wording:

Consider this: There are 5 people in a room, each named alphabetically. A owes B $100, B owes C the same, C owes D, and D owes E. Imagine if I gave A $100 to pay his debt. He'd eliminate his debt by giving it to B. B would give it to C, etc. All (except E) would have the same amount of money left as when they were in debt, but they'd have NO debt left because they would pay it off.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 9:59:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
basic keynesian economics. It's the circular flow of money that matters. Since the $100 was put into circulation instead of savings, than it was be able to be put into use, causing prosperity while avoiding the "paradox of thrift".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:33:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Federal debt is borrowed from a number of sources including it's own citizens, private firms, and foreign nations. When the government borrows money it does so in the form of bonds.
When the Federal government has a deficit, the deficit is paid with bonds. Therefore a Debt can occur, after an accumulation of deficits. In order to fix the debt problem we must first balance the budget.

Now in your analogy, the hotel paid is $100 debt off with borrowed money from the potential client. When the client returned he owed the client $100, which means he did not pay his debt off, he simply transferred ownership of the debt. You claim he have the client his $100 back, which assumes he had enough money to pay his debt in the first place.

The Federal Government does not have enough money to pay it's debt. If there was no government spending for a year, and taxes were raised to 100% of the gross national income, we still couldn't pay the debt because the debt is higher than our Gross National Income. On top of that, the deficit would eat up any increase in taxes.
We need to reduce the spending, and create a surplus. Over time the debt would decrease.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:49:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:33:06 AM, DanT wrote:
The Federal debt is borrowed from a number of sources including it's own citizens, private firms, and foreign nations. When the government borrows money it does so in the form of bonds.
When the Federal government has a deficit, the deficit is paid with bonds. Therefore a Debt can occur, after an accumulation of deficits. In order to fix the debt problem we must first balance the budget.

Now in your analogy, the hotel paid is $100 debt off with borrowed money from the potential client. When the client returned he owed the client $100, which means he did not pay his debt off, he simply transferred ownership of the debt. You claim he have the client his $100 back, which assumes he had enough money to pay his debt in the first place.

The Federal Government does not have enough money to pay it's debt. If there was no government spending for a year, and taxes were raised to 100% of the gross national income, we still couldn't pay the debt because the debt is higher than our Gross National Income. On top of that, the deficit would eat up any increase in taxes.
We need to reduce the spending, and create a surplus. Over time the debt would decrease.
Also the US only has $130 billion in foreign reserves, with a $16 trillion debt.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 10:52:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The tourist would come back before the $100 circles back around to the hotel, which means he would owe money to the tourist. By the time the $100 cycles back around, he may end up owing more money, due to interest, or deficits.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:33:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 10:52:28 AM, DanT wrote:
The tourist would come back before the $100 circles back around to the hotel, which means he would owe money to the tourist. By the time the $100 cycles back around, he may end up owing more money, due to interest, or deficits.

To make this objections sensible, are you saying that the actual monetary shift in the real world is not fast enough?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 11:41:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
DanT, It's not my analogy; It was taken from a column. However, in the analogy there is one who takes the burden after all, which in the real world probably would be the government. It's also way too simple to apply this method for governments, though I'll keep it in mind with anything else
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 1:23:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Usurpma is the cause of all of this debt. So, the solution to cutting debt is eliminating the cause of the debt.

Come election day, remember this.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What I like about this example is that it shows that debt can be paid off even if the money in circulation is more than the debt.

There's $400 of debt, and only $100 in circulation.

Most people falsely assume that if there's more debt than money, then the debt cannot be paid off which is false. Seems intuitive wrong, but our intuitions are often wrong.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.
Debate.org Moderator
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
seems to imply that debt is some sort of evil everyone has that they want to get rid of. Also fails to recognize that not everyone is both a borrower and lender in equal parts.
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:26:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

The problems with raising taxes in America are in large due to the obscene amount of loop-holes. Switching to a flat tax would relieve much of that.
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:26:44 PM, Sillouette wrote:

The problems with raising taxes in America are in large due to the obscene amount of loop-holes. Switching to a flat tax would relieve much of that.

Or due to the fact that most of the tax money is wasted on things that don't provide the tax payer with utility?
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:26:25 PM, debatestrength wrote:
seems to imply that debt is some sort of evil everyone has that they want to get rid of. Also fails to recognize that not everyone is both a borrower and lender in equal parts.

Indeed, borrowing can do huge amounts of good for a country. It's no coincidence that most of the more powerful countries are also those in the most debt.

Modern day Greece was essentially built on debt. However, it did not pay up for it's investment properly and it payed dearly for it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sillouette
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:29:06 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:26:44 PM, Sillouette wrote:

The problems with raising taxes in America are in large due to the obscene amount of loop-holes. Switching to a flat tax would relieve much of that.

Or due to the fact that most of the tax money is wasted on things that don't provide the tax payer with utility?

Well, I was addressing the issue with the difference between taxes and revenue.
But that is also a large problem.
debatestrength
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

yeah there would be huge problems in the long run if the government suddenly decided to stop wasting money and let people spend it as they pleased. For one we wouldn't have the post office.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.
Debate.org Moderator
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:30:51 PM, debatestrength wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

yeah there would be huge problems in the long run if the government suddenly decided to stop wasting money and let people spend it as they pleased. For one we wouldn't have the post office.

Or rule of law to protect private property. Look at how much economic growth has occurred in Somalia and failed nations as a result of no government.

Not stating that current spending is too high. Just stating that somewhere between 0%-100% government sector would be ideal for economic growth, and it is greater than 0%
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:38:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.

Revenue - Spending = Debt or Surplus.

If lowering spending by let's say 200 billion dollars causes revenue to decrease by 300 billion dollars, then it increases the debt.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:42:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.
Probably, but I don't see why cut on spending would be drastic whatsoever. Of course, if people became more dependent on welfare, and spending was cut in that area, then it could be troublesome. But if dependency rates were cut somehow along with spending, I could only foresee good results.

I'd be in favor of cutting welfare and similar programs, and reduce the size of the government. I would support giving more money to the military though.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 9:49:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
I read something quite amusing in a column. "A tourist stops at a small hotel, puts a $100 bill on the counter, and goes to inspect a room. The owner takes the bill and rushes off to pay the butcher, to whom he owes $100. The butcher races to his wholesaler and pays off his own $100 debt. The wholesaler hurries to the farmer and gives him $100 for the pigs he bought. The farmer hands over $100 to the party planner who set up his bachelor bash. The party planner heads to the hotel to pay the $100 she owes for the party room and lays the bill on the counter. At that point, the tourist returns to the front desk, says that the room is unsatisfactory, picks up the $100, and departs. The tourist has his money back, and everyone else is $100 ahead by reducing his or her debt by that amount. Could this be the answer to the debt crisis?"

Consider this: There are 5 people in a room, each named alphabetically. A owes B $100, B owns C the same, C owns D, and D owes E. Imagine if I gave A $100 to pay his debt. He'd eliminate his debt by giving it to B. B (except E) would have the same amount of money left as when they were in debt, they'd have NO debt left because they would pay it off.

Just some random amusement.:

Except that it forgets one important element -- interest. The reason we couldn't pay off the debt, even if we tried, is that a US $ has debt already embedded within itself. For each dollar that is printed it is compounded with about $3 interest. It's a revolving cycle of debt.

You can't print your way out of the problem. In fact, you make it worse by doing so.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:38:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.

Revenue - Spending = Debt or Surplus.

If lowering spending by let's say 200 billion dollars causes revenue to decrease by 300 billion dollars, then it increases the debt.

Revenue - Spending = deficit or surplus.. Deficit over time = debt

Can you give some example where spending cuts equals revenue loss? I'm not saying they don't exist I'd just like some examples. Because even in cases where spending could potentially = government profit, like the post office, it is always, in every case, a net loss.
Debate.org Moderator
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:46:57 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/25/2012 9:49:19 AM, Mirza wrote:
I read something quite amusing in a column. "A tourist stops at a small hotel, puts a $100 bill on the counter, and goes to inspect a room. The owner takes the bill and rushes off to pay the butcher, to whom he owes $100. The butcher races to his wholesaler and pays off his own $100 debt. The wholesaler hurries to the farmer and gives him $100 for the pigs he bought. The farmer hands over $100 to the party planner who set up his bachelor bash. The party planner heads to the hotel to pay the $100 she owes for the party room and lays the bill on the counter. At that point, the tourist returns to the front desk, says that the room is unsatisfactory, picks up the $100, and departs. The tourist has his money back, and everyone else is $100 ahead by reducing his or her debt by that amount. Could this be the answer to the debt crisis?"

Consider this: There are 5 people in a room, each named alphabetically. A owes B $100, B owns C the same, C owns D, and D owes E. Imagine if I gave A $100 to pay his debt. He'd eliminate his debt by giving it to B. B (except E) would have the same amount of money left as when they were in debt, they'd have NO debt left because they would pay it off.

Just some random amusement.:

Except that it forgets one important element -- interest. The reason we couldn't pay off the debt, even if we tried, is that a US $ has debt already embedded within itself. For each dollar that is printed it is compounded with about $3 interest. It's a revolving cycle of debt.

You can't print your way out of the problem. In fact, you make it worse by doing so.

All it said was $100 in debt. It doesn't forget interest because it doesn't matter. Debt = Principal + Interest. Doesn't matter what the interest was. Like the above example shows, you can have more debt than money AND the debt can be repaid. It's the circular flow of money that's important. Not just how much money is printed.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:54:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:47:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:38:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.

Revenue - Spending = Debt or Surplus.

If lowering spending by let's say 200 billion dollars causes revenue to decrease by 300 billion dollars, then it increases the debt.

Revenue - Spending = deficit or surplus.. Deficit over time = debt

Can you give some example where spending cuts equals revenue loss? I'm not saying they don't exist I'd just like some examples. Because even in cases where spending could potentially = government profit, like the post office, it is always, in every case, a net loss.

If the government cut the post office, then nobody would use it, and the government would stop losing $5 billion + every year.

Plus, the law about who can deliver mail would have to be changed.

Then, the crappy UPS and FED-ex companies that are 14% more efficient from a profit standpoint would have to take on the new customers, and revenues for those companies would rise. Then the companies would have to pay more taxes(does USPS pay taxes?).

But, 20 trillion(estimate) people that are employed with the post office would be out of a job and no longer be paying taxes, so revenues would go down by approximately somewhere between $14 and $250,059,238,999.74.

I really need to get my posting privileges back on this other forum, people will get sick of me if I spend all my time on here.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
airmax1227
Posts: 13,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:54:07 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:47:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:38:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.

Revenue - Spending = Debt or Surplus.

If lowering spending by let's say 200 billion dollars causes revenue to decrease by 300 billion dollars, then it increases the debt.

Revenue - Spending = deficit or surplus.. Deficit over time = debt

Can you give some example where spending cuts equals revenue loss? I'm not saying they don't exist I'd just like some examples. Because even in cases where spending could potentially = government profit, like the post office, it is always, in every case, a net loss.

If the government cut the post office, then nobody would use it, and the government would stop losing $5 billion + every year.

Plus, the law about who can deliver mail would have to be changed.

Then, the crappy UPS and FED-ex companies that are 14% more efficient from a profit standpoint would have to take on the new customers, and revenues for those companies would rise. Then the companies would have to pay more taxes(does USPS pay taxes?).

But, 20 trillion(estimate) people that are employed with the post office would be out of a job and no longer be paying taxes, so revenues would go down by approximately somewhere between $14 and $250,059,238,999.74.


I really need to get my posting privileges back on this other forum, people will get sick of me if I spend all my time on here.

Wouldn't the increase in demand from FedEx and UPS absorb those jobs lost in USPS? And thus increase tax revenue?

I think you just made my point anyways.
Debate.org Moderator
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2012 8:57:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/25/2012 8:47:04 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:38:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:32:18 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:29:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:24:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/25/2012 8:22:12 PM, Sillouette wrote:
Republicans want to lower spending and taxes.

Democrats want to increase spending and taxes.

The most obvious and practical way to absolve the debt is to lower spending and increase taxes. The worst of both worlds. It's not pretty but there was always a price to pay for debt in the first place.

Either do that or pay for it in other ways. End of story.

Increasing taxes doesn't necessarily increase revenue in the long run. We could just spend less, but that's often seen as unreasonable.

And spending less doesn't necessarily reduce the debt either. Basically same principle of laffer curve except in reverse. If the government spends less than it would cause economic growth to decrease (mainly short-run problems but also long run as well).

Spending less wont reduce the debt, it will just cause the debt to increase at a slower rate. But your point is accurate in that it will cause problems in other areas.

Revenue - Spending = Debt or Surplus.

If lowering spending by let's say 200 billion dollars causes revenue to decrease by 300 billion dollars, then it increases the debt.

Revenue - Spending = deficit or surplus.. Deficit over time = debt

Can you give some example where spending cuts equals revenue loss? I'm not saying they don't exist I'd just like some examples. Because even in cases where spending could potentially = government profit, like the post office, it is always, in every case, a net loss.

Here's a severe example. Let's say the US government lowered military spending to nothing. Then a bunch of nations decide to blow sh!t up. Essentially causing factories and businesses to be destroyed. People are afraid to go outside and shop. Businesses lose out. Crops are destroyed. You get the idea. That essentially lowers production, and as a result (assuming no inflation/deflation) lowers revenue.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...