The US Debt Problem

[SiSePuede419]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:38 PM, Cameroni said:

Completely false. You should read the Bell Curve and educate yourself.

Not completely false.

Incorrect. 

That theory is flawed or at least oversimplified.

 

You should learn critical thinking skills so you won't fall for biased theories by conservatives trying to promote classism and racism. 😄

 

The theory in The Bell Curve (1994) by Herrnstein and Murray argues that IQ is a strong predictor of success in life, including wealth. While there is some correlation between IQ and income, many researchers have criticized the idea that IQ directly determines wealth. Here's why that theory is flawed or at least oversimplified:

 

1. Correlation ≠ Causation

Just because IQ correlates with wealth doesn't mean one causes the other.

Other factors — like family background, education, social networks, and opportunity — play huge roles.

 

2. Socioeconomic Status Influences IQ

People raised in wealthier, more stimulating environments tend to score higher on IQ tests.

So wealth (or poverty) can influence IQ scores — not just the other way around.

 

3. IQ Tests Are Not Comprehensive

IQ tests focus on a narrow set of cognitive skills.

Traits like grit, creativity, emotional intelligence, adaptability, and social skills often matter more in career and financial success.

 

4. Systemic Inequality and Access Matter

Access to quality education, mentorship, and capital is often unequally distributed.

Two people with the same IQ may have vastly different outcomes depending on race, gender, geography, and economic background.

 

5. IQ Is Not Fixed

IQ can change over time and is affected by nutrition, stress, education, and health. It’s not an immutable, purely genetic trait as the book often implies.

 

6. Plenty of Exceptions

Many wealthy and successful individuals have average IQs.

Likewise, some people with very high IQs never become wealthy — especially if they lack opportunity, drive, or social capital.

[SiSePuede419]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:47 PM, sqwakvfr said:

My guess if the US implemented a 90% income tax rate on the ultra rich many would immediately hire smart lawyers and CPA'a to avoid paying such high rates.  Those who can would consider just packing up and going elsewhere.

Not if there's no loopholes to hide in.

Good riddance!

Take the America hating trash out. 🧹

[SiSePuede419]

On 4/16/2025 at 8:35 PM, mogandave said:

And still, they are punished for saving money. 

 

Children are taught Critical Race Theory and gender fluidity rather than math and civics. 

Yeah, everytime kids want to take their piggy bank to the cashier to open an account the bank asks them about a college level theory that's not taught in any elementary or high school anywhere in America...

 

And then the bank gives them a free toaster for opening up that big fat 5% interest savings account. 😄

 

[Presnock]

On 4/14/2025 at 7:34 PM, Cameroni said:

 

No, it is because the US does not have a debt problem. The strength of the US economy is why people biy US Treasury bonds. Not because they like America so much.

 

In effect the US could easily wipe out its debt. Yes, 36 trillion USD of debt sounds like a lot, but when you factor in that the US creates wealth of 29 trillion USD GDP EVERY SINGLE YEAR, you quickly realise that the US debt is not a problem.

 

If the US wanted, it could pass a tax and wipe out national debt in a few years. However, there is no reason to do so. It is not a problem.

The problem is the elected officials, and the rich who only want to get richer, time they were brought back down to earth IMHO.  Trump the first of all!

[SiSePuede419]

On 4/16/2025 at 7:45 PM, mogandave said:

All of the sudden the left cares about the debt. 

I already disproven that once.

How many times do I have to repeat the facts before it "takes"? 😄

 

1. 1983 – Tip O'Neill (Speaker of the House)

O'Neill and other Democrats expressed concern over Reagan's large tax cuts and defense spending, warning they would balloon the deficit.

 

 

2. 1992 – Bill Clinton Presidential Campaign

Clinton criticized the debt under Republican administrations and campaigned on reducing the deficit to restore investor confidence and lower interest rates.

 

 

3. 1993 – Clinton’s Deficit Reduction Plan

Democrats passed a budget (without GOP support) aimed at reducing the deficit through a mix of tax increases on the wealthy and spending restraints. Republicans predicted economic disaster, but the plan led to surpluses by the end of the decade.

 

 

4. Late 1990s – Democratic Praise for Surpluses

During Clinton’s second term, Democrats celebrated the budget surpluses and promoted paying down the national debt as a top fiscal goal.

 

 

5. 2001 – Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts

Many Democrats warned the Bush tax cuts would turn Clinton-era surpluses into deficits, which they did. Senators like Paul Wellstone and Minority Leader Tom Daschle raised fiscal red flags.

 

 

6. 2003 – Criticism of Iraq War Spending

Democrats questioned the cost of the Iraq War, especially as it was funded through deficit spending while taxes had been cut.

 

 

7. 2010 – Obama & Bowles-Simpson Commission

President Obama established a bipartisan debt commission to address long-term debt concerns. While Congress did not adopt the plan, it showed Democratic willingness to address fiscal issues.

 

 

8. 2011 – Debt Ceiling Standoff

Democrats agreed to spending caps under the Budget Control Act after Republicans pushed for debt reductions. Obama and many Democrats warned about the consequences of high debt and brinksmanship.

 

 

9. 2017 – Criticism of Trump Tax Cuts

Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, warned that the 2017 GOP tax cuts would explode the deficit — which they did — and criticized the irresponsibility of tax cuts without offsets.

 

 

10. 2023 – Debt Ceiling Debate

Biden and Democratic leaders argued for raising the debt ceiling without political games, warning that default would hurt the economy and that reckless tax cuts and spending under previous GOP leadership contributed to the debt.

[Cameroni]

28 minutes ago, Presnock said:

The problem is the elected officials, and the rich who only want to get richer, time they were brought back down to earth IMHO.  Trump the first of all!

 

Well Trump is tackling that problem, he is carving out the bloated bureacracy. He is making the rich corporate entities build factories for Americans workers.

[KhunLA]

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Ahh, the Illiquid Asset King speaks!

 

You do realize that real estate is not a liquid asset?

 

I don't think so. 😄

 

It's not that you "can't touch" a freshly purchased real estate asset for money, it's just that you'll probably lose money on it due to the transaction costs.

 

But yeah, good advice!

 

Get in your time machine and invest in real estate 25 years ago and you can make a lot of money selling it today. 🤗

 

Correct — real estate is generally not considered a liquid asset.

 

Here's why:

Liquidity refers to how quickly and easily an asset can be converted into cash without significantly affecting its value.

 

Real estate typically takes time to sell — weeks, months, or even longer — due to the complexities of the sales process, negotiations, inspections, and legal paperwork.

 

It also often involves transaction costs like agent fees, closing costs, and taxes.

 

Plus, market conditions can affect how quickly a property sells and at what price.

 

In contrast, liquid assets like cash, stocks, or money market funds can be quickly accessed or sold with minimal loss of value.

 

And yet, I've never loss money in RE.  Quite the opposite, and 50-500% profits selling.  Along with suppling income an or free housing for myself.

 

People need 2 thing, food and a place to live.  Providing food is too much work.  Housing, simply too easy.

 

RE provides income, that liquid enough.  Unless just starting out, if you're investing in RE, you have plenty of COH.

[sqwakvfr]

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Not if there's no loopholes to hide in.

Good riddance!

Take the America hating trash out. 🧹

My CPA told me the US Tax Code is nothing but loopholes.  Some have been discovered, some have yet to be discovered and some will never be discovered.  An experienced CPA and an experienced tax lawyer will always be smarter than any IRS Agent.  This has been and will be the American way in terms of income taxes.  But many can dream the day that "the ultra rich will be paying their fair share" will come? I'm still waiting for Santa Claus. 

[SiSePuede419]

4 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

My CPA told me the US Tax Code is nothing but loopholes.  Some have been discovered, some have yet to be discovered and some will never be discovered.  An experienced CPA and an experienced tax lawyer will always be smarter than any IRS Agent.  This has been and will be the American way in terms of income taxes.  But many can dream the day that "the ultra rich will be paying their fair share" will come? I'm still waiting for Santa Claus. 

Correct. 

 

Because rich people paid to make the tax law designed with loopholes in place. 

 

Duh.

 

All those tax laws can be changed.

 

They can be streamlined and simplified so there are few if any loopholes.

 

Anyone caught cheating automatically gets bumped up to the highest tax bracket.

 

But rich people don't want that.

 

That would be terrible.

 

They would be slightly less rich.

 

BOO HOO HOO

 

They pay off Republicans to make sure that will never happen.

 

The End. 😀

 

p.s. I got a great investment opportunity 17% ROI we're buying condos and building an extra floor by dividing it into two half floors, which doubles the square footage and then we're growing indoor dwarf coffee trees by actual dwarves and selling the coffee to trump supporters for $50 a pound by advertising on Joe Rogan about how drinking it can increase your dick size or at least by comparison due to the tiny hands of the dwarves. And it's fully tax deductible.

 

You in? 😄

[Mike_Hunt]

5 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

I already disproven that once.

How many times do I have to repeat the facts before it "takes"? 😄

 

1. 1983 – Tip O'Neill (Speaker of the House)

O'Neill and other Democrats expressed concern over Reagan's large tax cuts and defense spending, warning they would balloon the deficit.

 

 

2. 1992 – Bill Clinton Presidential Campaign

Clinton criticized the debt under Republican administrations and campaigned on reducing the deficit to restore investor confidence and lower interest rates.

 

 

3. 1993 – Clinton’s Deficit Reduction Plan

Democrats passed a budget (without GOP support) aimed at reducing the deficit through a mix of tax increases on the wealthy and spending restraints. Republicans predicted economic disaster, but the plan led to surpluses by the end of the decade.

 

 

4. Late 1990s – Democratic Praise for Surpluses

During Clinton’s second term, Democrats celebrated the budget surpluses and promoted paying down the national debt as a top fiscal goal.

 

 

5. 2001 – Opposition to Bush Tax Cuts

Many Democrats warned the Bush tax cuts would turn Clinton-era surpluses into deficits, which they did. Senators like Paul Wellstone and Minority Leader Tom Daschle raised fiscal red flags.

 

 

6. 2003 – Criticism of Iraq War Spending

Democrats questioned the cost of the Iraq War, especially as it was funded through deficit spending while taxes had been cut.

 

 

7. 2010 – Obama & Bowles-Simpson Commission

President Obama established a bipartisan debt commission to address long-term debt concerns. While Congress did not adopt the plan, it showed Democratic willingness to address fiscal issues.

 

 

8. 2011 – Debt Ceiling Standoff

Democrats agreed to spending caps under the Budget Control Act after Republicans pushed for debt reductions. Obama and many Democrats warned about the consequences of high debt and brinksmanship.

 

 

9. 2017 – Criticism of Trump Tax Cuts

Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, warned that the 2017 GOP tax cuts would explode the deficit — which they did — and criticized the irresponsibility of tax cuts without offsets.

 

 

10. 2023 – Debt Ceiling Debate

Biden and Democratic leaders argued for raising the debt ceiling without political games, warning that default would hurt the economy and that reckless tax cuts and spending under previous GOP leadership contributed to the debt.

 

The Democrats do not care about the massive debt.   Look at the current levels of spending. 

[sqwakvfr]

3 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Correct. 

 

Because rich people paid to make the tax law designed with loopholes in place. 

 

Duh.

 

All those tax laws can be changed.

 

They can be streamlined and simplified so there are few if any loopholes.

 

Anyone caught cheating automatically gets bumped up to the highest tax bracket.

 

But rich people don't want that.

 

That would be terrible.

 

They would be slightly less rich.

 

BOO HOO HOO

 

They pay off Republicans to make sure that will never happen.

 

The End. 😀

 

p.s. I got a great investment opportunity 17% ROI we're buying condos and building an extra floor by dividing it into two half floors, which doubles the square footage and then we're growing indoor dwarf coffee trees by actual dwarves and selling the coffee to trump supporters for $50 a pound by advertising on Joe Rogan about how drinking it can increase your dick size or at least by comparison due to the tiny hands of the dwarves. And it's fully tax deductible.

 

You in? 😄

How long would it take to make changes to the US Tax code? Longer than you could you imagine.  Too many interested parties with deep pockets to remain "status quo".  

Lastly, for how long have we Americans heard about going to flat tax rates?  About as long as i have been using my CPA to file income taxes (36 years and counting).  How much business do you think CPA's and Tax lawyers would lose with flat tax rates?

[mogandave]

8 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

I already disproven that once.

How many times do I have to repeat the facts before it "takes"? 😄

You’re right, the left does not really care about the debt, I was just kidding. 

 

All the left cares about is sabotaging Trump’s agenda, and they do no care who gets hurt doing it. they know it won’t be them. 

 

Democrats are the party of the uber rich, the coastal elites, and the subsidized poor.

[SiSePuede419]

58 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You’re right, the left does not really care about the debt, I was just kidding. 

 

All the left cares about is sabotaging Trump’s agenda, and they do no care who gets hurt doing it. they know it won’t be them. 

 

Democrats are the party of the uber rich, the coastal elites, and the subsidized poor.

Gaslighting 101.

 

You ignored the facts which go back to 1983, then you lied about it.

 

Then everything after that was a lie too.

 

Musk is the world's richest man bought him a Republican President lives on the Texas (checks map), yup right on the Gulf of America coast. 

 

Most Medicaid and welfare recipients live in Red States.

 

Man, you get up early to lie. 

 

Do you get paid for it or you do it for free?

 

Elon Musk ain't lying about all the "corruption" he found for free, Cubby.

 

Republicans don't lie for free, that's only the "gulls" that do that. 😆

 

[SiSePuede419]

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

How long would it take to make changes to the US

It could be done tomorrow.

 

If Rich people want to do something, it can be done very quickly.

 

But they don't.

 

And Republicans won't. 

 

They're in charge now.

 

No way are they going to simplify the tax code to a simple curve with no deductions for anything.

 

[SiSePuede419]

4 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

The Democrats do not care about the massive debt.   Look at the current levels of spending. 

Gaslighting chorus. 

Are you an alto or soprano? 😭

[SiSePuede419]

According to ChatGPT, the US debt problem is caused by Republicans Gaslighting us.

When Democrats are in charge, they whine about the debt.

When Republicans are in charge, nothing matters and they keep blaming Democrats.

Tired old and stupid is no way to go through life, son 

😂

 

The U.S. national debt has grown under both Republican and Democratic presidents, but the largest increases in raw dollar terms and as a share of GDP have often occurred under Republican administrations, especially in recent decades.

 

Would you like a chart showing debt growth by president or adjusted for GDP?

 

No thanks ChatGPT, I think all the losers here just want to lie to us and gaslight using their bloviations they put out of their bums. 😁

 

[Mike_Hunt]

15 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Gaslighting chorus. 

Are you an alto or soprano? 😭

 

Look at the spending levels.   

[Mike_Hunt]

11 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

According to ChatGPT, the US debt problem is caused by Republicans Gaslighting us.

When Democrats are in charge, they whine about the debt.

When Republicans are in charge, nothing matters and they keep blaming Democrats.

Tired old and stupid is no way to go through life, son 

😂

 

The U.S. national debt has grown under both Republican and Democratic presidents, but the largest increases in raw dollar terms and as a share of GDP have often occurred under Republican administrations, especially in recent decades.

 

Would you like a chart showing debt growth by president or adjusted for GDP?

 

No thanks ChatGPT, I think all the losers here just want to lie to us and gaslight using their bloviations they put out of their bums. 😁

 

 

David Ranson has an interesting piece at the Wall Street Journal about "Hauser's Law," the observation that federal tax revenues have historically not exceeded about 19%-20% of GDP despite significant increases and decreases in tax rates. The implication is that attempts to raise revenue above this purported ceiling will reduce GDP and thus reduce collections under the ceiling

 

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/hausers-law-can-tax-revenues-exceed-19-gdp/

 

 

[placeholder]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:38 PM, Cameroni said:

 

Completely false. You should read the Bell Curve and educate yourself.

Not surprising that you would like the Bell Curve. After all, most of it was based on the work of Mankind Quarterly and the PIoneer Fund:

 

"No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly. Ten are present or former editors, or members of its editorial advisory board. This is interesting because Mankind Quarterly is a notorious journal of “racial history” founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race."

https://archive.ph/VwlFd#selection-1589.22-1602.1

 

"The Pioneer Fund was incorporated on March 11, 1937. The incorporation documents of the Pioneer Fund list two purposes. The first, modeled on the Nazi Lebensborn breeding program,^[17] was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended". Its second purpose was to support academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".^[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

[nick supreme]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Not surprising that you would like the Bell Curve. After all, most of it was based on the work of Mankind Quarterly and the PIoneer Fund:

 

"No fewer than seventeen researchers cited in the bibliography of The Bell Curve have contributed to Mankind Quarterly. Ten are present or former editors, or members of its editorial advisory board. This is interesting because Mankind Quarterly is a notorious journal of “racial history” founded, and funded, by men who believe in the genetic superiority of the white race."

https://archive.ph/VwlFd#selection-1589.22-1602.1

 

"The Pioneer Fund was incorporated on March 11, 1937. The incorporation documents of the Pioneer Fund list two purposes. The first, modeled on the Nazi Lebensborn breeding program,^[17] was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended". Its second purpose was to support academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".^[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

This is white supremacy.  Africa would have first world nations if it was not for European colonization. 

[sqwakvfr]

9 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

It could be done tomorrow.

 

If Rich people want to do something, it can be done very quickly.

 

But they don't.

 

And Republicans won't. 

 

They're in charge now.

 

No way are they going to simplify the tax code to a simple curve with no deductions for anything.

 

It can be done "tommorrow"  then why did it not happen during the 8 years of the Obama administration or the 4 years of the Biden-Harris or Harris-Biden years?  

[SiSePuede419]

58 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

It can be done "tommorrow"  then why did it not happen during the 8 years of the Obama administration or the 4 years of the Biden-Harris or Harris-Biden years?  

Sesame street can help you clear up your confusion about how tax laws are passed.

 

Hint: Democrat Presidents can't pass laws.

 

Hope this helps!

 

[sqwakvfr]

5 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Sesame street can help you clear up your confusion about how tax laws are passed.

 

Hint: Democrat Presidents can't pass laws.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Of course not.  Presdient can either sign or not sign it.  Only Congress can create new laws. This is called the power of the legislature. Last time I checked Republican Presidents cannot pass lawa as well. 

[SiSePuede419]

9 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

David Ranson has an interesting piece at the Wall Street Journal about "Hauser's Law," the observation that federal tax revenues have historically not exceeded about 19%-20% of GDP despite significant increases and decreases in tax rates. The implication is that attempts to raise revenue above this purported ceiling will reduce GDP and thus reduce collections under the ceiling

 

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/hausers-law-can-tax-revenues-exceed-19-gdp/

 

 

 

Hauser’s Law is often cited in debates about taxation, but it's frequently misunderstood or misapplied.

BINGO 😄

 

Here's a breakdown of why it's insufficient to argue against raising taxes on the rich to boost prosperity:

1. It’s Descriptive, Not Prescriptive

Hauser’s Law is an observation, not an economic law like gravity. It doesn’t prove why tax revenue remains stable—it just notes that it has. Using it to argue that tax policy changes are futile is a leap in logic.

 

2. Revenue Stability Can Be a Result of Other Factors

The percentage of GDP collected in taxes may stay the same for many reasons, like:

 

Tax loopholes

Shifting income categories (e.g., from wages to capital gains)

Tax avoidance or evasion by the wealthy

Changes in economic behavior due to tax rates

 

So if revenue as a share of GDP stays constant despite tax changes, that might signal a broken system, not that tax policy doesn’t matter.

 

3. Hauser’s Law Doesn’t Address Distribution

Even if total revenue as a percent of GDP stays steady, how that money is collected matters a lot. Shifting more of the burden onto the wealthy can:

 

Reduce inequality

Increase effective demand (since lower- and middle-income people spend more of their income)

 

Fund public services and infrastructure, which support long-term prosperity

 

 

4. It Ignores State and Local Taxes

Hauser’s Law only looks at federal revenue. But many tax policy decisions happen at state and local levels, where the impact of progressive taxation can be more pronounced and meaningful.

 

5. GDP Isn’t a Perfect Benchmark

Linking revenue to GDP alone ignores broader impacts like:

Wealth accumulation at the top

Underinvestment in education, health, and infrastructure

Long-term fiscal sustainability

 

I RECOMMEND YOU LEARN HOW TO USE CHATGPT SO YOU DON'T LOOK SO GULLIBLE TO FAKE GOP TALKING POINTS 

 

Let me know if you need any help setting up ChatGPT. 👋

[SiSePuede419]

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So you are saying Democrat Presidents never had a majority in Congress? 

So you want to keep ignoring that all 100% of Republicans in Congress don't want to do this and ignore the fact that Republicans have controlled Congress most of the time since the 70s? 😂

[sqwakvfr]

7 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

So you want to keep ignoring that all 100% of Republicans in Congress don't want to do this and ignore the fact that Republicans have controlled Congress most of the time since the 70s? 😂

So Pelosi was never speaker of the House? I doubt 100% of Republicans would agree on any one subject. Effective leadership at times can accompish "bipartisan" support. 

[SiSePuede419]

11 hours ago, mogandave said:

You’re right, the left does not really care about the debt, I was just kidding. 

 

All the left cares about is sabotaging Trump’s agenda, and they do no care who gets hurt doing it. they know it won’t be them. 

 

Democrats are the party of the uber rich, the coastal elites, and the subsidized poor.

Your hero Donald Trump really does have a "superpower"...

 

It is being so brazen and insistent in his dishonesty and stupidity that his lackeys, sycophants and credulous marks HAVE NO CHOICE but to adopt his stupidity and dishonesty as their own.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, may I present the above for your consideration. 😄

 

 

[SiSePuede419]

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So Pelosi was never speaker of the House? I doubt 100% of Republicans would agree on any one subject. 

You keep on ignoring my questions and not answering them.

True or False? Only Congress can pass laws.

True or False? Congress has been controlled by mostly Republicans for decades

True or False? Republicans in Congress have never attempted to simplify the tax code only talked about it 

 

Answers: T, T, T.  😭

[Mike_Hunt]

23 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

 

Hauser’s Law is often cited in debates about taxation, but it's frequently misunderstood or misapplied.

BINGO 😄

 

Here's a breakdown of why it's insufficient to argue against raising taxes on the rich to boost prosperity:

1. It’s Descriptive, Not Prescriptive

Hauser’s Law is an observation, not an economic law like gravity. It doesn’t prove why tax revenue remains stable—it just notes that it has. Using it to argue that tax policy changes are futile is a leap in logic.

 

2. Revenue Stability Can Be a Result of Other Factors

The percentage of GDP collected in taxes may stay the same for many reasons, like:

 

Tax loopholes

Shifting income categories (e.g., from wages to capital gains)

Tax avoidance or evasion by the wealthy

Changes in economic behavior due to tax rates

 

So if revenue as a share of GDP stays constant despite tax changes, that might signal a broken system, not that tax policy doesn’t matter.

 

3. Hauser’s Law Doesn’t Address Distribution

Even if total revenue as a percent of GDP stays steady, how that money is collected matters a lot. Shifting more of the burden onto the wealthy can:

 

Reduce inequality

Increase effective demand (since lower- and middle-income people spend more of their income)

 

Fund public services and infrastructure, which support long-term prosperity

 

 

4. It Ignores State and Local Taxes

Hauser’s Law only looks at federal revenue. But many tax policy decisions happen at state and local levels, where the impact of progressive taxation can be more pronounced and meaningful.

 

5. GDP Isn’t a Perfect Benchmark

Linking revenue to GDP alone ignores broader impacts like:

Wealth accumulation at the top

Underinvestment in education, health, and infrastructure

Long-term fiscal sustainability

 

I RECOMMEND YOU LEARN HOW TO USE CHATGPT SO YOU DON'T LOOK SO GULLIBLE TO FAKE GOP TALKING POINTS 

 

Let me know if you need any help setting up ChatGPT. 👋

 

1) The trend can be used for planning.   Name one time when the US has collected over 20% of the GDP in revenue. 

2) Nah

3) Converting the data to a percentage of the GDP normalizes the data from year to year. 

4) This is not about state and local taxes.  This is about federal spending. 

5) Your arguments are silly. 

 

 

[Mike_Hunt]

20 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So Pelosi was never speaker of the House? I doubt 100% of Republicans would agree on any one subject. Effective leadership at times can accompish "bipartisan" support. 

Some of the largest debt runups occurred when Pelosi was the speaker of the House.