1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Wow. me being accused of being stupid by someone who doesn't understand that decreasing revenues also  means an increase in deficits. That isn't just stupid, that's moronic.

The current federal budget is unsustainable.   Do you think taxes can be raised by two trillion?   

I think keeping people poor while companies profit from their work. When was the last time the minimum wage rose? 

 

2 hours ago, TedG said:

The current federal budget is unsustainable.   Do you think taxes can be raised by two trillion?   

What do I know? According to you

stupid people like me believe that the big tax cuts by Trump (and Bush and Reagan), increased the national debt and are increasing the national debt at an unsustainable pace. According to deeply knowledgeable people like yourself, it's not tax cuts that are at fault but only increased spending.

However, some of us stupid people believe we understand that deficits like the current 1.8 trillion, don't have to be eliminated entirely, but reduced so that the ratio of debt to GDP becomes sustainable. Perhaps returning taxes to where they were before the Reagan era era might be a good place to begin.

 

7 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What do I know? According to you

stupid people like me believe that the big tax cuts by Trump (and Bush and Reagan), increased the national debt and are increasing the national debt at an unsustainable pace. According to deeply knowledgeable people like yourself, it's not tax cuts that are at fault but only increased spending.

However, some of us stupid people believe we understand that deficits like the current 1.8 trillion, don't have to be eliminated entirely, but reduced so that the ratio of debt to GDP becomes sustainable. Perhaps returning taxes to where they were before the Reagan era era might be a good place to begin.

 

Why don’t you find a graph and look at spending as a percentage of the GDP and revenue as a percentage of the GDP.  Tell me what you noticed.  Look at spending and revenue during budget surpluses.  Look at the current level of federal spending.

1 hour ago, TedG said:

Why don’t you find a graph and look at spending as a percentage of the GDP and revenue as a percentage of the GDP.  Tell me what you noticed.  Look at spending and revenue during budget surpluses.  Look at the current level of federal spending.

I'm not your research assistant. If you've got something factual to offer, share it.

 

What I did do was look at what percentage of GDP federal tax revenue was under Bill Clinton. (My  mostly comes from AI and I'm not about to go to all the labor of documenting this via links and quotations) About 20%. Then I looked at what the average level was since then and it's about 17.5 % (under the first Trump term it dipped to 16%). Total federal tax revenue from the 2001 to the present is about 86 trillion. If the level of total federal taxation were still in effect that would amount to an additional 13 trillion in revenue which would be a reduction of the debt by 13 trillion. Going forward, if the percentage was raised by 3 points to 23%, which is still low by world standards, that would practically wipe out the budget deficit. It would take a lower percentage of taxation to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP back to manageable levels.

On 10/11/2025 at 7:34 AM, Alan Zweibel said:

First time I've heard a video described as an article. But no matter. I suspect it t takes no account purchasing power parity.  For those who don't know what PPP is, it's a way of comparing how much your money can purchase in different countries. It's the reason why so many emigres from the West come to Thailand. Their money goes further. And after, isn't that what matter to people. Not the nominal rate, but what you can buy with your money? When you go that route, the figures are startlingly different.

Here are some tables from an article linked to here:  https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/03/the-poorest-us-state-rivals-germany-gdp-per-capita-in-the-us-and-europe

The one on the left shows nominal GDP (exchange rate values). The second one shows GDP per capita in purchasing power parity. As is customary when measuring PPP the unit is dollars. That means that dollar figures remain constant in both cases.

 

 

The images are a bit small, but you can always use the link to see more clearly. What they show is that in purchasing power, Mississippi ranks below Spain but just above Lithuania.

 

In addition, according to the World Bank, adjusted for PPP, the GDP growth of the EU and the USA are actually very close.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?end=2024&locations=EU-US&start=2007&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

 

And to make matters worse for the USA, what really matters to people is how  healthy is the situation of middle class and working class people. In other words, income equaliity. That's measured by something called the Gini Coefficient. It can be measures in 2 ways. As a range from 0 to 1 or as a percentage, In either case, the lower the number, the greater the income equality.

For Mississippi the Gini Coefficent is 48% or0.48

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/10-us-states-most-income-inequality

For the UK the Gini Coefficient is 32.9% or O.329

https://www.statista.com/statistics/872472/gini-index-of-the-united-kingdom/?srsltid=AfmBOopI9Et86CI9XGytfJqtJVlb2YwoiSYkZ5BYzImy8AaiLWOgUJh3

 

And when the UK was in the EU, it had the highest gini coefficent of all members. 

 

So, all in all, despite the UK's economic problems, the average citizen is still far better off there than in Mississippi.

 

 

 

 

How does the Gini Coefficient measure the heath of the middle class?  

 

It's 0.48 in MISS, so what?   Why does it matter if the average Income of Top 5%: $333,597.  Is that a huge amount of money? 

 

On 10/10/2025 at 10:59 PM, ronnie50 said:

From AI gathered sources below including US Census - nearly half of all Tennessee households struggle with financial hardship. Higher poverty rate than 80% of the nation. Also, not mentioned here, is that the auto sector - that was created to bust the unions 30 years ago - resulted in foreign companies like Nissan and VW opening factories there and paying less than union wages (compared with the auto belt in the north). In Agriculture, a major, staple crop for farmers is soya - OOPS? China ain't buying it!

 

'The poverty rate in Tennessee was 13.8% to 14% in 2023, which is higher than the national average. In addition, another 30% of households are considered "ALICE" (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed), meaning they have income above the official poverty level but still cannot afford basic expenses. This puts a total of approximately 44% of households in the state below the ALICE threshold, struggling with financial hardship.'  

 

 

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07096/SN07096.pdf

 

It's the same as the UK if you add in housing costs. 

 

Look at the poverty rate in Germany. 

 

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Income-Consumption-Living-Conditions/Living-Conditions-Risk-Poverty/_node.html

 

This is a fun read. 

 

Why Europeans Have Less

It's no coincidence why Europeans don't have air conditioning, clothes dryers, or ice.

 

 

https://reason.com/2025/08/25/why-europeans-have-less/?nab=0

 

On 10/10/2025 at 6:06 PM, BLMFem said:

Because it's subsidized by Magastan's richest state.

 

Say, "Thank you, Gavin"!

 

 

go figure you and Newsom are besties

On 10/10/2025 at 10:10 PM, Patong2021 said:

 

Yours is the most important point. The gap between the haves and the have nots in the USA is sowing the seeds of unrest. The USA has a growing population of marginalized people and history shows that such disparity never turns out well.

all fueled by the massive influx of illegals into the country

On 10/10/2025 at 10:36 PM, Tug said:

Nonsense does that state contribute more to the federal funds or does it receive welfare from the fed to help prop it up?that’s my tax dollars supporting a failing retrumplican run state.

my tax dollars helped to pay for your mass transit system that just can't seem to get off of the ground.

2 minutes ago, flexomike said:

all fueled by the massive influx of illegals into the country

Some of it's fueled by jobs moving overseas.    

On 10/10/2025 at 7:30 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

As for how supposedly great things are in the U.S., check the news elsewhere in this forum today:

 

Half of U.S. states sliding into recession, Moody’s warns

 

"The U.S. economy may look strong on paper — with 3.8% GDP growth and 4.3% unemployment — but underneath the surface, roughly half the country is effectively in recession, according to Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi.

 

In an exclusive interview with Fortune, Zandi said 22 states are contracting, while 13 are “treading water.” Only 16 are still expanding, and it’s the economic strength of California, Texas, and New York keeping the national numbers afloat. “Depending on where you live and who you are,” Zandi warned, “the environment around you is recessionary.”

 

Lower- and middle-income Americans are “hanging on by their fingertips,” burdened by debt, slowing wage growth, and fading confidence despite steady employment. “They’ve got jobs,” Zandi said, “but the grip feels more tenuous … if layoffs pick up, that group is gonna get nailed — they have no savings, just debt.”

...

The underlying reality, he said, is that America’s post-pandemic economy is “tethered to the wealthy.” High earners continue to spend, masking distress below the surface. But for millions living paycheck to paycheck, “it already feels like a recession — everything except: ‘I’ve got a job.’

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1375562-half-of-us-states-sliding-into-recession-moody’s-warns/

 

And Mississippi seems to be on the "recession" states list, per the accompanying map with the above article:

 

 

 

 

Thats funny because the real estate market in all of those states doesn't match this prediction at all. Neither does the employment rate.

Didn't Moodys also say Hitlery was going to win ?

On 10/10/2025 at 5:50 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Trump...!!!!

 

Trump is the new Miracle Worker.

 

You spelled Snake Oil, incorrectly 

On 10/12/2025 at 7:41 PM, Alan Zweibel said:

I'm not your research assistant. If you've got something factual to offer, share it.

 

What I did do was look at what percentage of GDP federal tax revenue was under Bill Clinton. (My  mostly comes from AI and I'm not about to go to all the labor of documenting this via links and quotations) About 20%. Then I looked at what the average level was since then and it's about 17.5 % (under the first Trump term it dipped to 16%). Total federal tax revenue from the 2001 to the present is about 86 trillion. If the level of total federal taxation were still in effect that would amount to an additional 13 trillion in revenue which would be a reduction of the debt by 13 trillion. Going forward, if the percentage was raised by 3 points to 23%, which is still low by world standards, that would practically wipe out the budget deficit. It would take a lower percentage of taxation to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP back to manageable levels.

Since World War II, the Federal government has never collected more than 19% of the GDP in taxes, regardless of the tax rates.   That means that spending at 23% of the GDP is not sustainable.   Since you were on the left, you will never look at the numbers and admit the Democrats have built an unaffordable federal government.  Look at Social Security, it's run a deficit since 2010, and the Democrats have done nothing to address this issue.  

12 hours ago, Slowhand225 said:

 

Thats funny because the real estate market in all of those states doesn't match this prediction at all. Neither does the employment rate.

Didn't Moodys also say Hitlery was going to win ?

Moody's is the same firm that sold bond ratings, which contributed to the 2009 housing market crash. 

On 10/14/2025 at 8:14 PM, TedG said:

Since World War II, the Federal government has never collected more than 19% of the GDP in taxes, regardless of the tax rates.   That means that spending at 23% of the GDP is not sustainable.   Since you were on the left, you will never look at the numbers and admit the Democrats have built an unaffordable federal government.  Look at Social Security, it's run a deficit since 2010, and the Democrats have done nothing to address this issue.  

For what it's worth, in the year 2000 the federal govt collected 19.75613% of GDP.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

But, of course, your point is inane. What if you had suggested to someone in 2039 that because the federal govt. had never collected more 7.7285% of GDP  that meant that collecting more than that was not sustainable?

And you're wrong about the Democrats never having done anything about it. The collaborated with Reagan to raise the age when full benefits would begin. 

" By 1983, facing the possibility that checks might actually be delayed for millions of retirees, the commission proposed a set of changes including raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 over time, advancing scheduled payroll tax increases, increasing taxes on the self-employed, and taxing Social Security benefits above an income threshold. Supported by both President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, Congress quickly passed the changes."

https://www.cato.org/downsizing-government-essay/reforming-social-security-retirement#history-of-social-security

 

42 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

For what it's worth, in the year 2000 the federal govt collected 19.75613% of GDP.

That's the record. Compare that to spending in 2025. 

43 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

But, of course, your point is inane. What if you had suggested to someone in 2039 that because the federal govt. had never collected more than 7.7285% of GDP  , which meant that collecting more than that was not sustainable?

I never used 7.7285%.  

43 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

And you're wrong about the Democrats never having done anything about it. The collaborated with Reagan to raise the age when full benefits would begin. 

That was the 1980s.   Social Security has run a deficit since 2010. 

16 minutes ago, TedG said:

I never used 7.7285%.  

You missed the point. Just because the level has never been higher doesn't mean it can't be higher.

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You missed the point. Just because the level has never been higher doesn't mean it can't be higher.

The crushing tax rates of the past never touched 20% of the GDP. 

16 minutes ago, TedG said:

That was the 1980s.   Social Security has run a deficit since 2010. 

You claimed that the Democrats did nothing.

 

17 minutes ago, TedG said:

That was the 1980s.   Social Security has run a deficit since 2010. 

And what have the Republicans done to address the issue?in fact, by restricting immigration, where workers tend to be younger, they are actually ensuring that Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits sooner.

The obvious solution is to raise taxes on social security. There's a lot of popular support for that:

https://www.aarp.org/social-security/survey-raising-taxes/

https://www.nasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NASI_SocialSecurityat90.pdf

https://news.gallup.com/poll/546890/americans-upbeat-future-social-security-benefits.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com

On 10/14/2025 at 6:32 AM, Mike_Hunt said:

How does the Gini Coefficient measure the heath of the middle class?  

 

It's 0.48 in MISS, so what?   Why does it matter if the average Income of Top 5%: $333,597.  Is that a huge amount of money? 

 

When the upper classes start pulling away from the middle classes in developed nations, that's virtually always resulted in a decline in the size and income of the middle classes.

7 minutes ago, TedG said:

The crushing tax rates of the past never touched 20% of the GDP. 

Do you think that your use of the word "crushing" actually makes them so? And before you claimed it was never over 19%,

11 minutes ago, TedG said:

The crushing tax rates of the past never touched 20% of the GDP. 

As for the crushing tax rates of the past. Here are 2 charts. One shows the ratio of federal revenue compared to GDP. The other shows GDP growth. Look at the Clinton years when taxes were sharply increased. Right wingers like you predicted that the economy would be crushed. Was it?

 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You claimed that the Democrats did nothing.

Which is true.  SS has run a defeict since 2010 and dems have done nothing to address the issue. 

23 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for the crushing tax rates of the past. Here are 2 charts. One shows the ratio of federal revenue compared to GDP. The other shows GDP growth. Look at the Clinton years when taxes were sharply increased. Right wingers like you predicted that the economy would be crushed. Was it?

 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP

 

 

 

Thanks for posting these graphs to further my point.  When has revenue ever crossed the 20% line?  Clinton had the revenue from the dot.com boom and never crossed the 20% line.   This proves my point that the current levels of spending are unsustainable.  In 2022, Biden had never recorded revenues but had a massive deficit. 

1 minute ago, TedG said:

Which is true.  SS has run a defeict since 2010 and dems have done nothing to address the issue. 

And what have the Republicans done except make the situation worse by restricting immigration. And I don't think that the Democrats, when push comes to shove, will resist raising taxes on social security. While the Republicans will consider that a case of evil incarnate.

34 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Do you think that your use of the word "crushing" actually makes them so? And before you claimed it was never over 19%,

Yes, crushing tax rate. These rates held back the growth of the economy.