In your opinion, what is the most effective way to address the national debt?💵

[Liquid Reigns]

We have neither the capability nor the authority to simply kick people out. That is according to the United States Supreme Court.

What we can do is to force guest workers to get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay taxes. Most people here without papers opt that route because immigration status has nothing to do with owing taxes - or so says the IRS.

If the foreign governments are going to assist their citizenry coming here in droves, then those governments should be charged for what it costs us to provide border security, process their citizens, give them taxpayer ID numbers and make sure that their home country pays for any costs we incur taking care of them.

The Supreme court has no say over illegal immigrants. It falls within the the authority of Congress. Yes, we do have the capability to remove them, we lack the person in power to do so.

Most illegals and guest workers all obtain ITIN's, illegals think somehow that will help them if there is ever another amnesty.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

While I liked your reply, the problem with Ukraine is that if we pull out, Putin will go after smaller NATO countries that worked with us. That will obligate us and we will have American boots on the ground, fighting Russia. We need to get out of NATO, then you can wave good-bye to being obligated to fight all these wars.

Putin won't go after a NATO country, he only attacked because of what the Ukrainians were doing in the Donbass to Russian's.

Ukraine is already being placed on the back burner and the US is telling them to come up with a solution for peace, after the US and a few other countries scuttled a peace agreement shortly after the war began.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The government does not print money or regulate the value thereof. That is done by a private entity.

The US Treasury prints the money, they fall under the executive branches control. The Treasury is part of the government.

 

[TheResister]

The Federal Reserve is a government entity, not a private one. It derives its powers from Congress according to law.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

“The Board reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress but, unlike many other public agencies, it is not funded by congressional appropriations.”

There is nothing federal about the Federal Reserve. Congresscritters are accountable to the Federal Reserve.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

There is nothing federal about the Federal Reserve. Congresscritters are accountable to the Federal Reserve.

and there aint no reserve

 

[TheResister]

and there aint no reserve

Get educated and have a laugh in just a couple of short minutes:

 

[Joe King]

No. Congress has always had that power and still does. The Fed only does what Congress authorized by law.

They delegated the power of money creation to the federal reserve in 1913. Try to stay caught up, please.

That’s what we have. You do know they are the ones that ratified The Constitution which authorizes our current tax system?

The Founders intended for all direct taxes to be apportioned. That was destroyed by the the 16th amendment.

The Founders did not ratify a Constitution with unlimited power of taxation.

Not necessarily. Congress could easily tax enough to balance the budget at current spending levels without depleting the tax base.

Not when the income of the base is not keeping up with growth in federal spending.

Besides, the gov already takes approx 18% of gdp. If they exceed that, it hurts the economy more than it benefits.

That wouldn’t be nearly as effective as spending reductions coupled with tax increases.

So you admit that spending reductions is the way to go.
If the gov spends less by a sufficient amount, there would be no need for tax increases.

The largest part of the problem is the Keynesian tax cuts that Congress keeps authorizing without matching reductions in spending.

Well, if congress is dumb enough to cut taxes without cutting spending, then they deserve the problem they created, and so do the people who were dumb enough to elect such fiscally irresponsible people to represent them.

name one thing the government obtained consensually without coercion

One thing would be SS taxes. Every person holding and using an SS#, has done so voluntarily in the hopes of deriving future benefit of the federal government.

To get a #, it must be applied for. Ie: you have to ask the gov to give you one by filling out an application which it must then approve.

 

[TheResister]

They delegated the power of money creation to the federal reserve in 1913. Try to stay caught up, please.


The Founders intended for all direct taxes to be apportioned. That was destroyed by the the 16th amendment.

The Founders did not ratify a Constitution with unlimited power of taxation.



Not when the income of the base is not keeping up with growth in federal spending.

Besides, the gov already takes approx 18% of gdp. If they exceed that, it hurts the economy more than it benefits.



So you admit that spending reductions is the way to go.
If the gov spends less by a sufficient amount, there would be no need for tax increases.


Well, if congress is dumb enough to cut taxes without cutting spending, then they deserve the problem they created, and so do the people who were dumb enough to elect such fiscally irresponsible people to represent them.


One thing would be SS taxes. Every person holding and using an SS#, has done so voluntarily in the hopes of deriving future benefit of the federal government.

To get a #, it must be applied for. Ie: you have to ask the gov to give you one by filling out an application which it must then approve.

It don't work that way any longer. I was one of those who learned how to revoke a Socialist Security Number eons ago, but the way it works now is that a baby doesn't leave the hospital without having an SSN assigned to them. It ain't voluntary no more.

 

[Ip-tide Watercat]

They delegated the power of money creation to the federal reserve in 1913. Try to stay caught up, please.


The Founders intended for all direct taxes to be apportioned. That was destroyed by the the 16th amendment.

The Founders did not ratify a Constitution with unlimited power of taxation.



Not when the income of the base is not keeping up with growth in federal spending.

Besides, the gov already takes approx 18% of gdp. If they exceed that, it hurts the economy more than it benefits.



So you admit that spending reductions is the way to go.
If the gov spends less by a sufficient amount, there would be no need for tax increases.


Well, if congress is dumb enough to cut taxes without cutting spending, then they deserve the problem they created, and so do the people who were dumb enough to elect such fiscally irresponsible people to represent them.


One thing would be SS taxes. Every person holding and using an SS#, has done so voluntarily in the hopes of deriving future benefit of the federal government.

To get a #, it must be applied for. Ie: you have to ask the gov to give you one by filling out an application which it must then approve.

i agreed up until your SSN argument. mostly good stuff

 

[Joe King]

It don't work that way any longer. I was one of those who learned how to revoke a Socialist Security Number eons ago, but the way it works now is that a baby doesn't leave the hospital without having an SSN assigned to them. It ain't voluntary no more.

It still is.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

They delegated the power of money creation to the federal reserve in 1913. Try to stay caught up, please.


The Founders intended for all direct taxes to be apportioned. That was destroyed by the the 16th amendment.

The Founders did not ratify a Constitution with unlimited power of taxation.



Not when the income of the base is not keeping up with growth in federal spending.

Besides, the gov already takes approx 18% of gdp. If they exceed that, it hurts the economy more than it benefits.



So you admit that spending reductions is the way to go.
If the gov spends less by a sufficient amount, there would be no need for tax increases.


Well, if congress is dumb enough to cut taxes without cutting spending, then they deserve the problem they created, and so do the people who were dumb enough to elect such fiscally irresponsible people to represent them.


One thing would be SS taxes. Every person holding and using an SS#, has done so voluntarily in the hopes of deriving future benefit of the federal government.

To get a #, it must be applied for. Ie: you have to ask the gov to give you one by filling out an application which it must then approve.

Delegating the power is part of holding power. Let’s not act like Congress couldn’t simply abolish The Fed if they wanted to. Everything The Fed does must be authorized by Congress.

That’s what you get with Republicans is fiscal irresponsibility. Think of the tax cuts since Bush that haven’t been offset with spending cuts.

We all wish taxes would be lower. However, I’d certainly pay more in taxes if it meant paying down the national debt.

The tax base in America could easily withstand extra taxation in the amount needed to balance the budget as it stands today.

Don’t be to the 16th amendment what @TheResister is to the 14th amendment.

If we are talking spending cuts that are actually in the realm of possible I’ve already posted a list above from the CBO. I’d love to hear your thoughts because there are many there I would personally support.

This is a serious issue that deserves attention so let’s not get derailed with conspiracy theories about The Fed, gold standards, and sunsetting Social Security.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That’s what you get with Republicans is fiscal irresponsibility. Think of the tax cuts since Bush that haven’t been offset with spending cuts.

We all wish taxes would be lower. However, I’d certainly pay more in taxes if it meant paying down the national debt.

The tax base in America could easily withstand extra taxation in the amount needed to balance the budget as it stands today.

Don’t be to the 16th amendment what @TheResister is to the 14th amendment.

If we are talking spending cuts that are actually in the realm of possible I’ve already posted a list above from the CBO. I’d love to hear your thoughts because there are many there I would personally support.

This is a serious issue that deserves attention so let’s not get derailed with conspiracy theories about The Fed, gold standards, and sunsetting Social Security.

Don't be an ideological clown..."Republicans = fiscal irresponsibility" SMFH

The Federal Government has never met a funding issue they didn't like, its all political theater that ideological clowns are duped by.

Taxes, taxes, taxes......tax cuts actually increase tax revenue as history repeatedly shows.

Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue?

Tax cuts lead to increased government revenue...and this article proves it!

www.forbes.com

The tax base in the US shouldn't have to withstand additional taxation, the feds aren't the only ones taxing us, look at the states and localities as well, easily 50% of your income is towards taxes. There are some states with no state tax, but they get you in other ways, they just put a tax on everything, i.e. services, sales, etc.

So, if you are so gung-ho on thinking you can withstand additional taxation, send the IRS some of extra income, I'm pretty sure they won't mind.

As to spending cuts.... why is it that the CBO makes claims that never ever pan out to be correct? Should we actually listen to the CBO? If anything the CBO should be abolished or they should at the very least get their models up to speed and corrected before they make claims about anything in the future.

 

[Joe King]

Delegating the power is part of holding power. Let’s not act like Congress couldn’t simply abolish The Fed if they wanted to.

Sure they could alter the federal reserve act, but there is no broad political will in congress to do so.

So as it stands, the federal reserve holds the keys to the money creation machine.

That’s what you get with Republicans is fiscal irresponsibility.

Gotta cut the revenue first. If revenue isn't reduced, all they'll do is increase spending forever.

When gov has had the tax revenue, all they do is expand government with it. They never use it to pay down the debt.
....and the only time the gov has had extra revenue, the dems were in charge and used it to grow government.

Think of the tax cuts since Bush that haven’t been offset with spending cuts.

Tax cuts typically increase gov revenue. The Trump tax cuts led to record tax revenue. So did Reagan's.

We all wish taxes would be lower. However, I’d certainly pay more in taxes if it meant paying down the national debt.

Send some extra to the irs next spring. They have a method to send extra that gets dedicated to reducing the debt. Ie: put your money where your mouth is.

The tax base in America could easily withstand extra taxation in the amount needed to balance the budget as it stands today.

Not is it goes above 18% of gdp. Beyond that, there is negative effects on the economy.

Don’t be to the 16th amendment what @TheResister is to the 14th amendment.

The 16th destroyed part of the Constitution that was important to the Founders intent for a small, limited power federal government.
Progressives that are hell bent on destroying the Founders original intent and creating a huge bloated gov with virtually unlimited power, love the 16th Amendment.

Anyone who supports the Founders vision finds the 16th abhorrant.

If we are talking spending cuts that are actually in the realm of possible I’ve already posted a list above from the CBO. I’d love to hear your thoughts because there are many there I would personally support.

Just get rid of all of the administrative agencies.

This is a serious issue that deserves attention so let’s not get derailed with conspiracy theories about The Fed, gold standards, and sunsetting Social Security.

If we were still on the gold standard and the fed had never been created, we would not have the problem of $33.5T in debt to deal with.

Taxes, taxes, taxes......tax cuts actually increase tax revenue as history repeatedly shows.

It sure does.

The tax base in the US shouldn't have to withstand additional taxation,

There is too much now.

What we need is a system of apportionment for ALL taxes.

If we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of government, and we are all supposed to be equal relative to our Rights that are protected by government, we should all pay an equal amount in order to fund our government.

It would also have the benefit of keeping the gov small, as it would not have the funds to waste as it does now.

 

[TheResister]

It still is.

I can only tell you that when I had my Socialist Surveillance Number voided, it was because I actually filled out an application to get it. It's a fact, however, that today they issue an SSN at the hospital before the baby goes home. If you say that one can still rescind the number, I'll take your word for it since I threw in the towel once the right began demanding National ID and the de facto SSN as a unique identifier.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Sure they could alter the federal reserve act, but there is no broad political will in congress to do so.

So as it stands, the federal reserve holds the keys to the money creation machine.


Gotta cut the revenue first. If revenue isn't reduced, all they'll do is increase spending forever.

When gov has had the tax revenue, all they do is expand government with it. They never use it to pay down the debt.
....and the only time the gov has had extra revenue, the dems were in charge and used it to grow government.


Tax cuts typically increase gov revenue. The Trump tax cuts led to record tax revenue. So did Reagan's.


Send some extra to the irs next spring. They have a method to send extra that gets dedicated to reducing the debt. Ie: put your money where your mouth is.


Not is it goes above 18% of gdp. Beyond that, there is negative effects on the economy.


The 16th destroyed part of the Constitution that was important to the Founders intent for a small, limited power federal government.
Progressives that are hell bent on destroying the Founders original intent and creating a huge bloated gov with virtually unlimited power, love the 16th Amendment.

Anyone who supports the Founders vision finds the 16th abhorrant.



Just get rid of all of the administrative agencies.



If we were still on the gold standard and the fed had never been created, we would not have the problem of $33.5T in debt to deal with.



It sure does.



There is too much now.

What we need is a system of apportionment for ALL taxes.

If we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of government, and we are all supposed to be equal relative to our Rights that are protected by government, we should all pay an equal amount in order to fund our government.

It would also have the benefit of keeping the gov small, as it would not have the funds to waste as it does now.

And once again you ruin a good discussion with conspiracy theories and falsehoods.

I get so tired of that shit around here

 

[Joe King]

I can only tell you that when I had my Socialist Surveillance Number voided, it was because I actually filled out an application to get it. It's a fact, however, that today they issue an SSN at the hospital before the baby goes home. If you say that one can still rescind the number, I'll take your word for it since I threw in the towel once the right began demanding National ID and the de facto SSN as a unique identifier.

It still requires a signature of the parents. They no sign, they can't legally give the baby a number.

If the parents get a number for their baby, it's only for their own tax purposes, as without the number for the baby, they cannot claim the baby on their taxes as a dependent.

For the child, it still has to be accepted AND used by the child upon reaching the age of majority. No acceptance and use equals nothing binding on the them relative to the number, as they do not have the child's signature on the SSN application.

Acceptance and use of the number constitutes consent.

 

[Joe King]

And once again you ruin a good discussion with conspiracy theories and falsehoods.

Nothing in my post was a conspiracy theory or falsehood.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Nothing in my post was a conspiracy theory or falsehood.

Back to the gaslighting

 

[CuriousFiend]

Back to the gaslighting

Ohh, poor diddums...

Spoiler

 

[TheResister]

It still requires a signature of the parents. They no sign, they can't legally give the baby a number.

If the parents get a number for their baby, it's only for their own tax purposes, as without the number for the baby, they cannot claim the baby on their taxes as a dependent.

For the child, it still has to be accepted AND used by the child upon reaching the age of majority. No acceptance and use equals nothing binding on the them relative to the number, as they do not have the child's signature on the SSN application.

Acceptance and use of the number constitutes consent.

Like I said, my actual knowledge is years past. I can tell you from personal experience that they could not force me to use the SSN as I was a minor when I signed the application. They erroneously issued the number and then couldn't hold me to the terms of the contract once I revoked it. I will look into what you said as I thought that revocation was a thing of the past due to National ID since the SSN is the unique identifier used in the required National ID Cards.

 

[TheResister]

Nothing in my post was a conspiracy theory or falsehood.

You have to read between the lines. Anything the resident fed doesn't like constitutes gaslighting. He couldn't tell you the difference between fact and fantasy if his life depended on it.

 

[TheResister]

And once again you ruin a good discussion with conspiracy theories and falsehoods.

I get so tired of that shit around here

I can suggest a few ultra liberal discussion boards. You won't go there. You like gaslighting the right and then projecting on them what you're doing. Save it Jake. If you think you're CIA, you aren't very good at it - not even among those that reject debate.

 

[IAmDamagedGoods]

STOP GIVING ALL OUR MONEY TO OTHER COUNTRIES! STOP PAYING POLITICIANS WHO DO NOTHING FOR THIS COUNTRY!

 

[TheResister]

I keep hearing the talking points about cutting taxes. Problem is, that is a bumper sticker solution. Here is the Cliff's Notes on how to appear to cut taxes, but give the American people tremendous benefits:

1) Corporations should be taxed at a steep percentage. Then they earn their tax cuts:

A) Tax break for those who hire an all American staff
B) Tax break for taking people off welfare, unemployment and hiring handicapped
C) Tax break for paying a minimum percentage above poverty level (i.e. 20 percent over as a starting wage for entry level jobs)
D) Incentives to employers who provide child care or bear some of the cost for employees
E) A big tax break to bring jobs back to the U.S.

Those incentives should amount to more than any Republican proposed tax cut if all are utilized. It encourages employers to find ways to lure Americans back into the job market, increases wages and decreases dependency on entitlement programs

2) We have to get the parasites off welfare and other entitlement programs. Require all recipients (unless they are handicapped to the point they can't work) to look for a job and / or enroll in school or a training program and learn transferable skills. They register with the Dept. of Labor and provide proof they are actively seeking work OR in school and maintaining a passing grade for in demand jobs as determined by their state's labor commissioner

3) If people cannot find a job after a reasonable amount of time (I would propose three months), then they should have to work a few days per week in exchange for their welfare funds