S&P: United States of America 'AAA/A-1+' Ratings Placed On CreditWatch Negative On Rising Risk Of Policy Stalemate

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Say I have you build me a laptop to spec and instead of charging me $50 for it you only chargee $45. Did I spend $45 or did you spend $5 or both?

i'd say you spent $45, but i don't understand liberal math to begin with.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

It's an expenditure because policy makers pick and choose which person gets to keep what money under which circumstances. As I just said in the other post, almost any government spending could be transformed into a tax expenditure where it would no longer show as an expense in the budget and where it would no longer be subject to annual appropriations, etc.

for it to be an expenditure, doesn't the government have to take in that money first before giving it back?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

All I know is current polls of Americans reflect S&P which tells me the GOP may take huge losses in 2012 if they don't blink.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

for it to be an expenditure, doesn't the government have to take in that money first before giving it back?

Not really if the government decides on it's policy priorities who to take that money from on who it lets to keep it. Take the mortgage deduction, for example. The governemtn says you can keep some of your money you'd owe in taxes as long as you purchase a home and take out a mortage to finance it. You do not get to keep it if you buy the house from your saved funds or if you continue to rent. Yes, you cut out the part where the government collects your tax and then gives you a check to offset some of your mortgage interest. In the end, it's no different, though. Except that the mortgage interest deduction gives a bigger break to people in the higher tax brackets than to those in the lower tax brackets and more to those taking out a large loan vs. the average Joe. Having that run through the books of the government as direct spending would be politically impossible.

Turning a grant into the tax code as a tax credit or a deduction lets politicians rave about how they reduced government and cut spending when, in reality they've done no such thing. The government still calls the shots of the arrangement and still decides who gets what, when and under which conditions. It still administers the same program. Transparency gets lost as does accountability for government programs that are suddenly hidden in the tax code.

[mawilson 2,133]

All I know is current polls of Americans reflect S&P which tells me the GOP may take huge losses in 2012 if they don't blink.

They'll take huge losses if they cave.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Not really if the government decides on it's policy priorities who to take that money from on who it lets to keep it. Take the mortgage deduction, for example. The governemtn says you can keep some of your money you'd owe in taxes as long as you purchase a home and take out a mortage to finance it. You do not get to keep it if you buy the house from your saved funds or if you continue to rent. Yes, you cut out the part where the government collects your tax and then gives you a check to offset some of your mortgage interest. In the end, it's no different, though. Except that the mortgage interest deduction gives a bigger break to people in the higher tax brackets than to those in the lower tax brackets and more to those taking out a large loan vs. the average Joe. Having that run through the books of the government as direct spending would be politically impossible.

Turning a grant into the tax code as a tax credit or a deduction lets politicians rave about how they reduced government and cut spending when, in reality they've done no such thing. The government still calls the shots of the arrangement and still decides who gets what, when and under which conditions. It still administers the same program. Transparency gets lost as does accountability for government programs that are suddenly hidden in the tax code.

interesting logic.

you do know, don't you, that even if you have a home, there are situations where you don't get to claim the mortgage interest?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

interesting logic.

you do know, don't you, that even if you have a home, there are situations where you don't get to claim the mortgage interest?

But that's just my point. The government decides who gets to keep more of their money, how much and under what conditions. The home mortgage deduction and any other tax deduction or credit is nothing but a government program advancing some policy goal. It's just not funded through grants but through the tax code. As such, it doesn't show as spending in the budget, it doesn't go through appropriations each year and hides itself from public scrutiny. There are over 180 such programs out there amounting to well over a trillion dollars a year.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

But that's just my point. The government decides who gets to keep more of their money, how much and under what conditions. The home mortgage deduction and any other tax deduction or credit is nothing but a government program advancing some policy goal. It's just not funded through grants but through the tax code. As such, it doesn't show as spending in the budget, it doesn't go through appropriations each year and hides itself from public scrutiny. There are over 180 such programs out there amounting to well over a trillion dollars a year.

so what's so bad about letting people keep their money?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

so what's so bad about letting people keep their money?

Nothing as long as it's not tied to conditions that the government sets. Why do I get to keep more money for buying energy efficient appliances but not if I don't. Why do I get to keep more money if I take out a mortgage to buy my house but not if I pay cash for it? Why do I get to keep more money if I go back to school but not if I don't? I don't have a problem with people getting to keep more of the money they earn but with the government selecting who does and who does not get to keep more of their money while pretending that we have shrunk the government. We haven't.

And remember, every deduction that your neighbor claims that you don't claim comes partially out of your pocket. Think about this: If you were to keep revenue stable while ending over a trillion dollars worth of tax expenditures, everyone would have a significantly lower tax rate. This would favor those that don't participate in tax code funded government programs as they would now enjoy more of their earned money through the lower tax rates. Those that take advantage heavily of the available deductions and credits, on the other hand, would probably be worse off despite the lower tax rates they would enjoy.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

Nothing as long as it's not tied to conditions that the government sets. Why do I get to keep more money for buying energy efficient appliances but not if I don't. Why do I get to keep more money if I take out a mortgage to buy my house but not if I pay cash for it? Why do I get to keep more money if I go back to school but not if I don't? I don't have a problem with people getting to keep more of the money they earn but with the government selecting who does and who does not get to keep more of their money while pretending that we have shrunk the government. We haven't.

And remember, every deduction that your neighbor claims that you don't claim comes partially out of your pocket. Think about this: If you were to keep revenue stable while ending over a trillion dollars worth of tax expenditures, everyone would have a significantly lower tax rate. This would favor those that don't participate in tax code funded government programs as they would now enjoy more of their earned money through the lower tax rates. Those that take advantage heavily of the available deductions and credits, on the other hand, would probably be worse off despite the lower tax rates they would enjoy.

all a pipe dream. eic will never go away.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

all a pipe dream. eic will never go away.

And it's another one of these programs that are hidden in the tax code. That's one of the reasons they are structured that way - they are not subject to annual appropriations and it would take changes to the tax code to end them. Congress cannot just defund them. And in this particular case it's not even about people keeping more of their money but about getting some of yours. And the EITC isn't the only tax expenditure that works that way. There are many like it giving corporations income tax "refunds" despite them not having paid any income taxes to begin with. How is that not government spending?

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

And it's another one of these programs that are hidden in the tax code. That's one of the reasons they are structured that way - they are not subject to annual appropriations and it would take changes to the tax code to end them. Congress cannot just defund them. And in this particular case it's not even about people keeping more of their money but about getting some of yours. And the EITC isn't the only tax expenditure that works that way. There are many like it giving corporations income tax "refunds" despite them not having paid any income taxes to begin with. How is that not government spending?

i still don't consider it government spending, no more than i would consider buying something on sale equaling me paying full price for it.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The government never had a problem dipping into Soc Sec to help other bs programs yet they want to cut it?

Cut welfare, foodstamps, sec 8 housing, corporate bailouts, Afirmitave Action, stop funding wars, ship out the illegals and secure our borders, don't subsidize ####### like welfare farming, etc, etc.. and then maybe talk about cutting Soc. Sec.

[^_^ 5,021]

i still don't consider it government spending, no more than i would consider buying something on sale equaling me paying full price for it.

Actually, Big Dog does bring up an interesting point, one I had not considered before.

If government decides to not take your money, then I continue to insist that is not government spending.

But if government decides to give you a 'refund' in excess of your total tax liability, that is government spending. Because you're not just keeping your money, your getting additional money you didn't actually earn.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually, Big Dog does bring up an interesting point, one I had not considered before.

If government decides to not take your money, then I continue to insist that is not government spending.

But if government decides to give you a 'refund' in excess of your total tax liability, that is government spending. Because you're not just keeping your money, your getting additional money you didn't actually earn.

Principally, it's all the same. The government decides what activity it wants to reward financially whether that is by lowering your tax liability or by sending you a separate check, it really makes no difference. Otherwise, we could sit here and say that all of our government programs should just be converted into the tax code and then we can sit here and pretend that the US government is not running over 4 trillion dollars worth of programs.