Do corporations pay taxes?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
The deficit is caused by spending more than is collected in taxes. Who buys those bonds is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. When the govt "borrows" 400 million from the SSI surplus:
1.It puts no strain on the dollar.
2.It doesn't have to pay the interest, just issue more IOUs.
Result: less strain on the dollar & more freedom to spend more without immediate consequence.

The SSI surplus is at 2 trillion dollars. At 5% interest, that's 50 billion a year the govt would have to be paying out every year instead of issuing paper IOUs.

[ QUOTE ]
Can they be paid? When was the last time the US government defaulted?

[/ QUOTE ]

The govt doesn't "pay back the loans." It simply retires bonds by issuing new bonds to obtain the capital needed to meet its obligation.
It's the same as a consumer borrowing from one credit card to pay off another and when both are maxed out, obtaining a new credit card.
Only when the govt takes in more in revenues than they spend do they actually "pay off" their loans, and I don't think that has happened in my lifetime.
The Clinton administration claims to have run a surplus, but the general budget was more than they took in revenues but less than they recovered in revenue and SSI taxes, so the govt calls it a surplus.
Those who believe it really was a surplus, probably rode the short bus to school.

[ QUOTE ]
I know what Im talking about because I am one of a group that has peer reviewed the Social Security Trustees reports actuarial work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why things are so screwed up. We need competent people overseeing these things. Not puppets who parrot the thinking the elitist in charge want them to chime.

NOTE: all it would take is for China to not buy any bonds one year and Japan to be unable to buy any and we'd be in dire straits. In other words, we are able to meet our obligations because the rest of the world is willing to loan us more money.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The deficit is caused by spending more than is collected in taxes. Who buys those bonds is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. When the govt "borrows" 400 million from the SSI surplus:
1.It puts no strain on the dollar.
2.It doesn't have to pay the interest, just issue more IOUs.
Result: less strain on the dollar & more freedom to spend more without immediate consequence.

The SSI surplus is at 2 trillion dollars. At 5% interest, that's 50 billion a year the govt would have to be paying out every year instead of issuing paper IOUs.

[ QUOTE ]
Can they be paid? When was the last time the US government defaulted?

[/ QUOTE ]

The govt doesn't "pay back the loans." It simply retires bonds by issuing new bonds to obtain the capital needed to meet its obligation.
It's the same as a consumer borrowing from one credit card to pay off another and when both are maxed out, obtaining a new credit card.
Only when the govt takes in more in revenues than they spend do they actually "pay off" their loans, and I don't think that has happened in my lifetime.
The Clinton administration claims to have run a surplus, but the general budget was more than they took in revenues but less than they recovered in revenue and SSI taxes, so the govt calls it a surplus.
Those who believe it really was a surplus, probably rode the short bus to school.

[ QUOTE ]
I know what Im talking about because I am one of a group that has peer reviewed the Social Security Trustees reports actuarial work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why things are so screwed up. We need competent people overseeing these things. Not puppets who parrot the thinking the elitist in charge want them to chime.

NOTE: all it would take is for China to not buy any bonds one year and Japan to be unable to buy any and we'd be in dire straits. In other words, we are able to meet our obligations because the rest of the world is willing to loan us more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. Take a basic accounting course and a basic economics course sometime, it would help you vastly. Meanwhile, buh bye.