The Cost of America’s Debt

70 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008

47% of Americans Pay no Federal Taxes and that number is rising according to CNNMoney.com

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.
The ranks of those whose major federal tax burdens net out at zero -- or less -- is on the rise. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38%. That was before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.”

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Apr 2010 at is:

$12,841,986,079,030.48

The estimated population of the United States is 308,181,602
so each citizen's share of this debt is $41,670.19.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$4.14 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

That’s just the debt. The actual debt PLUS the unfunded mandates is:

$108,230,242,000,000 and rising every second.. http://www.usdebtclock.org/..

Each and every Man, Woman and CHILD in America owes: $350,201.00

With an Administration that refuses to reign in their spending what do we do? Some has suggested we VOTE.. Well of course we need to do that.. It is a shame that the average voter turnout is around 56%. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
But is voting enough. We have elections every 2 and 4 years. While neither election on its own is able to effect a massive change of proportions it can and has consequences as we saw last year. But how do we stop a machine that seems intent to simply drive us off the cliff by any means possible?

Our DEBT is killing America. According to the CBO by 2020 or so the COST of servicing that debt will consume over 90% of our GDP. Many may not realize what all this means. So let me try to explain it.

“What Does Gross Domestic Product - GDP Mean?
The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis. It includes all of private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports less imports that occur within a defined territory.”

When 90% of this product is sold just to service the debt then we stagnate as Country we cannot grow..

“*When external debt reaches 60 percent of GDP, it results in a 2 percentage point decline in the annual growth rate. At higher levels than that, growth rates are cut roughly in half.
*At debt-to-GDP ratios above 90 percent, the result is a 1 percentage point drop in the median (midpoint) growth rate, and average growth falls considerably more.
Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff — well-regarded economists from the University of Maryland and Harvard University http://omaha.com/article/20100111/AP09/701119922

What does a stagnant growth pattern mean to you: Well just look to Europe and Canada as two examples..

“June 29th, 2007 by Pat Schaufelberger
Reports in Canada showed unexpected zero economic growth for the month of April, the Canadian dollar came crashing down from a 30-year high. The Canadian currency dropped to 94.16 U.S. cents from yesterday’s 94.39.”

”The tremendous drop in value of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar has hurt Canadian exports. As Canada and the U.S. have a close trade relationship, further impacts on the Canadian economy could be seen. Canadian exporters, such as Vancouver based Canfor Corp., have already taken hits. Canfor, as North America’s fourth largest lumber producer, posted a 1st quarter loss of $42.7 million Canadian.”Gocurrency/Canada
http://www.gocurrency.com/forex-news/2007/06/29/stagnant-economic-growth...

This from Time Magazine in 1998: On Japan

SPEND JAPAN SPEND
“Now Hashimoto is gambling that Japan's consumers can spend the economy back from the brink of recession. But his belated attempt at a quick fix may not be enough to induce the Japanese to open up their pocketbooks. It's certainly not enough to influence Osaka housewife Eriko Tsutsui, 46, who's putting aside money in case her husband loses his job at an advertising company. "The government's making up policy as it goes along. There's no move to address the fundamental problems," she says. "Until that happens, you have to save and protect yourselves…What's worse, after churning out more than half-a-trillion dollars worth of spending packages to snap the economy out of its almost decade-long slump, the government seems to be short on ideas, and leadership
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980420/asia.spend_japan_spend...

Note the similarities.. in today’s Government.

We have to stop spending like there is no tomorrow because quiet possibly if they continue on this course the “tomorrow” we all will see might not be recognizable at all.

Our debt is choking us.. Healthcare, Education takeovers, Cap and Trade and on and on and on the assault goes. America needs Jobs. To accomplish this goal the Government needs to get out of the way and let the Free Market work.

Maybe if Obama had spent the last year on Jobs instead of spending bills then maybe a little light will be showing behind the cloud. But as we see it today there is no silver lining.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Federal Reserve "America is facing debt Armageddon"

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Wednesday that America is facing something approaching a debt Armageddon..

Did you read that sentence very closely?

""The deficit will recede somewhat over the next two years as the temporary stimulus measures wind down and as economic recovery leads to higher revenues," he said, testifying before Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

"Thereafter, however, the annual deficit is expected to remain high through 2020, in the neighborhood of 4 to 5 percent of GDP," he said.

"The deficit at the end of 2020 would be 9 percent of GDP and the federal debt would balloon to more than 100 percent of GDP," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/14/bernanke-expresses-confidence...

That means we have no more MONEY. Social Security and servicing the DEBT will take up 100% of all of our revenues!!!

No MONEY for Defense..
No MONEY for Roads and Highways..
No MONEY for ANYTHING...

THE DEBT IS KILLING OUR FUTURE.. and what are they doing proposing more spending..

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Point of reference Lindsey

Japan's debt is about 140% of GDP. Have you been to Japan lately? I have and it's not pretty, they are suffering and will continue to suffer. It's depressing going there. Yet they continue to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow. It won't go on much longer.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Obama said of the Teaparty protesters.."They should be Grateful"

FOR WHAT? A takeover of 1/6 of our economy. A National DEBT that is the largest ever and TRILLION dollar deficits as far as the eye can see?

This is the most ARROGANT and EGOTISTICAL President I have EVER seen.

Here was a group of over a MILLION protesters NATIONWIDE all wanting a re-dress of grievousness and he struts around thumbing his nose at us..

The Fringe Media of CNN, ABC and CBS are already explaining his comments by saying the Teaparty are partisan and he is too.. I thought a President was suppose to be the President of all of AMERICA not just one PARTY and IDEOLOGY?

Oh man November is going to be FUN..

Yep I 'm grateful aren't you?

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Great Bumper Sticker at Tea Party

I saw a great bumper sticker yesterday leaving the Tea Party

JUDGMENT DAY NOVEMBER 2, 2010

http://www.zazzle.com/judgment_day_november_2_2010_bumper_sticker-128097...

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Phil Hare (Congressman - IL) doesn't care

Phil Hare doesn't care

Great video of the type of thugs that are born out of Chicago politics.

“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1824

Ellen J
Ellen J's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/08/2010
It's being said that money is

It's being said that money is the root of the problems. Each one of us has financial problems. The recession is taking a toll on everyone. That means each and every social class is affected. Debt loads are very low for some of the wealthiest individuals who pay cash for anything. However, some wealthy people simply take out way bigger bank loans.

I found this here: Even the wealthy need instant money sometimes Many people want the bigger house or nicer automobile and take out debt for it. Foreclosures on large properties are increasing, as even the wealthy lack the instant money to pay the mortgage. Loan refinancing is needed by even the rich.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Thomas Sowell reminds us about debt

"“No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus,” Sowell writes. “All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.”

So he reminds us:

"Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.
The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called “the Clinton surplus.” But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century."

As many have reminded the Liberals here Bush did not create the debt Democrats that controlled Congress did. Did Republicans help? Yep you bet they did. But where they solely alone in creating this mess? Not by a long shot.

That is why the Teapartys have gained so much ground when many thought it was just a passing fancy.

The DNC nor the GOP is safe from us. You voted for Healthcare, Stimulus or
pushing Cap and Tax we will be gunning for you no matter the Party affiliations.

The spending must stop. Now this administration wants 50 billion more to tack onto the 830+ billion already wasted. Have you seen the breakouts of where the money was spent?

How about $700,000 to teach computers to tell jokes. The real joke is on you the 54% of American taxpayers. Those that have no Federal tax liability could not care less. But as a business owner and Taxpayer I do.

bowser
bowser's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
Observerofu

Remind me again -- what was Thomas Sowell's plan (or any of the other deficit hawk-come-latelys like him) for paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh that's right, charge them to our grandkids, simultaneously cut taxes and then urge everybody to go to the mall to prop up a house-of-cards economy. Yeah, that worked out well....

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
and bowser

please explain how the current Trillion dollar stimulus and deficits is working for us now, or are you just to ideologically inclined to blindness?

bowser
bowser's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
Ok, observerofu

So you don't want to talk about un-funded war-fighting, just the un-funded stuff you don't like. You're in good company. Not a single GOP or Me Party leader has much to say about it either, even as they fulminate about "spending we can't afford" while we're still running up a $2 billion-a-week tab in Assghanistan AS WE SPEAK.

That's why they have ZERO credibility. It's all about politics, not principles. As soon as the GOP is back in control of congress they'll be ignoring or excusing the deficit again just like they have since Reagan (who I voted for twice by the way so don't presume to know my ideology.)

As far as the stimulus, you don't have to agree with it but there's a far more principled argument for that than there ever has been for waging open-ended war on credit. The former is designed to keep people working and help the economy resume growing, albeit slowly. The latter is simply an act of collective selfishness and cowardice as far as I'm concerned. We send 4,500-plus good people to die for us in some wretched desert wasteland and we don't have the guts or decency to even TALK about paying for it.

I don't think I'm the blind one, friend.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
bowser????

I get it. You don't think war for any reason is justified

I guess taking out the Terrorist and their support engine after 9/11 was not for you. Ok the World needs pacifist too I guess. I will just remember to not ask you for help if robbed in the street. Heck you would probably not even dial 911 for help because that would mean you have to take a stand.

Wars have been fought since America was founded. Please show me one that was "funded" first before initiated. Your false premise of the previous administration starting two wars without first funding them as being out of place is ludicris at best and not worth spending a lot of time on.

btw- You said the Economy is growing.. WHERE? We are headed for a double dip recession and we are spending ourselves into oblivion.

I would rather finance a war against terrorism then fund studies on Pig crap and Joke machines.

You may not be blind but ignorant-maybe.

bowser
bowser's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
Observofu: Huh?

Wow. You really don't get it. Is the concept of paying at least some share of our military engagments as we go just so weird you can't conceive of any other explanation except that I'm against all wars? Sorry, strike two.

Turns out I'm not the one who's ignorant, either. Yep, we've had a lot of wars. And in almost every one revenue was raised to help pay for them as they were fought. Taxes were raised to pay for the War of 1812. The first income tax was imposed to fund the Civil War, and the Union paid a big chunk of the cost on an as-go basis. During WWII, the federal tax take rose from $8.7B in 1941 to $45B in 1945. There were also massive bond drives with payroll deduction. Oh, and the top marginal rate was 90 percent into the early 50s to help quickly pay war debt afterward. (Now, of course, today's "conservatives" are pooping their pants at a 4 point snapback to 39.) And even during the controversial Vietnam War, Johnson proposed -- and Congress passed -- a temporary 10 percent income tax surcharge to defray war costs.

But don't bother "spending a lot of time" on such actual facts from our actual history. Just keep channeling hollow Me Party soundbites and "supporting our troops" with hot air and bumper stickers while sending the bill to our grandkids.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
bowser

Let me see if I get you.

You hate War. Check
You hate Bush. Check
You think spending for Healthcare is ok but spending to stop Terrorism is not. Check
You think Bush created the debt by himself. Check
You think Obama did not. Check

Yep I think I git it.

bowser all debt is not bad. But let me ask you this. How would our Government protect our shores if every time a Carrier was built they had to go to the people for the bill? The Government has already levied taxes for such items as well as the potential for War. Just because the Government spends more than it receives is not a cause and effect of the war spending.

Now why is it you think the current level of spending is OK?

bowser
bowser's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
Strike three, OFU

I'll give you this: You always have a quick and top-of-the-head comeback. Unfortunately they make less sense as the conversation goes on, to the point it's no longer worth having.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Take a look
Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Correct in it's content

but how does that apply to the spending of budgets and blame i.e Clinton's surplus, Bush's deficit and how does not the same logic apply to President Obama when the debt and deficits are growing larger and faster at record setting paces?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
What it shows

is that leaders of different parties can work together in a crisis. You can keep finding 'blame' - but until we see some leadership from someone - this Congress is going to lose big time - and the new Congress had better seek solutions rather than 'blame'! Right? The Congress that succeeded worked with the president - not against him. Look at the events during the years posted. Compromises were reached - Americans were served. That is what Americans expect. No one can tell me that Republicans/Conservatives were pleased with the Bush spending. . . .however, now Conservatives are seen as Republicans only. The Bush years were not an example of fiscal conservatism. The Clinton years were not seen as spend, spend, spend - and deficits. If you believe that getting rid of all Democrats and Obama will solve this crisis and electing either Palin or Romney will solve these problems with an all Republican Congress - and their plans for solutions. Great. I disagree.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well davidsmom again correct

but the co-operation is a two way street. Our Government functions best when there are checks and balances.

As long as there has been a Government there has always existed separate ideas of how America should function.

The key has been and always will be the will of the people.

Now take our current resident in the Whitehouse. He seems to totally ignore the will of said people. I know and acknowledge that he is very intelligent. But is he more intelligent then the combined intelligence of most Americans I think not.

Come November there will be a change. Now if Obama is really as intelligent as we hope he is then he will do as Clinton did in 94 and move to the center and some real work can get done. Clinton's "surplus" came because fiscally responsible Republicans slowed down the rampant spending and Clinton road the gravy train.

Now we will see if Obama will do the same. I suspect however he is to invested in his own cult of personality to do so. Either way time will tell.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
We'll see

.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
observer

That gravy train we rode for eight years before Obama sure was fat-back!

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Popular myth Observerofu

The maximum difference between the budgets submitted by Clinton and passed by the Republican Congress was a 0.6% increase. None of Clinton's budgets was decreased by the Republican Congress. In fact, no Republican Congress has ever reduced a budget submitted by the President. Ever.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Tax credits are tax cuts and other myths

as well as holding or lowering spending is not the same as reducing budgets.

The 1994 Contract with America did just that. Along with increased tax revenues from Tax liabilities reduction and a Balanced Budget agreement it created a "surplus" in revenues.

Has a Democrat controlled congress ever reduced a budget?

"No Democrat-Controlled Congress Has Balanced Federal Budget in 40 Years; No Republican President Has Balanced Federal Budget in 50 Years"

"Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 years ago.

"In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/62793

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Budgets are the President's

Yes, I know the House initiates spending. But the way it really works is that the President submits his budget and Congress passes it with minor changes. The Republican Congress didn't take Clinton's bloated budget and magically reduce it to a balanced budget. Clinton submitted his more or less balanced budget and the Republican Congress added to it.

I really don't see how the Republicans can claim credit for Clinton's balanced budgets when they increased his spending.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Quite True Jeff, But....

...Would you venture a guess at why Mr Obama has neglected to submit a budget for this year? Could it be that he and his advisors prefer to blame someone else (Congress) rather than accept responsibility?

Just asking.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Not at all Mike K.

My guess is that they are just simply incompetent.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Jeff

Sometimes one simply has to speak plainly. Great answer!

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Mike & Jeff

New Federal Budget

No, incompetent is NOT the reason. There are hundreds of "budget directors," just dying to put out one or more. It is not the amount but the subjects! There will be no "balanced" budget, and as Jeff said it will be interesting to see what a new congress will do differently, whether it stays Dems or Repubs!
Why throw that thing out there any sooner than necessary due to November?

Congress won't cut whatever is proposed, they never do! That is not the problem; there are always a hundred thousand things in there to USE for votes.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Historical data jeffc

just because you disagree with the data does not make it untrue.
Facts are stubborn things. The link laid out the numbers very well and facts are just what they are. Facts.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Well now I'm agreeing Observerofu

Starting next year then, after the Republicans take over, the deficits will be their fault and not the Obama administration's. Are we in agreement about that?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Bending the facts to fit liberal viewpoints

obviously you missed the point of the article. It renders the same outcome. The deficits will be theirs if after Obama's budget expires and they refuse to cut spending then yes Jeff you would then be correct.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Bending facts Observerofu?

I don't see any bent facts. And I didn't miss the point of the article at all. I really didn't think it was all that complex. I was just asking to reaffirm what your opinion was. Frankly, I can hardly wait until the Republican House presents next year's budget. They've talked the talk. Let's see if the will walk the walk.

Its certainly going to be interesting.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeffc absolutely agree

if they get in and act like the common politician we are know and despise then just like the last time they will deserve what they get and I for one will be first in line again to give'em the boot.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ellen J

Some of us don't have financial problems......comes from living right.

It's a secret that I'll share just with you. You treat debt as a tool for enslavement and keep in mind that you don't want to be a slave to anyone.

Then you lead a happy life!

AirForceDude
AirForceDude's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/10/2006
I believe you have forgotten

I believe you have forgotten that Obama inherited this mess from eight years of the former Bush Administration. Obama didn't start the wars we are now fighting. He didn't loose those jobs and he can't create new jobs overnight It was the Chicken Hawks who wanted the war. You Teabaggers just want everything for nothing. All the Republicans do is "Nothing" and their motto is:" just tell me what you need and I'll tell you how to get along without it". Westmoreland is as usless as teats on a boar. You worry more about soccer field than about our fighting military who are being killed.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
AF Dude & Forgetfulness

Speaking of forgetfulness, check which party controlled Congress in the yrs we went down the tubes----yes,Pres. Bush didn't help by failing to veto many spending bills but what he did do was warn Congress in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to be reeled in and controlled. Congress ignored that warning.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
AFD respectfully I disagree

Your myopic view of politics not withstanding Bush did not create anything by himself. Now I assume you are a proud Democrat. Great you took a stand, however, you must remember President Bush was a disappointment to many as such most Conservatives felt he was a failure. But that being said he alone was not responcible for the "issues" you state.

Let's examine them one by one.

1.Obama inherited this mess from eight years of the former Bush Administration.

Well, yes he did if you account for the fact he helped create the very mess he in your words inherited. Remember he was in Congress before being elected as President and voted for all those spending bills. So he helped create the very issues he is now dealing with. The Democrats controlled Congress the last two years and spending increased almost exponentially. Now don't get me wrong the Republicans went wild as well and Bush lost his way be not vetoing the spending. His go along and get along style was lacking to say the least

2.Obama didn't start the wars we are now fighting

Again correct. But I must point out neither did President Bush. A little thing happened 9 years ago Saturday that set the stage for that. That is unless you are a "truther" and if you are then none of this will ever reach you. If I have to point out the calls from the Democrats for blood then you have a very selective memory. Oh and don't even start on the WMD bs. Because if you do then I would be remiss if I did not also point out that both Clinton's agreed that Saddam had them as did every intelligence agency in the free world and most other Democrats.

3.He didn't loose those jobs and he can't create new jobs overnight It was the Chicken Hawks who wanted the war.

Well that's debatable. We have LOST an additional 2.19 Million under this administration. Now it is arguable that the loss just continued and has not abated since he took over, but what is not arguable however is the fact that the $860+ Billion dollars spent to stop the slide has had no effect. Oh and as to the "Chicken Hawks comments you mean Hillary and the rest of the Democrats?

4.You Teabaggers just want everything for nothing.

You have us confused with Liberals. We actually want personal responsibility and less entitlement programs. It's the left that has their hand out constantly.

5.All the Republicans do is "Nothing" and their motto is:" just tell me what you need and I'll tell you how to get along without it"

This goes along with the "Party of NO" argument. Now tell me just how Republicans can or have stopped anything. They are in the Minority and do not have enough votes to stop a bus so how is it that Obama and Pelosi cannot gather enough Democrats to pass their agenda and somehow it is the Republicans fault. The dialectic of the false premise that Republicans can say no and make it stick is laughable.

6.You worry more about soccer field than about our fighting military who are being killed.

On this I have absolutely no Clue what you are taking about.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Obama focus on jobs?

So the O-man is delt this hand (no matter who is to blame). To get back to good times employment HE must create 200,000 jobs a year for 5 years. How do you think HE should have done this? More tax cuts? WE are in a hole and it will take time to dig ourselves out of it. RAYguns faced the same challenges in his 1st mid-terms. Now, I can agree w/ "We have to stop spending like there is no tomorrow" Might have should have wanted to think about that before we spent a Trillion or so on an unnecessary war in Iraq that no one worried about funding. Well, O-man voted NO in the beginning.
The real danger in this country is that the classes are becoming more disparate. A healty society is not one where 2-3% of the pop holds 90%+ of the wealth. Feel free to check my figs. In 2001 10% held 71% of the wealth. The TOP 1% held 38% TOTAL!!. The botton 40% held only 1%. That's 1 PERCENT. 1 penny on the dollar. No wonder they don't pay any income tax. You think the divide has gotten wider or smaller in 2010?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
bladder so redistribution of wealth is your answer

Give them the money. Give them the power. Is that your answer. What a good little Communist you are?

Wealth envy is good for you it makes you work harder. At least for most. Some just sit in a corner and sulk with their hand out screaming gimmie.

I hear you screaming.

If Obama had worked on the economy for the last 18 months instead of pushing Healthcare we just might be seeing an end to this. Government cannot produce jobs, however those very people you hate do. Government needs to get out of the way provide stability and allow those of us that produce jobs and wealth and yes TAXES to do what we do best.

But just sit in your corner and sulk. The rest of America will move on without you.

btw-The Bush administration and a split Congress spent $709 Billion over 10 years for the wars.

Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress spent $860+Billion dollars in less than 12 months.

The 709 Billion took the Terrorist engine apart and have no allowed another attack on our soil. What has the 860 billion got us?

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
bladder is right on one big point....

..."it's going to take time." While I think Obama and the in-control Dems are taking steps that are real job-killers, the huge mess of the US financial system brought about by Repubs/Dems/The Fed/consumers will take quite a while to recover from and the economy is going to have to realign itself. No longer can the economy be driven by huge consumer debt/spending and Americans need to look in the mirror if they want to know what one of the root causes of this "great recession" is.

Obama is right that "clean energy" probably has the potential for a major impact on the economy, but the Dems have got themselves into a far-left frenzy with cap-and-trade and other very anti-business ideas that have killed that opportunity for now, and neither they or the Repubs are taking the positive promise of clean energy seriously. Repubs see political gain in opposing and being unyielding and Dems won't compromise and have been too consumed with jamming through healthcare and "Wall Street reform."

I agree with you that the federal govt can help by "getting out of the way" and giving business clear signals of what kind of environment they will be operating in going forward, but even with that, it's going to take a few years to get out of this colossal mess that everyone shares blame in.
I don't think most people realize the magnitude of how weakened the financial system of the USA was and on the brink of collapsing not only our economy, but the worldwide economy.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
It still is Nuk

Many if not most Economist now agree that we are headed for a Double Dip recession. To know where we are headed you have to know where we have already been.

Look up the 1920 Depression. Never heard of it? That was because it only lasted about 18 months and President Harding and later Coolage following Hardings paths made some courageous moves and stopped it before it became the Great Depression. Oh those moves.
Cut Government spending by half.
Lowered taxes across the board. Especially on business.

Now look to the "Great Depression" see the moves FDR made and look at today.

Big Government,"Shovel Ready"(infrastructure) spending, and big Taxes personal and business. The top rate was 77%.
See any comparasons to today.

Any wonder why 18 months and 1 Trillion dollars later we still have a 9+% unemployed and 17+% underemployed or no longer looking.

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
1920 Depression

Was not caused by anything except millions of WW1 troops looking for jobs which caused a large ujnemployment number and a great "deflation" of commodities.
Jobs, in other words. Productive jobs----that is!

Those changes you mentioned were after the Depression.

Then of course, the 1929 Great Depression caused by those changes!

Facts always come out 50-75 years later.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Wrong, but then again I have come to expect no less

You seem to have a penchant for exaggeration and hyperbole.
Read a little History none of which you suggested occurred.

You might want to bone up a bit.

http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php/archives/2112-The-Other-Great-De...

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
$111 Million of Stimulus used to create 54 jobs.

in LA California. Go figure.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
S.Lindsey, speaking of bad

S.Lindsey, speaking of bad debts, is the local Teaparty backing Nathan Deal for governor? Maybe John Monds the Libertarian? Or are you going all the way with Neal Horsley?

Courthouserules
Courthouserules's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Observer: distribution

I will have to admit that I think I would have liked the old "Serfdom" system of the middle ages! Even the Egyptians practiced it!

The Landowner (millions of acres) Duke, or whatever, owned everything. The serfs lived there on what they could steal or poach only. If caught they were killed without a trial.

The Egyptians worked all "winter" building pyramids for no pay, then went home and raised grain a few months to take to the storage bins of the Ruler, who apportioned it out to as few as possible. Sold the rest to Palestine and Persia, I suppose. Some just rotted!

Seems we tried that also in "The Grapes Of Wrath," period of the 20-30s.
They all went to California to pick, and have since been replaced by Mexicans.

Then they all moved to Georgia or Detroit after serving in the Military!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1

It is actually much worse than you think, and it will take more than a few years to get out of it. We may never get out of it because of the way the government is handling the debt. Most people go by the notion that we are funding our debt by using the Chinese. While this is correct to a certain extent, it does not give us the full and horrifying picture.

Sadly it is our government that is our worst enemy. If the government were a private firm they would be on trial for a monetary pyramid scheme. What they are doing is monetizing our debt. What does this mean? Simply, they are issuing debt and selling it at auction, and then they are printing money to buy the debt back. They are creating debt and money at the same time and they are buying the bulk of the debt with freshly printed bills, not the Chinese. What does this mean for you and me? It's not pretty and it is likely to cause financial collapse and a dollar crisis.

Read this interesting piece and you will find out why the flight to gold and many other things. NUK_1 we are in for a very very bad time I am afraid for our country. This has never before happened in American history and it's our elected representatives that have gotten us into this mess. They have not looked out for our interests they have only looked for ways to line the pockets of those that will get them re-elected.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/shell-game-how-federal-reserve-moneti...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
PTC Observer: The worse may be yet to come

What the US gov and the Federal Reserve are doing is very similar to certain elements that helped create the financial meltdown in the first place and is also eerily similar to any run-of-the-mill ponzi scheme. People look at SS and yell "ponzi!" but that's on a TINY scale when you look at the big picture, and it's not just the USA.....many countries have fallen into the same quagmire of selling their debt to themselves. Insane.

It's a very bleak picture right now and it is going to take some guts from elected representatives and harsh honesty to turn the corner and get back towards simply basic SOLVENCY.

When the financial disaster hit a few years back, some economic and financial experts were honest enough to state that they "didn't really know what to do...stimulus maybe, maybe not, bailouts...give this or that a try" That's a scary place to be when the hole is so very deep that no one can see any light whatsoever.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1 - Solvency what can we do?

So, what can we do? Well there are a number of things that can be done but it takes an educated and informed citizenry to demand them. Unfortunately, government run schools have destroyed the ability for most people to think independently. Believe me even the teachers believe the stuff they are teaching because they too were educated in government schools. Sadly most are simply unable to see beyond this propaganda. So here are things that can be done, no matter how unrealistic they may seem at the moment, there will come a time when people will be looking for different answers.

1. Above all else, restrict the vote to those that produce. If you work for the government, or derive your income in any way from the government, you can't vote. It is a conflict of interest.
2. Limit the terms of government officials, six years for Senators and two terms for Representatives. Define a limit for all others.
3. Dramatically reduce central government spending; at a minimum significantly reduce the rate of spending increase. Do this by eliminating entire departments, education, energy, EPA, etc.
4. Reduce taxes just above the rate of reduction in spending – net result is to reduce spending more than taxes thus reducing the national debt.
5. Recognize and reward risk taking, savings and capital formation –
a. Incent innovation by giving tax credits on R&D expenditures, possibly 110% of expenditures.
b. Reduce capital gains taxes to zero
c. Eliminate inheritance taxes
d. Overhaul patent laws that are outmoded.
e. Eliminate taxes on savings interest
5. Attack the problems related to Trial Lawyers – Tort reform in every sector of the economy – key provision is to make the loser pay the bill.
6. Minimize government regulation and thus unleash the full intellectual capacity of the country. Remember that regulation does two things to make the country less competitive; a. it drains resources away from productive effort, and b. it comparatively puts the US at competitive disadvantage to those countries that have no such regulations. Pass legislation to toughen penalties on defective products, and negligence by unprincipled businessmen. Throw the book at them when they are guilty no matter how wealthy they are.
7. Drive government decision making to the local level and give local authorities more say on how they use the people’s money. It makes no sense to send money to the central government and have them give it back to local government. It is not efficient from a economic standpoint.
8. Reduce military spending as a percentage of GDP – we don’t need to be the world’s police. Protect our boarders and our people at home. Build the wall on the southern border or whatever it takes to protect our national sovereignty
9. Eliminate corporate welfare – we need to stop protecting unproductive neo-capitalists.
10. Get out of Banking & “private” business – initial efforts to inflate the money supply following the collapse of weaker institutions was the right thing to do to avert a panic and the FED may need to do this again, but government needs to let weaker banks and other companies fail no matter how big they are. If they can’t compete they can’t compete, just that simple.
11. Incent legal immigration of scientists, physicians, nurses, mathematicians, and wealthy individuals to the United States.
12. Slowly dismantle the Federal Reserve Bank (a private bank that controls the money supply).
13. Return to a gold standard or something like it. For those that don’t understand this notion, the reason we have major cycles in our economy is due primarily to the FED trying to manipulate the money supply. Tie the currency to a precious metal and currency can’t inflate because you can't increase the supply of the metal quickly.
14. Require the Senate to confirm judicial appointments within a session or the appointee gets a pass into the court system without a Senate vote. If the appointee is appointed late in a session they have until the end of the next session.

If we do these things at a minimum, we will ignite the mighty engine once again. Fail to do these things and we will fall into the dark abyss of financial collapse.

Naturally, I don't expect any of these to happen, so I am waiting for the collapse, and it will come just like night follows day.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Dollar worth 8% less since June 2010

In just 8 months the dollar has fallen 8%, trade deficits are up and the President just gave us a $3.74 TRILLION dollar budget.

At this rate by 2012 the dollar could be used for many various purchases.

1. Double Bubble Gum (1 piece only)
2. A #2 Pencil
3. One cup of gas

I mean this wonderful economic recovery and the new fiscal conservatism sweeping DC everything is just about fixed.

http://www.europac.net/pentonomics/trade_deficit_woes

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
OofU &The Dollar

I think the much larger threat is the proposal by the UMF to use some other instrument as the Reserve Monetary Curency versus the Dollar.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
AHG correct

As China moves away from the Dollar and we continue to devalue the dollar an eventual crash is almost certain.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU: inflation not the problem

As I have said before, the mess left by the last administration and the banks and loan "packages," is something where ten years may be needed to correct it.
Destroyed so many jobs that we are going to be stuck with 8-10% unemployment (varying by the year) possibly forever. (By the way, that 8-10% is really 15-18%)

Had Bush, in the last gasp moment, not provided stimulus, and Obama another one, we would right now be in a deep Depression.

If congress doesn't pass a health plan soon, the health industry will break the country faster.

Since Defense plus Social Security, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, and pensions currently make up about 75-80% of our national budget, just where does the republican house want to make sufficient cuts to balance the budget and start paying on the debt? They better be looking for income.

Just where would the American people gather to protest against congress using peaceful means? Will the Lincoln areas hold a few million and 10,000 port-potties? Or will we just leak onto the statues as did the Egyptians? They are scrubbing them off right now. How much will that pond of water hold?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
roundabout let me give you a little advise

Just like a pregnancy one can not avoid the labor pains.

Just like our economic woes we can not avoid the pain either.

A smaller "cramp" vs. a gastronomic volcano, which would you prefer?

By our Government putting off the inevitable collapse and allowing us to fail and rebuild it is only going to be much, much worse. Look at the 1920 recession. The right moves were made to pull us out BUT the overall symptoms were not addressed so 1930 saw a another recession.

Now this was not uncommon at the time we were in a 10 year cycle of boom then bust. However each boom cycle was better then the last. Over the span of 10 years Refrigerators became common in the home, Washing machines and many, many other household conveniences.

Now back to the 1930 recession, Roosevelt saw a way to exponentially expand Government so he took a smaller recession and made it a depression that lasted close to 10 years. Now remember we were in a 10 year boom/bust cycle. Roosevelt's moves changed all of that. By not allowing us to fail and rebuild he changed the very dynamics of our economy.

This administration and the last has and is doing the very same thing. By putting off the inevitable collapse and forcing monetary supply to argument the economy a smaller crash will turn into a major depression era sinking of the US.

Simple economics roundabout. Keynesians believe we can just spend our way out of a recession. They thought so in the 1930's as well. It didn't work then so what makes anyone believe it will work now?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU: bad advice

I didn't;t see much of anything you said that was true or that I could agree with.

Roosevelt "caused" the great depression? Just like Obama caused the current recession!

I personally saw the beggars and starving people in the mid-late 30s! Can't imagine how bad it would have gotten if jobs hadn't been created and banks regulated.

Why would Roosevelt want to "expand" government? Makes no sense.
He wanted the people to have more if you call that expansion!

Nothing is inevitable! Depends upon the prior action.

I don't understand anybody who wants 30-40% unemployment, broke banks, shutdown of stock market, etc., just to "start over!"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Roundabout almost a octogenarian

no wonder you have issues staying on point. You're senile.

First it matters not what you agree with, facts are facts. Everything I said is historically accurate.

Since now I know your problem I will just let it go. Suffice it to say for someone who claims to have lived through the great depression you learned little.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU: so almost 80 means senility?

Only in cases such as yours where the evidence shows up much earlier!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well round let's noodle this one out for fun

You said you saw beggars from the depression in Mid to late 1930's.

Ok now:
1. If you were just born in 1935 that would make you 75-76 years old.
a) We know that memories form only during the latter stage of infancy the gap from birth to memory is called infantile amnesia.
b) We also know that once memories are developed called Autobiographical memories they are usually from the latter stage of adolescence.

2. The Reminiscence bump is generally from ages 8-11 yoa and usually vary as one get's older. Example some one who is 50-60 yoa may only remember well early adolescence and as one get's older may not firmly recall many events past early adulthood.

3. Now taking all this into fact then on the outside you would have to be around 10 years old at least to have formed a memory deep enough to last 7 decades of acquired experiences.

Thus logically one must assume IF you were telling the truth then you are at least 85 years of age.

So by your own admission you are under the age of 80 which would have made you approximately 5 years old at the time you "observed" the incident and although not impossible it is however highly unlikely for you to remember the said events in question.

So logic therefore dictates that you are not telling the truth.

btw-bacon now that's an argument using cognitive logic based in fact. Not someone else's opinion of events.
That's how to debate someone logically it would behoove you to learn this simple lesson.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
OofU & truth

The available record makes clear that the poster you are making a comment about has no integrity when it comes to "truthtelling". Take it or leave it--I choose to leave it.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Oh I know Gym

it was just an mental exercise for the fun of it.

I just wanted to show some how silly their arguments and how easily destroyed they are.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU & GYM

That is the stupidest evaluation that you made OOU that I have ever heard about!
It seems to worry you and GYM considerably as to one's age! Also, trying incredibly to call someone a "liar," seems to be a hobby!

I find all this to be reverse credibility---something you do to try and cover up the same fallacies you have by trying to prove someone else may have faults---which makes it OK for you to be guilty of them.

I would imagine you to be a sly, thieving, selfish lying person from your actions! Probably "attend" church also! Vote Republican always! Beat your wife!

Everything I told you is absolute truth, and for the life of me I don't understand what possible difference it could make to you to make me out as a liar because my philosophy of government and decent living is so much different than yours.

There. That isn't quite as bad as you painted me, but it will do for now!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Roundabout I just seem to notice you say alot

but the substance is mostly unclear and like bacon you don't ever backup your statements with facts but that's OK I take both with a grain or two of salt.

The above post for you was just for fun. I was attempting to teach bacon the fine art of debate and how to use classic Cognitive thinking and logic to refute another's arguments. I am sure his esteemed secondary education he consistently touts may have taught these things he just spent too much time in Sociology to learn it.

Now back to you. You fell right into the same trap bacon always falls into. You can't substantiate your argument, nor refute the logic, so you, as a typical progressive, goes for the insults. Not a good tact.

You see one has to have a modicum of respect for someone for that person to be able to actually insult someone else. Like bacon you just don't hold that position.

GAltant
GAltant's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2009
How about entitlements & military spending

Wonder would happen if they cut social security benefits by 10% and raised the minimum age to 75? What would the deficit look like?

Compound that with cuts in medicare and medicaid by 10% and a reduction in the military budget by 10%...

What would the budget look like and future deficits.

Then lets look at it with a 10% in foreign aid of 10%, then 20%.

That's a start!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Galtant the solution is actually simple

1. If you are on SSI you STAY on.

2. If you are within 10-15 years of retirement you get a payout of ALL funds paid in in the form of Tax credits and reduced benefits.

3. If you are more then 15 years out you get the option to either take option #2 or opt out completely with a one time payout that MUST go into a retirement fund.

4. If you are 20 years out or new employee NO SSI deduction period.

5. ALL retirement funds are TAX FREE not just tax deferred.

The system will be phased out over 2 decades and over $14 Trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities are removed from our debt in 20 years.

In just one generation we can get the Citizens off the Government dole and renew our independence from Government.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
OOU

This won't work and I'm not taking the time to explain why with you.

What I will tell you is that soon after all this occurred, hundreds of thousands of old folks would again be in "poor houses" or in the basements or attics of relatives!

Ever see a "poor House?"

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Thank you for not taking the time

it would have wasted my time reading it.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Galtant

Social security has been cut for the last two years---ignored the inflation rate. Who is going to hire or keep a 75 year old worker? You?

The new health care plan cuts medical payments by more than 10%.

Foreign aid amounts to about 1/2 % of the budget if you cut it all.
Do you have a list of what that is in detail? Some of it hires other armies to do our work. Some is to patch-up Iraq and Afghanistan!

Also, do you plan to keep cutting it 10-20% every year or to keep up with the coming GREAT inflation?

If I were you I would take some higher math.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Galtant: deficit look like?

It would probably soon be even greater! Since the government saved so much money on the backs of old and sick old people, they would spend like a West Virginia Mega Millions winner!

I know, let us dissolve the entire government, as Egypt did, (including state and local governments) but keep on collecting taxes.

We would really be in high cotton then with all that cash and no debts!

The Boy Scouts and the TEA party could take over all NUKE sites and start pin-pointing those who deserve one onto their territory!

Who do you suppose would step in from the world and take us over? Castro---too old; Guy from Veneuz...(can't spell that)---possibly; Canada---afraid of the dark; Mexico--in a minute but no leader; Russia---too far away to manage; China---not the slightest interested; Haiti--they have enough despots in Paris to run anything--yeah, that is it!

Pay your taxes!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Update on the National Debt

Since Steve wrote this almost a year ago a few things have changed.

"The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Apr 2010 at is:

$12,841,986,079,030.48

The estimated population of the United States is 308,181,602
so each citizen's share of this debt is $41,670.19."

Here are the new numbers:

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 15 Feb 2011 at is:

$14,153,794,000.00 and rising

The estimated population of the United States is 308,745,538
so each citizen's share of this debt is $45,536 and rising.

Actual Taxpayers share of the debt is:
$127,700

http://usdebtclock.org/#

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Update on the National Debt

Since Steve wrote this almost a year ago a few things have changed.

"The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Apr 2010 at is:

$12,841,986,079,030.48

The estimated population of the United States is 308,181,602
so each citizen's share of this debt is $41,670.19."

Here are the new numbers:

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 15 Feb 2011 at is:

$14,153,794,000.00 and rising

The estimated population of the United States is 308,745,538
so each citizen's share of this debt is $45,536 and rising.

Actual Taxpayers share of the debt is:
$127,700

http://usdebtclock.org/#

Obama's 2011 Budget raises 327 Billion dollars on businesses and anyone that makes more than $250k.

In 2008 our debt was 40.8% of GDP according to the CBO in 10 years it will rise to 90% GDP just to service our debt.

The Death of America in near.

GAltant
GAltant's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2009
Roundabout and entitlements

Roundabout

What you are really saying here is

DON'T TOUCH MY ENTITLEMENTS!

That's the problem, entitlements have become the problem.
Talk about taking higher math....America is out living the social security program. It needs to be adjusted so that it makes sense, the problem is old people like us don't want anyone to mess with it, but it has to be done. If we don't want to eliminate it than turn it into a supplemental program for people who below a specific amount from retirement benefits and retirement accounts so that people who need it get it.

Medicare and medicaid need to be addressed and costs reduced.

The military budget will drop as we pull out of the Middle East wars.

Recent Comments