National Debt

Where CNN gets their information
-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

National Debt

Postby -PC-Taishar on Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:34 pm

So my grandfather has a liberal on his email list so whenever the old man (bless his complete lack of tech sense) sends out chain emails poking holes in liberal politics, the liberal guy always replies to all and spouts of a bunch of nonsense. The most recent discrepancy concerned the amount of money that Obama is spending. The liberal of course instantly defended him and pointed to the cost of Bush starting two wars (we'll not even touch the topic of starting a war in Libya for our purposes here). My response came back that Obama is spending at the rate of three times Bush did. Of course, his response was to refer everyone to the liberal favorite factcheck.org Where he presented this nugget:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/03/debtor-nation/

Ah touche my good liberal friend. You've somehow taken a statement that Obama is outspending Bush and countered it with a factcheck page attacking a statement some Rep Senator made. In order to get him back on track I pulled up the actual figures for national debt.

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

Those are the figures for the past 10 years. For your perusal gentlemen I present this:

When Slick Willie left at the end of 2000 the debt was 5.6 trillion and at the end of 2008 the debt stood at 10 trillion. This results in a 4.4 trillion increase over the course of GWB's presidency.

When G-dub left at the end of 2008 the debt was 10 trillion and at the end of 2010 the debt stood at 13.5 trillion. This covers the entirety of Obama's term to date (we won't count this first quarter since the numbers aren't finalized yet). A difference of 3.5 trillion.

Now averaging the deficit increase over the amount of time it took to create said increases we get:

GWB: 4.4 trillion over 8 yrs = .55 trillion increase per year
Obama: 3.5 trillion over 2 yrs = 1.75 trillion increase per year.

Do the math guys. At that rate Obama will single handedly MORE THAN DOUBLE the national debt if he is a two term president. He will increase the debt by 14 trillion after being handed a 10 trillion dollar deficit. It what world is this acceptable. And let's not even get into how much money obamacare is going to cost that we haven't even began accounting for because wisely he postponed most portions of activating that gem. I'm sure in hopes that he's a one term president and the next president gets saddled with a HUGE insolvent program.

Since the left is so dead set on busting Bush's balls over the cost of war let's look at this another way. At the end of 2002 which would be the first year to include the cost of executing the Iraq and Afghani wars, the debt was 6.2 trillion and ended with 10 trillion when he left. This means that over the course of SIX years of conducting two wars, Bush spent 3.8 trillion. Obama is .3 trillion shy of spending that same amount, but taking a mere TWO years to accomplish the feat.

Now don't get me wrong Bush was crap too. The rate at which BOTH of them have increased our deficit is disgusting and, in all actuality, criminal. It's time we give up this crap that government spending is good for the economy. Ponder this Every single dime the government spends, is a dime that was taken from someone else and would likely have been spent by them in a fashion they chose. So how does government spending help? Is it by taking money that is already in the economy and...uh...putting it uh...into the economy?

Deficit figures pulled from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... histo5.htm















Pulled from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... histo5.htm thats the great things abo

[Creep]-Tyrant
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:47 am
Location: The Armpit of North Carolina

Re: National Debt

Postby [Creep]-Tyrant on Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:50 pm

I have had a thought that the government should should pay it's 'higher-ups' (Congress, president, supreme court) on a commission basis. Meaning they only profit if the country as a whole profits, I mean since government has become so corporate anyway, why not get paid in a fashion that matches? If they can't make the country make money, they don't get paid, they leave and new blood can come in and try it. I bet if their paychecks were determined by the country's profit, we'd see a huge turn-around in how they decide to spend our tax dollars, and you'd see decisions being made that actually matter instead of so much of the garbage that eats and pecks away at our national budget. As it stands now, and has been for far too long, they can just fail miserably, but they still get paid, and paid well. If was asked to build a house, and then I build a shed instead, I don't get paid for building the house, (in fact I wouldn't get paid for the shed either, I would most likely get sued) if the government makes the same kind of mistake, they still get paid regardless, there is nothing to repress them from just royally screwing up because at the end of the day, they get to go home to a nice house, they can pay their bills and their individual lives are relatively unaffected by the atrocious and careless decisions they've made, so why would they care to make any effort to try harder to do things differently. At the very least maybe institute some kind of system where we the people can decide at tax time if we feel like they deserve our money for the job they have done, there really needs to be some kind of check to balance it out, right now it's just too easy to go do things 'business as usual' because as I said, what penalty are they going to pay for it anyway? You know the answer, none, we pay for it, every time, every dime, and we pay them for it whether they do what we want them to or not, good job, bad job, whatever, they get paid. Wish my job had that kind of security.
Last edited by [Creep]-Tyrant on Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

HangOver
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Delray Beach

Re: National Debt

Postby HangOver on Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:24 pm

i don't advocate violence and i don't TRULY wish for someone to get hurt but if our "elected" officials actually feared for their lives based on their job performance, we'd have much better politicians.

as it is now there is simply nothing we can do. money talks and our government has LONG since been bought and paid for. we can start all the campaigns and demand change and at the end of the day the same goddamn carbon copy politician will become our next president and continue to push the agenda of the REAL power in this country. and they've successfully made pretty much every american into a lazy automaton that can't accept change and certainly isn't willing to stand up and DEMAND it.

the only option we have, honestly, is another revolution and as i said above, that just ain't gonna happen. not when it would so drastically infringe on americans creature comforts.

MaDSpartus
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2457
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: National Debt

Postby MaDSpartus on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:59 pm

you know the clinton's spent millions of their personal fortune to try and get hillary as the democratic candidate, not even for president. the job only pays 400k a year i think. the 'dock their pay' plan isnt gonna do much, at least not int he executive office. might work for congress but, most of these guys get more from their job than the paycheque.


yes im very disappointed in the democrats for their rediculous spending. Im equally disappointed with the canadian conservatives for also running a deficit now, damn 'stimulus'

[Creep]-Tyrant
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 2:47 am
Location: The Armpit of North Carolina

Re: National Debt

Postby [Creep]-Tyrant on Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:52 am

I'm disappointed in government in general, I've never been one to take a side as a Democrat, or Republican because I can see points on both sides that make sense and points on both sides that are ridiculous. I don't call myself a liberal or conservative and frankly I never really understood people's obsession with these labels in the first place. There seems to be more arguing and debate based allegiance to one's party than on the actual issue in question, meaning if I am Democrat I automatically reject a Republican idea or opinion simply because it came from a Republican. The whole thing is so stupid in my opinion, I mean don;t get me wrong, I do see a good number of cases where the labels really fit as far as the whole conservative vs liberal thing goes, but overall it is very easy to have opinions that would squarely label you as one or the other at any given time depending on the actual issue at hand, so the profile of being one or the other fails miserably in that aspect.

People have said I have no right to complain since I refuse to vote, but really, what is the point? If you give me 2 worthless pieces of shit to choose from and I don't want a piece of shit in the first place, so why would I subject myself to choosing one? Those who choose to put these people into office and support their parties are the ones who have no right to complain. Besides, the popular vote doesn't mean shit anyway, the electoral college vote is what wins, not ours, and they do not have to vote in conjunction with the popular vote, in fact there are a lot of little rules that can be twisted around to create loopholes through which they can pretty much put anyone in office they want to whether we the people voted for it or not, or, like in the GWB case, they can just rig the whole thing in plain sight for the whole country to see and nobody will give a shit anyway. I have not seen one good president in my lifetime, as sad as it is to say the best I felt economically is during the Clinton Administration, and it wasn't like 'OMG this guy is great', it was just a little better than the rest, and I there are other factors besides the Clintons that contribute to that so it's probably more coincidence than the job he did running the country.

Politicians are just spoiled rotten with the freedom we have given them, they slowly take away more and more of our rights each year, regulate every little thing we do more and more, waste our money by the trillions, tax us even more after that, give us crappy government, corruption, and a despicable image in the eyes of the world. The saddest part of the whole mess is we the people LET THEM DO IT because most of us are either content (like hang said) to sit and enjoy our little creature comforts, glued to the daily bullshit on TV they feed us or else we are struggling hard enough in our own little worlds to just get by and put dinner on the table for another day.

But I'm not bitter, I'm just waiting.......

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: National Debt

Postby awp-killer on Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:56 pm

I can't believe you can write such a long post about the national debt, and not mention the recession. Since 2008, the national debt projection has been dominated by effects of the recession, yes partly because of (necessary) deficit spending, but also equal partly because tax revenues went way down:

1. Since this recession began, the amount that we all pay in taxes has gone down 20%. (18.5% GDP to 14.9% GDP). This is because when we don't make money and corporations don't make profits, we don't pay taxes!
[ img ]
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts ... ?Docid=200


2. Deficit spending has gone up during this recession, and that is a good thing. Everyone hates TARP, right? Want to know what would have happened without it?
[Mark] Zandi, who advised John McCain in 2008, has actually done the measurements. He did a study with a former Clinton Administration economist on where we'd be without TARP. It found there would be 8.5 million fewer jobs than there are now and the unemployment rate would exceed 15 percent.

Same thing with the stimulus. Besides, all the republicans may have voted against this American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, no one in congress was arguing against having a stimulus. They even had an alternative stimulus package which (after you consider the AMT fix) was just as big: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html

Want to know what will happen if we stop spending too fast? According to Moody's (which is nonpartisan), the republican plan to cut $61 billion will kill as many as 700k jobs in just one year: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50341.html




Half of the deficit increase since the start of the recession has been directly from the recession, and the other half is necessary spending to keep the recession from turning into a depression. The important lesson that I hope we learn is that it is important not to deficit spend when times are good, because recessions will come and deficit spending will be necessary. And we need to look at raising taxes in addition to spending cuts in order to solve the deficit problem.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: National Debt

Postby -PC-Taishar on Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:35 am

The only thing to say to that is nobody knows what would have happened without TARP. Even if we did lose 8.5 million jobs that just creates more opportunity. Opportunity that does not require taking on fuckloads of debt. Keynes was wrong. Nobody wants to admit it because it would cause the entire left to admit they are living a lie.

The job loss bit is a typical scare tactic. And the best part about it, it's all hypothetical. Just like Obama creating or saving 5 million jobs, or whatever ridiculous number he wants it to be next. You really want to bitch about 60 billion in cuts. That's just sad. Out of 4.5 trillion in spending you HONESTLY think that 60 billion is going to make a difference? That's like have a 100K maxed out credit card and worrying about the 25 dollar over the limit fee.

This is the problem in general with the left. They can't handle ANY cuts in spending period. They feel that once they've gotten it, they are entitled to it for eternity. That's simply not the case. And common sense SHOULD dictate that. But it doesn't. The numbers I posted say it all. Mince it every which way you want, but the fact of the matter is, government is ruining our economy. 60 billion is a good start. And thank your rep Paul Ryan for coming up with a plan that may actually make a difference. 6.3 trillion over then years? Now that's got me intrigued.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: National Debt

Postby awp-killer on Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:46 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:The only thing to say to that is nobody knows what would have happened without TARP. Even if we did lose 8.5 million jobs that just creates more opportunity.
Sort of like the "Opportunity" Japan got from the tsunami. Or maybe like one of those evil villains that must destroy the world so it can be rebuilt better.

Keynes was wrong. Nobody wants to admit it because it would cause the entire left to admit they are living a lie.
Yeah thats why.

You really want to bitch about 60 billion in cuts. That's just sad. Out of 4.5 trillion in spending you HONESTLY think that 60 billion is going to make a difference? That's like have a 100K maxed out credit card and worrying about the 25 dollar over the limit fee.
This is an exaggeration. The budget request for FY11 is about $1500B, but the vast majority of the budget is mandatory spending (e.g. social security) and defense which these cuts barely touch. Most of the cuts are from non-defense, discretionary spending (which I argue is perhaps the most important), which make up a mere 19% of the budget (~$300B). Considering there is less than half the year left (~150B), a $60B cut would mean almost draconian cuts to everything else, like infrastructure, education, safety inspections, cancer research, etc.

But thank goodness we didn't let those tax cuts expire for the richest 1%.

This is the problem in general with the left. They can't handle ANY cuts in spending period.
I agree, that is absolutely a big problem with democrats. And raising taxes, which we will need to do, is just as big a problem with republicans.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: National Debt

Postby -PC-Taishar on Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:57 pm

awp-killer wrote:Sort of like the "Opportunity" Japan got from the tsunami. Or maybe like one of those evil villains that must destroy the world so it can be rebuilt better.

Trite. And you didn't even address the fact that nobody KNOWS what the effect of no TARP would have been. Comparing it to the tsunami is ridiculous. That is something completely out of our hands. As for the Hitler comparison. That was a making of human design. It was horrible it happened but the upside of it is everyone knows exactly what some humans are capable and what to do to avoid it. It is a lesson learned sometimes history has to happen, and humanity needs to suffer the consequences of its actions in order to not repeat their mistakes (of course this is odd coming from me since I have no faith in humanity to learn ANYTHING anymore).

awp-killer wrote:Yeah thats why.

I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons why. But I dream of the day when Keynes retarded ideas are laid to rest.
awp-killer wrote:This is an exaggeration. The budget request for FY11 is about $1500B, but the vast majority of the budget is mandatory spending (e.g. social security) and defense which these cuts barely touch.

Perhaps the question we need to ask here is WHY THE FUCK are we just now addressing the FY11 budget when FY11 started back in October. Regardless of when the cuts got passed they are needed cuts. It's the fault of congress in general that they can't spread the cuts out over a full fiscal year instead of just half. Suck it up and deal with it. That goes for BOTH sides.
awp-killer wrote:I agree, that is absolutely a big problem with democrats. And raising taxes, which we will need to do, is just as big a problem with republicans.
This may be the first time you've ever agreed with me so I am loathe to do anything but positively reinforce, BUT there is a problem with this statement. Cutting spending is a PROVEN way to reduce the deficit. You spend less money you get closer to the black. PERIOD. No questions of theory involved. When it comes to cutting taxes, it's not so black and white. More money in the pockets of the people stimulates the economy which in turn generates tax revenue. Whether it's more or less that what they would get from just raising taxes in general is up for debate (and pretty much the primary dividing factor between liberals and conservatives). Regardless of what you believe, you have to admit the argument is viable either way. Which means the only definitive way to go is with spending cuts.

I'm of the opinion that if the government wants spending stimulated GIVE ME THE MONEY to spend. Everyone should have that right to stimulate the economy in whatever fashion they desire. My gripe lies with the government taking my money and THEM spending it. The overall effect is the same. Whether I spend it, or they spend it, it is going to get spent.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: National Debt

Postby awp-killer on Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:36 am

-PC-Taishar wrote:Comparing it to the tsunami is ridiculous. That is something completely out of our hands. As for the Hitler comparison. That was a making of human design. It was horrible it happened but the upside of it is everyone knows exactly what some humans are capable and what to do to avoid it. It is a lesson learned sometimes history has to happen, and humanity needs to suffer the consequences of its actions in order to not repeat their mistakes (of course this is odd coming from me since I have no faith in humanity to learn ANYTHING anymore).
Actually, I was more thinking of "the watchmen". As far as lessons from Hitler, I don't have much faith we learn from history. Why would people follow a madman like Hitler? http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Perhaps the question we need to ask here is WHY THE FUCK are we just now addressing the FY11 budget when FY11 started back in October.
As someone who works for a federal agency and suffers from the CRs, I agree 100%. I would point to the fact that the Senate needs 60 votes for ANYTHING, and there were only 3 republican "yes" votes ALL YEAR (40 republican senators, lots of bills). It didn't make sense for them to allow a budget when they could delay until the new congress when they have more power. But when was the last time we actually didn't have a CR, even when we didn't have republicans obstructing everything?

This may be the first time you've ever agreed with me so I am loathe to do anything but positively reinforce, BUT there is a problem with this statement. Cutting spending is a PROVEN way to reduce the deficit. You spend less money you get closer to the black. PERIOD. No questions of theory involved. When it comes to cutting taxes, it's not so black and white. More money in the pockets of the people stimulates the economy which in turn generates tax revenue.
I used to believe that conservative talking point too, but it's not true at all. Spending absolutely has a stimulative effect, and also generates federal dollars. Think about it: If the government were to give money to people (let's say giving it back to them through a tax cut), or if the government were to give money to people (let's say via unemployment insurance), either way the effect is putting money in people's pockets, but one way is known as a "tax cut" and the other is known as "spending".

Now, when we desire a short-term stimulus to counteract the contraction in the monetary supply (like in a recession), I believe spending tends to better than tax cuts for two reasons:

1. As illustrated before, both ways put money into people's pockets. However with spending, we usually receive a good or service in addition to putting money in people's pockets. That has an extra benefit of putting more money into the economy
2. However, most of the money in tax cuts naturally go to those that pay taxes, who tend to be richer. For a short-term stimulus however, you want people to spend the money you give them (or give back to them), and the rich are much more likely to save it. The best candidates to spend money are those who have the greatest need, such as the unemployed, poor, or in some manner living paycheck-to-paycheck. And we are helping those that need help during a great time of need, which we should feel good about.

Whether it's more or less that what they would get from just raising taxes in general is up for debate (and pretty much the primary dividing factor between liberals and conservatives).
Actually, the vast majority of (even) conservative economists agree that tax cuts do not increase overall tax revenues. Despite what George W. Bush says. We are no where near that high on the laffer curve. Plus I already pointed out that spending also generates tax revenue.

I'm of the opinion that if the government wants spending stimulated GIVE ME THE MONEY to spend. Everyone should have that right to stimulate the economy in whatever fashion they desire. My gripe lies with the government taking my money and THEM spending it. The overall effect is the same. Whether I spend it, or they spend it, it is going to get spent.
I disagree that the overall effect is really the same, but philosophically it is a fair point. You should be happy to know that the stimulus was 30-40% tax cuts. In fact, I'm getting an extra $800 back on my tax return.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: National Debt

Postby -PC-Taishar on Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:41 pm

awp-killer wrote:... even when we didn't have republicans obstructing everything?

Alternatively one could say when we didn't have the democrats trying to spend inordinate amounts of taxpayer money. Don't blame the republicans. The voters were disatisfied with government spending and the election results proved that. Elected officials are actually DOING what they campaigned on doing. I'm a bit amazed to tell you the truth.

awp-killer wrote:Spending absolutely has a stimulative effect, and also generates federal dollars.

Again, I don't disagree with spending and it's stimulative effects. What I disagree with is the government deciding what to spend it on. This is a republic, it is meant to give as much power to the people as possible. Taking our money for spending on beaureaucratic programs goes against that principle. Federal dollars are myth since EVERY DOLLAR in government spending is taken from someone else. The government generates NO MONEY. Period. It only serves to feed itself.

awp-killer wrote:1. As illustrated before, both ways put money into people's pockets. However with spending, we usually receive a good or service in addition to putting money in people's pockets. That has an extra benefit of putting more money into the economy


False. As noted above. The left loves to triple and quadruple count dollars. EG. welfare check goes to jo blow crack head. Joe Blow crackhead spends it on his most recent fix, and the dealer buys a new pair of timberlands with it. Compare that to: rather than supplementing welfare and a broken system, that tax money stays in the pocket of said taxpayer and said person saves it in order to be able to help supplement his children's post high school education fund. In the end money spent by RESPONSIBLE individuals who have a VESTED interest in how such money is spent will be MUCH MORE WISELY spent than by someone who is 10 times or more removed from the situation. Idiots with credit cards: that is EXACTLY what the government is. Just on a much grander scale. The moron with a credit card does not realize that in the end, being in debt is a bad thing. They spend with no regard to consequences because it is free money. Taxpayers for the most part EARN all of their money and will spend it accordance with the blood sweat and tears it took to earn that money. Congress just spends it hapharzadly because they did not EARN it. And that is the crux of the issue.

awp-killer wrote:2. However, most of the money in tax cuts naturally go to those that pay taxes, who tend to be richer. For a short-term stimulus however, you want people to spend the money you give them (or give back to them), and the rich are much more likely to save it. The best candidates to spend money are those who have the greatest need, such as the unemployed, poor, or in some manner living paycheck-to-paycheck. And we are helping those that need help during a great time of need, which we should feel good about.


Conjecture. A ready staple of the left. If we would stop supporting the unemployed and poor there would be less of them. You're a lefty you believe in darwinism right?

awp-killer wrote:Actually, the vast majority of (even) conservative economists agree that tax cuts do not increase overall tax revenues. Despite what George W. Bush says. We are no where near that high on the laffer curve. Plus I already pointed out that spending also generates tax revenue.


Adam Smith would disagree, and I believe him to be infinitly smarter than GDUB. As would most successful small business owners. And as I pointed out, spending is spending, whether its by the government or by deserving individuals. The difference is CHOICE of the individual, which this nation was founded on. Anything else is pure redistribution of wealth which is nothing more than a failed socialist principle.

awp-killer wrote: I disagree that the overall effect is really the same, but philosophically it is a fair point. You should be happy to know that the stimulus was 30-40% tax cuts. In fact, I'm getting an extra $800 back on my tax return.

Let me know what you spend it on. And tell me whether you think it's more beneficial to the economy that what your local welfare recipient would spend it on. Or whether you gain more value out of it than would your local government contractor. I tell you now that for 800 bucks you can get about twice the laptop than I could buy when going through the GAO...for twice as much. Perfect example of government spending half the performance for twice the cost. I'll admit pure conjecture up front here, but if I were allowed to purchase the equipment my company needs freely rather than going to the GAO (which we are FORCED TO USE), I could get everything for between 50% and 70% of what the GAO costs us.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: National Debt

Postby awp-killer on Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:45 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Alternatively one could say when we didn't have the democrats trying to spend inordinate amounts of taxpayer money. Don't blame the republicans.
The DREAM act, DADT repeal, Wall Street Reform, Consumer Protection, NewSTART were all popular bills last year that had nothing to do with spending, and the vast majority of republicans either tried to (or did) obstruct.

Tell me, what bill did congress pass last year that bloated the deficit? I can only (immediately) think of two, and they were both bills that republicans supported and many democrats didn't: An absurd extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts (a whopping $800b), and another bill that cost $30b for tax cuts to businesses. Both went directly to the deficit.

This is a republic, it is meant to give as much power to the people as possible.
Well, that would be direct democracy, not a republic. And I'm glad we don't have that. Think of how stupid the average person is, and then think about how half the people in the world are even stupider. I'm grateful for the 1/3rd of republicans did the unpopular thing in supporting TARP, which would not have passed if people had their way.

Taking our money for spending on beaureaucratic programs goes against that principle. Federal dollars are myth since EVERY DOLLAR in government spending is taken from someone else. The government generates NO MONEY. Period. It only serves to feed itself.
Those federal programs builds your roads, protects your food, and gives us a military. Most federal programs undisputedly fulfill the principles of a government for the people. Or perhaps you think privately-owned nuclear reactors should be left to regulate themselves?

The left loves to triple and quadruple count dollars. EG. welfare check goes to jo blow crack head. Joe Blow crackhead spends it on his most recent fix, and the dealer buys a new pair of timberlands with it. Compare that to: rather than supplementing welfare and a broken system, that tax money stays in the pocket of said taxpayer and said person saves it in order to be able to help supplement his children's post high school education fund. In the end money spent by RESPONSIBLE individuals who have a VESTED interest in how such money is spent will be MUCH MORE WISELY spent than by someone who is 10 times or more removed from the situation.
You chose to compare to an extremely small sliver of the overall federal budget. How very anecdotal of you. I believe you know the overall direction of the government does not support your argument, so you have to instead resort to a non-representative comparison.

Idiots with credit cards: that is EXACTLY what the government is. Just on a much grander scale. The moron with a credit card does not realize that in the end, being in debt is a bad thing. They spend with no regard to consequences because it is free money. Taxpayers for the most part EARN all of their money and will spend it accordance with the blood sweat and tears it took to earn that money. Congress just spends it hapharzadly because they did not EARN it. And that is the crux of the issue.
How very black and white (and unsubstantiated) of you. Don't get me wrong, government has its strengths and its faults. But barely anything is ever so black and white.

awp-killer wrote:If we would stop supporting the unemployed and poor there would be less of them. You're a lefty you believe in darwinism right?
A portion of them would be more reliant on themselves if they did not have the social safety nets that we give them. They would also be a lot worse off as a whole without them. (Cutting safety nets for the poor is kind of like cutting government revenue via tax cuts: you generate some gains because of it, but not nearly enough that would offset the cuts themselves.)

awp-killer wrote:Actually, the vast majority of (even) conservative economists agree that tax cuts do not increase overall tax revenues. Despite what George W. Bush says. We are no where near that high on the laffer curve. Plus I already pointed out that spending also generates tax revenue.
Adam Smith would disagree, and I believe him to be infinitly smarter than GDUB. As would most successful small business owners.
I didn't realize you spoke for small business owners. Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Adam Smith agrees there is a laffer curve. Also, here is a quote from him you should like:
"Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

awp-killer wrote: I disagree that the overall effect is really the same, but philosophically it is a fair point. You should be happy to know that the stimulus was 30-40% tax cuts. In fact, I'm getting an extra $800 back on my tax return.
Let me know what you spend it on.
I will probably save it, and not spend it until retirement. As far as a short-term stimulus measure, it was mostly wasted on me.

I tell you now that for 800 bucks you can get about twice the laptop than I could buy when going through the GAO...for twice as much. Perfect example of government spending half the performance for twice the cost. I'll admit pure conjecture up front here, but if I were allowed to purchase the equipment my company needs freely rather than going to the GAO (which we are FORCED TO USE), I could get everything for between 50% and 70% of what the GAO costs us.
You would have a much better argument if you did less conjecturing and instead show some hard (non-anecdotal) evidence. Federal acquisition is a highly scrutinized process, but if you think you know how to make the process better, I'm sure you could make a lot of taxpayers happy.

-PC-Taishar
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2724
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: National Debt

Postby -PC-Taishar on Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:57 am

I think the quoting and requoting format is getting a bit hard to follow. And since at this point it's kind of pointless because we have come to our fundamental difference yet again. You believe the government is smarter and more efficient than me and will spend my money more prudently, I don't.

Yes, I do agree with you that people are stupid, yet the money they earn is theirs to spend as they see fit. I do pay taxes as a badge of honor. Taxes are a right and good part of our nation. REASONABLE taxes. And ONLY when they are spent responsibly which I believe our government does not do. I just got my bonus for re-enlisting and dedicating another 5 years to my federal job. They took 33% of it. Right out of the gates. I feel I've done a lot to earn that. And, not being filthy rich, I feel the loss of that 33% especially now that I'm buying a house.

I know some federal programs are necessary. As you alluded to, national defense being a key portion of that. However, there IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY ANYMORE. I believe it's very telling when you said you are glad the representatives didn't do what the people wanted. You are right we are not a true democracy we are republic.

Republic: A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government.

We elect the officials to do represent us. In the case of TARP and all the bailouts. The majority of PEOPLE did not want it to happen. Regardless of whether YOU think they are right or wrong, it is what will of the people called for. I believe the representatives paid the price for not holding up their end of the bargain in this past election. The will of the people was made evident and I think it will be again next year. And this isn't just for Dems, I think Reps need to lose their seats to. Congress needs to get it through their thick skulls that they work for us, and we are sick of being in debt.

Without going into too much detail since i'll let you do a liberally slanted search, look into how SAVINGS bolsters economic growth as much if not more than spending. In short, it's impossible to raise GDP by borrowing from one group of people and giving to another. How many businesses do you know that expand when they don't have some sort of savings or assets to back that expansion?

Toede
 
Posts: 1257
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: San Marcos Tx.gif

Re: National Debt

Postby Toede on Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:58 pm

Think about it: If the government were to give money to people (let's say giving it back to them through a tax cut), or if the government were to give money to people (let's say via unemployment insurance)


Why should the government give people money? How about we give the tax cuts to the people who can create these jobs and get these people back to work? If you are on unemployment, giving them money will only cover the basic needs, as in rent, food etc, not actually stimulating the economy. Unemployment benefits were only ever supposed to a short term fix so a person could cover basic needs until they found another job, not supporting somebody for 2 years. The biggest problem with people on unemployment benefits is they are too proud to take that less pay job that may be "underneath" them, and keep relying on the government to support them. You give a small business owner a tax break to expand and grow his business who can hire these people seem like a better idea to me.

*edit*

This also creates a redistribution of wealth. Sorry Bob, you make way too much money, we are going to take your hard earned money and give it to the unemployed because obviously we need to stimulate the economy by giving them money for nothing and tax you for being a hard worker.

awp-killer
Elite Member
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 8:00 pm
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Re: National Debt

Postby awp-killer on Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:07 pm

-PC-Taishar wrote:Yes, I do agree with you that people are stupid, yet the money they earn is theirs to spend as they see fit. I do pay taxes as a badge of honor. Taxes are a right and good part of our nation. REASONABLE taxes. And ONLY when they are spent responsibly which I believe our government does not do. I just got my bonus for re-enlisting and dedicating another 5 years to my federal job. They took 33% of it. Right out of the gates. I feel I've done a lot to earn that. And, not being filthy rich, I feel the loss of that 33% especially now that I'm buying a house.


Ouch, that sucks. They should prorate it over a few years.

Consider this counter-intuitive idea: As a nation, we are undertaxed. Look how we compare to other countries. Out of 34 industrialized nations, we are the 4th least taxed country in the world (Mexico, Turkey, Korea are the other 3). http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... ped-world/

Nearly half of US households pay NO federal income tax. What's the average U.S. federal income tax rate of the richest 400 people? A mere 17%. That's down from 26% in 1992. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Is it just possible, just maybe, that taxes actually aren't that unreasonable, or (god-forbid) too low? Is it possible, that the reason we have so much debt, is not only because we like to spend, but because we love our tax cuts way too much?

I just did my taxes and my effective tax rate is 9%. That doesn’t seem to be absurd given the government services that we get. Just curious, what is your overall effective federal tax?

I believe it's very telling when you said you are glad the representatives didn't do what the people wanted.
When there is a clearcut choice between choosing what is smart, or doing what is popular, I am glad that at least a fraction of congress will be smart enough to make the right decision.

Without going into too much detail since i'll let you do a liberally slanted search, look into how SAVINGS bolsters economic growth as much if not more than spending.
We are a spending-driven economy. That’s why the DOW drops when spending goes down (even if means savings is going up). But I don’t know if that is what you are getting at.

How many businesses do you know that expand when they don't have some sort of savings or assets to back that expansion?
This comes from someone who opposed TARP?

Next

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron