Notices
Results 1 to 87 of 87
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By gonzales56
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By gonzales56

Thread: Mitt Romney's tax cuts for the rich and corporations, would cost $7.8 trillion over 10 years.

  1. #1 Mitt Romney's tax cuts for the rich and corporations, would cost $7.8 trillion over 10 years. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I was just watching TV, and they spoke about Mitt Romney's tax cut plan.
    And I realized if Romney gets elected, and he gets his tax cuts, we are all in big trouble.

    If his tax cuts cost $7.8 trillion dollars over 10 years, most of that money will be added to our national debt.

    I believe our national debt is already around 99% to GDP. And adding another $8 trillion dollars to our national debt, is plain retarded.
    Plus I (think) he wants to increase military spending by $2 trillion dollars. A vote for Romney, is a vote to add $8+ trillion dollars to our national debt.


    I think this is the most important election of all of our lives. If Obama stays in office, our deficits will go down after Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire, and even more once the Iraq war winds down.

    If Romney wins his extra military spending will keep our deficits high, and if he gets his tax cuts, it will shoot our deficits through the roof.




    Bellow are a few links to news story's about Romney's tax cuts. Each link will give different cost amounts. But I think its possible, the news show I was watching, said Romney's tax cuts would cost more than $7.8 trillion.


    Mitt Romney has proposed tax cuts for the rich and corporations that would cost $7.8 trillion over 10 years.
    Some of you may not like the above source, others follow.


    The facts behind Romney's $5 trillion tax plan - Oct. 12, 2012
    New Romney tax cuts would cost $3.4 trillion - Feb. 29, 2012



    And I believe Romney wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That would cost $100's of billions more.


    I know Fox news and Rush radio, tell all you republicans "tax cuts increase government revenues." But according to 100% of respected economists, tax cuts do (not) increase government revenues.


    Last edited by chad; November 6th, 2012 at 02:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Oh no!!! I've been putting my faith in a "trickle down" economist. How could I be so foolish!!!

    But really. That actually is a good reason to vote against him. The theory of trickle down makes a lot of sense, logically, but there's nothing in our nation's history of trying it that demonstrates it to hold any real validity. In science, experience matters more than logic.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The theory of trickle down makes a lot of sense, logically, but there's nothing in our nation's history of trying it that demonstrates it to hold any real validity. In science, experience matters more than logic.
    What do you think the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were predicated on?

    'Trickle down' has been the dominant so-called theory behind most of USA economic practice since the mid-80s. And it's demonstrated its failure every one of the years where it's been left to run as designed. I've seen a really simple graph on this but can't find it just now - I'm probably mistaken about where I saw it. I'll keep looking.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I think this is the most important election of all of our lives.
    You realize this is said in pretty much every election and seldom comes anywhere to being true because the president almost never has full control of things. Even if Romney wins, he'll have lost ground in the house and won't have the senate--the effect will be moderate budgets and supreme court justices selections. The sky won't be falling.

    I do agree though "trickle down," "horse and sparrow," what ever you want to call it through the years, doesn't have a good track record. That being said I still strongly believe that corporate taxes need to be kept low to keep business operations in the US rather than just moving overseas. I'm much more willing to raise individual income taxes across the board--so everyone has some skin in the game from the guy living under the bridge, to the wealthy man who should be given substantially more of his high end income bracket.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    This is not the graphic I had in mind, but it's a good demonstration of the sort of effects we're interested in.

    There's also the poor results for Republican presidents compared to Democrats regardless of stated 'economic theory'.

    Aggregate jobs created in 24 years by Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama administrations were 42 million
    Aggregate jobs created in 28 years by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush administrations were 24 million
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The theory of trickle down makes a lot of sense, logically, but there's nothing in our nation's history of trying it that demonstrates it to hold any real validity. In science, experience matters more than logic.
    What do you think the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were predicated on?

    'Trickle down' has been the dominant so-called theory behind most of USA economic practice since the mid-80s. And it's demonstrated its failure every one of the years where it's been left to run as designed. I've seen a really simple graph on this but can't find it just now - I'm probably mistaken about where I saw it. I'll keep looking.

    The trickle down theory or supply side economics, were created inside of corporate think tanks.

    They are economic ideas created by large corporations, (in order to lower big corporations taxes.)


    THEY ARE NOT REAL.

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think this is the most important election of all of our lives.
    You realize this is said in pretty much every election and seldom comes anywhere to being true because the president almost never has full control of things. Even if Romney wins, he'll have lost ground in the house and won't have the senate--the effect will be moderate budgets and supreme court justices selections. The sky won't be falling.

    I do agree though "trickle down," "horse and sparrow," what ever you want to call it through the years, doesn't have a good track record. That being said I still strongly believe that corporate taxes need to be kept low to keep business operations in the US rather than just moving overseas. I'm much more willing to raise individual income taxes across the board--so everyone has some skin in the game from the guy living under the bridge, to the wealthy man who should be given substantially more of his high end income bracket.

    Has there ever been an election in our life times, when Americas debt was 99% to GDP. And a candidate was planning to pass tax cuts (costing) $7.8 trillion dollars?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Has there ever been an election in our life times, when Americas debt was 99% to GDP. And a candidate was planning to pass tax cuts (costing) $7.8 trillion dollars?
    Your question seems completely unrelated to my comments...but to answer your question the last time it was this high was after WWII. Congress tried to reduce taxes and Truman vetoed it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I think this is the most important election of all of our lives.
    You realize this is said in pretty much every election and seldom comes anywhere to being true because the president almost never has full control of things. Even if Romney wins, he'll have lost ground in the house and won't have the senate--the effect will be moderate budgets and supreme court justices selections. The sky won't be falling.

    It's true the president himself doesn't matter that much, but the platform the people vote for does. If the people vote for Romney, that will send a message to congress that the people liked Romney's ideas.

    Politicians are a lot like corporations in that they are trying to sell a product, and they value market research.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    For democrats and republicans it is about trickle down economics. Both of them give the vast majority of the money they steal or create to rich people and corporations. This election, like many before it, do not offer a real choice economically, they only offer more of the same.

    The United States is still facing a fiscal cliff, its spending is unsustainable, its people are tapped out and the minute interest rates rise the bubbles in government and the private sector are going to begin bursting left and right. On the flip side of that coin, if interest rates do not begin to rise, inflation is going to crush the US government and its people.

    The US government and economy is in big trouble and it is in big trouble due to democrats, republicans and the people who vote for them.

    Concerning taxes, the idea that a reduction in taxes hurts an economy or hurts the United States is wrong.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 23rd, 2012 at 06:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    corporateocracy
    spend
    spend
    spend
    then spend some more

    hell man
    if corporations and banks and people can borrow 10 times their net worth, so too countries?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    its spending is unsustainable
    That's not really true. If we can hold it at current spending levels for few years and get moderate economic growth, we'll have the revenue we need to bring the deficit back down. Lets' not forget that most of this deficit wasn't caused by spending, but by lost revenue of a sagging economy and some bad choices we made about ten years ago to reduce taxes. We also shouldn't forget most of that borrowed money is from ourselves at historically low interest rates.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    corporateocracy
    spend
    spend
    spend
    then spend some more

    hell man
    if corporations and banks and people can borrow 10 times their net worth, so too countries?

    Exactly.. The US Government issues over 65 trillion dollars worth of securities/notes/bonds (debt) each and every year to cover their existing debt. The US government is paying over 1 trillion each year in interest alone, and get this, they are barely paying the real/true amount in interests they should be paying.

    One example: The US government owes the SSTF (social security trust fund) 2.7 trillion dollars. The US government only paid the SSTF 114.4 billion in interest in one year on that 2.7 trillion dollars owed/borrowed. That is about .25% interest yearly, not quarterly. That is beyond robbery and it is no wonder many politicians refuse to allow the american people to put that 2.7 trillion in banks...., On interest alone, that 2.7 trillion sitting in banks would pay for all the social security benefits each year and then some. With that said though, the federal government actually stole the 2.7 trillion, they dont have it but, they have to keep paying interest on it, and this is how and why social security is going to crash and fail sooner rather than later.

    The catch 22 is that the federal government cannot raise interest rates (they wont be able to cover the interest hikes without going bankrupt) and they cannot keep the interest rates as low as they are now without teasing with or bringing on hyperinflation.

    Now, the federal government owes/borrowed/stole at least 56 trillion dollars from the american peoples programs and they are paying interest on all of it at this manipulated and artificially low interest rate, but this cannot be sustained or even continued for much longer. It is coming down. It is going to crash, the only questions are how, when and how hard is it going to be?

    Taxing the wealthy will not fix anything. It wont even come close to helping. They cannot spend/steal their way out of it anymore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For democrats and republicans it is about trickle down economics. Both of them give the vast majority of the money they steal or create to rich people and corporations. This election, like many before it, do not offer a real choice economically, they only offer more of the same.

    The United States is still facing a fiscal cliff, its spending is unsustainable, its people are tapped out and the minute interest rates rise the bubbles in government and the private sector are going to begin bursting left and right. On the flip side of that coin, if interest rates do not begin to rise, inflation is going to crush the US government and its people.

    The US government and economy is in big trouble and it is in big trouble due to democrats, republicans and the people who vote for them.

    Concerning taxes, the idea that a reduction in taxes hurts an economy or hurts the United States is wrong.


    You said, "For democrats and republicans it is about trickle down economics."

    But the facts show this statement is (untrue.) Reagan and GW Bush gave rich people huge tax cuts, and Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's supply side formula. Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.



    You said, "Both of them give the vast majority of the money they steal or create to rich people and corporations."

    Republicans give money to oil, insurance, and coal power plant corporations.
    Democrats give money to solar and wind power corporations.

    But with the life threatening dangers of global warming, should we complain about our government giving money to clean energy companies?




    You said, "The United States is still facing a fiscal cliff, its spending is unsustainable."

    But this fiscal cliff was created by Reagan and GW Bush.

    Reagan's tax cuts for billionaires, created huge deficits, and caused our national debt to grow.
    And GW Bush's tax cuts for billionaires, and his insane Iraq war, created the dangerous deficits and debt America has today.

    America does not have a spending problem, we have a tax revenue problem. After Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's tax policies, he balanced the budget, he erased the deficits, and Clinton was able to pay down parts of our national debt. Everything was fine until GW Bush brought back Reagan's policies.


    Americas problem is people who make $90,000 a year pay a 30%+ tax rate, and ceo billionaires pay a 0% - 17% tax rate. I guess in a capitalist society things fall apart when the rich don't pay their fair share.




    You said, "Concerning taxes, the idea that a reduction in taxes hurts an economy or hurts the United States is wrong."

    This is (not true.)

    Reductions in taxes decrease government revenues, and that creates deficits, then that turns into debt.

    Without Reagan and GW Bush our national debt would be around 55?% to GDP, and everything would be fine.
    Last edited by chad; October 31st, 2012 at 09:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Democrats give money to solar and wind power corporations.
    .....and coal and oil. Do you want to see the charts?

    Reagan's tax cuts for billionaires, created huge deficits, and caused our national debt to grow.
    And GW Bush's tax cuts for billionaires, and his insane Iraq war, created the dangerous deficits and debt America has today.
    It's a bit more complicated than that..I prefer the less biased CBO explanation for our growing debt:

    The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

    • $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
    • $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
    • $1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
    • $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
    • $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
    • $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]

    The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:


    • Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
    • Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
    • Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
    • New policies from President Obama (10%).

    --
    In simple terms blame a 3rd on GW, a 3rd on Obama and the last third on our crappy economy and lost revenue. I only wish simple factoid would have gotten mentioned in this crazy political campaign season.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    For democrats and republicans it is about trickle down economics. Both of them give the vast majority of the money they steal or create to rich people and corporations. This election, like many before it, do not offer a real choice economically, they only offer more of the same.

    The United States is still facing a fiscal cliff, its spending is unsustainable, its people are tapped out and the minute interest rates rise the bubbles in government and the private sector are going to begin bursting left and right. On the flip side of that coin, if interest rates do not begin to rise, inflation is going to crush the US government and its people.

    The US government and economy is in big trouble and it is in big trouble due to democrats, republicans and the people who vote for them.

    Concerning taxes, the idea that a reduction in taxes hurts an economy or hurts the United States is wrong.


    You said, "For democrats and republicans it is about trickle down economics."
    But the facts show this statement is not true. Reagan and GW Bush gave rich people huge tax cuts, and Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's supply side formula. Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich.



    You said, "Both of them give the vast majority of the money they steal or create to rich people and corporations."
    I believe this statement may be true.

    Republicans give money to oil, insurance, and coal power plant corporations.
    Democrats give money to solar and wind power corporations.

    But with the life threatening dangers of global warming, should we complain about our government giving money to clean energy companies?




    You said, "The United States is still facing a fiscal cliff, its spending is unsustainable."
    But this fiscal cliff was created by Reagan and GW Bush.

    Reagan's tax cuts for billionaires, created huge deficits, and caused our national debt to grow.
    And GW Bush's tax cuts for billionaires, and his insane Iraq war, created the dangerous deficits and debt America has today.

    America does not have a spending problem. After Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's tax policies, our government had huge surpluses, and Clinton was able to pay down our national debt. Everything was fine until GW Bush brought back Reagan's policies. Also some of GW Bush's tax cuts for the rich kicked in while Obama was in office, so thats one reason Obamas deficits have been so high.

    Americas problem is people who make $90,000 a year pay a 30%+ tax rate, and ceo billionaires pay a 0% - 17% tax rate. I guess in a capitalist society things fall apart when the rich don't pay their fair share.




    You said, "Concerning taxes, the idea that a reduction in taxes hurts an economy or hurts the United States is wrong."
    Reductions in taxes decrease government revenues, and that creates deficits, then that turns into debt.

    Without Reagan and GW Bush our national debt would be around 55?% to GDP, and everything would be fine.
    What are you talking about?

    Reagan added 1.5 trillion dollars to the debt in 8 years. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years (debt increased every year under his watch). Bush added 6 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added 4 trillion to the debt in 3 years.

    Taxing the rich more, and bringing in another 50 to 100 billion a year does nothing. It is a joke. It does not even cover the interest payment we have to pay each year on all the money the us government stole from SS.

    CBO is also very clear about what will happen if taxes are increased on the rich.... Recession will come, millions will lose jobs and unemployment will shoot above 9.0% in 2013.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    its spending is unsustainable
    That's not really true. If we can hold it at current spending levels for few years and get moderate economic growth, we'll have the revenue we need to bring the deficit back down. Lets' not forget that most of this deficit wasn't caused by spending, but by lost revenue of a sagging economy and some bad choices we made about ten years ago to reduce taxes. We also shouldn't forget most of that borrowed money is from ourselves at historically low interest rates.
    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth? Or let me rephrase that.

    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth that doesn't immediately disappear into thin air the split second the stimulus package ends?

    Any time we spend more money our GDP will go up. The reason is because our GDP is defined by how much money we spend. Saying that a stimulus package will increase our GDP is like saying that if you spend more money you will have spent more money. The problem is how to make that economic activity keep lingering. If we just keep dumping money into the economy to keep it "growing" (because we note that GDP got bigger after the stimulus package.... and we're calling that growth) then we can be quite assured that the increased tax revenue from that "growth" will always be less than the amount we spent.

    People seem to have this vision of a runaway growth that gets sparked by a stimulus and then takes on a life of its own. That's because just such a thing happened in World War II. (Or... it might have had something to do with the USA procuring access to a lot of resources world wide that it hadn't previously been in possession of by virtue of our diplomatic and military position...... but no..... it's better to attribute it to just the war time spending.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth? Or let me rephrase that.

    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth that doesn't immediately disappear into thin air the split second the stimulus package ends?
    In short because I'm an optimist...or try to be. Most times recessions are followed by pretty strong recovery--This one is taking longer than normal but I'm still going with history. We really don't need much...a 2.5 to 3% gdp would get us there IF we have the discipline to lock our spending for a few years and accept most people on our budget eating social programs will take a minor cut simply because our demographics are adding more to them everyday.

    For all practical purposes much of the stimulus won't end and will continue to pay for decades: Stuff like more efficient vehicles that will pay for about ten years, home mortgage refinancing programs that will for most last 15-30 years, and energy efficiency programs such as the tens of thousands of homes that are now much better insulated (I'm about to buy one built in 1922--the insulation will save me about $3K/year), more efficient federal buildings, electrical infrastructure improvements and educational benefits which last a lifetime.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth? Or let me rephrase that.

    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth that doesn't immediately disappear into thin air the split second the stimulus package ends?
    In short because I'm an optimist...or try to be. Most times recessions are followed by pretty strong recovery--This one is taking longer than normal but I'm still going with history. We really don't need much...a 2.5 to 3% gdp would get us there IF we have the discipline to lock our spending for a few years and accept most people on our budget eating social programs will take a minor cut simply because our demographics are adding more to them everyday.

    For all practical purposes much of the stimulus won't end and will continue to pay for decades: Stuff like more efficient vehicles that will pay for about ten years, home mortgage refinancing programs that will for most last 15-30 years, and energy efficiency programs such as the tens of thousands of homes that are now much better insulated (I'm about to buy one built in 1922--the insulation will save me about $3K/year), more efficient federal buildings, electrical infrastructure improvements and educational benefits which last a lifetime.

    I can appreciate your optimism but, reducing social programs and locking spending everywhere else will create a further reductions in total GDP. US government/s accounts for well over 40% of the US GDP each year, and when one adds in the fed and stimulus packages, as well as none marketable securities, you are getting to well over 50%.

    Again though, without the fed creating currency out of thin air and handing it to itself in exchange for bonds, the government and economy would pop right now. There is no easy fix and the american people will have to suffer and go through extreme hardship in order to fix the government and economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    reducing social programs and locking spending everywhere else
    That's not what I said. Our social programs should be locked as well. My point was because more and more people enter their roles, the per person amount being received would have to go down or wait longer to join them.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    reducing social programs and locking spending everywhere else
    That's not what I said. Our social programs should be locked as well. My point was because more and more people enter their roles, the per person amount being received would have to go down or wait longer to join them.
    there is actually plenty of money on the books in these programs to cover everyone today and tomorrow but, the government already stole the money and they government refuses to pay real interest on the money they owe to these programs. With that said, locking these programs at a certain dollar amount while continuing to allow the government to steal every dollar the people pay over the expense limit/cap is exactly the types of schemes and theft that got the US into trouble in the first place.

    People pay and paid for these insurance programs and services. They are not free, they do not and did not come about by way of government kindness or handouts, and the government stole the peoples money by selling them fake and false insurance programs and services, ponzi schemes. I agree with you though that stealing more of the peoples money by capping what is spent on the peoples programs and services will allow the government to keep and spend even more of the peoples money the people put into these program and service funds.

    A greater theft of the peoples money will not reduce the debt though. It will increase the amount of interest payment the government has to pay back to these programs, and so the snake will be eating its own tail again soon enough. The interest + principle will always be more than the principle stolen and the increase in interest + principle payments will do what they are doing now, and that is surpass the initial principle stolen in the first place.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 24th, 2012 at 02:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    With out touching those programs we can't get the debt down--the only alternately is default on debts to ourselves and that's pretty ridiculous position. Social security is the only one that has enough money projected to handle the next generation.

    You're also engaging in the false impression that just become someone made a contribution that means those programs are guaranteed. The courts have been clear on this several times....getting a penny isn't even guaranteed. And I'm not suggesting we kill those program, what I am strongly suggesting is they be scaled back until such time and to a point where we as a society can afford them. Better to accept a little bitter medicine now, than risk a complete collapse in ten or so years.

    I'd also like individual tax increases across the board, so half the population isn't Scott free. Even a dude living in a cardboard box should have to pay a minimal (say a dollar)--when people don't have skin in the game they simply vote for benefits while discounting who's got to pay--aka California's financial mess. I great way to recoup some money would be to cap most tax benefits as a level to advantage upper middle class--home mortgage and charity deductions capped at $10,000/year for example.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth? Or let me rephrase that.

    What makes you think we'll get moderate economic growth that doesn't immediately disappear into thin air the split second the stimulus package ends?
    In short because I'm an optimist...or try to be. Most times recessions are followed by pretty strong recovery--This one is taking longer than normal but I'm still going with history. We really don't need much...a 2.5 to 3% gdp would get us there IF we have the discipline to lock our spending for a few years and accept most people on our budget eating social programs will take a minor cut simply because our demographics are adding more to them everyday.
    Hmmm...

    It's not a good idea to be an optimist when you're contracting a debt. Optimism has ruined my credit at least 2 or 3 times.


    For all practical purposes much of the stimulus won't end and will continue to pay for decades: Stuff like more efficient vehicles that will pay for about ten years, home mortgage refinancing programs that will for most last 15-30 years, and energy efficiency programs such as the tens of thousands of homes that are now much better insulated (I'm about to buy one built in 1922--the insulation will save me about $3K/year), more efficient federal buildings, electrical infrastructure improvements and educational benefits which last a lifetime.
    I can see infrastructure investments paying off. But ironically that can't save the economy. You'd think it would, since efficient houses/vehicles etc are a gift that keeps on giving over a long period of time. In terms of absolute wealth, they're the best way to go.

    However an economy is about creating relationships between people. Starting interactions that keep happening again and again and again. If we build a bunch of infrastructure, that's a once off thing. The relationships that get created will dissolve as soon as the last road, bridge, house.... or whatever has been set up. Not all of them, but probably most of them. That's why consumerism is such a popular way to fix things. It's a production task that is directed at filling a bottomless pit of demand, so once you've formed your alliances they stay going and going and going because there's never a reason for them to end.

    To build a sustainable economy, you've got to come up with a set of tasks that people can do now, but also plan on continuing to do for the rest of their lives. A farmer has that (since food will always be in demand and you can never make it obsolete.) Manufacturing workers are in a somewhat more dubious position, because their jobs can get shipped overseas (even the educated ones). Every time a person has to change professions you have to pay their education costs again. If they change three times, then you've just spend 3x as much money on their education as you needed to. That's money that could have been used to educate 2 more people.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    If we build a bunch of infrastructure, that's a once off thing.
    Not at all. It saves money and that makes more money available for the economy. The question is will people spend that money and stimulate the economy or just put it into the bank.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To: Gonzales56,


    In the following CBO chart its clear to see, that Reagan increased our debt to GDP, from 32.5% to 53.1%.
    This CBO chart also shows that Clinton brought down our debt to GDP, from 65.4% to 56.4%.



    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------increase----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------debt----increase----------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------start-------end-----billions--dept/gdp----------------------------------------------
    --*U.S. president* --------------------party---years-----dept/gdp-dept/gdp---of $------in %------house control----senate control---
    Roosevelt D 1941–1945 50.4% 117.5% +203 +67.1% D D
    Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -8 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
    Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% +13 -21.7% D D
    Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% +6 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
    Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% +20 -5.2% D D
    Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% +30 -8.3% D D
    Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% +43 -8.3% D D
    Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% +101 -3.0% D D
    Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% +177 +0.2% D D
    Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% +288 -3.3% D D
    Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% +823 +11.3% D R
    Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% +1,050 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
    Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% +1,483 +13.0% D D
    Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
    Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0% R R
    Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
    Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +4,521 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
    Obama1 Barack Obama D 2009–2011 84.2% 99.6% +4,334 +15.4% 111th D, 112th R D


    (Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)

    Also Obama had to pay for Bush's tax cuts, and his "for nothing" Iraq war. Thats why his deficits are so high.




    You said, "Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years (debt increased every year under his watch)."

    The above CBO chart and the following link, state that your above statement is a (manipulation.)

    FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton




    (Edit: This part was deleted, because Gonzales56 posted a misplaced source.)



    Or answer these questions,

    When Reagan and GW Bush gave the super wealthy tax cuts, were there rules on how they had to spend their tax cut money?
    Could the super wealthy buy a Lear jet with their tax cut money, if they wanted too?
    Could the super wealthy use their tax cuts, to build factories in China for cheaper labor, if they wanted too?

    I don't think there are any rules, on how the wealthy had/have to spend their tax cut money.



    Since perhaps the mid 1980?'s large US corporations have been moving any job they can, to China for cheaper labor.

    Can you list any proof that Americas rich did not use their Reagan and GW Bush cuts, to buy Lear Jets, Rolls Royces, and build factories in China?

    Or can you list any proof that the wealthy are using there low tax rates to create American jobs?
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 04:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Democrats give money to solar and wind power corporations.
    .....and coal and oil. Do you want to see the charts?

    Reagan's tax cuts for billionaires, created huge deficits, and caused our national debt to grow.
    And GW Bush's tax cuts for billionaires, and his insane Iraq war, created the dangerous deficits and debt America has today.
    It's a bit more complicated than that..I prefer the less biased CBO explanation for our growing debt:

    The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:

    • $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
    • $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
    • $1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
    • $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
    • $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
    • $0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)[40]

    The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:


    • Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
    • Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
    • Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
    • New policies from President Obama (10%).

    --
    In simple terms blame a 3rd on GW, a 3rd on Obama and the last third on our crappy economy and lost revenue. I only wish simple factoid would have gotten mentioned in this crazy political campaign season.

    In the $3.5 trillion figure, Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues),
    Could the lower than expected tax revenues, be listed because projectionists did not know, the GW Bush tax cuts were coming?




    The following source CTJ, (one of few American groups not influenced by corporate America), states that the Bush tax cuts cost $2.3 trillion, after interest on debt is included.

    http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

    This information is stated at the bottom of page 2.




    The following wiki. link states that the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan cost at least $3.2 to $4 trillion dollars.

    Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Many say the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, or at least $757.8 billion. But these figures dont count complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars, and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050.

    So a more accurate cost figure on the Iraq war is $1.7 trillion dollars.





    You said blame 1/3 on GW Bush, and 1/3 on Obama.

    But GW Bush's tax cuts cost $2.3 trillion.
    And Bush's "for nothing" Iraq war will cost $1.7 trillion dollars.

    $2.3 trillion + $1.7 trillion dollars = $4 trillion dollars.



    And you said Obama spent $0.9 trillion. But since Clinton (democrats) had a balanced budget, and republicans created our high national debt, how much interest should we add to Obama's $0.9 trillion? Lets bring it up to $1.2 trillion dollars including interest on debt.


    So Bush spent $4 trillion dollars.
    And Obama spent $1.2 trillion dollars.

    Instead of blame 1/3 on Bush, and 1/3 on Obama. A more accurate statement would be, Obama spent around 1/4 the money, that GW Bush spent.

    But this above figure comes from the items you listed. In actual terms Bush could have spent much more money than that, compared to Obama.
    Last edited by chad; October 25th, 2012 at 08:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    That chart confirms something I'd always suspected. (Or I read things that used the details without presenting them so clearly.)

    Before Reagan, never above half.
    Since Reagan, never below. And always worsened by administrations that used the same kind of economic concepts.

    Obama's the one who got lumped with the boil-over when the withdrawal of banking regulations and oversight (which can largely be laid at Clinton's door) combined with the foolish low tax, high spend of the Bush administration into an unstoppable flood.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,


    In the following CBO chart its clear to see, that Reagan increased our debt to GDP, from 32.5% to 53.1%.
    This CBO chart also shows that Clinton brought down our debt to GDP, from 65.4% to 56.4%.



    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------increase----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------debt----increase----------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------start-------end-----billions--dept/gdp----------------------------------------------
    --*U.S. president* --------------------party---years-----dept/gdp-dept/gdp---of $------in %------house control----senate control---
    Roosevelt D 1941–1945 50.4% 117.5% +203 +67.1% D D
    Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -8 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
    Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% +13 -21.7% D D
    Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% +6 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
    Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% +20 -5.2% D D
    Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% +30 -8.3% D D
    Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% +43 -8.3% D D
    Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% +101 -3.0% D D
    Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% +177 +0.2% D D
    Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% +288 -3.3% D D
    Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% +823 +11.3% D R
    Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% +1,050 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
    Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% +1,483 +13.0% D D
    Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
    Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0% R R
    Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
    Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +4,521 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
    Obama1 Barack Obama D 2009–2011 84.2% 99.6% +4,334 +15.4% 111th D, 112th R D






    (Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)

    Also Obama had to pay for Bush's tax cuts, and his "for nothing" Iraq war. Thats why his deficits are so high.




    You said, "Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years (debt increased every year under his watch)."

    The above CBO chart and the following link, state that your above statement is untrue.

    FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton




    You said "CBO is also very clear about what will happen if taxes are increased on the rich.... Recession will come, millions will lose jobs and unemployment will shoot above 9.0% in 2013."

    Can you please list a source, or a explanation explaining how the above statement is true?




    Or answer these questions,

    When Reagan and GW Bush gave the super wealthy tax cuts, were there rules on how they had to spend their tax cut money?
    Could the super wealthy buy a Lear jet with their tax cut money, if they wanted too?
    Could the super wealthy use their tax cuts, to build factories in China for cheaper labor, if they wanted too?

    I don't think there are any rules, on how the wealthy had/have to spend their tax cut money.



    Since perhaps the mid 1980?'s large US corporations have been moving any job they can, to China for cheaper labor.

    Can you list any proof that Americas rich did not use their Reagan and GW Bush cuts, to buy Lear Jets, Rolls Royces, and build factories in China?

    Can you list any proof that the wealthy are using there low tax rates to create American jobs?
    When Clinton took office the debt was 4.4 trillion.

    1993 - 4.4 trillion
    1994 - 4.7 trillion
    1995 - 5 trillion
    1996 - 5.2 trillion
    1997 - 5.4 trillion
    1998 - 5.5 trillion
    1999 - 5.65 trillion
    2000 - 5.67 trillion
    2001 - 5.8 trillion

    Debt and GDP are two different things, and a percentage increase or decrees between the two have nothing to do what-so-ever with how much actual debt there is or how much debt is being added or reduced. When talking about debt and dealing with debt, one has to look at the debt and its numbers. If you want to talk about the GDP, then we can but, it has nothing to do with debt or debt numbers.

    CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences

    It really does not matter to me if people ignore reality, lie about reality or face reality and make choices based on reality. No matter what, severe hardship for most people is on its way. Out of control inflation and/or massive cuts are coming first, and then the suffering will follow.

    Concerning what people do with their own money that is their business.

    If the government would not strangle business and the american people would not buy just about all their products from foreign nations, then american companies would not have to outsource jobs. You are blaming the wrong people. You need to blame democrats, republicans and the majority of the american people for the outsourcing of labor and products, not business's. I love foreign products and I am going to continue to buy them up.

    The fact that american politics and the majority of Americans have made it better to do business in and with countries like China rather than with or in the United States is pretty telling. By all means though, keep attacking rich Americans and american business's, it has to start working and reverse the damage it has caused to america at some point (sarcasm).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Chad you dwell too much on the past, especially when this thread was supposed to be about the future.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If we build a bunch of infrastructure, that's a once off thing.
    Not at all. It saves money and that makes more money available for the economy. The question is will people spend that money and stimulate the economy or just put it into the bank.

    Why work hard for US dollars though? Seriously? Building infrastructure? The US government will give dollars to you if you have none and if you are connected to wall street or banks in just about anyway they will dish out trillions and trillions of dollars to you and your buddies.

    Why work hard when the value of your work and what you get in return for that work is constantly being reduced?

    Why work hard just so the government can take that money from you and give it to someone else?

    Easy money, easy work, nothing really honest about it. That's the american way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Why work hard when the value of your work and what you get in return for that work is constantly being reduced?
    It's a tired tread of yours unsupported by facts. Inflation has been low for a very long time and it's really really really easy to beat it even with very low risk investments. Also, increased efficiencies of manufacturing, transportation and trade continue to amplify our purchasing power--necessities continue to decline in cost compared to incomes. And given I just got a 3.4% 30 year fixed mortgage...I should be wanting inflation to climb anyhow. There's a tremendous about of intertia built into the system.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Why work hard when the value of your work and what you get in return for that work is constantly being reduced?
    It's a tired tread of yours unsupported by facts. Inflation has been low for a very long time and it's really really really easy to beat it even with very low risk investments. Also, increased efficiencies of manufacturing, transportation and trade continue to amplify our purchasing power--necessities continue to decline in cost compared to incomes. And given I just got a 3.4% 30 year fixed mortgage...I should be wanting inflation to climb anyhow. There's a tremendous about of intertia built into the system.

    Everyone in debt, as long as they have enough supplies and a way to protect those supplies, welcome inflation. I will not argue against that. I agree with the statement.

    Concerning inflation



    Inflation is not low and it has not been low. It is full steam ahead... What is that? 1900% since 1970?

    You know what is even worse about the inflation today? It is cheap nasty foreign products and goods that are inflating in price day after day. Pretty soon many Americans, mainly the poor, wont even be able to afford product and goods made by sweat shops and slave labor due to inflation, and those that can afford it, will be handing over outrageous amounts of fiat dollars for these things.

    Imagine what the real devalue in the US dollar would be, what real inflation would be, if we did not have sweat shops, slave labor and third world countries building our products and providing our goods since the 1970s? Now that the prices for goods and products built by slave labor, sweat shops and third world people have just about found equilibrium with the devalued dollar of today, and inflation (devaluing of the us dollar) is still occurring, things are going to start getting real bad.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 25th, 2012 at 01:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Pretty soon many Americans, mainly the poor, wont even be able to afford product and goods
    Yet your entire perspective is entirely and demonstratively wrong, because despite the inflation, that price of products have dropped by a significantly greater amount:

    We could look at a wide range of commodities but lets just look at food over about the same period:



    --
    In fact our continued increased in efficiency that are driving the actual cost of goods down year after year and decade after decade are the root cause of why uneducated can't find jobs right now as machines and people willing to work for less replace manual and increasingly thinking jobs.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Chad you dwell too much on the past, especially when this thread was supposed to be about the future.


    “You have to know the past to understand the present.”
    Dr. Carl Sagan


    "It is said that the present is pregnant with the future."
    Voltaire
    Last edited by chad; October 25th, 2012 at 05:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    (Edit)

    I deleted this post because it spoke of a (misplaced) source.

    Gonzales56 posted a "CBO source" in post #28. But his CBO source, has absolutely nothing to do with, the surroundings subject matter of post #28.

    This misplaced source caused confusion, so this post was deleted.
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 04:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,



    Can you list any proof that the wealthy are using there low tax rates to create American jobs?
    When Clinton took office the debt was 4.4 trillion.

    1993 - 4.4 trillion
    1994 - 4.7 trillion
    1995 - 5 trillion
    1996 - 5.2 trillion
    1997 - 5.4 trillion
    1998 - 5.5 trillion
    1999 - 5.65 trillion
    2000 - 5.67 trillion
    2001 - 5.8 trillion

    Debt and GDP are two different things, and a percentage increase or decrees between the two have nothing to do what-so-ever with how much actual debt there is or how much debt is being added or reduced. When talking about debt and dealing with debt, one has to look at the debt and its numbers. If you want to talk about the GDP, then we can but, it has nothing to do with debt or debt numbers.

    CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences

    It really does not matter to me if people ignore reality, lie about reality or face reality and make choices based on reality. No matter what, severe hardship for most people is on its way. Out of control inflation and/or massive cuts are coming first, and then the suffering will follow.

    Concerning what people do with their own money that is their business.

    If the government would not strangle business and the american people would not buy just about all their products from foreign nations, then american companies would not have to outsource jobs. You are blaming the wrong people. You need to blame democrats, republicans and the majority of the american people for the outsourcing of labor and products, not business's. I love foreign products and I am going to continue to buy them up.

    The fact that american politics and the majority of Americans have made it better to do business in and with countries like China rather than with or in the United States is pretty telling. By all means though, keep attacking rich Americans and american business's, it has to start working and reverse the damage it has caused to america at some point (sarcasm).



    You are also manipulating/lying with this post.

    Your saying that debt increased under Clinton, but this is a manipulation.

    Clinton inherited Reagan caused deficits when he took office (you are hiding this data.)



    The fact is Clinton had a balanced budget, and Clinton erased the federal deficit.

    FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


    Clinton had a balanced budget, and Clinton erased the federal deficit. But you manipulate or lie, to hide this fact.





    You said, "Debt and GDP are two different things, and a percentage increase or decrees between the two have nothing to do what-so-ever with how much actual debt there is or how much debt is being added or reduced. When talking about debt and dealing with debt, one has to look at the debt and its numbers. If you want to talk about the GDP, then we can but, it has nothing to do with debt or debt numbers."

    In post #25 in the CBO chart, can you state a time period, were the above is shown?
    Can you list any evidence that your above statement is actually true?






    You said, "If the government would not strangle business and the american people would not buy just about all their products from foreign nations, then american companies would not have to outsource jobs.

    Can you list any evidence that this statement is actually true?

    So you are saying US corporations outsource jobs, for reasons other than getting cheaper labor?
    Can you list a source that states that US corporations outsource jobs, for any reason other than getting cheaper labor?

    I believe this statement is also (untrue.)
    Last edited by chad; October 25th, 2012 at 07:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I do not intend to be rude in my posts if I am, I am sorry.

    What will happen if Romneys adds $10 trillion dollars, of tax cuts and extra military spending, to our national debt?

    Will the government still be able to send my mother her SS retirement check, after another $10 trillion dollars is added to our national debt?
    Will the government still be able to pay for my mothers Medicare, after another $10 trillion dollars is added to our national debt?


    The US government takes care of my mother.
    The US government takes care of my family.
    The US government takes care of the children in my family.



    Can you all list any evidence that my family, will still have the US government to look after them, after you all add $10 trillion dollars to our national debt, with Romney?

    Perhaps I was rude. But all of you wanting to add $10 trillion more dollars to our national debt, and then perhaps disable the US government, so it can no longer look after my family. Thats beyond rude.

    Can you all list any evidence that the US government, will still be able to provide services to our families, if all of you, and Romney, add an additional $10 trillion dollars to Americas national debt?
    Last edited by chad; October 30th, 2012 at 08:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Gonzales56,


    You posted the "CBO is also very clear about what will happen if taxes are increased on the rich.... Recession will come, millions will lose jobs and unemployment will shoot above 9.0% in 2013."

    I asked for a source for your above statement, but you wont give one. (Scientists) say that your republican views are "corporate propaganda." And you post this propaganda and refuse to even give a source.

    Can you please provide a source for your above CBO statement.
    I posted the link to the CBO report. Read it. You might actual learn something.

    Our government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars. You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something when it means nothing at all.

    Someone also told you that taxing the rich at one rate vs another rate is how the debt was created. Such a statement shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the federal government debt and how it happened and how it is still growing.

    Clinton and the republicans in congress also did not balance the budget or create a surplus. They borrowed/stole the money from medicare, social security, etc, wrote new IOUs / debt worth trillions and trillions of dollars not subject to limits (which is not counted as limited debt IE the 15 trillion in debt everyone hears about) in order to keep limited debt below current levels of spending. It was actually the brain child of Newt and not Clinton but, both of them played the accounting game.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 25th, 2012 at 11:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Can you all list any evidence that the US government, will still be able to provide services to our families, if all of you, and Romney, add an additional $10 trillion dollars to Americas national debt?
    Federal income taxes, even if you reduced the rich to zero or raised them to 100%, would not and will not have any impact on any significant social program one way or another. The federal reserve is the one pumping trillions and trillions of dollars into the federal government and the economy. They are the sugar daddy, not the rich.

    US Corporations, all of them combined, make about 1.6 trillion dollars a year. You can take the profits from every company in america and it will not come close to the theft, debt and amount of money the us government and federal reserve acquire, steal and/or make out of thin air each and every year.

    The new federal reserve program to buy mortgaged backed securities is over half a trillion dollars a year. Their bond buying scheme is over half a trillion dollars a year. This, by itself, is about 1.2 trillion dollars being created out of thin air each and every year.. And this is only 2 programs out of hundreds the federal reserve has.

    The sad thing is that it just does not amaze me anymore concerning how clueless and ignorant people are when it comes to US fiscal policy, the fed, debt and the american economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Why work hard when the value of your work and what you get in return for that work is constantly being reduced?
    It's a tired tread of yours unsupported by facts. Inflation has been low for a very long time and it's really really really easy to beat it even with very low risk investments. Also, increased efficiencies of manufacturing, transportation and trade continue to amplify our purchasing power--necessities continue to decline in cost compared to incomes. And given I just got a 3.4% 30 year fixed mortgage...I should be wanting inflation to climb anyhow. There's a tremendous about of intertia built into the system.
    You're both wrong and you're both right. It's a deceptive concept called "local inflation".

    If the price of one thing goes up, but the price of another goes down, the two may balance out to give you a net inflation of zero.

    Say.... maybe gold goes up, and labor goes down? Most of the parts of the economy we can do anything about are suffering deflation, while one area of the economy over which we have no meaningful ability to change anything experiences inflation (we can't change the quantity of gold in the World).

    Instead of just one ruinous outcome, we have two. .......... but at least the sum total inflation was small, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If we build a bunch of infrastructure, that's a once off thing.
    Not at all. It saves money and that makes more money available for the economy. The question is will people spend that money and stimulate the economy or just put it into the bank.
    In theory it makes more money available. In practice it may just serve to increase the price of gold. We all wish we lived in a common sense economy where real resources dictated our circumstances instead of just a bunch of made up constructs like hedge funds or sub prime mortgage bundles.

    It's like if you have two villages, and one village grows a bunch of grain, while the other makes a bunch of guns - who ultimately ends up with the most grain?

    Now consider a more civilized version of that story.

    Suppose you have two villages and one trains a bunch of farmers, while the other trains a bunch of litigation lawyers - who ultimately ends up owning the most grain after all the law suits are over? Now suppose one trains farmers and one trains bankers who then trick the gullible farmers into taking out loans for things they don't need (like a fancy GPS tractor), promising that the increase in their productivity will more than compensate for the money they lose to interest.

    Do you see how resources don't always dictate a real economic outcome?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Gonzales56,


    .


    Our government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars. You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something when it means nothing at all.


    Please explain, or give a source for your following statement,

    " You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something (when it means nothing at all.)"


    Could you please explain how debt to GDP, means nothing at all?
    Or could you please list a source for your statement, debt to GDP means nothing at all?



    You have refused to list sources for your statements, ever since this post began.



    Now your saying,

    "Our (Americas) national debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars.

    Can you list a source explaining Americas national debt, is $65-$70 trillion dollars?
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 04:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Gonzales56,


    .


    Someone also told you that taxing the rich at one rate vs another rate is how the debt was created. Such a statement shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the federal government debt and how it happened and how it is still growing.


    Clinton and the republicans in congress also did not balance the budget or create a surplus. They borrowed/stole the money from medicare, social security, etc, wrote new IOUs / debt worth trillions and trillions of dollars not subject to limits (which is not counted as limited debt IE the 15 trillion in debt everyone hears about) in order to keep limited debt below current levels of spending. It was actually the brain child of Newt and not Clinton but, both of them played the accounting game.


    You said "Someone also told you that taxing the rich at one rate vs another rate is how the debt was created. Such a statement shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the federal government debt and how it happened and how it is still growing."

    You said my statement "shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the federal government debt and (how it happened) and how it is still growing."

    Could you explain how our debt was created?
    (You forgot to mention how our debt happened)

    Or could you please provide a source, for your above statement?






    You also said,

    "Clinton and the republicans in congress also did not balance the budget or create a surplus."


    My source says, Clinton had a balanced budget, and Clinton erased the federal deficit.

    FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

    Can you list a source for your above statement?





    You said,

    "They (Clinton) borrowed/stole the money from medicare, social security, etc,"

    "(Clinton) wrote new IOUs / debt worth trillions and trillions of dollars not subject to limits (which is not counted as limited debt IE the 15 trillion in debt everyone hears about) in order to keep limited debt below current levels of spending. It was actually the brain child of Newt and not Clinton but, both of them played the accounting game."

    Could you please provide a source, or explanation for these statements?
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 03:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Dear Gonzales56,

    I would really like a source, or explanation for your statement, " You (Chad) keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something (when it means nothing at all.)"


    Could you please explain how debt to GDP, means nothing at all?

    Or could you please list a source for your statement, debt to GDP means nothing at all?
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 04:55 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Gonzales56,


    .


    Our government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars. You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something when it means nothing at all.


    Please explain, or give a source for your following statement,

    " You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something (when it means nothing at all.)"


    Could you please explain how debt to GDP, means nothing at all?
    Or could you please list a source for your statement, debt to GDP means nothing at all?



    You have refused to list sources for your statements, ever since this post began.



    Now your saying,

    "Our (Americas) government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars.

    Can you list a source explaining how Americas national debt, is actually $65-$70 trillion dollars?
    Chad, you should really start clicking on the links I provide for you. They are helpful in understanding the issue/topic at hand.

    re is another link for you link here link here click click click <------ Click on this, go to second page. It is titled "public debt".


    Federal Public debt in 2011 was 65.2 trillion.dollars.

    I also do not know how to explain to you, even further, that GDP and federal debt are two completely different things. Outside of that, your numbers are way off concerning the percentage difference between the two, and I mean way off.

    Concerning Newt and Clinton, and this balanced budget thing, what they did was issue trillions of dollars of new debt in Government Account Series securities/bonds/notes in order to "balance the budget". Because this debt, GAS securities/bonds/notes, are not subject to limits, they are not counted with the 16 trillion dollar debt with limits. This allowed them to take on trillions of dollars of new debt and report that they did not add to limited debt.

    This scheme by the way, the Newt/Clinton scheme, now has the federal government paying a quarter trillion dollars in interest every year to just medicare and SS. It also led to Gore swearing he would stop the Newt/Clinton scheme by putting funds in lock boxes rather than taking the money and issuing trillions and trillions of dollars in new non-limited debt...
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 26th, 2012 at 08:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Gonzales56,


    .


    Our government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars. You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something when it means nothing at all.


    Please explain, or give a source for your following statement,

    " You keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something (when it means nothing at all.)"


    Could you please explain how debt to GDP, means nothing at all?
    Or could you please list a source for your statement, debt to GDP means nothing at all?



    You have refused to list sources for your statements, ever since this post began.



    Now your saying,

    "Our (Americas) government debt is actually about 65-70 trillion dollars.

    Can you list a source explaining how Americas national debt, is actually $65-$70 trillion dollars?
    Chad, you should really start clicking on the links I provide for you. They are helpful in understanding the issue/topic at hand.

    re is another link for you link here link here click click click <------ Click on this, go to second page. It is titled "public debt".


    Federal Public debt in 2011 was 65.2 trillion.dollars.

    I also do not know how to explain to you, even further, that GDP and federal debt are two completely different things. Outside of that, your numbers are way off concerning the percentage difference between the two, and I mean way off.

    Concerning Newt and Clinton, and this balanced budget thing, what they did was issue trillions of dollars of new debt in Government Account Series securities/bonds/notes in order to "balance the budget". Because this debt, GAS securities/bonds/notes, are not subject to limits, they are not counted with the 16 trillion dollar debt with limits. This allowed them to take on trillions of dollars of new debt and report that they did not add to limited debt.

    This scheme by the way, the Newt/Clinton scheme, now has the federal government paying a quarter trillion dollars in interest every year to just medicare and SS. It also led to Gore swearing he would stop the Newt/Clinton scheme by putting funds in lock boxes rather than taking the money and issuing trillions and trillions of dollars in new non-limited debt...

    Thank you for finaly posting a source.




    The following is a wiki. link for United States public debt.

    United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Wiki states,

    "In 2012 debt held by the US public was approximately $11.311 trillion. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $4.848 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.159 trillion"


    All sources that I could find say, the US public debt and US national debt (are around $16 trillion dollars.)




    But Wiki speaks of Unfunded obligations excluded.

    These unfunded obligations excluded, are mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
    The present value of these deficits or unfunded obligations is an estimated $45.8 trillion.


    Perhaps you should have said, US Public debt in 2011 "with Unfounded obligations" included, was around 65.2 trillion.dollars.





    And I know that GDP and federal debt are two completely different things.

    The term I used was "debt to GDP", or as its officially called "debt-to-GDP."

    From wiki.- In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is one of the indicators of the health of an economy. It is the amount of national debt of a country as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).




    In post #38 in this thread you stated, "You (Chad) keep citing this silly percentage about debt to gdp as if it means something, when it means nothing at all."

    Could you please explain to me, or list a source explaining how "debt-to-GDP" means nothing at all?


    Are you saying that, if Americas debt-to-GDP was 350%, this would not matter to average Americans?
    Last edited by chad; October 26th, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Chad, I do not care what wiki says. I gave you the US treasury report. There are a lot of cute little names people try to give the debt but, it is public debt and the US governments public debt was at 65.2 trillion as of last year. This 65.2 trillion dollars is the amount of securities/bonds/notes the US government had issued for money in 2011. It is debt.

    The American people, for the most part, do not care about or do not understand the debt. It does not matter if debt to GDP was 4000%, the american people would not care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Yup. An economy that is massively productive and nobody gets to enjoy it. Because that's the idea of having a good economy, right? I had it all wrong until the conservatives explained it to me right.

    The purpose of growing food is not so we can eat it. We grow it so there will be something for us not to spend our money on, so we can save that money and invest it in stocks and bonds. Apparently in an ideal economy, almost all the food would sit there and rot and go to waste because nobody eats it. All the houses would remain uninhabited, gathering cobwebs. Cars would rust out, and their batteries would lose all their charge because nobody drives them.

    Apparently that's what an ideal economy looks like. However, somehow, in spite of the total lack of consumption, it would still be profitable to build those houses and cars and grow that food so they can sit there and go to waste unused. (I'm not quite sure how that last part adds up, but I'm sure there are some Fox News gurus who can explain it well enough to make me shut up with my questions.)

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The American people, for the most part, do not care about or do not understand the debt. It does not matter if debt to GDP was 4000%, the american people would not care.
    I think most don't think they'll ever have to repay it. They figure they'll die and let their kids and grand kids figure it out.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The American people, for the most part, do not care about or do not understand the debt. It does not matter if debt to GDP was 4000%, the american people would not care.
    I think most don't think they'll ever have to repay it. They figure they'll die and let their kids and grand kids figure it out.
    Unfortunately I think you might be right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Class warfare. It's the Democrats' stock in trade.

    Of course businessmen are looking for cheap labor. That's the way capitlaism works. When you go shopping, don't you look for the best deal? Would you like to get something for free? If so, that would make you a slave driver wouldn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Pretty soon many Americans, mainly the poor, wont even be able to afford product and goods
    Yet your entire perspective is entirely and demonstratively wrong, because despite the inflation, that price of products have dropped by a significantly greater amount:

    The price of food has gone up, not down... Automation, inferior quality, trillions in subsidies to farmers in order to lower/manipulate the cost of food and foreign food products/processing should have drastically lowered the cost of food in real dollars but, it has not.

    Older people know better, and they know that the quality of food has gone way, way down... They know that when they were a kid the milkman brought them farm fresh milk right from the cow and even delivered it to their front door as fresh and healthy as can be for about .50 to .80 cents a gallon. People today also know if they want the same quality milk and service today they will pay about 30 dollars for that gallon of milk.

    The list goes on and on for each and every item. It is the same story.

    The game of comparing hand raised or hand grown farm fresh foods and products of yesteryear (and it is not just yesteryear's food either) to today's garbage food to suggest that inflation is somehow not that bad, just will not and does not work with people who are educated. Older people know better, and younger people are seeing the garbage food rise in price even compared to the garbage food they grew up on.

    I will say it again... Comparing quality to garbage does not work with those who are educated. Automation/machines will reduce prices, cheaper labor will reduce prices and so will inferior garbage products but, this is not what has happened in America. Automation is here, cheaper labor is here, inferior products are here but, the prices keep rising.

    These products are far superior to that of today's foods...
    Link
    Bacon 1 lb. 52¢ 1920
    Bacon 1 lb. 47¢ 1925
    Beef Rib Roast1 lb 39¢ 1926 New York
    Bread 1 lb. 12¢ 1920
    Bread 1 lb. 9¢ 1925
    Bread 1 lb. 10¢ 1925 New York
    Bread 1 lb. 10¢ 1929 Chicago
    Butter 1 lb. 70¢ 1920
    Butter 1 lb. 55¢ 1925
    Butter 1 lb. 56¢ 1929 Chicago
    Butter 1 lb. 57¢ 1925 Los Angeles
    Cabbage 1 lb. 2¢ 1920 WI
    Carmel Wafers (1lb.) 36¢ 1924 WI
    Cheese I lb. 38¢ 1926 New York
    Chicken 1 lb. 39¢ 1925 New York
    Chicken lb. 42¢ 1929 New York
    Codfish 1 lb. 29¢ 1924 WI
    Coffee 1 lb. 47¢ 1920
    Coffee 1 lb. 52¢ 1925 Washington
    Coffee 1 lb. 50¢ 1925
    Coffee 1 lb. 45¢ 1929 New York
    Cornmeal 1 lb. 7¢ 1925 New York
    Cornmeal 1 lb. 6¢ 1929 Los Angeles
    Eggs 1 Doz. 47¢ 1920 WI
    Eggs 1 doz. 25¢ 1924 WI
    Eggs 1 doz. 68¢ 1925
    Eggs 1 doz. 55¢ 1925
    Eggs 1 doz. 59¢ 1929 New York
    Fancy Lake Trout 1 lb. 22¢ 1920 WI
    Flour 5 lbs. 41¢ 1920
    Flour 5 lbs. 31¢ 1925
    Lemons 6 15¢ 1920 WI
    Lettuce 3 Heads 25¢ 1924 WI
    macaroni 3 lbs 25¢ 1924 WI
    Milk ½ Gal. 33¢ 1920
    Milk ½ Gal. 28¢ 1925
    Navy Beans 1 lb. 10¢ 1926 New York
    Norwegian Sardines in Olive Oil 15¢ 1924 WI
    Oranges 6 25¢ 1920 WI
    Oranges 1 Doz.63¢ 1920
    Oranges 1 Doz.57¢ 1925
    Peaches 1 lb. 17¢ 1924 WI
    Pineapple Sunbeam 40¢ 1924 WI
    Potatoes 10 lbs. 63¢ 1920
    Potatoes 10 lbs. 36¢ 1925
    Prunes 1 lb. 3¢ 1920 WI
    Prunes 3 lbs. 25¢ 1924 WI
    Pure Lard 5 lbs. $1.20 1920 WI
    Round Steak 1 lb.40¢ 1920
    Round Steak 1 lb. 36¢ 1925
    Round Beef Steak 1 lb. 36¢ 1926 Chicago
    Round Beef Steaks 1 lb. 43¢ 1925 New York
    Round Beef Steaks 1 lb. 51¢ 1929 New York
    Sugar 5 lbs. 97¢ 1920
    Sugar 5 lbs. 35¢ 1925
    Watermelon 1 lb. 2¢ 1920 WI
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 28th, 2012 at 11:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Class warfare. It's the Democrats' stock in trade.

    Of course businessmen are looking for cheap labor. That's the way capitlaism works. When you go shopping, don't you look for the best deal? Would you like to get something for free? If so, that would make you a slave driver wouldn't it?
    Especially when you look at the cost of having Americans manufacture products and goods vs. other people from other countries.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 28th, 2012 at 01:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Older people know better, and they know that the quality of food has gone way, way down...

    I don't know which older people you're talking to. My late grandfather used to talk about the relative small buying power of his paycheck--spending well over half for food. Your own chart makes the point very well. In 1920 the average hourly wage was something like 60 cents an hour, so it would take you about 45 minutes to buy a 45 cent dozen eggs; today average hourly wage is about $24 an hour and even largest eggs are about a $2/dozen which take only 5 minutes of work to buy.

    Inflation rates do not matter, so long as they are stable from decade to decade, and wages keep up or exceed them.

    --
    A question about your 65 trillion. Isn't that number based on projected outlays of more social programs if they don't change? I already know those programs aren't actually binding and therefore can be and likely will be reduced if they become a huge problem.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Older people know better, and they know that the quality of food has gone way, way down...

    I don't know which older people you're talking to. My late grandfather used to talk about the relative small buying power of his paycheck--spending well over half for food. Your own chart makes the point very well. In 1920 the average hourly wage was something like 60 cents an hour, so it would take you about 45 minutes to buy a 45 cent dozen eggs; today average hourly wage is about $24 an hour and even largest eggs are about a $2/dozen which take only 5 minutes of work to buy.

    Inflation rates do not matter, so long as they are stable from decade to decade, and wages keep up or exceed them.

    --
    A question about your 65 trillion. Isn't that number based on projected outlays of more social programs if they don't change? I already know those programs aren't actually binding and therefore can be and likely will be reduced if they become a huge problem.
    Actually, in the 1920s, for instance, your average painter made between 1.25 and a 1.50 an hour. You are also trying to continue to compare organic farm fresh eggs right out from under free range chickens that were raised, produced and handled by Americans to vastly inferior factory raised, chemically/hormone fed/treated chickens from factories that are highly subsidized by the government. Same situation as the milk I wrote about in one of my post above. The same milk bought in the 1920s would cost 30 dollars today. Now you can buy crap milk for 4-5 dollars today but, they are not the same products/items. This is how and why the inflation numbers you rely on for your understanding are wrong/highly manipulative.



    Even with that said, I doubt you chart is factual. We know that an average painter or brick layer made between 60 and 66 dollars a week in the 1920s. Spending 10-15 dollars a week on food in the 1920s would mean they were feeding the neighborhood.

    The 65 trillion is not based on projected anything. It is the amount of money the federal government owes, money the government took in and issued securities/bonds/notes for, and then spent. The money went to the government, they issued securities/bonds/notes for it, and the money is gone. It all has interest, it all has to be paid back (unless the government defaults).

    It is one thing for the government to keep collecting social security yet not pay that money out to social security but, it is another thing all together to simply start shredding or defaulting on securities/bonds/notes the federal government has issued. They could do it though but, the minute they start the United States will not be able to sell anymore debt to anyone in the world unless they threaten them militarily and/or start wars.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 28th, 2012 at 03:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Honestly your claims about organics are unsupported by science and have been rehashed in other parts of this forum many times. If you want to waste your money go right ahead--even organic eggs at $3/dozen are way cheaper with respect to income than they ever were in the 1920s. Foods are actually far better for you today, with clear, and for the most part, excellent safety procedures. Tens of thousands use to die of food poisoning in the US every year...some of that was by salmonella gotten through eggs. You are completely wrong about the relative cost of basic goods (I showed such a huge difference that quibbling about a factor of 2 in wages doesn't mean a darn, and food safety(a composite of studies...there are dozens more. Are organic foods safer or healthier than con... [Ann Intern Med. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI. I invite you to search for the science on this at our environmental sub-forum. )

    --
    The 65 trillion is not based on projected anything.

    Show where that number comes from....say a pie chart of something from a credible source. My point is simple, any projected obligations to our social programs can be reduced and have been in the past--I suspect most of that "debt" is exactly that.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Class warfare. It's the Democrats' stock in trade. Of course businessmen are looking for cheap labor. That's the way capitlaism works. When you go shopping, don't you look for the best deal? Would you like to get something for free? If so, that would make you a slave driver wouldn't it?
    Actually they want two things:1. Cheap labor2. Abundant demand for their goods.And that, if course, is a perfect contradiction. So most of the m are now clamoring for the government to use deficit spending to create that demand out of thin air.

    It's not class warfare. It's just wishing for a makrbelieve easy buck. In any realistic economy running a successful business is hard. Some people can't live with that and want it to be easy. They want well off customers and desperate workers - both. When in reality it's an "either-or" either you have both desperate workers and impoverished customers, or both empowered workers and well off customers. You can't mix and match sustainably.
    Last edited by kojax; October 28th, 2012 at 04:44 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Honestly your claims about organics are unsupported by science and have been rehashed in other parts of this forum many times. If you want to waste your money go right ahead--even organic eggs at $3/dozen are way cheaper with respect to income than they ever were in the 1920s. Foods are actually far better for you today, with clear, and for the most part, excellent safety procedures. Many used to die of food poisoning in the US every year...some of that was by salmonella gotten through eggs. You are completely wrong about the relative cost of basic goods (I showed such a huge difference that quibbling about a factor of 2 in wages doesn't mean a darn) and food safety (a composite of studies.. Are organic foods safer or healthier than con... [Ann Intern Med. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI. There are dozens more. I invite you to search for the science on this at our environmental sub-forum. )

    --
    The 65 trillion is not based on projected anything.

    Show where that number comes from....say a pie chart of something from a credible source. My point is simple, any projected obligations to our social programs can be reduced and have been in the past--I suspect most of that "debt" is exactly that.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Class warfare. It's the Democrats' stock in trade. Of course businessmen are looking for cheap labor. That's the way capitlaism works. When you go shopping, don't you look for the best deal? Would you like to get something for free? If so, that would make you a slave driver wouldn't it?
    Actually they want two things:1. Cheap labor2. Abundant demand for their goods.And that, if course, is a perfect contradiction. So most of the m are now clamoring for the government to use deficit spending to create that demand out of thin air.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Honestly your claims about organics are unsupported by science and have been rehashed in other parts of this forum many times. If you want to waste your money go right ahead--even organic eggs at $3/dozen are way cheaper with respect to income than they ever were in the 1920s. Foods are actually far better for you today, with clear, and for the most part, excellent safety procedures. Many used to die of food poisoning in the US every year...some of that was by salmonella gotten through eggs. You are completely wrong about the relative cost of basic goods (I showed such a huge difference that quibbling about a factor of 2 in wages doesn't mean a darn) and food safety (a composite of studies.. Are organic foods safer or healthier than con... [Ann Intern Med. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI. There are dozens more. I invite you to search for the science on this at our environmental sub-forum. )

    --
    The 65 trillion is not based on projected anything.

    Show where that number comes from....say a pie chart of something from a credible source. My point is simple, any projected obligations to our social programs can be reduced and have been in the past--I suspect most of that "debt" is exactly that.
    I tell you that the quality of fresh farm raised/grown products and the services provided were/are better and far more superior than that of mass produced cheap foods, and all you have to say is that the garbage food produced in masses today are safe, are equal in quality and its a waste of money to buy anything else...

    Again, if you are going to compare prices, you have to compare identical products. One cannot compare a bottle of mad dog to a bottle of Penfolds wine. Sure Mad Dog malt is safe but, it is of inferior quality. Surely a pinto is safe if you know how to drive, and it is a car but, it is not a Ferrari. A watermelon or tomato at the supermarket today is safe but, it is not the quality of a watermelon or tomato grown by grandma, plucked right out of the ground and eaten. For comparative price purposes one has to compare identical products.. This means what they are, their quality, how they are grown/made/built, by whom and any and all services that are attached to them. To get to what a good or product would cost today from days past, you have to account for everything. This also means that you have to know how much these new automated and mass produced items would cost if americans built them, raised them or grew them by hand. This is how you understand and know what inflation is and has been in America.

    We can go down the list.

    1 lb. farm fresh bacon, from farm to professional american butcher, hand carved and cut, to your door, was 47 cents in 1925. According to CPI numbers, that .47 cents, that exact product, should only cost $6.21 today. Now, you are not going to find that type of quality cut, product or service very often today and even the best bacon you can purchase at supermarkets does not come close to that type of quality and service but, you can buy the best mass produced, machine cut, old salty bacon the supermarket offers for about 7-10 dollars today.

    Milk is the same way.. 30 dollars for farm fresh milk? It should be no more than 6-7 dollars according to CPI numbers, not 30 dollars. You ever taste farm fresh milk? Oh my, it is delicious. They used to also deliver this delicious milk to you personally. Quality foods and quality service.

    Concerning the link you requested on the debt, I posted the US treasury's report, and now you want me to search and seek out a pie chart to show you? Come on now.... The treasury report should not only be a great source, it should be far more adequate, reliable and honest than a pie chart from some other site or hack.

    It is debt. It is not projected spending. I am not even sure how you came up with that.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 05:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The farm stuff is ridiculous and a distracted. I'm a small town person and know what fresh food is like, but I also to realize the lack of standards in the past and the inherent dangers that made many of our grandparents and great grand parents sick--that the animal only was already sick when butchered, left outside despite it being an Indian summer for 2 days to "cure," cut up with a knife that hadn't been cleaned in weeks on a rusty surface and wrapped in the only roll of paper field mice hadn't decided to turn into nest material. The simple fact is modern foods are much better quality, consistency and for a small fraction of the cost relative to income today than they ever were in the past.
    --

    The treasury report should not only be a great source, it should be far more adequate, reliable and honest than a pie chart from some other site or hack.
    It is debt. It is not projected spending. I am not even sure how you came up with that.

    Becuase so far all Ive been able to see in those two links are are the $15.2 trillion--not the $65 trillion you (and other sites) claim. And I do think a big part is projections, stuff like an assumption that I'll live another 15 years and start collecting social security at the same CPI adjusted rate as people retiring right now--when in fact that rate could be reduced or I should be made to wait another few years before being able to file etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The farm stuff is ridiculous and a distracted. I'm a small town person and know what fresh food is like, but I also to realize the lack of standards in the past and the inherent dangers that made many of our grandparents and great grand parents sick--that the animal only was already sick when butchered, left outside despite it being an Indian summer for 2 days to "cure," cut up with a knife that hadn't been cleaned in weeks on a rusty surface and wrapped in the only roll of paper field mice hadn't decided to turn into nest material. The simple fact is modern foods are much better quality, consistency and for a small fraction of the cost relative to income today than they ever were in the past.
    --

    The treasury report should not only be a great source, it should be far more adequate, reliable and honest than a pie chart from some other site or hack.
    It is debt. It is not projected spending. I am not even sure how you came up with that.

    Becuase so far all Ive been able to see in those two links are are the $15.2 trillion--not the $65 trillion you (and other sites) claim. And I do think a big part is projections, stuff like an assumption that I'll live another 15 years and start collecting social security at the same CPI adjusted rate as people retiring right now--when in fact that rate could be reduced or I should be made to wait another few years before being able to file etc.
    Fox, concerning inflation you can believe what you wish and want.

    Concerning US government debt, the 16 trillion debt you are talking about, its only the US debt with limits. Certain securities/bonds/notes are limited in the dollar amounts/value that can be sold. Those limited securities/bonds/note are maxed out at 16 trillion right now. Congress keeps raising the limit on these limited securities/bonds/notes but they are not the only Securities/bonds/notes the US government issues. That debt is unlimited in its ability to accumulate. It has no ceiling.

    Total, limited and unlimited debt, all securities/bonds/notes, is at 65.2 trillion dollars right now. The treasury report i posted for you guys is as plan and as simple as it gets.

    The debt, this 65.2 trillion has nothing to do with any budget predictions or predictions about the cost of anything. It is debt.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 10:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The treasury report i posted for you guys is as plan and as simple as it gets.
    You keep saying that but I saw that no where in that report. What figure? What page? etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The treasury report i posted for you guys is as plan and as simple as it gets.
    You keep saying that but I saw that no where in that report. What figure? What page? etc.
    Treasury Statement

    Second page titled PUBLIC DEBT

    Total Public Debt Issued: 65.2 trillion

    2012 the total debt issued was 68.7 trillion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Ok. Good and Thanks. Now that's parse that down: You see that $56 trillion is in government account series made of intragovernmental holdings. Which the treasury defines as: "Intragovernmental Holdings are Government Account Series securities held by Government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds; and Federal Financing Bank securities. A small amount of marketable securities are held by government accounts." Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public DebtSo how is this broken down...looking the GAO report it's mostly retirement funds. (see 3rd figure down).
    Federal Debt Basics

    And as they say: "Trust fundsFederal budget accounts that are so designated by law. These accounts usually have a designated, or “earmarked,” source of revenue. These revenues are authorized to be spent for the programs and activities supported by the trust funds. Examples are the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. are accounting mechanisms used to link earmarked receipts with the expenditures of those receipts. Trust funds for Social Security, Medicare, Military Retirement and Health Care, and Civil Service Retirement and Disability account for almost all of the total debt held by government accounts. "

    Which gets back to my point. All of these are projected obligations based on the changing demographics and health of Americans over the next 2 to 3 generations based on them being recipients equal to what people get today. Non of those are legally binding obligations as for how much--including my military retirement income and disability check for example. They are non-binding and can be changed--and in fact have been changed in the past even over the past 20 years. Understanding this is the heart of arguments by folks such as Paul Ryan who wants to start modifying the system now to reduce these obligations by levering the private markets and other mechanisms. The alternative is we're eventually forced to reduce benefits and thus those debt loads through some kind of major austerity programs which effects those already retired, or too close to retirement age to plan and adjust accordingly.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    That is actually wrong fox... Government funds that are counted under the limited debt intergovernmental banner are MARKETABLE securities/bonds/notes. They are the same thing the public holds today. You can do simple math in order to understand this. SS is no longer allowed by law to buy these public limited debt securities/bonds/notes.

    The government issued over 68 trillion in debt, not projections, it is debt. Medicare and SS trust fund have about 6 trillion between them alone. This is not projected income, this is the actual balance, the actual amount owed by the federal government to these fund based on money the federal government took out of these funds and replaced with securities/bonds/notes.

    Now there are over 280 funds the US government has taken the money from and issued securities/bonds/notes/ too. Again, these are not estimated funds, these are not possible future funds, this is exactly what the US government took from these funds and spent. Again, they took the surplus's, spent it and then issued these funds securities/bonds/notes for the money they took. The total taken has been about 60 trillion dollars to date.

    Social Security already pays out more than it collects in taxes. Social security makes up the difference because of interest and repayment on actual money the federal government and other government agencies borrowed from its trust fund.

    Remember, intergovernmental limited debt is not the same as unlimited intergovernmental debt. This is why intergovernmental debt subject to limits is only 4.7 trillion dollars and the US government owes and issued 60 trillion in debt to these funds in 2012. SS and medicare alone have 6 trillion worth of government securities/bonds/notes sitting in their accounts. Do you understand that this 6 trillion is not part of the 4.7 trillion reported under limited intergovernmental debt? Simple math should make you realize that. That 6 trillion is sitting in unlimited debt securities/bonds/notes. It is part of the 60 trillion debt, not the 4.7 trillion intergovernmental limited debt.

    You also have to realize that we are not talking about projections or cost. We are talking about debt. the 60 trillion dollars, at least, is what the federal government took out of these funds. They did not take projected funds, they took actual funds and issues these funds securities/bonds/notes for their cash. It is debt.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 02:21 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I must agree there's no need to overstate the debt. It's large enough already.We just need to quit trying to use "stimulus" packages to try and coerce the market into doing the impossible.If you''ve got two economies, one with desperate workers who gladly accept a low wage with humble gratitude, and it's selling to another economy of well paid workers, then the market WILL self correct. Either both groups of workers become well paid and the whole benefit of the trade arrangement vanishes, or both groups drop their wages, or they meet in the middle......etcIt will happen as surely as water flows down hill. You eouldn't expect to make a river start flowing upstream just by giving it a good push. It's equally futile to try and make the current cheap-labor-sells-to-well-paid-workers scenario last. And If we depreciate worker wages to make the adjustment, that's deflation in the Great Depression style. It's what will essentially happen if we go to austerity. But if we don't go to austerity we''ll just be wasting our money trying to make the market flow up hill. We need a third option.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    That is actually wrong fox... Government funds that are counted under the limited debt intergovernmental banner are MARKETABLE securities/bonds/notes.
    Your own source specifically list them as nonmarketable and I further showed you the break down and how those estimates are developed--and yes they are projections based on demographics and assumed compensations--essentially future IOUs for people not yet retired (and well need 56 trillion in projected outlays for those already paying into the system--it also ignores the balance side...the intake of SS payments for the next two generations). The other holdings you mention are a relatively minor portion and make up the other 8 trillion.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Please do not tell me you dont get it either kojax?

    Lets just look at social security, ok?

    They have, in their funds, 2.7 trillion dollars worth of "assets". 2.7 trillion in "assets"
    They do not have 2 nickels to rub together. Not even two pennies.
    What are the assets?
    Certificates of indebtedness (from treasury to SS fund) are issued on a daily basis for the investment of receipts (the money SS collects) not required to meet current expenditures, and they mature on the next June 30 following the date of issue.

    The Federal Government has done this to over 280 funds, and the debt they have accrued equals at least the 60 trillion they had to roll over and re-issue, including interest, in 2012. This is debt.

    The federal government, as of right now, owes SS and medicare about 6 trillion dollars. They owe all these funds, all 280 of them.

    Fox, this is not projection on what is or might have to be paid out. These funds hold these securities/bonds/notes. These funds hold the IOUs for at least 60 trillion dollars. . There vaults are full of them.

    The government can default and refuse to pay on these securities/bonds/notes. They can do that for any securities/bonds/notes they owe monies for but, no one will take them or want them anymore..

    It was a wonderful scheme and scam in their minds but, now they have to start paying it back and it is going to crush them. It is going to hurt the american people too.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 02:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    That is actually wrong fox... Government funds that are counted under the limited debt intergovernmental banner are MARKETABLE securities/bonds/notes.
    Your own source specifically list them as nonmarketable and I further showed you the break down and how those estimates are developed--and yes they are projections based on demographics and assumed compensations--essentially future IOUs for people not yet retired (and well need 56 trillion in projected outlays for those already paying into the system--it also ignores the balance side...the intake of SS payments for the next two generations). The other holdings you mention are a relatively minor portion and make up the other 8 trillion.
    Wrong again Fox. All these funds, SS included, used to be able to buy/trade/sell intergovernmental marketable securities/bonds/note.. They cant now. That 4.7 number is and will be older marketable purchases that government funds cannot do anything with other than collect the monies owed on them when and as they mature. These funds get every penny stripped from them and they are issued GAS securities that are not counted in or under public limited debt (11.3 trillion) or intergovernmental limited debt which is at 4.7 trillion today. The debt is tallied and counted in the treasury report but, not counted in limited public debt, limited intergovernmental debt or public outstanding debt figures.

    The certificates of indebtedness that are issued to these funds is only seen and counted in the 60 trillion dollar debt figure reported under the total debt figures by the treasury.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 03:32 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't think you have a clue about how this stuff actually works. Most of that 50+ trillion identified as SS debt doesn't exist yet, only about 5 trillion is issued in the forms you speak of. The rest they are simply IOUs against projected retirement layouts, that the government is saying must be payed in the future at current rates. Looking at the same charts, you can see both the transactions, which are the projected intakes versus amount that will be spend as people retire etc. Only looking at one side is equivalent to me being in panic mode about having to pay off a large home mortgage while ignoring that I'll still be making money and have decades to make that total; the huge difference being here that Congress can and will one way or another adjust both the transactions (money collected) as well as the benefits--they done both in the past and will again. The question is do we adjust now slowly and share it as inter generational pain ...or much later with lots more pain to our elderly.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think you have a clue about how this stuff actually works. Most of that 50+ trillion identified as SS debt doesn't exist yet, only about 5 trillion is issued in the forms you speak of. The rest they are simply IOUs against projected retirement layouts, that the government is saying must be payed in the future at current rates. Looking at the same charts, you can see both the transactions, which are the projected intakes versus amount that will be spend as people retire etc. Only looking at one side is equivalent to me being in panic mode about having to pay off a large home mortgage while ignoring that I'll still be making money and have decades to make that total; the huge difference being here that Congress can and will one way or another adjust both the transactions (money collected) as well as the benefits--they done both in the past and will again. The question is do we adjust now slowly and share it as inter generational pain ...or much later with lots more pain to our elderly.
    It is the goverment, the US Treasury that is in debt to SS.. To the tune of 2.7 trillion dollars right now. SS fund has never used or needed any debt to function. Not a penny. When you add up all the money the US goverment, the US Treasury, owes about 280 funds, it adds up to at least 60 trillion dollars. How do we know this? Because the treasury report states it issued/REPAID 60 trillion in securities/bonds/notes to these 280 funds. It took the money from these funds and issued debt securities to them for the money they took.

    You keep saying that the treasury is projecting that the SS FUND will have or have to pay out 2.7 trillion (or whatever amount) one day maybe... This is not what the treasury is stating. The Treasury took all the surplus from SS fund, spent it, and issued debt securities/bonds/notes to SS fund that they redeem, with interest, every year. The Treasury OWES SS fund 2.7 trillion dollars right now. When you add up all the debt that the treasury owes all government funds, it equals at least 60 trillion dollars today.

    What is so hard to understand about that/this?

    Maybe I can help you here. Just answer these questions, ok?

    How much money did SS fund bring in from taxes in 2011?
    How much money did the SS fund spend in 2011?
    How much was SS funds surplus in 2011?
    How did SS fund get 114 billion dollar interest payment in 2011?
    What happened to and what has been happening to SS funds surplus's?
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 29th, 2012 at 05:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The year to year holding are on your chart AND contained in the GAO write up:

    Federal debt managed by the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) comprises debt held by the public and debt held by
    certain federal government accounts (under 31 U.S.C. § 3101), the latter of which is referred to as intragovernmental
    debt holdings. As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, outstanding gross federal debt managed by BPD totaled
    $14,781 and $13,551 billion, respectively. The increase in gross federal debt of $1,230 billion during fiscal year
    2011 was due to an increase in gross intragovernmental debt holdings of $126 billion and an increase in gross debt
    held by the public of $1,104 billion. As Figure 1 illustrates, both intragovernmental debt holdings and debt held by
    the public have increased since fiscal year 2007. The primary reason for the increases in intragovernmental debt
    holdings is the excess annual receipts (including interest earnings) over disbursements in the Federal Old-Age and
    Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, Military Retirement Fund, and DOD
    Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund. The increases in debt held by the public are due primarily to total
    federal spending exceeding total federal revenues. As of September 30, 2011, gross debt held by the public totaled
    $10,127 billion and gross intragovernmental debt holdings totaled $4,654 billion."

    That's 4.6 trillion total. Not 63 trillion.
    They go on:

    "Intragovernmental debt holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by over 230 individual federalgovernment accounts with either the authority or the requirement to invest excess receipts in special U.S. Treasury
    securities that are guaranteed for principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
    Intragovernmental debt holdings primarily consist of balances in the Social Security, Medicare, Military Retirement
    and Health Care, and Civil Service Retirement and Disability trust funds.2 As of September 30, 2011, such funds
    accounted for $4,254 billion, or 91 percent, of the $4,654 billion intragovernmental debt holdings balances (see
    Figure 4). As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, gross intragovernmental debt holdings totaled $4,654 billion and
    $4,528 billion."

    They say that's an increase of $1,243 billion, 1.2 trillion in a single year.

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2011.pdf

    Those are the actual numbers based on today and in the past.

    The only way to get to 63 trillion is to look at the CBO projections over the next 30 years. Money that's been collected and borrowed against a projection that we can change, though we would all hope not by much if we act early. Nothing you've put up so far says anything different.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 29th, 2012 at 09:03 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Does the number itself really matter? I'm more concerned about the direction the debt Is going in. A lot of degenerate gamblers start in the nickel slots. Other forms of unjustified optimism may follow the same pattern.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    We optimisticly tell ourselves we can prevent the market from correcting. We''ll bring back the 90's when the influx of cheap Chinese goods made worker in the USA feel rich suddenly. Back when they were still getting the best of both worlds and theIr wage levels hadn't been Impacted yet. Surely the next stimulus will bring that back, right? Or the one after that. Or the one after that?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Fox, the us government does not issue Government account series securities based on possible future income.. Make no mistake about it, the government issued 68.7 trillion dollars worth of debt in the form of securities/bonds/notes in 2012.

    Again....
    United States Daily Treasury Report September 28, 2012
    Table III-A Public Debt Transactions
    Total debt issued by the Treasury: 68.7 Trillion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Does the number itself really matter? I'm more concerned about the direction the debt Is going in. A lot of degenerate gamblers start in the nickel slots. Other forms of unjustified optimism may follow the same pattern.
    The numbers do matter but, you are correct in stressing that the government and the economy has been trying to go belly up for some years now due to government schemes and greed.

    The 4.7 they report from government funds is enough to insure that the interest collected on this alone will bleed the american people out even further. However, there are many funds and shady dealings going on far beyond that 4.7 trillion dollars.

    Regardless of these things though, limited statutory debt, what is being reported, must be raised or the government must continue to hide the increases in debt... By law, there is statutory debt limits but, by law, most surplus' created by government funds or government entities (the federal reserve included) must be loaned or given to the treasury department and the treasury department places these funds into its funds. This is a conundrum. This calls for and has led to very creative ways of hiding actual inflation and total debt. Thus the 68 trillion dollars issued in debt by the treasury in 2012.

    Keep in mind that the federal reserve is non-profit and all their profits must be transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve itself has its own programs and funds, and the treasury siphons trillions of dollars off of the federal reserve. However, the only money they report from these programs and funds going to the treasury is the 3 trillion dollars the federal reserve has created out of thin air to manipulate interest rates by buying marketable securities/bonds/notes.

    Either way though, it does not matter because the debt and schemes are just about all upside down right now and the only thing the government and fed are doing now is inflating total currency to keep up with cost and interest payments, and it is all going to come crashing down soon.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 30th, 2012 at 11:49 AM.
    chad likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Fox, the us government does not issue Government account series securities based on possible future income.. Make no mistake about it, the government issued 68.7 trillion dollars worth of debt in the form of securities/bonds/notes in 2012.

    Again....
    United States Daily Treasury Report September 28, 2012
    Table III-A Public Debt Transactions
    Total debt issued by the Treasury: 68.7 Trillion
    So you really think there's a million dollars going out for each retiree in the US?
    --

    That chart is rather confusing for example when it says "Act of 8/2/11, operated to permanently increase the statutory debt limit to $16,394 billion after 1/27/12."
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 30th, 2012 at 12:17 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well if you really want to know where all the money is going you're not the only one, even those in charge of the Government supposedly don't know, In his time in charge as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions". According a CBS news report the Pentagon's own auditors claim the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

    Now if this is true, and there's no reason to think it isn't or that Rumsfeld or Pentagon auditors were lying then it means that 'trillions' yes that's right 'trillions' of dollars are simply disapearing without a trace every year. Oh and on what date did Rumsfeld make this revelation? September 10th 2001, the day before the worst terrorist attack in American history, one heck of a coincidence there then.

    The War On Waste - CBS News
    chad likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Fox, the us government does not issue Government account series securities based on possible future income.. Make no mistake about it, the government issued 68.7 trillion dollars worth of debt in the form of securities/bonds/notes in 2012.

    Again....
    United States Daily Treasury Report September 28, 2012
    Table III-A Public Debt Transactions
    Total debt issued by the Treasury: 68.7 Trillion
    So you really think there's a million dollars going out for each retiree in the US?
    --

    That chart is rather confusing for example when it says "Act of 8/2/11, operated to permanently increase the statutory debt limit to $16,394 billion after 1/27/12."
    Retirees are surely not getting that much money but, trillions of extra/surplus' dollars have been taken from retirees while they were working and they will never see that money. What the real amount is, I do not know but, I know the government is not telling the american people the truth. I know this because the numbers do not add up.

    16 thousand billion dollars is 16 trillion dollars. I do understand how them putting 16 thousand billion, instead of just putting 16 trillion, can be or is confusing for many. A consistent amount or percentage of confusing or odd ways of doing or writing things is how the government does business / operates... Although when and where they do it sometimes does not appear to make much sense, the goal is to consistently and constantly do it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Well if you really want to know where all the money is going you're not the only one, even those in charge of the Government supposedly don't know, In his time in charge as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admitted "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions". According a CBS news report the Pentagon's own auditors claim the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

    Now if this is true, and there's no reason to think it isn't or that Rumsfeld or Pentagon auditors were lying then it means that 'trillions' yes that's right 'trillions' of dollars are simply disapearing without a trace every year. Oh and on what date did Rumsfeld make this revelation? September 10th 2001, the day before the worst terrorist attack in American history, one heck of a coincidence there then.

    The War On Waste - CBS News
    This is because the treasury and federal reserve are constantly doing shady shifts and are clearly hiding and moving transactions by way of multiple funds. When one looks at most of these funds or most of the reports from these funds and what the treasury and/or fed reports, there are a lot of severe issues and discrepancies. Now I am not letting the DOD off the hook or any of these funds because many of them help the treasury and federal reserve shift, hide and manipulate the books (for instance, does anyone really believe a hammer cost 100 dollars?), however, it is clear that the treasury and federal reserve are playing a much bigger game and they are the only players allowed to participate in it.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 30th, 2012 at 01:25 PM.
    chad likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=gonzales56;361376]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,


    Debt and GDP are two different things, and a percentage increase or decrees between the two have nothing to do what-so-ever with how much actual debt there is or how much debt is being added or reduced. When talking about debt and dealing with debt, one has to look at the debt and its numbers. If you want to talk about the GDP, then we can but, it has nothing to do with debt or debt numbers.

    CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences

    It really does not matter to me if people ignore reality, lie about reality or face reality and make choices based on reality. No matter what, severe hardship for most people is on its way. Out of control inflation and/or massive cuts are coming first, and then the suffering will follow.

    Concerning what people do with their own money that is their business.

    If the government would not strangle business and the american people would not buy just about all their products from foreign nations, then american companies would not have to outsource jobs. You are blaming the wrong people. You need to blame democrats, republicans and the majority of the american people for the outsourcing of labor and products, not business's. I love foreign products and I am going to continue to buy them up.

    The fact that american politics and the majority of Americans have made it better to do business in and with countries like China rather than with or in the United States is pretty telling. By all means though, keep attacking rich Americans and american business's, it has to start working and reverse the damage it has caused to america at some point (sarcasm).

    I want you to know that I respect you, more than you will ever know. I originally explained why here, but it was too mushy, so I deleted it.

    I also see your point with the $65 trillion dollar debt figure. Even though that $65 trillion dollar figure, is not part of Americas (official) national debt. That $65 trillion dollars (may) be the US government once again, writing a check that it can not cash.



    Your above listed source states the following,

    "Under current law with (higher taxes) , a sharp reduction in the federal budget deficit between 2012 and 2013 will cause the economy to contract, the Congressional Budget Office projects, but will also put federal debt on a path more likely to be sustainable over time."

    And, current (lower tax) policies will lead to a unsustainable level of Federal debt, and policy makers at some point will be forced to make people pay significantly more in taxes, and people will be forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services.



    Do you think that a slight temporary increase in the economy, is a good trade for the following. Our federal debt becoming unsustainable, everyone paying (significantly) more in taxes, and all Americans being forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services?


    Why do you (republicans) want,
    large deficits and a unsustainable level of national debt, the American people getting less money in government benefits, and also force everyone in the future to pay significantly more in taxes?
    Last edited by chad; October 30th, 2012 at 10:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Just remember one simple equation. To a businessman like Romney, the ultimate form of Capitalism is Slavery i.e. "cheap labor".
    Class warfare. It's the Democrats' stock in trade.

    Of course businessmen are looking for cheap labor. That's the way capitlaism works. When you go shopping, don't you look for the best deal? Would you like to get something for free? If so, that would make you a slave driver wouldn't it?

    The following is a US republicans definition of class warfare.

    Class warfare- raising taxes on the rich, and using that money, to give the poor welfare.



    But billionaires have a 17% tax rate, and those who make $90,000 a year have a 30%+ tax rate.

    The only class warfare I can see, is republicans fighting to give billionaires lower tax rates than everyone else.



    (edited)

    The following quote is from an honorable American billionaire.

    “There’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
    ― Warren Buffett



    I am sorry if I was rude.
    Last edited by chad; October 31st, 2012 at 11:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Honestly your claims about organics are unsupported by science and have been rehashed in other parts of this forum many times. If you want to waste your money go right ahead--even organic eggs at $3/dozen are way cheaper with respect to income than they ever were in the 1920s. Foods are actually far better for you today, with clear, and for the most part, excellent safety procedures. Tens of thousands use to die of food poisoning in the US every year...some of that was by salmonella gotten through eggs. You are completely wrong about the relative cost of basic goods (I showed such a huge difference that quibbling about a factor of 2 in wages doesn't mean a darn, and food safety(a composite of studies...there are dozens more. Are organic foods safer or healthier than con... [Ann Intern Med. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI. I invite you to search for the science on this at our environmental sub-forum. )

    --

    There are also huge differences in regular egg farming, and organic egg farming that no one has mentioned.
    Generally in regular chicken egg farming, the animals are mistreated and abused. They are (severely) deprived of food and water, to increase the egg laying period, ex.ex.ex.

    The following link's show pictures, of other animal mistreatment in traditional chicken egg farming.

    Undercover video at Turlock farm shows egg-laying chickens being abused - The Meat and Dairy Industry: All Creatures Articles Archive - vegan, vegetarian, human rights, animal rights, people, animals, love, compassion, peace, justice, righteousness,

    Chicken Industry .com -- animal abuse in the chicken industry

    (take a look at the picture galleries in the above source, there are 6 pictures, click the 2nd and 3rd, notice the crippled chickens.)

    I also assume these traditional chicken farmers, feed their chickens filthy unnatural things. And they also give the chickens drugs to increase production, and these drugs end up getting into humans bodies.


    But in organic chicken egg farming, generally the chickens are not abused, and the animals are respected. And the chickens are not given untested drugs, and chickens are fed all natural feed.

    I know many poor Americans are forced to buy regular eggs, for financial reasons.
    But if you can afford organic eggs, why not purchase eggs were the chickens are not tortured, not given unstudied drugs, and not feed filthy unnatural feed?



    And about organic farming,

    Organic farming uses (30%-45%) less energy and is more efficient.
    Organic farming systems produce 40% less greenhouse gases than regular farming does.
    Organic farming saves water
    Organic farming outperforms conventional farming in years of drought.
    Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system.
    Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

    Scientists also say that pesticides used in regular farming, cause horrible birth defects, in humans and other animals surrounding the farms.


    And organic yields match conventional yields (in crops like corn and soybeans.) And in the future other crops as well.
    Fruits such as strawberry's, have a 3% loss in yields.
    Last edited by chad; October 31st, 2012 at 12:19 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    [QUOTE=chad;362838]
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,


    Debt and GDP are two different things, and a percentage increase or decrees between the two have nothing to do what-so-ever with how much actual debt there is or how much debt is being added or reduced. When talking about debt and dealing with debt, one has to look at the debt and its numbers. If you want to talk about the GDP, then we can but, it has nothing to do with debt or debt numbers.

    CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences

    It really does not matter to me if people ignore reality, lie about reality or face reality and make choices based on reality. No matter what, severe hardship for most people is on its way. Out of control inflation and/or massive cuts are coming first, and then the suffering will follow.

    Concerning what people do with their own money that is their business.

    If the government would not strangle business and the american people would not buy just about all their products from foreign nations, then american companies would not have to outsource jobs. You are blaming the wrong people. You need to blame democrats, republicans and the majority of the american people for the outsourcing of labor and products, not business's. I love foreign products and I am going to continue to buy them up.

    The fact that american politics and the majority of Americans have made it better to do business in and with countries like China rather than with or in the United States is pretty telling. By all means though, keep attacking rich Americans and american business's, it has to start working and reverse the damage it has caused to america at some point (sarcasm).

    I want you to know that I respect you, more than you will ever know. I originally explained why here, but it was too mushy, so I deleted it.

    I also see your point with the $65 trillion dollar debt figure. Even though that $65 trillion dollar figure, is not part of Americas (official) national debt. That $65 trillion dollars (may) be the US government once again, writing a check that it can not cash.



    Your above listed source states the following,

    "Under current law with (higher taxes) , a sharp reduction in the federal budget deficit between 2012 and 2013 will cause the economy to contract, the Congressional Budget Office projects, but will also put federal debt on a path more likely to be sustainable over time."

    And, current (lower tax) policies will lead to a unsustainable level of Federal debt, and policy makers at some point will be forced to make people pay significantly more in taxes, and people will be forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services.



    Do you think that a slight temporary increase in the economy, is a good trade for the following. Our federal debt becoming unsustainable, everyone paying (significantly) more in taxes, and all Americans being forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services?


    Why do you (republicans) want,
    large deficits and a unsustainable level of national debt, the American people getting less money in government benefits, and also force everyone in the future to pay significantly more in taxes?
    Chad I appreciate the kind words and I too respect you, your points and I understand what you are saying but, raising taxes will not help or work in this economy.

    What do you think the wealthy do with their wealth? They invest it and they spend it. Taking more of their money does not help the economy, it only reduces private investments and private jobs.

    Now what does the government do with that money? They are going to spend it very inefficiently and reduce the investments, consumption and jobs it would have otherwise made/produced in the hands of wealthy people.

    Private investment and private consumption demands capital, hard work, competition, accountability, due diligence and risk/reward. Government spending is inefficient, over pays for everything, void of diligence, unconcerned with good service or competition, promotes and supports failure and eliminates the need for risk by rewarding people and companies for not taking risk/s.

    Remember, please keep in mind, every dollar taken from someone is a dollar they cannot invest and/or spend. Taxes are not a gain, they are a loss to the economy and then a gain for the government.
    Last edited by gonzales56; October 31st, 2012 at 04:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    This is because the treasury and federal reserve are constantly doing shady shifts and are clearly hiding and moving transactions by way of multiple funds. When one looks at most of these funds or most of the reports from these funds and what the treasury and/or fed reports, there are a lot of severe issues and discrepancies. Now I am not letting the DOD off the hook or any of these funds because many of them help the treasury and federal reserve shift, hide and manipulate the books (for instance, does anyone really believe a hammer cost 100 dollars?), however, it is clear that the treasury and federal reserve are playing a much bigger game and they are the only players allowed to participate in it.
    I think the whole notion of a $100 hammer makes me smile because everybody knows these things are dodgy, but if you are getting accounts with these kind of figures you've got to also start to wonder about the suppliers and their links to government. Are the suppliers really receiving the $100 for for their hammers? The point if they are not then they are probarbly just as complicit in helping move the money around and if they are getting paid these amounts then they're massively defrauding the DOD. But I guess the real questions are why is it that the public needs to be kept in the dark about the spending? Heck if it is going on classified technologies or research why not just have that on the accounts, rather than letting everyone believe they are incompetent or complicit in fraud? It just doesn't really add up, there seems to be hidden motives here, if you ask me to many people have their snouts in the trough and this is the real motive for keeping this off the books and hiding the spending.

    I just wonder when it comes to procuring from contractors just how many politicians and political advisors also end up making money on the deal, whether as share holders, spokenmen or paid advocates for the contractors. Whatever the way it breaks down you can bet there will be parties interested in ensuring that the many of the payments or profits they recieve never see the light of day in public awareness terms at least.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=gonzales56;362878]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,




    CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences

    It really does not matter to me if people ignore reality, lie about reality or face reality and make choices based on reality. No matter what, severe hardship for most people is on its way. Out of control inflation and/or massive cuts are coming first, and then the suffering will follow.
    Chad I appreciate the kind words and I too respect you, your points and I understand what you are saying but, raising taxes will not help or work in this economy.

    What do you think the wealthy do with their wealth? They invest it and they spend it. Taking more of their money does not help the economy, it only reduces private investments and private jobs.

    Now what does the government do with that money? They are going to spend it very inefficiently and reduce the investments, consumption and jobs it would have otherwise made/produced in the hands of wealthy people.

    Private investment and private consumption demands capital, hard work, competition, accountability, due diligence and risk/reward. Government spending is inefficient, over pays for everything, void of diligence, unconcerned with good service or competition, promotes and supports failure and eliminates the need for risk by rewarding people and companies for not taking risk/s.

    Remember, please keep in mind, every dollar taken from someone is a dollar they cannot invest and/or spend. Taxes are not a gain, they are a loss to the economy and then a gain for the government.


    Your own above listed source "CBO - 2013 Economic Consequences" states the following,

    "Under current law with (higher taxes) , a sharp reduction in the federal budget deficit between 2012 and 2013 will cause the economy to contract, the Congressional Budget Office projects, but will also put federal debt on a path more likely to be sustainable over time."

    "Or, current (lower tax) policies will lead to a unsustainable level of Federal debt, and policy makers at some point will be forced to make people pay significantly more in taxes, and people will be forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services."


    Your own source states "If we keep the tax cuts going, our federal debt will become unsustainable, everyone will have to pay (significantly) more in taxes, and all Americans will be forced to accept substantially less, in government benefits and services."
    Last edited by chad; October 31st, 2012 at 08:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    [QUOTE=gonzales56;362878][QUOTE=chad;362838][QUOTE=gonzales56;361376]
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    To: Gonzales56,



    What do you think the wealthy do with their wealth? They invest it and they spend it. Taking more of their money does not help the economy, it only reduces private investments and private jobs.

    Now what does the government do with that money? They are going to spend it very inefficiently and reduce the investments, consumption and jobs it would have otherwise made/produced in the hands of wealthy people.

    Private investment and private consumption demands capital, hard work, competition, accountability, due diligence and risk/reward. Government spending is inefficient, over pays for everything, void of diligence, unconcerned with good service or competition, promotes and supports failure and eliminates the need for risk by rewarding people and companies for not taking risk/s.

    Remember, please keep in mind, every dollar taken from someone is a dollar they cannot invest and/or spend. Taxes are not a gain, they are a loss to the economy and then a gain for the government.

    What do the wealthy do with their wealth? You said, "They invest it and they spend it."
    But Warren Buffet says, "he takes his republican tax cuts, and puts them in the bank, and it does no good for the economy."
    And every American factory in China, is an example of Americas rich using their money to create jobs in China.

    Can you post a source that states, Americas rich are using their money to help America?


    The fact is everything you republicans say is corporate propaganda, and you republicans can't list a credible source, for 90%-99% of these phrases that you say.


    You said, "Now what does the government do with that money? They are going to spend it very inefficiently and reduce the investments, consumption and jobs it would have otherwise made/produced in the hands of wealthy people."

    Can you post a source, or a working example of this?



    You said, "Private investment and private consumption demands capital, hard work, competition, accountability, due diligence and risk/reward. Government spending is inefficient, over pays for everything, void of diligence, unconcerned with good service or competition, promotes and supports failure and eliminates the need for risk by rewarding people and companies for not taking risk's."

    Can you post a source, or a working example of this?



    You said, "Remember, please keep in mind, every dollar taken from someone is a dollar they cannot invest and/or spend. Taxes are not a gain, they are a loss to the economy and then a gain for the government."

    Can you post a source, or a working example of this?



    All these phrases you republicans say, are lies that were created inside of corporate think tanks.
    Thats why you all can't post a credible source for these phrases.


    But ((outside of politics)) you are still, a hell of a human being.
    And I can't help but to, wish you well Gonzales56,

    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Extend the bush tax cuts?
    By jduster in forum Politics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: November 16th, 2010, 01:29 PM
  2. Why are corporations a present danger?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 18th, 2009, 07:55 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 01:18 PM
  4. Do corporations have any moral responsibility?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 2nd, 2007, 12:21 PM
  5. Mitt Romney 2008 - Can a Mormon be president?
    By Jim Colyer in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 19th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •