goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2014, 08:26:01 PM
-
nm
-
2 Middle East occupations, check
Homeland security department, check.
A doubling of the defense department budget, check
A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check
Medicare prescription drug program, check
Look at all this legacy spending!!
I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.
-
Maybe 2 dr peps for the cats in 3 years
-
Endowment
-
2 Middle East occupations, check
Homeland security department, check.
A doubling of the defense department budget, check
A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check
Medicare prescription drug program, check
Look at all this legacy spending!!
I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.
#libtard
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
#libtard
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”
“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.
“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”
The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.
At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.
Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.
But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which haf an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.
Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.
The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.
If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.
-
2 Middle East occupations, check
Homeland security department, check.
A doubling of the defense department budget, check
A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check
Medicare prescription drug program, check
Look at all this legacy spending!!
I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.
Right... and the Dems have been fighting valiantly to reduce spending since they took both houses of Congress in 2006, the presidency in 2008, and retained the Senate until 2014 - but, but those damned legacy costs!!! :shakesfist:
Pelosi: "There is nothing left to cut." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEmCNrNW77I)
And even if broad tax increases would have significantly increased revenue, as opposed to further tanking the economy, the Dems failed to do so when they held overwhelming majorities in Congress. How strange.
But yeah, we've definitely got a revenue problem. You just can't run a government on 3 trillion dollars a year, amiright?
-
Gaga has had like a bunch of hits
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”
“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.
“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”
The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.
At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.
Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.
But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which haf an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.
Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.
The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.
If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.
That sounds like an explanation of why the debt isn't a debt in the usual sense - the kind to be concerned about.
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”
“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.
“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”
The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.
At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.
Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.
But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which haf an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.
Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.
The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.
If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.
That sounds like an explanation of why the debt isn't a debt in the usual sense - the kind to be concerned about.
I know, right? I don't understand why we even need to pay any taxes.
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”
“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.
“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”
The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.
At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.
Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.
But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which haf an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.
Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.
The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.
If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.
That sounds like an explanation of why the debt isn't a debt in the usual sense - the kind to be concerned about.
I know, right? I don't understand why we even need to pay any taxes.
There are lots of ways to fund the government.
-
Debt isn't even real, it's just numbers on a screen bro
“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”
“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.
“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”
The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.
At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.
Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.
The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.
But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which haf an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.
Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.
The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.
The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.
If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.
That sounds like an explanation of why the debt isn't a debt in the usual sense - the kind to be concerned about.
I know, right? I don't understand why we even need to pay any taxes.
There are lots of ways to fund the government.
Lottery?
-
Steal oil
-
I can't think of a more overhyped phantom crisis than the debt, I'm still waiting for that Greek like collapse Consertvetards promised 3 years ago.
-
BFD
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F70532000%2Fgif%2F_70532713_global_debt_borrowing_percentage_gdp_464.gif&hash=230f8fc350844b5dd1540fdae0890fc47af2e621)
-
Republicans: We need to be more like Russia and China!!!
-
:cool:
-
Being worse than France and the UK and approaching Italy is very very bad.
-
Whatever you say Comrade
-
I can't think of a more overhyped phantom crisis than the debt, I'm still waiting for that Greek like collapse Consertvetards promised 3 years ago.
That's a weird thing to look forward to.
Guys, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't real.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upjohn.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FJune%25203%2520George%2520Chart_7.PNG&hash=513f4d1e62dd055267684bc697fa3a9f08f4e2bd)
sitting pretty
-
I'm on board, Cire. Lower all taxes to zero and ride the debt train to #1!!!!! Only fools pay taxes!
-
Totally agree. Things seem to have worked out just dandy for Japan and Greece. Fire up that money printer!
-
Welp, looks like it's time to take the annual budget deficits above $1 trillion a year again. Resident Prog-Libs say it's all good.
Good to see resident prog-libs pull out the strawmen that Democrats have had 8 years to reverse course on, and for the most part did the exact opposite. :thumbsup:
-
LOL, remember when senator obama was yacking about how our debt was a threat to national security and irresponsible? what a tard he was back then. glad to see he's on the debt train with me, cire and chum1.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upjohn.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FJune%25203%2520George%2520Chart_7.PNG&hash=513f4d1e62dd055267684bc697fa3a9f08f4e2bd)
sitting pretty
Pretty cray that most if not all the countries below us on this chart have nationalized health care and much better social programs than the US, people are happier and health outcomes are better. Wonder how that is, oh, maybe we can't have nice things due to right wing world domination and blood lust.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upjohn.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FJune%25203%2520George%2520Chart_7.PNG&hash=513f4d1e62dd055267684bc697fa3a9f08f4e2bd)
sitting pretty
Pretty cray that most if not all the countries below us on this chart have nationalized health care and much better social programs than the US, people are happier and health outcomes are better. Wonder how that is, oh, maybe we can't have nice things due to right wing world domination and blood lust.
I'm not at all sure that that's true. In fact, I believe that the US has markedly better survival rates when it comes to serious diseases than socialized medicine countries.
Also, the vast majority of those socialist paradises have smaller, more homogenous populations and aren't allowing an uncontrolled influx of poverty into their countries.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upjohn.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FJune%25203%2520George%2520Chart_7.PNG&hash=513f4d1e62dd055267684bc697fa3a9f08f4e2bd)
sitting pretty
Pretty cray that most if not all the countries below us on this chart have nationalized health care and much better social programs than the US, people are happier and health outcomes are better. Wonder how that is, oh, maybe we can't have nice things due to right wing world domination and blood lust.
I might move to one of the other countries we have conquered and now own. What is the best US colony now?
-
Who gives a crap about our debt? Who is going to force us to pay up? I mean really. Money is imaginary anyway.
-
I can't think of a more overhyped phantom crisis than the debt, I'm still waiting for that Greek like collapse Consertvetards promised 3 years ago.
That's a weird thing to look forward to.
Guys, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't real.
I think you missed the sarcasm in my post. Greece's big problem was the fact they didn't control their own currency, therefore making their debt much more dangerous than a country that controls its own currency. The bond market tells me not to be worried about US Debt, therefore I wont be.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upjohn.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FJune%25203%2520George%2520Chart_7.PNG&hash=513f4d1e62dd055267684bc697fa3a9f08f4e2bd)
sitting pretty
Pretty cray that most if not all the countries below us on this chart have nationalized health care and much better social programs than the US, people are happier and health outcomes are better. Wonder how that is, oh, maybe we can't have nice things due to right wing world domination and blood lust.
I'm not at all sure that that's true. In fact, I believe that the US has markedly better survival rates when it comes to serious diseases than socialized medicine countries.
Also, the vast majority of those socialist paradises have smaller, more homogenous populations and aren't allowing an uncontrolled influx of poverty into their countries.
Of course they have more homogenous populations, they are more socialized, i think that is in the definition of socialism.
-
Japan's problems are interesting to me tho, even though they have so much debt, they continue to struggle with deflation (the real economic killer unlike inflation). They have basically tried everything and its not working, so now they purposely devaluing their currency to see if that will help.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
I was being serious, debt is just used to fear monger stupid people into believing they personally owe that money.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
I was being serious, debt is just used to fear monger stupid people into believing they personally owe that money.
Oh. :cheers: :D
-
There is good debt and bad debt. Borrowing to build a house is good. Borrowing to gamble and to go to the Yoder cathouse is bad. Investing in things that promote commerce, defense, energy from carbon, and aid to the disadvantaged is what government should do. Not getting any long lasting benefit from debt is Obama's problem. His whipped slink dog retreat from the mideast has resulted in a great amount of national treasure wasted. His desire to expand what are considered to be the disadvantaged to gain power will divert funds from things like improvements to water and sewer systems - I don't want brown chewy water in my drinking glass or my toilet blowing up from a build up of sewer gas. ALSO we need hi ways, rail and pipelines built more than spending money on attacking fat kids.
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
I was being serious, debt is just used to fear monger stupid people into believing they personally owe that money.
So, why do democrats allow the government to shut down if they don't get their increased tax revenue (money people personally owe)? Just playing games?
-
Who gives a crap about our debt? Who is going to force us to pay up? I mean really. Money is imaginary anyway.
Yup
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
Aren't we already devoting more and more of our revenue just to servicing the interest on our browing debt? Oh right, I keep forgetting, none of that matters 'cause we can just keep printing money. Party on, everyone! :Woohoo:
-
do you think dave ramsey would be a better president or fed chairman?
-
did you guys even look at my graphs?
BFD right?
-
did you guys even look at my graphs?
BFD right?
The trend is terrible and our peer is Italy, a stale economy with terrible inflation and an ever deteriorating quality of life. No thanks.
-
Gosh, what was all that meltie-downy stuff from prog-libs in 2006? Remember? Promising war extraction (instead they just spent more) and promising deficit reduction and national debt reduction? Now, it's just, ya know, numbers.
LOL, well played prog-libs. Until the new Congress comes in and suddenly it's going to be a huge prog-lib talking point again, well, maybe not as much since Obama will still be in office. But if a Pub gets elected in 16, the prog-lib cries for a budget and all that stuff will be an amazing cacophony for the ears.
-
You're one strange old dude Dax
-
2 Middle East occupations, check
Homeland security department, check.
A doubling of the defense department budget, check
A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check
Medicare prescription drug program, check
Look at all this legacy spending!!
I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.
Right... and the Dems have been fighting valiantly to reduce spending since they took both houses of Congress in 2006, the presidency in 2008, and retained the Senate until 2014 - but, but those damned legacy costs!!! :shakesfist:
Pelosi: "There is nothing left to cut." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEmCNrNW77I)
And even if broad tax increases would have significantly increased revenue, as opposed to further tanking the economy, the Dems failed to do so when they held overwhelming majorities in Congress. How strange.
But yeah, we've definitely got a revenue problem. You just can't run a government on 3 trillion dollars a year, amiright?
Obviously you can't when Repubs almost make permanent the list I created above.
Also LOL!! at thinking the DEMS had some overwhelming majority. Im not sure you know about the record number of filibusters since Obamas first tenure.
Now look at the list to see what the right put into the budget with their very own "overwhelming" majorities. Those are things they implemented and continue to fight to keep on the books.
-
2 Middle East occupations, check
Homeland security department, check.
A doubling of the defense department budget, check
A lack of cuts in relation to tax cuts, check
Medicare prescription drug program, check
Look at all this legacy spending!!
I wonder if we should've raised taxes if we wanted all this stuff.
#libtard
#yawn
-
Gosh, what was all that meltie-downy stuff from prog-libs in 2006? Remember? Promising war extraction (instead they just spent more) and promising deficit reduction and national debt reduction? Now, it's just, ya know, numbers.
LOL, well played prog-libs. Until the new Congress comes in and suddenly it's going to be a huge prog-lib talking point again, well, maybe not as much since Obama will still be in office. But if a Pub gets elected in 16, the prog-lib cries for a budget and all that stuff will be an amazing cacophony for the ears.
Yeah I'm gonna have to disagree here, respectfully of course. The GOP is much more conservative now than it was under the free-spending GWB years. The incoming GOP controlled congress will make deficit reduction a key focus. The libtards aren't going to join them on this. Instead, they'll bitch and moan about how we should be raising taxes instead of taking food out if the mouths of poor children. Typical libtard talking points.
-
In the 18 Mos the libtards had a filibuster proof senate they added 4 trillion to the deficit, so there's that
-
Also lol at blaming legacy costs on W while completely ignoring social security, medicare and the social welfare state.
-
Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship
-
Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship
I am excited that we are about to get this all figured out.
-
Lucky for all of us the republicans now own the legislature and can right the ship
I thought you said it didn't matter
-
I'm on team pub now
-
"Countries with socialized medicine are happier and healthier" is an unfounded quip and libtard favorite.
Locking at these charts, it's hard to believe B.O. was able to take us from 50% debt:gdp to 100% in just 2 years. Frightening how reckless his policies were.
Caring about debt is stupid. Good lord. We are the USA.
YES ITS THAT SIMPLE AND EASY.
Inform me on what bad things happen by the country going further in debt.
Aren't we already devoting more and more of our revenue just to servicing the interest on our browing debt? Oh right, I keep forgetting, none of that matters 'cause we can just keep printing money. Party on, everyone! :Woohoo:
Basically you can as long as major inflation doesn't happen, which it isn't since workers wages continue to stagnant. This isn't near the crisis you're making it out to be. There hasn't been a shift in the yield curve, again it's fear mongering to the stupid by telling them they owe this much of the National Debt.
-
Also the dollar seems to be doing pretty good.
-
When your shadow bank buys 80 billion in bonds per month, interest rates can be kept artificially low for a while, provided your peers are already entrenched as social welfare states. This sitch won't last forever. Use some foresight. Western Europe was the beta test, it doesn't work.
-
When your shadow bank buys 80 billion in bonds per month, interest rates can be kept artificially low for a while, provided your peers are already entrenched as social welfare states. This sitch won't last forever. Use some foresight. Western Europe was the beta test, it doesn't work.
Again what got a lot of Western Europe is the fact they don't control their own sovereign currency. That's a completely different situation. Would I rather have less debt, sure, but I'll worry once some economic metric tells me to worry.
-
Asinine thread. Congress will soon fix all of this.
-
That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.
-
That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.
Hopefully but I'm sure Obama will do something to torpedo it.
Wait til Jeb is president.
-
That is a great point about the republicans taking over. We should see a budget surplus next year.
Hopefully but I'm sure Obama will do something to torpedo it.
Wait til Jeb is president.
We will have to wait and see. If Obama vetoes a budget surplus, then clearly it's the dems' fault. Otherwise, these republicans are nothing more than RINOs and we need to start hunting.
-
I'd be happy with a 10 year plan to a balanced budget. We could start by, you know, actually passing a new budget instead of all these CRs. A unified GOP Congress will at least help with that. I'm not expecting miracles - I'm expecting progress.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
-
I'd be happy with a 10 year plan to a balanced budget. We could start by, you know, actually passing a new budget instead of all these CRs. A unified GOP Congress will at least help with that. I'm not expecting miracles - I'm expecting progress.
In Modern Economic theory there is no need for a balanced budget!!!!! If youre a governement and can borrow at the lowest rate of anyone in the world, you would be stupid not to. All a balanced budget will do is slow growth. Ive never understood people's obsession with a balanced budget.
-
They think the country is run like a household
-
They think the country is run like a household
Indeed, which is incredibly stupid and small minded. Lets go back and look at the deficits the great conservetard hero Reagan ran up shall we?
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
Not Much.
The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
Not Much.
The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.
Lulz Im actually trying to have a real discussion about economic theory and not just trying to prove its the other guys fault more than my guy's fault. But whatevs, a budget is sure to solve everything!!!!
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.
Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)
By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp (https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp)
We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
Not Much.
The point is, nothing is going to happen until the Federal Gov't has a budget.
Lulz Im actually trying to have a real discussion about economic theory and not just trying to prove its the other guys fault more than my guy's fault. But whatevs, a budget is sure to solve everything!!!!
A budget would be a good starting point, dumbass. Nobody said it will solve everything. Hard choices must be made - that's what a budget is for. :facepalm:
-
The people who loan us money have nothing to gain by forcing us to cash in. They also can't force us to cash in. There are bigger issues that we as a country should focus on.
Also I'm loving this new Samsung charger. Got 3 percent charged while I typed this.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.
Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)
By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp (https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp)
We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.
Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.
Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)
By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp (https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp)
We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.
Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?
Defense
/thread
-
I mean it sounds cool and all to cut government spending, but that is going to cause a recession, it just will, its simple economics. So are you okay with going through a depression/recession to "right the ship" you seem to believe is so important? I mean look at Britain with all their cuts, they are still struggling.
-
Just going back to 2006 and thinking about all the prog-lib sniveling and wailing about $250 billion dollar budget deficits, you know, back when the Federal Gov't actually had budgets.
You arent really adding anything to discussion, other than who is to blame, which is both sides. The main problem is Raising spending is much easier politically than raising taxes. We could have done alot of the spending programs on budget if we had raised taxes on the 1% or got rid of the ridiculous dividend marginal rate. But Im a tax and spend libtard, so what do I know?
This isn't even remotely true. We're running deficits in excess of $500 billion a year. Jacking up rates on "the 1%" - assuming such an increase has no adverse impact on the economy - would cover about $20 billion at most.
Consider, from a historical perspective, no matter what the tax structure, you can only realistically squeeze about 14-19% of GDP in federal revenue. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205)
By contrast, federal spending as a percentage of GDP over the past decade has ranged from 20 to 25%. https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp (https://ycharts.com/indicators/govt_spend_gdp)
We have a spending problem, plain and simple. We cannot tax our way out of this. We must reduce spending to about 18% of GDP.
Thats actually legit argument. Ill give you that. I personally think 20% sounds about right, so where do the cuts come from?
Defense
/thread
Across the board. /thread
Actually, I'd prefer to focus the cuts on corporate welfare (bailouts, farm and energy subsidies, etc.) and social welfare, but across the board cuts to everyone's pet causes is the most politically feasible. And no, I don't think it's a fact that this would plunge us into a recession. I'm honestly not even sure it would be that painful. We'll still have a massive government, only slightly less so.
-
so you want an America with really expensive stuff and lots of homeless poor people?
-
The across the board cuts are just a terrible idea. We need to be increasing funding to some agencies like the DOI and Army Corps of Engineers. Cuts should be made to social welfare programs and defense, if anything.
-
Here is a list of federal departments (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/). I think we can find 50% of them that are a complete waste of tax dollars.
-
Hey look guise, we are having rational discussions about issues, not just trying to shift blame. Good Stuff. I would hope if youre gonna cut, that you do it a little more precise than just broad cuts to everything. Broad cuts would be inefficient and dangerous. I just think its key to remember that cuts do have real world effects, like cutting farm subsidies would increase food prices.
-
Here is a list of federal departments (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/). I think we can find 50% of them that are a complete waste of tax dollars.
Yes, we should cut the funding to the administration on aging to $0. What a waste.
-
Hey look guise, we are having rational discussions about issues, not just trying to shift blame. Good Stuff. I would hope if youre gonna cut, that you do it a little more precise than just broad cuts to everything. Broad cuts would be inefficient and dangerous. I just think its key to remember that cuts do have real world effects, like cutting farm subsidies would increase food prices.
You keep asking for rational discussion and then saying things that aren't true, or at least are not facts. It is not at all certain that reducing farm subsidies would increase food prices. At least some subsidies keep food prices artificially inflated.
See, for example http://theweek.com/article/index/248078/farm-subsidies-a-welfare-program-for-agribusiness (http://theweek.com/article/index/248078/farm-subsidies-a-welfare-program-for-agribusiness)
Why is the farm bill so controversial?
Critics contend that the subsidies it hands out are wasteful, illogical, and counterproductive — a welfare program for millionaires and giant agribusinesses. Over the last decade, the farm bill has cost taxpayers more than $168 billion. In theory, the program uses loans, price supports, and payments to protect family farmers from the fickle fluctuations of weather, price, and economic conditions, so that their businesses remain stable and Americans are ensured a steady supply of affordable food. In practice, the program keeps food prices high, costing consumers billions, while funneling most of its aid to giant agribusinesses and wealthy farmers. About 75 percent of total subsidies go to the biggest 10 percent of farming companies, including Riceland Foods Inc., Pilgrims Pride Corp., and Archer Daniels Midland. Among the "farmers" who get federal subsidies are oscar Springsteen (who leases land to an organic farmer), Jon Bon Jovi (who owns bee colonies), former President Jimmy Carter, and billionaire media mogul Ted Turner. "The typical farmer has literally millions of dollars of wealth," said Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California, Davis.
What about the average farmer?
He's doing pretty well too. Despite droughts and high temperatures, farmers have enjoyed record crop-production levels and prices, as well as double-digit increases to the value of their land for the third year in a row in 2013. In fact, most farmers are wealthier than the average American, with a household income of $87,289 in 2011 — 29 percent higher than the $67,677 average for all U.S. households. And yet many still get taxpayer dollars to protect their incomes. In fact, the farm bill pays some farmers not to grow crops — in order to avoid oversupply that would drive food prices down for the rest of us. "Only an evil genius could have dreamed this up," said Scott Faber, vice president for governmental affairs at the Environmental Working Group.
Why not reform the program?
Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn't last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized "direct payments" to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer's crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer's insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made.
-
I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.
-
I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.
The total farm bill costs about a trillion dollars over 10 years. That's about $100 billion per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/)
The bulk of this spending is food stamps, and that can certainly be trimmed, but ag subsidies should be trimmed, too.
-
I think that you can attribute the record production largely to the farm bill. Farmers also are not paid not to grow crops in order to keep food prices high. That is just ridiculous. Programs that pay farmers not to farm do so for environmental or water scarcity reasons. $168 billion over 10 years is very little in terms of the overall budget. That sounds like a highly effective program to me.
The total farm bill costs about a trillion dollars over 10 years. That's about $100 billion per year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/28/the-950-billion-farm-bill-in-one-chart/)
Yes, but only about $16 billion of that goes to farm subsidies. I'm not necessarily opposed to lowering the food stamps portion of it, but Wal Mart would definitely feel the pinch.
-
http://theweek.com/article/index/262049/why-americans-spend-less-of-their-income-on-food-than-any-other-country
The "farm bill increases the cost of food" talk is especially laughable when you look at just how little food costs here.
-
This seems like a lot of message boarding for just $18 (or so) Trillion dollars. Wasn't it already determined that is no big deal and "only money"?
Pfft, some of you people will talk your way right out of a sell.
Sad.
-
It's getting fixed as we speak.
-
So you guys are pointing out its not necessarily a good thing to have tons of debt? Wow, what a revolutionary point to make.
-
On topic, congress has to pass another CR by next Thursday to avoid a gov shutdown.
-
On topic, congress has to pass another CR by next Thursday to avoid a gov shutdown.
uh oh
-
republicans love shutting down the government
-
When the government shuts down I like to pretend there are no rules that day.
-
When the government shuts down I like to pretend there are no rules that day.
there aren't
-
republicans love shutting down the government
the government never shuts down, even when they say its shut down.
-
Also lol at blaming legacy costs on W while completely ignoring social security, medicare and the social welfare state.
LOL!! at you thinking you always know what you're talking about.
Those W legacy costs took from the safety net trust funds. Maybe it's time they got paid back.
-
I mean it sounds cool and all to cut government spending, but that is going to cause a recession, it just will, its simple economics. So are you okay with going through a depression/recession to "right the ship" you seem to believe is so important? I mean look at Britain with all their cuts, they are still struggling.
I think a balance and surplus is not a bad thing to shoot for.
As long as growth in the private sector makes an attempt to keep revenue (good paying jobs) here in the U.S. Then any pain from cuts in govt spending can be subsided.
We don't want to get to a point where the costs to service our debt outweighs the spending we need.
-
prog-libs love a good gov't shutdown because they and the administration view it as an opportunity for some good old fashioned gov't strong arming and misery creation. :thumbsup:
-
Also lol at blaming legacy costs on W while completely ignoring social security, medicare and the social welfare state.
LOL!! at you thinking you always know what you're talking about.
Those W legacy costs took from the safety net trust funds. Maybe it's time they got paid back.
Chuck, I'm sensing a strong partisan bent from you. Are you denying that spending has far outpaced gdp growth, tax revenues or any other reasonable measure to peg spending against? Do you really believe the only legacy cost causing the problem is the prescription benefit?
Please further enlighten me on how "control of one's currency" makes piling up debt okay. Are you suggesting we can just hyperinflate our way out of debt? Because that's pretty stupid and would disproportionately mumps the poor (result of all liberal policy).
-
republicans love shutting down the government
the government never shuts down, even when they say its shut down.
tell that to my eastbay catalog that doesn't get delivered