Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,000,000,000.00.

That is not chump change. So what can we do????

Hypothetically, we can raise taxes for everyone as a goal to diligently reduce our debt burden.
We tax everyone so every extra cent you thought you had, was donated to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes
and applied to our National Debt.

Well, say we guesstimate that it will take 10 years to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, we think we can whittle it down in ten years at intense taxation to finally get to the point
where we think we have made progress.

Then what???? Well, how about the enormous amount of spending that will be simultaneously done by the
Government in those 10 years because the debt ceiling is constantly being raised. At Obama's current rate
of spending, we will have accrued another $10,000,000,000.00 to mix in with the $16,000,000,000.00.

Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half laughing, that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years. What are we accomplishing? Where does the
problem lie? Yes, you are right, the answer is S P E N D I N G.

Please, someone in Washington, do the Math?

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,00...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,000,000,000.00.

That is not chump change. So what can we do????

Hypothetically, we can raise taxes for everyone as a goal to diligently reduce our debt burden.
We tax everyone so every extra cent you thought you had, was donated to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes
and applied to our National Debt.

Well, say we guesstimate that it will take 10 years to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, we think we can whittle it down in ten years at intense taxation to finally get to the point
where we think we have made progress.

Then what???? Well, how about the enormous amount of spending that will be simultaneously done by the
Government in those 10 years because the debt ceiling is constantly being raised. At Obama's current rate
of spending, we will have accrued another $10,000,000,000.00 to mix in with the $16,000,000,000.00.

Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half , that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years. What are we accomplishing? Where does the
problem lie? Yes, you are right, the answer is S P E N D I N G.

Please, someone in Washington, do the Math?

--hide--


Marianne - your are correct and it is absolutely impossible to ever pay this back. A new currency will have to be issued and we will have to bankrupt the current government. BO is adding One Thousand One Hundred Billion dollars every year in new debt. Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in 4 years. There isn't enough citizens to tax to make up for these blood sucking "public servants". Even if there was, the politicians would get on TV and explain that they need all that extra money.

It is an absolute sin what is going on and with a willing electorate it will only end in a crash. Ask yourselves, if you ran your family this way; borrow and borrow and keep taking more and more credit cards; how long would that last until you finally give up, stop paying the bills and file bankruptcy.

I would vote that all politicians serve one term and then go home. Without trying to run for reelection maybe then they would have the guts to do what is right. Some of the ones that are in there now look old enough that they probably served aside of Lincoln.

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,00...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,000,000,000.00.

That is not chump change. So what can we do????

Hypothetically, we can raise taxes for everyone as a goal to diligently reduce our debt burden.
We tax everyone so every extra cent you thought you had, was donated to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes
and applied to our National Debt.

Well, say we guesstimate that it will take 10 years to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, we think we can whittle it down in ten years at intense taxation to finally get to the point
where we think we have made progress.

Then what???? Well, how about the enormous amount of spending that will be simultaneously done by the
Government in those 10 years because the debt ceiling is constantly being raised. At Obama's current rate
of spending, we will have accrued another $10,000,000,000.00 to mix in with the $16,000,000,000.00.

Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half , that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years. What are we accomplishing? Where does the
problem lie? Yes, you are right, the answer is S P E N D I N G.

Please, someone in Washington, do the Math?

--hide--

Nitpick: You left a set of 0's off those numbers $16,000,000,000.00 is 16 billion. 16 trillion is $16,000,000,000,000.00


Premises

1) The high deficit in recent years isn't a cause of the recession. It's a consequence of the recession. Everyone of all political stripes agress with this. (If they understand basic accounting and economics.) If the economy were booming, we wouldn't have nearly as large a deficit.

2) While it might be a good idea to have a high deficit for short periods (during a recession), in the long run we should get to a balanced budget. This is the responsible thing to do for future taxpayers. If we cared only about the very short term, we would want to increase the deficit even more. (This may partly explain the breakdown in voting according to age in the recent election. A lot of older people don't really want to solve the debt problem if it means touching their Social Security and Medicare. It's like the bumper sticker you see on the cars of some older people: "We're spending our children's inheritance!")

"Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half, that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years"

I think perhaps you meant if we cut the growth in spending in half. For FY 2012 federal revenus was $2.47 trillion and spending was $3.79 trillion, so if we cut spending in half there would be a large surplus.
.

According to About.com, useconomy.about.com 60% of the federal budget is mandatory spending, meaning driven by laws set in place years ago. This is not part of the yearly budget negotiations. This includes Social Security and Medicare. The government could cut these, but it would take a separate Act of Congress. These are not set in the annual debate about the budget.

The rest of the budget is interest and "discretionary spending". Most of the discretionary spending is defense, which in reality isn't all that discretionary. We might be able to get some cuts, but we are not going to cut the defense budget by 50% or even 20%.

Other discretionary spending is all sort of things. We could stop funding transportation investments, eliminate NASA, shut down federal spending on cancer research (why can't the states do that?), get rid of national parks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, subsidies to farmers, the Department of Commerce, energy research (why can't private industry do that?), and the National Weather Service.

I just wish people would specifically enumerate what they want cut and then look at the impact of these programs would have on reducing the deficit.

The ideal solution is to grow the economy. That increases tax revenues and takes the burden of supporting so many people off the government.

If you know how to do that, you deserve the Nobel Prize. Fantasies about the Laffer curve aren't going to do it.



Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,00...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,000,000,000.00.

That is not chump change. So what can we do????

Hypothetically, we can raise taxes for everyone as a goal to diligently reduce our debt burden.
We tax everyone so every extra cent you thought you had, was donated to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes
and applied to our National Debt.

Well, say we guesstimate that it will take 10 years to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, we think we can whittle it down in ten years at intense taxation to finally get to the point
where we think we have made progress.

Then what???? Well, how about the enormous amount of spending that will be simultaneously done by the
Government in those 10 years because the debt ceiling is constantly being raised. At Obama's current rate
of spending, we will have accrued another $10,000,000,000.00 to mix in with the $16,000,000,000.00.

Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half , that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years. What are we accomplishing? Where does the
problem lie? Yes, you are right, the answer is S P E N D I N G.

Please, someone in Washington, do the Math?

--hide--


Marianne, keep in mind that government's biggest statement at any level is its budget. It is poor politics that this administration for three years running hasn't passed budget bills but only stopgap spending bills. In other words, they're keeping the money flowing to run the trains on time and not much else.

This administration's statement to the American people is: we're not interested in being serious about managing your money. Also, contrary to assertions, a continued deficit isn't the results of the economy but poor spending choices. Government doesn't happen in a vacuum - it is the result of grown women and men making real choices with real consequences.

I don't have much hope for you, Marianne. Obama isn't the pragmatist that Clinton was as president (and, here, as governor). The fact that Obama literally was playing at the Tinkertoy factory rather than sitting down for the face-to-face negotiations tells me that this president will stick to his ideologies.

I am wondering how long Geithner practiced holding a straight face before telling Boehner to print $50 billion more in money with $16 trillion in debt, asking for unlimited future debt and annual negative cash flow of 30+% more than revenue? I couldn't get those terms from my banker. I'm sure the guys at the bar are starting to wonder if Timmy is losing it.

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: Nitpick: You left a set of 0's off those numbers $16,000,000,000.00 is 16 billion. 1...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Nitpick: You left a set of 0's off those numbers $16,000,000,000.00 is 16 billion. 16 trillion is $16,000,000,000,000.00


Premises

1) The high deficit in recent years isn't a cause of the recession. It's a consequence of the recession. Everyone of all political stripes agress with this. (If they understand basic accounting and economics.) If the economy were booming, we wouldn't have nearly as large a deficit.

2) While it might be a good idea to have a high deficit for short periods (during a recession), in the long run we should get to a balanced budget. This is the responsible thing to do for future taxpayers. If we cared only about the very short term, we would want to increase the deficit even more. (This may partly explain the breakdown in voting according to age in the recent election. A lot of older people don't really want to solve the debt problem if it means touching their Social Security and Medicare. It's like the bumper sticker you see on the cars of some older people: "We're spending our children's inheritance!")

"Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half, that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years"

I think perhaps you meant if we cut the growth in spending in half. For FY 2012 federal revenus was $2.47 trillion and spending was $3.79 trillion, so if we cut spending in half there would be a large surplus.
.

According to About.com, useconomy.about.com 60% of the federal budget is mandatory spending, meaning driven by laws set in place years ago. This is not part of the yearly budget negotiations. This includes Social Security and Medicare. The government could cut these, but it would take a separate Act of Congress. These are not set in the annual debate about the budget.

The rest of the budget is interest and "discretionary spending". Most of the discretionary spending is defense, which in reality isn't all that discretionary. We might be able to get some cuts, but we are not going to cut the defense budget by 50% or even 20%.

Other discretionary spending is all sort of things. We could stop funding transportation investments, eliminate NASA, shut down federal spending on cancer research (why can't the states do that?), get rid of national parks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, subsidies to farmers, the Department of Commerce, energy research (why can't private industry do that?), and the National Weather Service.

I just wish people would specifically enumerate what they want cut and then look at the impact of these programs would have on reducing the deficit.

The ideal solution is to grow the economy. That increases tax revenues and takes the burden of supporting so many people off the government.

If you know how to do that, you deserve the Nobel Prize. Fantasies about the Laffer curve aren't going to do it.



--hide--


Thank you so much Cathy for correcting my numbers. I was off to work and thought 3 sets of zeros looked pretty big. But I
was very wrong. It could even happen to a person with a Masters in Finance.

Of course, a booming economy will help a lot of things. But it ain't going to boom enough to offset the increase in the
financial debt this administration has accrued.

BTW: There is a difference between "stop funding" and "decrease funding."

So tell everyone you know or see to "put their tin cups away." The bank is broken.

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said: Marianne - your are correct and it is absolutely impossible to ever pay this back. A n...
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:


Marianne - your are correct and it is absolutely impossible to ever pay this back. A new currency will have to be issued and we will have to bankrupt the current government. BO is adding One Thousand One Hundred Billion dollars every year in new debt. Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in 4 years. There isn't enough citizens to tax to make up for these blood sucking "public servants". Even if there was, the politicians would get on TV and explain that they need all that extra money.

It is an absolute sin what is going on and with a willing electorate it will only end in a crash. Ask yourselves, if you ran your family this way; borrow and borrow and keep taking more and more credit cards; how long would that last until you finally give up, stop paying the bills and file bankruptcy.

I would vote that all politicians serve one term and then go home. Without trying to run for reelection maybe then they would have the guts to do what is right. Some of the ones that are in there now look old enough that they probably served aside of Lincoln.

--hide--


Right Joe. We are on the same page as usual.

Would anyone do this to their own household??? Yes, only because you knew you could declare bankruptcy.

Can the US Government declare bankruptcy to end this lunacy???? Probably not. If it could, it would really
change its bond ratings, even with crooked bond raters. So just keep printing money, Obama. Good move eyepopping .

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) John-727073 said: Marianne, keep in mind that government's biggest statement at any level is its...
(Quote) John-727073 said:



Marianne, keep in mind that government's biggest statement at any level is its budget. It is poor politics that this administration for three years running hasn't passed budget bills but only stopgap spending bills. In other words, they're keeping the money flowing to run the trains on time and not much else.

This administration's statement to the American people is: we're not interested in being serious about managing your money. Also, contrary to assertions, a continued deficit isn't the results of the economy but poor spending choices. Government doesn't happen in a vacuum - it is the result of grown women and men making real choices with real consequences.

I don't have much hope for you, Marianne. Obama isn't the pragmatist that Clinton was as president (and, here, as governor). The fact that Obama literally was playing at the Tinkertoy factory rather than sitting down for the face-to-face negotiations tells me that this president will stick to his ideologies.

I am wondering how long Geithner practiced holding a straight face before telling Boehner to print $50 billion more in money with $16 trillion in debt, asking for unlimited future debt and annual negative cash flow of 30+% more than revenue? I couldn't get those terms from my banker. I'm sure the guys at the bar are starting to wonder if Timmy is losing it.

--hide--


I wish there was more hope for me, John. Maybe we should not have hired a "Community Organizer" to be President. I
knew that wasn't a good prerequisite for the Presidency.

And yes, I wish they would get a budget. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. No budget=no overspending the budget. shhh

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,00...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:

Yes, so America owes 16 trillion dollars to everyone and her brothers in China. That is $16,000,000,000.00.

That is not chump change. So what can we do????

Hypothetically, we can raise taxes for everyone as a goal to diligently reduce our debt burden.
We tax everyone so every extra cent you thought you had, was donated to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes
and applied to our National Debt.

Well, say we guesstimate that it will take 10 years to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.
In other words, we think we can whittle it down in ten years at intense taxation to finally get to the point
where we think we have made progress.

Then what???? Well, how about the enormous amount of spending that will be simultaneously done by the
Government in those 10 years because the debt ceiling is constantly being raised. At Obama's current rate
of spending, we will have accrued another $10,000,000,000.00 to mix in with the $16,000,000,000.00.

Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half , that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years. What are we accomplishing? Where does the
problem lie? Yes, you are right, the answer is S P E N D I N G.

Please, someone in Washington, do the Math?

--hide--

Just one correction. he biggest holder of US Fed. debt is the US Federal Reserve. Not China. Or to put it another way, the biggest holder of the US's $16 trillion is the US Government which owns the Fed lock, stock and barrel.

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Cathy-620979 said: Nitpick: You left a set of 0's off those numbers $16,000,000,000.00 is 16 billion. 1...
(Quote) Cathy-620979 said:

Nitpick: You left a set of 0's off those numbers $16,000,000,000.00 is 16 billion. 16 trillion is $16,000,000,000,000.00


Premises

1) The high deficit in recent years isn't a cause of the recession. It's a consequence of the recession. Everyone of all political stripes agress with this. (If they understand basic accounting and economics.) If the economy were booming, we wouldn't have nearly as large a deficit.

2) While it might be a good idea to have a high deficit for short periods (during a recession), in the long run we should get to a balanced budget. This is the responsible thing to do for future taxpayers. If we cared only about the very short term, we would want to increase the deficit even more. (This may partly explain the breakdown in voting according to age in the recent election. A lot of older people don't really want to solve the debt problem if it means touching their Social Security and Medicare. It's like the bumper sticker you see on the cars of some older people: "We're spending our children's inheritance!")

"Even if we cut the Government's current rate of spending in half, that will still be adding another
$5,000,000,000.00 to our National Debt in 10 years"

I think perhaps you meant if we cut the growth in spending in half. For FY 2012 federal revenus was $2.47 trillion and spending was $3.79 trillion, so if we cut spending in half there would be a large surplus.
.

According to About.com, useconomy.about.com 60% of the federal budget is mandatory spending, meaning driven by laws set in place years ago. This is not part of the yearly budget negotiations. This includes Social Security and Medicare. The government could cut these, but it would take a separate Act of Congress. These are not set in the annual debate about the budget.

The rest of the budget is interest and "discretionary spending". Most of the discretionary spending is defense, which in reality isn't all that discretionary. We might be able to get some cuts, but we are not going to cut the defense budget by 50% or even 20%.

Other discretionary spending is all sort of things. We could stop funding transportation investments, eliminate NASA, shut down federal spending on cancer research (why can't the states do that?), get rid of national parks, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, subsidies to farmers, the Department of Commerce, energy research (why can't private industry do that?), and the National Weather Service.

I just wish people would specifically enumerate what they want cut and then look at the impact of these programs would have on reducing the deficit.

The ideal solution is to grow the economy. That increases tax revenues and takes the burden of supporting so many people off the government.

If you know how to do that, you deserve the Nobel Prize. Fantasies about the Laffer curve aren't going to do it.



--hide--


"I think perhaps you meant if we cut the growth in spending in half. For FY 2012 federal revenus was $2.47 trillion and spending was $3.79 trillion, so if we cut spending in half there would be a large surplus."



Yes, Cathy, that would be a better way to say it. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Dec 3rd 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Just one correction. he biggest holder of US Fed. debt is the US Federal Reserve. Not Chi...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Just one correction. he biggest holder of US Fed. debt is the US Federal Reserve. Not China. Or to put it another way, the biggest holder of the US's $16 trillion is the US Government which owns the Fed lock, stock and barrel.

--hide--


I tried to imply that by saying "everyone and." That is an important point to make though.

Posts 1 - 10 of 80