Federal Debt

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

http://www.usatoday.com/communities/onp ... nce-wwii/1

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

For more detail on the report, check out this post in USA TODAY's The Oval.

Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire."

At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO.

The report comes as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today.

The CBO report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake."

So with all the talk about how bad Bush was, good old Obama and company have managed to raise the debt level by 22% in 2 years....and that has not even begun to register the hit that will come with his healthcare. Nice job.

[VariaVespasa]

I dunno, you think the financial crisis might have had something to do with that, sparky? Would you like to blame that on Obama too? Bush or Clinton or maybe even someone earlier, but not Obama.

Isnt the health care thing supposed to save money after a few years, last I heard?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I dunno...you think the record spending might have something to do with it? The health care bill is not supposed to "save" us any money for something like 15 years. I really expect that to happen.

[VariaVespasa]

The record spending was to deal with the financial thing, was it not? Cause and effect, and Obama wasnt the cause.

[Spang]

Keep spending that money, Mr. President!

[vn_Tanc]

I'm tired of hearing the same revisionist bullshit here in the UK as well.
Yes the Labour government was spending a lot, but it was affordable at pre-2007 debt levels and revenues and it brought tangible social benefits.
Suddenly we have to drop £200bn+ into the banking system (for which us working stiffs don't even get a reacharound from the fucks paying themselves multimillion pound bonuses) and the interest payments on that put a massive hole in the balances, and it's all "omg socialist tax and spend" and "omg look at teh deficit!11!!".
The worst thing is that most people are fucking stupid enough to either believe it, or convince themselves to believe it as it reinforces their political bias.

[Sueven]

Important chart for this discussion, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:



http://www.perrspectives.com/images/CBP ... s_2019.jpg

[Siji]

Increase debt on worthless shit like wars we shouldn't be in vs increasing debt in attempts to get the economy and country moving again..

Obama certainly isn't perfect, but I'd still take him over Bush or McCain any day so he was certainly the best choice.

[Boogahz]

Important chart for this discussion, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:



http://www.perrspectives.com/images/CBP ... s_2019.jpg

I'm surprised at how little the wars are affecting it compared to the rest.

[Zaelath]

Not spending into a recession and letting entire industries collapse really fucks with a government's income stream.

There's very few credible economists that would suggest things like Spain's austerity measures won't actually cause a far worse position in the medium term, but it makes fiscal conservatives, like the Germans and twats that look at a country's budget in the same way as a household budget, feel better.

[Gzette]

to Keynes or not to Keynes, that is the question. Valid arguments for both sides. I confess, I do not possess the intellectual economic fortitude to pass judgement.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I like how they throw the tax cuts into that chart. If you stopped spending what you don't have, then the tax cuts can be wiped off that chart. Dur.

[masteen]

The irony is that it was Dubya and his cronies that pioneered new levels of spending what they didn't have.

[Sueven]

tax cuts = spending

if you don't cut taxes, then you're not spending money that you don't have because you have money

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

[Zaelath]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

So if you cut them to zero everyone becomes infinitely wealthy?

[Aslanna]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

You assume that those tax cuts actually helped the common consumer. As a matter of fact anything but since the average consumer was living on money they didn't have thanks to easy credit. From my limited understanding, and wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong, was that the tax cuts primarily helped the wealthy. I don't seem to recall having more to spend during the Bush years.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

So if you cut them to zero everyone becomes infinitely wealthy?

do you retards understand perception vs reality wen dealing with people in this country? Do you understand why the media actually controls so much more now? People here are mostly retarded sheep who listen to what they are told. If they perceive that they have more money due to tax cuts or refunds, then they spend more. It does not matter if you lower the taxes by .01%, they understand lower taxes = more spending money.

Everything in our finances and even our election process are driven by perception. Not one of these fucking career politicians is going to do a goddamn thing that the majority of the people want, yet they are led to believe they will and so they vote for them.

[Aslanna]

do you retards understand perception vs reality wen dealing with people in this country? Do you understand why the media actually controls so much more now? People here are mostly retarded sheep who listen to what they are told

Coming form the person who thinks Obama is going to steal their guns... lolz.

[Zaelath]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

So if you cut them to zero everyone becomes infinitely wealthy?

do you retards understand perception vs reality wen dealing with people in this country? Do you understand why the media actually controls so much more now? People here are mostly retarded sheep who listen to what they are told. If they perceive that they have more money due to tax cuts or refunds, then they spend more. It does not matter if you lower the taxes by .01%, they understand lower taxes = more spending money.

Everything in our finances and even our election process are driven by perception. Not one of these fucking career politicians is going to do a goddamn thing that the majority of the people want, yet they are led to believe they will and so they vote for them.

Where do you learn this shit? That's such a shallow, one-dimensional reading of economics I'd almost have to think it came from watching too much of a certain television media outlet....

[Aabidano]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs. The problem with the liberal way of thinking on these matters is that more government spending does nothing to spur small businesses and entrepreneurs. As we have seen very well with this administration and its "stimulus", if you do not drive the small business', then everything you do is going to fail.

Those tax cuts were essentially borrowing money from China so it could be spent on (more) Chinese goods. Did very little for the US economy. Except perhaps give the perception of action in time of need.

[Metanis]

For tax planning purposes the net effect of the "expiration of Bush's Tax Cuts" are the same thing as a tax increase. I've been doing some research and moving to a Roth IRA is looking pretty good right now. No matter who you are or what your situation may be it bears study to determine if you can move income into 2010 and thus avoid the higher taxation on those funds after Jan 1, 2011.

As many millions of people do the same financial calculations you can count on a big shift in economic activity into the end of this year and a corresponding collapse of same activity early in 2011. Can you say double-dip recession?

But hey, who cares how much we borrow from the Chicoms? We have no intention of ever paying it back anyway! Do we?

[Nick]

http://www.usatoday.com/communities/onp ... nce-wwii/1

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

For more detail on the report, check out this post in USA TODAY's The Oval.

Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire."

At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO.

The report comes as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today.

The CBO report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake."

So with all the talk about how bad Bush was, good old Obama and company have managed to raise the debt level by 22% in 2 years....and that has not even begun to register the hit that will come with his healthcare. Nice job.

George Bush started two murderous, illegal, immoral and hegemonic wars that have virtually bankrupt the USA.

Now please fuck off and shut up. You stupid piece of shit.

[Xyun]

...

[Xyun]

yes, but tax cuts also equal more consumer spending which equals more tax money coming to state and federal government and also equates to more demand and more jobs.

This mantra is so fucking deceitful that I'm embarrassed for you. I could sit here and parse the logic of why and how you are being duped. I could use facts and evidence to blatantly show you the wool being pulled over your eyes. Trust me, I have a plethora of facts and evidence. But what would be the use? You believe this bullshit. You are so indoctrinated that you have accepted it with faith, and all the proof in the world is not going to take away your faith. And sadly, I can't even take solace in the knowledge that you're so fucking gullible, since it is your gullibility that's bringing my beloved country to her knees. If only there was a way to penetrate that dense skull of yours with some fucking logic. ... wishful thinking.

[Metanis]

Trust me, I have a plethora of facts and evidence.

Somehow I don't think I'll be impressed, but you could surprise me?

[Xyun]

[Metanis]

Nice job in MSPaint there buddy. Total lack of context or supporting evidence leaves me underwhelmed.

There was a wonderful nugget of truth in the text associated with the 2nd fairy tale. "Cost ... of legislation enacted ...". Gee whiz, there wouldn't be such a big hole if Congress quit enacting expensive legislation!

BTW, The first graph is so woefully out-of-date it is wildly inaccurate. We are on track for a $1.4Trillion deficit this year, same as last year.

I think it's time for another tax cut.

[Sylvus]

Since you can't actually click the contextual link provided at the bottom of the second graph, I'll make it easier for you:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

[Xatrei]

Metanis doesn't need your fucking facts. He's got faith in two things: Jesus and Conservatism, and those two things tell him everything he needs to know about the world. Everyone knows facts have a liberal bias, so all of you librul cunts and your faggoty facts can go fuck off (and take your pesky science lies with you while you're at it). He'll be busy reading his Bible (everyone knows it's THE instruction manual for life!) and whacking it to Reagan fantasies (it would normally be a sin to fantasize about a man, but Jesus makes an exception for the Gipper).

Now that's real climate change!

[Metanis]

Since you can't actually click the contextual link provided at the bottom of the second graph, I'll make it easier for you:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=692

Very illuminating reading the list of the Board of Directors of your cbpp.org. Just another commie front organization.

But I actually read that page you linked me to. And I'm a convert. I'm really perplexed however, what's stopping you lefties from just sending in your fair share? I mean nothing is stopping you. And you obviously feel that you are paying a dishonestly low amount of taxes. So what's stopping you from stepping up and living your ideals? In fact, why don't you post your federal income tax returns for the last few years so we can study how a true believer gives until it hurts.

Now let me ask a question. How much is enough? Tax burdens at all levels of government keep creeping up over time. (2.2% per year over the last 40 years.) So when is enough going to be enough?

Let me share a conservative perspective from Heritage:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... -Pressures

Pay particular attention to this graph:

[Metanis]

...

[Gzette]

inflation would play a large role in that increase in tax burden ... unless if that graph is adjusted for inflation.

[Metanis]

inflation would play a large role in that increase in tax burden ... unless if that graph is adjusted for inflation.

Funny you mention inflation. An insidious tax caused by governments printing and spending money for which you have no reservoir of value. However, these numbers were properly adjusted for inflation. I checked that before I bothered to post the graph.

[Zaelath]

inflation would play a large role in that increase in tax burden ... unless if that graph is adjusted for inflation.

Funny you mention inflation. An insidious tax caused by governments printing and spending money for which you have no reservoir of value. However, these numbers were properly adjusted for inflation. I checked that before I bothered to post the graph.

Just about everything but unemployment and jacking up interest rates to 15-20% causes inflation, jesus.

It's like listening to one of those whackjobs from the Westboro Baptist Church that thinks he's an economist.

[Gzette]

From what I've been led to believe, a low inflation rate is desirable. Deflation is much worse as long as inflation doesn't get out of control. No change is stagnation. The FED looks for a target rate of 2%.

[Metanis]

Some level of taxation is necessary. In fact, supporting a variety of government services can have a hugely beneficial impact on society. My favorite example are the agencies that ensure gas pump meters are accurate. Courts to enforce contract law is another example of a government activity that actually generates private sector profits.

The other end of the spectrum is the situation where you punish people simply because they are successful. Also, the situation we have right now is no longer tenable. There is so much money flowing through Washington DC that it is no longer accountable. The corruption is staggering. And it's not a left-right issue, it's a human tragedy. How many "bridges to no where" are we going to build? How many $200Million airports in the middle of no where? (Murtha). We are paying black farmers a settlement for past agricultural loan discrimination. There are 86,000 participants in the settlement but less than 40,000 black farmers existed in 1970 when the alleged discrimination occurred. Interestingly enough this is the 2nd settlement and 16,000 black farmers were already paid $50,000 each over a decade ago. I'm very sure there are many other examples where the "recipients" are white, so color isn't the point of my example. My point is that the assholes in Washington are out of control and just can't spend our money fast enough and with little purpose other than to feather their nests and buy their next election.

Somehow the beast needs to be tamed and starved. Allowing taxes to continue to rise is not the answer.

[miir]

There are 86,000 participants in the settlement but less than 40,000 black farmers existed in 1970 when the alleged discrimination occurred

There are currently 40k black farmers... a decline of more than 50% in the last two decades...

Get your facts straight you bitter, old, racist piece of shit.

[Metanis]

There are 86,000 participants in the settlement but less than 40,000 black farmers existed in 1970 when the alleged discrimination occurred

There are currently 40k black farmers... a decline of more than 50% in the last two decades...

Get your facts straight you bitter, old, racist piece of shit.

This table which I have no reason to doubt comes from http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/rr194.pdf see page 24. It doesn't copy well but

Appendix Table 3—Farm operators in the U.S. by race, 1900 to 1997
Year Total Black White Other
1900 5,739,657 746,717 4,970,129 22,811
1910 6,365,822 893,370 5,440,619 31,833
1920 6,453,991 925,708 5,498,454 29,829
1930 6,295,103 882,850 5,372,578 39,675
1940 6,102,417 681,790 5,377,728 42,899
1950 5,388,437 559,980 4,801,243 27,214
1959 3,707,973 272,541 3,423,361 12,071
1964 3,157,857 184,004 2,957,905 15,948
1969 2,730,250 87,393 2,626,403 16,454
1974 2,314,013 45,594 2,254,642 13,777
1978 2,257,775 37,351 2,199,787 20,637
1982 2,240,976 33,250 2,186,609 21,117
1987 2,087,759 22,954 2,043,119 21,686
1992 1,925,300 18,816 1,881,813 24,671
1997 1,911,859 18,451 1,864,201 29,207
Source: Census of Agriculture. Selected years. Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census

You are right there has been a drastic reduction in the number of black farmers. Another source I read mistakenly said that the number of black farmers has remained stable for many years. Obviously I erred in my statement. However even this document claims only 18,451 black farmers in 1997 and another document at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publicatio ... /black.pdf indicates there are 41,024 black farmers in 2007. Quite a jump.

Google pigford case for much more info. My basic premise remains the case was settled once and nearly $1B paid out in 1999. Now they open it again and want to give away $1.25B. Sounds like graft and corruption to me.

[miir]

less than 40,000 black farmers existed in 1970

According to your link, more than 87,000 black farmers existed in 1969.... that's pretty fucking close to the 86,000 included in the settlement.

[Metanis]

less than 40,000 black farmers existed in 1970

According to your link, more than 87,000 black farmers existed in 1969.... that's pretty fucking close to the 86,000 included in the settlement.

You miss the whole point. Shoot off on some tangent.

[miir]

You miss the whole point. Shoot off on some tangent.

The point is that of all the examples you could have given, you chose the one that made you look like the uninformed, ignorant, racist, right-wing-talking-point spewing douchebag that you really are.

[Metanis]

You miss the whole point. Shoot off on some tangent.

The point is that of all the examples you could have given, you chose the one that made you look like the uninformed, ignorant, racist, right-wing-talking-point spewing douchebag that you really are.

And this is how the race card gets played by jerks like you. My example was unfortunate simply because it allows people like you to hijack the discussion and demonize those with alternate points of view. Good job buddy. My point remains the government overspends by tragic amounts. It even overspends on the basis of race.

[miir]

I just love how racist douchebags try to justify their racist comments.

[Noysyrump]

What about racist douchebags who dont justify their racist comments???

Fuking Canadians.

So two Canuks walk into a bar.... Then they had to go home at eleven! hahahahhahaha....


Oh yeh, BOMB CANADA! ... ehh.

[Metanis]

On Thursday, the House passed the 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. True to its name, the THUD act has traditionally been one of the most heavily earmarked bills in Congress, and this one was no exception, containing 459 individual earmarks. But there was one small difference from years past: Of those 459 earmarks, all but six were requested by Democrats. The House also passed the 2011 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill Thursday, which contains 523 earmarks, all but one requested by Democrats. So in total, the House approved some 982 earmarks this week, only seven of which were requested by Republicans.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpa ... earma.html

I'll be sure to point this out the next time an independent tells me there's no difference between the R and the D after a congress critter's name.

982 earmarks represents money we will have to borrow from the Chinese so that the lawmaker can go home and bribe their constituent's votes.

[Xyun]

Met I agree with you about the spending in washington and the money and how politicians are all bought and paid for. I agree that both sides are guilty and the system needs to be changed. Where we disagree is about who should be taxed and for how much. I believe the wealthy of this country should carry most of the tax burden. After all, it is they who are buying up our politicians and dictating our laws. If you got money to hire a lobbyist, then you sure as fuck can afford to pay a little more in taxes.


Conservative pundits are calling a 4% increase in the top marginal tax rate a tax bomb. WTF? They were paying 90% less than a century ago. Shit they were paying 70% when I was born. Now they are paying half that, and those are the ones that aren't dodging or finding loop holes around having to pay. It's ludicrous the bullshit they feed you to make you believe that somehow it is your taxes that are going up, when it's not, it is theirs. And it's sad that you fall for it.

[Metanis]

I believe the wealthy of this country should carry most of the tax burden.

So 300,000,000 people need a mechanism to decide what the proper burdens should be. The system we have currently works pretty well I think.

Your side is already winning for God's sake. We aren't even arguing that tax rates should go DOWN any further. The debate now is whether they should start to rise! If my side wins the current debate about the Bush tax cuts it just means that taxes won't immediately go up. Again, your side is winning!

And when the battle is rejoined in the next Congress you know that tax cuts won't be on the table because the Democratic minority will demonize Republican tax cutters as baby killers and hypocrites. Conservatives can't bitch about the huge budget deficits and then cut taxes to ensure those deficits rise even further. So the debate going forward will be about which taxes to RAISE. Again, your side is winning!

The thing about your side is that you never know when to stop. When is enough enough? Are you going to outright kill the golden goose? Or let him up when he's wheezing his last breath? When was the last time you got a job from a poor man?

[miir]

Your side is already winning

my side wins the current debate about the Bush tax cuts

And when the battle is rejoined in the next Congress

The thing about your side is that you never know when to stop

Attitudes like this... turning EVERYTHING into partisan politics is what's killing your country.

Nothing is ever going to get done without compromises from either side.... opposing something on the grounds that "someone on the other side proposed it" is just fucking childish.


Not everything has to be a battle, especially when it comes down to the greater good.
Think about what's good for your country instead of spreading partisan politics that's preached by the far right.

[Aslanna]

I agree with the Canadian. While I called George Bush an idiot it had nothing to do with him being a Republican. It was simply because he was an idiot. I would have been just as unhappy with his presidency and the polices of it if he were a Democrat. I don't get the 'Us vs Them' mentality and it has pretty much turned me of politics. It's a bit sickening really what it has turned into. Just because 'your side' (regardless of which side that is) loses doesn't mean you have to be a bunch of assholes about it.