60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

Quote:

---

And lets look at the accuracy history of that fine organization known as the CBO:

---

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the CBO. I assume you wouldn't want to either since the chart you posted above is derived from the information provided by the CBO (it says so on the bottom). The one you posted shows the debt as a percentage of the GDP over the last decade. The one I posted shows the sources of that debt and projects it over the next decade. Both charts are constructed upon CBO data. To rationally question the accuracy of a set of data, you need to look into exactly how it was collected and how it's applied. Of course if you just want to cast aspersions and spread bias, you can take the easier route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

since the chart you posted above is derived from the information provided by the CBO (it says so on the bottom).

---

The chart I posted was the CBO's compilation of historical data. There accuracy tracking historical data is much higher than there "projected" costs record.

Now enough seriousness, the rapture occurred yesterday, were all in a better place lets have a little fun.

The national debt today if it was in piles of $1,000 bills, (such as R. Reagan proposed in 1981), would be 900 miles tall. In $1 bills, the pile would reach to the moon and back twice.

If the debt were a stack of dimes it would encompass the earth and have change to spare.

In one hour the United States borrows $188 million, more than it paid to buy the State of Alaska in 1867, converted to today's dollar.

In two hours, the US borrows more than it paid France for present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa and the rest of the land obtained by the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.

The US borrows more than $52,000 per second, thats more than the cost of a years tuition, room and board at most universities.

The net worth of Bill Gates, roughly around $56 billion, could only cover the deficit for 12 1/2 days.

Quote:

---

The chart I posted was the CBO's compilation of historical data. There accuracy tracking historical data is much higher than there "projected" costs record.

---

I'm sorry but "there" (I assume you mean "their") in this instance is not the CBO but the CBPP using the historical CBO data. Consequently the CBO's record in projecting "costs" (though in this case I think you mean "debt") is irrelevant. As far as projecting interest on debt over a ten year period with or without a specific revenue source, anyone can do it. If the historical data is accurate and you didn't forget to carry, you can generally count on the result. Below is the result obtained by the CBPP.

Quote:

---

The net worth of Bill Gates, roughly around $56 billion, could only cover the deficit for 12 1/2 days.

---

How many nanoseconds does your net worth cover? Perhaps we should collect some revenue from this Bill Gates fellow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I'm sorry but "there" (I assume you mean "their") in this instance is not the CBO but the CBPP using the historical CBO data. Consequently the CBO's record in projecting "costs" (though in this case I think you mean "debt") is irrelevant.

---

Thank you teacher, please don't let this effect my final grade. Do you like apples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Ok, one last time. Your chart indicates that if we only had not gone to war, and the Obama tax breaks had not been in-acted the national debt would have gone down. Our federal debt has gone from 2008 @ $10.69 trillion, to 2011 @ $14.34. The numbers do not add up, and on that basis I say your graph is seriously flawed. I don't care who made it, it is inaccurate.

---

I don’t believe that you are really that serious about decreasing government debt. What about raising revenue along with cutting spending? If you were for raising revenue, then stopping tax cuts, would be a sensible thing to do. Make no mistake, I believe that ending the 2002 tax cuts for the wealthiest, would make the biggest difference. One major reason is that numerous sources have stated that the wealthiest are gaining in the percentage of the total wealth. Here is yet another article stating that:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-the-middle-class-became-cnnm-3061835050.html?x=0

Basically it says that, while the average tax paying family has not had it’s real wages increase since 1988, (22+ years), those over 250k, have seen their increase by 33%, in the same period. So as I have stated before, it appears that they are gaining in the percentage of overall wealth, yet playing the victim card.

But I want to show, you a real human example. In my part of town, Kentucky Fried Chicken has closed several outlets, including the two closest to me. Meanwhile, a couple of days ago, I read an article stating, that McDonald’s lags far behind ‘The Colonel’ in sale in China. I cannot argue with their right to make business decisions. However, common sense tells me that the wealthy are the one profiting the most on the Chinese chicken outlets. Like the article says, the average family’s budget is being squeezed, let alone, leaving much room for overseas investments. The loss of those jobs here means less money in the local community, including state and local taxes. So my point is cutting taxes for the wealthiest, is not increasing job opportunities here, like it is claimed. However taxes are used for the benefits of all. Things like education, are being cut. And I don’t think anyone has done a study on how those on Social Security, spend money in the community, vs wall street investments. One of two major reasons for reported projected, record bonuses on Wall Street, was foreign investment. I challenge you to show me one human story, of how those receiving those bonuses would suffer, under 2001 tax rates. But I could give you the story on 1 million, home foreclosures in 2010.

Faldur, in previous posts, you stated stats on how much has been spent on social programming, such as the “War on Poverty”. I didn’t have time to respond properly, but I may do so in the future. There is an unspoken logic, about saying the poverty funding is wasting money, while at the same time, not saying anything about the wealthiest, getting wealthier, especially when you are spending, all your time, focusing on the ‘debt clock’. Revenue is related to debt, as well as spending cuts.

PS. Another ironic thing about the KFC, example, is that top excutives, could likely receieve bonuses, if those closed outlets, represent bottom line profitablitly. These bonuses, would likely to all the way to the top of the chain. And meanwhile, the laid off workers are potentially, raising government expenditures, through benefits to lower income people. Yet the person's receiving the bonuses are complaining through their political mouthpieces. And I cant even get a good piece of chicken!

You don't believe I am serious about decreasing government debt? I believe raising revenue would be a smart thing. Hence my thought to raise taxes on ALL working americans by 3%. We have 48% of our working citizens who do not pay anything towards their governments operation. Its time we include them in the game. Raise the tax rate, (within reason), at what ever rate you would like, but raise it on all working americans fairly.

I have no idea where you get the info on "average tax paying families" not having a raise in real wages since 1988. My union and non-union employees have had adjusted cost of living increases regularly.

Yoda I would not oppose the re-spending of the $8 trillion we have spent since 1964 on trying to end poverty. But I would insist the money spent be means tested to ensure we get results for our investment. I feel we have not failed in lack of investment, but lack of effective programs to actually improve the situation.

And I will not buy "we do not have a spending problem", when we increase the size of the federal government by 30% in just 3 years. It was the wrong thing to do, all I propose is that we reverse that.

What about those who don't work for wages, salaries, or tips? You know, the folks who's income is capital gains, that get taxed at a minimal rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

What about those who don't work for wages, salaries, or tips? You know, the folks who's income is capital gains, that get taxed at a minimal rate.

---

Short-term capital gains is taxed the same as Ordinary income. If your talking long-term capital gains thats currently at 15%, in 2013 it increases to 20%. We give a reduced rate to encourage long-term investment. In my own opinion, I feel that 20% is adequate.

Have you seen this->

Quote:

---

We give a reduced rate to encourage long-term investment.

---

Well that hasn't worked. If it was up to the Jack Kemps, Steve Forbes', & Larry Kudlows of this world, there wouldnt be any tax on capital gains at all. & it still wouldn't work. So without the incentive of lowered taxes, the professional investors are going to pull their money, & all the other investor's money they control, out of the market? & do what? Stick it in a mattress or a passbook account at the local credit union? Maybe they'll move their investments off shore &... Oh wait. The monopolists are already doing that as they swallow each other up. Hell, it's getting to the point where they're running out of fun stuff to do. As we speak, the 2 biggest monopolists, Bill Gates & Warren Buffet, are pooling their resources to monopolize charity. These "investors" have taken their incentives & used them to pillage the country. If they leave, good riddence. There's more where they came from, & they're all playing with other people's money to start with. Maybe we'llo get some folks in there who actually care about the country more than they care about waving the flag as part of a bamboozle.

The "tax incentive = investment" arguement has always been bogus. The solution to revenue shortage isn't about taxing wages. It's about taxing disposable income.Looking in the wrong place.