I thought this was interesting

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
I was looking through the US Treasury data on the interest on our national debt today (I know, my life is very interesting) and I thought this was pretty interesting:

From FY2001 through December 2010, it has cost the United States just under $4,000,000,000,000 to pay just the interest on our debt.

Four trillion dollars is a ton of money...and yet we have no plan in place to rein in any of this debt and really lower how much we are paying out in interest...pretty sad.
 
Werbung:
Well we keep doing the same damn thing and expect a different result... We keep voting republican like they will bring us out of this but all this time they were pushing us toward this.
 
I was looking through the US Treasury data on the interest on our national debt today (I know, my life is very interesting) and I thought this was pretty interesting:

From FY2001 through December 2010, it has cost the United States just under $4,000,000,000,000 to pay just the interest on our debt.

Four trillion dollars is a ton of money...and yet we have no plan in place to rein in any of this debt and really lower how much we are paying out in interest...pretty sad.

The problem is of course the huge social welfare programs put in place by the democrats: social security, medicare, medicaid, and now obamacare, unless it gets repealed.
 
Well we keep doing the same damn thing and expect a different result... We keep voting republican like they will bring us out of this but all this time they were pushing us toward this.

If you are trying to blame the debt solely on Republicans, that is just absurd.

Putting that aside, the $2.5 trillion in cuts that House Republicans have proposed over the next 10 years is not really going to make a dent in even our interest payments on the debt... let alone the debt itself...

What we need are some real solutions.
 
What we need are some real solutions.

Well, according to PLC and Pocket, you can simply raise taxes and the magical revenue fairies will appear, sprinkle some fairy dust on the balance sheets, and *POOF* increased revenue. :rolleyes:

Now I'm not sure if you actually wanted to discuss the "real" solutions but I'd start with doing mandatory 10% reduction of the federal budget every year for the next 8 years.
 
Well, according to PLC and Pocket, you can simply raise taxes and the magical revenue fairies will appear, sprinkle some fairy dust on the balance sheets, and *POOF* increased revenue. :rolleyes:

Now I'm not sure if you actually wanted to discuss the "real" solutions but I'd start with doing mandatory 10% reduction of the federal budget every year for the next 8 years.

I do want to discuss solutions, that said, cutting 10% out of the budget every year is going to be politically impossible sad to say...especially with the current make up of Congress.

What we need are "real" solutions that are politically viable, which makes it a far greater hurdle to overcome.
 
What we need are "real" solutions that are politically viable, which makes it a far greater hurdle to overcome.

What you need is a solution that will have an impact significant enough to alter the current path of insolvency and then work on making it politically viable. Any solution that is currently politically viable will not make a significant impact on the problem.
 
What you need is a solution that will have an impact significant enough to alter the current path of insolvency and then work on making it politically viable. Any solution that is currently politically viable will not make a significant impact on the problem.

I don't think a 10% reduction per year for 8 years will ever be politically viable..regardless of the situation we are in.
 
Speaking of looking through govt data and statistics...

Something I put together last year, from government data.

3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs not authorized to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and the debt they created.

Some people complain about the size of the Defense budget. We spend nearly as much simply in paying interest on the National Debt... which buys us NOTHING.

FedSpend00.gif
 
I don't think a 10% reduction per year for 8 years will ever be politically viable..regardless of the situation we are in.

No, nor will any other simplistic solution.

We need to start with what should have been done forty five years ago: Take Social security out of the general fund, and then start paying back the IOUs. That program has been used as a cash cow for decades, and now it's time for a payback.

We need to quit spending seven times as much on the military as second place spender, China, then quit trying to be world cop.

We need to reform health care (yes, again) and bring down costs.

We need to start discussing pragmatic solutions in Congress, instead of engaging in partisan gamesmanship.

We need to dispense with the wishful thinking that trickle down economic theory actually works.

That should be at least a small start on a pragmatic solution.
 
We need to quit spending seven times as much on the military as second place spender, China, then quit trying to be world cop.


What's the definition of "world cop"?

We need to start discussing pragmatic solutions in Congress, instead of engaging in partisan gamesmanship.

What proof do you have that "partisanship" necessarily precludes solutions?

We need to dispense with the wishful thinking that trickle down economic theory actually works.

What's your definition of "trickle down economic theory"?
 
Speaking of looking through govt data and statistics...

Something I put together last year, from government data.

3/4 of the Federal budget is spent on programs not authorized to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and the debt they created.

Some people complain about the size of the Defense budget. We spend nearly as much simply in paying interest on the National Debt... which buys us NOTHING.

FedSpend00.gif


Excellent. Thanks for posting.

I suppose liberals either see no problem with this or don't believe it.
 
What's the definition of "world cop"?

This organization. Members include Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

What proof do you have that "partisanship" necessarily precludes solutions?

The actions of Congress over the past decade or so.

What's your definition of "trickle down economic theory"?

Really? Is that a new one on you?

Study this, then get back to us:

in a nu*tshell, trickle-down theory is based on the premise that within an economy, giving tax breaks to the top earners makes them more likely to earn more. Top earners invest that extra money in productive economic activities or spend more of their time at the high-paying trade they do best (whether that be creating inventions or performing heart surgeries). Either way, these activities will be productive, reinvigorate economic growth and, in the end, generate more tax revenue from these earners and the people they've helped. According to the theory, this boost in growth will ultimately help those in lower income brackets as well.
 
This organization. Members include Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld.

No really - what's the definition of "world cop"?

The actions of Congress over the past decade or so.

Nothing good was accomplished by congress over the past decade or so?

Really? Is that a new one on you?

Study then get back to us

I "studied" :)D) it - a rambling unschooled rant which intermixed unrelated subjects such as the Laffer Curve and gave no exposition at all of the theory pro or con - all by some non-entity with no economics credentials. Try again sparky - what is trickle down economics? (not holding my breath :rolleyes:)
 
Werbung:
No really - what's the definition of "world cop"?

It means imposing a pax americana on the rest of the world by force of arms. Read the goals of the PNAC before you reply with another question. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Nothing good was accomplished by congress over the past decade or so?

No, I didn't say that at all.

I "studied" :)D) it - a rambling unschooled rant which intermixed unrelated subjects such as the Laffer Curve and gave no exposition at all of the theory pro or con - all by some non-entity with no economics credentials. Try again sparky - what is trickle down economics? (not holding my breath :rolleyes:)

You really don't know? Even after having supposedly read your assignment? Try again, and this time look for the idea that cutting taxes increases revenues, then see how well that worked out during the economic boom of the '80s. If you do, you will see that, despite an economic upturn, the US went from a creditor to a debtor nation.

It's called wishful thinking and looking for a free lunch, much as you accuse the "liberals" of doing.
 
Back
Top