National Deficit over $1 Trillion? I'm shocked!

[pocketfullofshells]

Ah yes, the bigots are in full swing! Pretending Bush killed the auto industry? I suppose if Al Gore had been dumping his auto tax on the entire industry, suddenly all their budgets would have balanced, labor costs would have spontaneously dropped, and millions around the country would have dropped everything to buy domestic cars! Why yes of course! You're a brilliant hypocrite!

What an idiotic theory....

But then you mumble on about how Republicans added no debt. So what? What difference does it make if Republicans did, or did not add any debt?

Let's review.... if adding debt is bad, then isn't Obama's $10 Trillion over the next 9 years bad? Or if adding debt is NOT bad, and Obama's $10 Trillion is no big deal, then why does it matter if Republicans did it?

Oh wait... we're in dumb *** hypocrite land where it's ONLY bad if REPUBLICANS do it. Right right, sorry. I forgot I was talking to a bigot.



To answer your question more specifically, no. Congress has been screwing with the debt in so many ways, it's impossible to know how much is paid each month in interest.

From the 2009 Budget, which is now 9 months old, our national debt was roughly $10 Trillion at the time, and our interest payment was $260 Billion dollars.

The problem is, that only covers a small fraction of the story. That only includes privately owned debt, which means the sell of T-Bills like what China has been purchasing.

The problem is things like Social Security. Currently SS draws in more money than it puts out. So on budget this reads as a net income.

But in reality, we are paying massive interest on borrowed money from a past generation. As of 2004, the trustees of the SS fund, have reported that SS is faced with nearly $10.4 Trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. This is money owed in addition to the $10 Trillion debt on the general fund.

This was done purposefully by politicians to conceal the debt on paper, and make people believe Clinton had a balanced budget. Since Social Security was moved off budget, the social security debt is off budget too, resulting in a much lower debt than what really exists.

No the bad choices of the CEO's and top people killed the auto companies, Bush helped kill the econ and made it go faster even....and some tards blame Obama for it, even though he was not in office....

 

[BigRob]

Speaking of the auto industry, I would like to add this point.

In China, the government relaxed one of their main tax standards on cars and car sales rose 48% last month.

Tax cut equated to big sales. Why don't we try that here?

 

[PLC1]

What is the interest on a trillion? Does anyone know?

Let's see.. a trillion is 10 ^ 12th, so at 5%, the interest rate would be 5x 10^10th, or $50,000,000,000 per year. Multiply 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 365 days,, and you get 31,536,000, or a little over 3 x 10 ^7 seconds in a year.

Divide it out, and it works out to a rate of 5/3 x 10^3 or $1,667 per second.

Check that math and see if it is correct.

Of course, the exact rate depends on the interest rate, which could be a little higher or a little lower. If that were credit card debt with an interest rate of 25%, then we'd be paying 5 times as much.

And, since the debt is over 11 trillion, we're paying 11 times as much, or just over 18 thousand dollars a second just in interest on the debt.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[Andy]

No the bad choices of the CEO's and top people killed the auto companies, Bush helped kill the econ and made it go faster even....and some tards blame Obama for it, even though he was not in office....

Could you cite the specific legislation, and ramifications to such legislation?

 

[Andy]

Speaking of the auto industry, I would like to add this point.

In China, the government relaxed one of their main tax standards on cars and car sales rose 48% last month.

Tax cut equated to big sales. Why don't we try that here?

You want to give tax cuts to the rich? You want more smog producing vehicles on the road? You want to benefit evil corporations??

How could you!

Liberal stupidity aside, it depends on what your goal is. If the goal is to benefit the US economy, that will work. If the goal is to specifically benefit the domestic auto industry, that will not be as useful.

The reason is because our domestic auto industry is failing due to labor costs. Since a universal tax cut will benefit both foreign and domestic cars, this will not help domestic manufactures gain an advantage over imports.

Unless we give only Ford, GM, and Chrysler exemptions from taxes, or put additional taxes on other manufactures, the playing field will remain level, thus the Big Three with higher labor costs will be at a disadvantage.

Further, all chances of a tax cut getting passed now that deficits are in the unbelievable $1 Trillion a year range, is zero. No, more than likely we'll see tax hikes coming around the corner.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Speaking of the auto industry, I would like to add this point.

In China, the government relaxed one of their main tax standards on cars and car sales rose 48% last month.

Tax cut equated to big sales. Why don't we try that here?

we could try a no sales tax holiday, or something, but problem is that it drives sales for that time, but then can lead to a huge drop after where anyone looking got theres...so it would have to be sustained...

also more then likey people would use it to buy honday toyota and I would hope ford...while it would not help much for GM Chrysler who still suffer from there biggest issue...crappy cars that get poor mpg and no one wants unless heavy discounted

also we cant forget that cutting taxes in China, will not have the same effect as here, with different tax rates, different amounts of Demand, and other such issues. I would not be able to back this up with stats, but I would guess that China has alot more potental for changes in ownership with far less already owning a car, but wanting one...where as here it is a issue of sell your car that works fine and get a new nicer one...the drive is not the same.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Could you cite the specific legislation, and ramifications to such legislation?

The Iraq war...

 

[Pandora]

its been going for some time, it first got well known under Bush I, with the Perot factor...though R.R did a good job running his own debt up as well.

Agreed Ronald Reagan did build the debt, I think he got something for it but still he did leave a huge bill.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan spent more in his 8 years than all the presidents before him combined, He did have a huge part in ending the cold war, he made us stronger and more secure with weapons in space exc.

Then George W. Bush spent in 8 years more than all the presidents before him combined. He did have 9-11, Katrina, tsunami's, 2 wars and so on but I agree he spent way too much! I agree with you totally on this.

But this is over the top, obama's spending is worse than Reagan and George Bush and all the other presidents combined and he did it in 5 months and we have nothing for it but bigger government.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Agreed Ronald Reagan did build the debt, I think he got something for it but still he did leave a huge bill.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan spent more in his 8 years than all the presidents before him combined, He did have a huge part in ending the cold war, he made us stronger and more secure with weapons in space exc.

Then George W. Bush spent in 8 years more than all the presidents before him combined. He did have 9-11, Katrina, tsunami's, 2 wars and so on but I agree he spent way too much! I agree with you totally on this.

But this is over the top, obama's spending is worse than Reagan and George Bush and all the other presidents combined and he did it in 5 months and we have nothing for it but bigger government.

yes he spent alot, but in a situation none of the others ever had to deal with.

 

[Pandora]

yes he spent alot, but in a situation none of the others ever had to deal with.

All of the situations so far have been manufactured IMO. Having to bail out GM so they don’t go bankrupt, then they go bankrupt anyway exc.

Stim package having to be passed so fast that no one voting for it had time to read it, then obama takes 3 days to sign it but when it was on the floor being voted for it was a dire emergency, pass it now, no time to read it hurry hurry.

It seems to be all manufactured emergencies.

 

[PLC1]

All of the situations so far have been manufactured IMO. Having to bail out GM so they don’t go bankrupt, then they go bankrupt anyway exc.

Stim package having to be passed so fast that no one voting for it had time to read it, then obama takes 3 days to sign it but when it was on the floor being voted for it was a dire emergency, pass it now, no time to read it hurry hurry.

It seems to be all manufactured emergencies.

The federal government seems to be good at manufacturing emergencies, fostering fear, and then being the only salvation in that fearful emergency.

It's called increasing power, I believe.

 

[Pandora]

The federal government seems to be good at manufacturing emergencies, fostering fear, and then being the only salvation in that fearful emergency.

It's called increasing power, I believe.

We agree again

 

[BigRob]

The Iraq war...

The Iraq War did not cause the current economic conditions.

 

[PLC1]

The Iraq War did not cause the current economic conditions.

No, it didn't. It did, however, add to that 11 trillion + debt, much as the current economic polices are adding to that same debt.

 

[BigRob]

No, it didn't. It did, however, add to that 11 trillion + debt, much as the current economic polices are adding to that same debt.

If you believe in stimulus packages (just generalizing here) then really the quickest manner to get money into the hands of people and into the economy is through military spending. We got out of the Great Depression with a war, etc.

Therefore, those who support the stimulus packages, should not be blaming the war for much of anything, since if war spending actually did anything, history would show us that it would have helped the economy more than anything else.

I therefore find it ridiculous when the assumption is made that the war caused our problems, and we therefore need stimulus to get us out of them, since governmental war spending is nothing more than stimulus.

It is akin to saying, "stimulus caused our problems, so we need more to end them."