quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

This is what happens when rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And I will add its unfortunate Americans continue to vote for corrupt politicians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

This is what happens when rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And I will add its unfortunate Americans continue to vote for corrupt politicians.

US Debt rises from 41% to 53% of Gross National Product (GDP)

Over the past year alone,

the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038.

However, before the debt reached such high levels, the United States would almost certainly experience a debt-driven crisis — something previously viewed as almost unfathomable in the world’s largest economy.

A comment from the site: "Also, most telling that neither party will take on govt. corruption to save money either. Buying votes with taxpayer money till the China banker cuts the credit card!"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Report-In-one-year-US-debt-has-risen-from-41-to-53-percent-of-GDP-79253352.html

Someone's smoking dope here....

The debt (everything) is easily 3 or 4 times GDP.

The "deficit" (this year's "overage") is 50 - 65% of GDP.

(Someone needs to check their facts)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

The budget surpluses during the Clinton administration were the result of 8 years of Reaganomics, and the dot com boom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

The budget surpluses during the Clinton administration were the result of 8 years of Reaganomics, and the dot com boom.

And I'm sure when the economy makes a recovery in the next few years it will be the result of Bushnomics.

Funny how that works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Since there were no budget surpluses during the Clinton years there was no need to rebut it.s When the economy recovers it will be from reductions in spending and reductions in taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Since there were no budget surpluses during the Clinton years there was no need to rebut it.s When the economy recovers it will be from reductions in spending and reductions in taxes.

Well I'm not going to post the links for you again Willbeur, because apparently you don't believe anything that contradicts what you want to believe.

We've had this discussion before and you seem to want to believe that the Congressional Budget Office numbers showing a budget surplus in Clinton's last two years in office were all "smoke and mirrors".

Have at it.

[sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You can respond to the Treasury department links I posted that show exactly what Ive said. But that would actually take acknowledgement that there was no surplus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You can respond to the Treasury department links I posted that show exactly what Ive said. But that would actually take acknowledgement that there was no surplus.

Then re-post them.

Because what you are saying is that the Treasury Department was in direct contradiction of the Congressional Budget Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

By the way....just for the record (not that anyone cares)...the "rich" have been paying an ever increasing share of the total taxes paid since the early 80's....and they now pay close to 90+% of the total share of taxes (depending on who's counting....and how you measure the "rich").

It's the "not rich" who are paying an ever decreasing share of the taxes paid....(but who's counting?).

I'm counting .................. how many posts you can make throwing out numbers without any substantiation in one thread.

I actually don't have to back this up....it's on every govt. website that ever got produced.

It's a fact....don't know the actual percentages but....95 some odd percent pay something like 8% of the taxes....5% pay something like the remaining 92%....it's fairly basic common knowledge.....(don't have to be a brain surgeon for this stuff).

(Ain't exactly rocket science, ya know).

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How do you define "rich"?

Like everyone else does....

35 - 50% more than you and I make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

In a way it is a mute argument.

After 9-11 alot of capital has left the US.   The biggest money is parked in off shore accounts- and contrary to the IRS clampdown- the biggest boys will never be touched.


When we passed TARP- anything after that is mute.   We are up to something like 23 trillion $.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

The budget surpluses during the Clinton administration were the result of 8 years of Reaganomics, and the dot com boom.

And I'm sure when the economy makes a recovery in the next few years it will be the result of Bushnomics.

Funny how that works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How do you define "rich"?

Like everyone else does....

35 - 50% more than you and I make.

Uh, Lookie.. that question was TO me, not BY me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

By the way....just for the record (not that anyone cares)...the "rich" have been paying an ever increasing share of the total taxes paid since the early 80's....and they now pay close to 90+% of the total share of taxes (depending on who's counting....and how you measure the "rich").

It's the "not rich" who are paying an ever decreasing share of the taxes paid....(but who's counting?).

I'm counting .................. how many posts you can make throwing out numbers without any substantiation in one thread.

I actually don't have to back this up....it's on every govt. website that ever got produced.

It's a fact....don't know the actual percentages but....95 some odd percent pay something like 8% of the taxes....5% pay something like the remaining 92%....it's fairly basic common knowledge.....(don't have to be a brain surgeon for this stuff).

(Ain't exactly rocket science, ya know).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
How do you define "rich"?

Like everyone else does....

35 - 50% more than you and I make.

Uh, Lookie.. that question was TO me, not BY me.

All good....same answer :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CountrySong

willbeurdaddy What the article really should be worrying about is that under some very conservative (low) projections of interest rates, interest on the TOTAL debt could exceed 100% of GDP in the same timeframe.
That means that you either borrow to pay the interest, or you have nothing to fund any government program or employee.
Actually there is another option and it is the one that the government has already announced it will take - a controlled accelleration of inflation. The plan is to have inflation devalue the purchasing power of the dollar by 25% over a period of five years. That will increase the tax revenues and lower the amount we actually pay back when compared to todays dollars. (hint - Buy hard assets that will appreciate during inflation.)
Entitlements will not be decreased - that would be political suicide. Instead you increase the inflation rate faster than you increase the Cost Of Living adjustments for the entitlements. The ignorant will see that their entitlement check go up and be happy even though those dollar by less (Well at least happier than if you cut thier checks.)
Combine that with a small tax increase for high income and high net worth people (who's hard assets have increased in value so they really do not get hurt by the tax increase) and the major pool of voters is happy - poorer and just as ignorant but happy. And that what counts.