• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

13 trillion dollar debt..

M

mutz

Senior member
this is quite worrying..,
any idea what can be done to tackle it when the entire budget is only ~3 trillion a year?

worth mentioning this isn't quite a political discussion, rather one made to share you'r idea's regarding this on-growing problem and maybe some viable solutions for it.

(i'm more or less clueless..).
 
That is the next administration's problem, might even be the administration after that's problem.

As long as our creditors continue to lend us money so we can provide social welfare, corporate handouts, foreign aid, etc. to our supporters without increasing taxes, then all is well and we can blame it all on the people who came before us and after us when it is time to pay the piper.
 
This years deficit would have been like half if Obama had gotten his way in ending Bush tax cuts on the very wealthy, plus if we didn't have to spend hundreds of billions staving off financial collapse the Republicans caused, and we would have far more tax revenue if we didn't allow unfree trade with China.

The solution is actually quite simple, yet difficult to enact.
First the government needs to raise more revenue. Some of the Bush tax cut has to go.
Second, the government needs to slow down the rate of spending.
Third the US and the other developed, civilized countries have to act in unison to drastically slow both the flight of corporations to China and other tyrannical, thieving countries, and to work to increase the wages of domestic employees.
Fourth the US electorate must resounding send the right wing wackos who advocate the destruction of our economy back home and out of politics.
 
This years deficit would have been like half if Obama had gotten his way in ending Bush tax cuts on the very wealthy
Click to expand...
1.

plus if we didn't have to spend hundreds of billions staving off financial collapse the Republicans caused
Click to expand...
2.
maybe it is less important now who cause it, let's say it has happened and currently has to be dealt with.

and we would have far more tax revenue if we didn't allow unfree trade with China
Click to expand...
3.

these are maybe basics, but maybe a more profound revolution is needed, cause when each is doing what he likes, spending as he wishes without any sense of social responsibility, this dictates a chaos.

http://www.progress.org/corpw30.htm
many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs
Click to expand...
salaries, people harvest a lot of money which is not essential to living,
yes people can earn a lot of money per month while others have barely enough to live,
this must be coming with a heavy price to the economy, and much heavier burden to the poor, i'm thinking this is one of the main issues which is very hard to tackle,
this is raising every price on every market, from bread to housing, the cost of living per place, social gaps, educational gaps, previous opinions, poverty of course, competition etc.
 
BoberFett said:
Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is worth $70B/yr tops. Stop believing Obama's lies, ass.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, when it comes to spending money you have to give the 10 year cost, but when it comes to taxes, you rightwingers quote the yearly value which sounds small.
 
Throckmorton said:
Oh I see, when it comes to spending money you have to give the 10 year cost, but when it comes to taxes, you rightwingers quote the yearly value which sounds small.
Click to expand...

Uhh... Tech's was the one that suggested that the tax cuts would have cut this year's deficit in half... implying that it would be $700 billion per year...

This administration is the one that has put that idea in people's heads... constantly saying that it would save $700 billion. Only seldom do they mention the 10 year part.

The fact is... this year's deficit is $1,300 billion. Ending tax cuts on the wealthy would give us $70 billion per year. Tech's is flat out lying with respect to his statement.
 
BoberFett said:
Ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is worth $70B/yr tops. Stop believing Obama's lies, ass.
Click to expand...

I guess you were too young to read in 2000 when it was all over the news that half the 350 billion dollar tax cut would go to the top 8 percent.

I got that from the Republicans.
 
PeshakJang said:
Uhh... Tech's was the one that suggested that the tax cuts would have cut this year's deficit in half... implying that it would be $700 billion per year...

This administration is the one that has put that idea in people's heads... constantly saying that it would save $700 billion. Only seldom do they mention the 10 year part.

The fact is... this year's deficit is $1,300 billion. Ending tax cuts on the wealthy would give us $70 billion per year. Tech's is flat out lying with respect to his statement.
Click to expand...

You set the record for most egregious lies in a single post.
I said the combination of the ending of the tax cuts and the money to pay the bailout would cut the deficit in half.

In 2000 the Bush tax was 350 billion with half going to the top 8 percent.
So that's 175 billion in 2000 which should be 250 billion now, maybe more since the rich have gotten richer.
 
techs said:
This years deficit would have been like half if Obama had gotten his way in ending Bush tax cuts on the very wealthy, plus if we didn't have to spend hundreds of billions staving off financial collapse the Republicans caused, and we would have far more tax revenue if we didn't allow unfree trade with China.
Click to expand...

All bullshit except maybe, and a BIG maybe, on the last one. Without the wars and without the Bush tax cuts would still probably have a $1T deficit.
The solution is actually quite simple, yet difficult to enact.
First the government needs to raise more revenue. Some of the Bush tax cut has to go.
Click to expand...

Actually, not only do ALL of the Bush tax cuts have to go but taxes will need to be raised if we truly want to approach a balanced budget.
Second, the government needs to slow down the rate of spending.
Click to expand...

Slowing down the rate of increase doesn't cut it, we need to actually cut spending while raising revenue. It is the only possible way.

Fourth the US electorate must resounding send the right wing wackos who advocate the destruction of our economy back home and out of politics.
Click to expand...

Without Clinton's signature a vast majority of this financial meltdown wouldn't have happened. Furthermore, the Democrats could have reinstated that bill by now or at least attempted too if they were concerned with preventing it from happening again.
 
techs said:
You set the record for most egregious lies in a single post.
Click to expand...

Is that you Craig?

I said the combination of the ending of the tax cuts and the money to pay the bailout would cut the deficit in half.
Click to expand...

Then you suck at conveying thoughts, because your phrasing doesn't suggest that at all.

In 2000 the Bush tax was 350 billion with half going to the top 8 percent.
So that's 175 billion in 2000 which should be 250 billion now, maybe more since the rich have gotten richer.
Click to expand...

Nothing in that thought makes any sense. Please at least give me a source, since there are a lot of different studies suggesting different totals for the tax cuts. I am going off of the statement that *this administration* has made ad nauseum, which is that extending the tax cuts for the wealthy will cost us $700 billion over the next 10 years. That's $70 billion per year. Explain how that would make any significant impact on a $1,300 billion deficit?
 
techs said:
You set the record for most egregious lies in a single post.
I said the combination of the ending of the tax cuts and the money to pay the bailout would cut the deficit in half.

In 2000 the Bush tax was 350 billion with half going to the top 8 percent.
So that's 175 billion in 2000 which should be 250 billion now, maybe more since the rich have gotten richer.
Click to expand...

The CBO, who you guys love to quote when it suites you, states that ending the tax cuts for JUST the wealthy will generate $700B over the next 10 years. Obama repeatedly states this as well.

Are saying that you are in disagreement with all of them?
 
Throckmorton said:
Oh I see, when it comes to spending money you have to give the 10 year cost, but when it comes to taxes, you rightwingers quote the yearly value which sounds small.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you talking about? The OP stated that ending the tax cut for the wealthy would cut the deficit in half. That's utterly false. State the numbers any way you want you pathetic liar, but it's still false.
 
BoberFett said:
What the fuck are you talking about? The OP stated that ending the tax cut for the wealthy would cut the deficit in half. That's utterly false. State the numbers any way you want you pathetic liar, but it's still false.
Click to expand...

Unless we have a TARP or ARRA every year until the end of time, it will cut the deficit in half during normal years.

Edit: oh and 2 quagmires.
 
Acanthus said:
Unless we have a TARP or ARRA every year until the end of time, it will cut the deficit in half during normal years.

Edit: oh and 2 quagmires.
Click to expand...

Hasn't almost all of TARP been repaid, wouldn't that bring down the deficit this year? Or did they just spend the money on other shit while running a similar deficit?
 
I do not pretend to have a complete solution to this nigh impossible problem but I do have ideas that I think need to be implemented.

1. Stop spending more than we make, this is common sense 101.
2. Discontinue social security or at least stop making it a money pit. The median person collecting social security should not be receiving a significant amount more than their premiums paid.
3. Apply #2 to Medicare. Here is a graph illustrating the problem with Medicare.

Fig._169_-_Net_lifetime_Medicare_benefits.JPG


This is the lifetime net benefit (gross benefit - premiums paid) by income level for Medicare users. Essentially anything over $0 is a sinkhole and should be eliminated.

For a person that made $95k/year they still get an average of 125k of "free" money with more for the less you have earned. $95k is far above what the average person makes so we can establish a minimum benefit from eliminating these freeloaders.

$125k * US Population = $38 trillion over the course of one lifetime.

All of this from a few tiny changes that eliminates bumming.

Flame away.

Obviously I know these numbers don't calculate to quite this amount but I still think the concept should be fixed. Money out = Money in
 
Last edited:
bhanson, you took it from the wiki article,

Three of these graphs are shown below, and they clearly show why Medicare (as currently formulated) is on the path to fiscal insolvency: No matter what the wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a man or woman can expect to receive benefits that will cost the system far more than the taxes he or she paid into the system.
Click to expand...

that's quite an issue, though you can't leave elders to cover medical expenses by they're own when they have no income rather then pension,
maybe taking steps in order to make people live better and healthier would do the same thing without having to spend the medical costs unless in exceptional cases,
science patch for AIDS and cancer can also take away a heavy burden of the annual hospitalization costs.
 
hmm, found this:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...jSc/commentary
Click to expand...

For months now, Republicans in Congress have been objecting to—and often obstructing—the extension of unemployment benefits to help out-of-work Americans, on the grounds that these benefits add too much to the national deficit. But at the same time, they’re pushing to renew the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy—tax cuts that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could increase the national debt by an incredible $3.4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a great blog post putting these conflicting positions into perspective.

In “No help for the jobless, but $3.4 trillion for tax cuts,” Bookman writes:

“The $35 billion needed to help the jobless through the worst economic crisis in 80 years amounts to barely 1 percent of the $3.4 trillion cost of extending the [Bush] tax cuts.”
Click to expand...

maybe that offsets Techs sayings from a different direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top