I rarely see abstract thinking quite like this.

[Anarchist420]

27 Facts About the National Debt

Here are the list of Presidential Admins that took in more than spent.
Jefferson
Monroe
JQ Adams
Jackson
Van Buren
Tyler
Taylor
Fillmore
Pierce
A. Johnson.
Grant
Hayes
Arthur
B. Harrison (but only because of the inflation he supported)
Harding
Coolidge

The last Admin that spent less than it took in ended more than 80 years ago. The last fiscal year there was a surplus was over one-half of a century ago. What good has extreme public deficit spending done for the people?

Anyway... the things that make it all the more infuriating are the facts that interest rates have been super low and that inflation has been super high. What if interest rates had been higher? What if there had been no inflation?

 

[bfdd]

Thanks for the link, not entirely terrible as I was expecting. The writer even includes links to most of the shit he cites.

 

[Anarchist420]

Thanks for the link, not entirely terrible as I was expecting.

You're welcome

 

[Jaskalas]

#10 As Bill Whittle has shown, you could take every single penny that every American earns above $250,000 and it would only fund about 38 percent of the federal budget.

*cough*

That's the problem right there.

 

[MovingTarget]

I wonder what happened ~80 or so years ago that caused such a monumental change in the way we approach fiscal and monetary policy.. :hmm:

I find what the OP posted interesting from a historical perspective, but would be very cautious about drawing any direct comparisons of those times and now.

 

[bfdd]

I wonder what happened ~80 or so years ago that caused such a monumental change in the way we approach fiscal and monetary policy.. :hmm:

I find what the OP posted interesting from a historical perspective, but would be very cautious about drawing any direct comparisons of those times and now.

actually have to go a little further, hit up Woodrow Wilson and you'll understand what changed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

*cough*

That's the problem right there.

I haven't verified the 38% claim, but if true why would eliminating tax cuts be an issue since any extra money would be insignificant? Further, why not cut the tax rate in half for sub 250 k families? Would help out a lot of people.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

What would really have helped a lot of people out is if all these rich fucks would have created jobs with all the money they've saved from the litany of tax cuts over the past 60-70 years, which is always their argument for reducing taxes, yet there are so many less jobs than there were.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What would really have helped a lot of people out is if all these rich fucks would have created jobs with all the money they've saved from the litany of tax cuts over the past 60-70 years, which is always their argument for reducing taxes, yet there are so many less jobs than there were.

Yet if the all the income above 250K were taken away, not just the rich fucks taxes it wouldn't make any difference. Yeah, it's great at getting even, but that's it.

Might be nice though if there were long term economic incentives and policies to create domestic jobs, but that's harder.

 

[dank69]

Yet if the all the income above 250K were taken away, not just the rich fucks taxes it wouldn't make any difference. Yeah, it's great at getting even, but that's it.

Might be nice though if there were long term economic incentives and policies to create domestic jobs, but that's harder.

Funding 38% of our entire budget is not making a difference?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Funding 38% of our entire budget is not making a difference?

Thats taking every cent. Every one, and it's a fraction of what's needed. So who do you take every penny from to make up the other 2/3?

 

[Nemesis 1]

This place reaks of socialist

 

[Incorruptible]

The US must stop spending so much money, it needs to be cut down drastically

 

[Pray To Jesus]

This place reaks of socialist

 

[Capt Caveman]

I'd rather be living in the present than 80 years ago.

 

[cubby1223]

The US must stop spending so much money, it needs to be cut down drastically

Honestly, we are so far beyond that point. We stay the course for as long as we can - we default on our debt - then we restart on a new debt.

 

[nextJin]

Honestly, we are so far beyond that point. We stay the course for as long as we can - we default on our debt - then we restart on a new debt.

This is my thought aswell. In order to "fix" just the deficit it would take MASSIVE tax increases and MASSIVE spending cuts. Both if which would be extremely painful. That is not even bothering to address the actual debt and unfunded liabilities.

Like was said in the other thread, until there is a workable plan to get us out of deficit spending with cuts and taxes no one is doing shit. All you're doing is giving the money to government to spend on something else.

I am still waiting to hear from a liberal in what they would be willing to cut if they get a 50% tax on income and 60% on capital gains for anyone making over 250k. That would be in and around the 30-40% mark so I need to see cuts that reach those same numbers.

I am ok seeing tax increases on the rich so long as there are cuts to spending to actually get this shit sandwich under control.

 

[Texashiker]

27 Facts About the National Debt

Here are the list of Presidential Admins that took in more than spent.
Jefferson
Monroe
JQ Adams
Jackson
Van Buren
Tyler
Taylor
Fillmore
Pierce
A. Johnson.
Grant
Hayes
Arthur
B. Harrison (but only because of the inflation he supported)
Harding
Coolidge

You finally started a thread worth posting in.

Notice how spending changed after the depression. Once social programs are instituted, they do not go away. The people start looking for a handout. Before long we have generations that are living off government assistance.

Also notice it did not take very long after the federal reserve and the income tax were established until the U.S. started spending more then it was taking in.

 

[piasabird]

When it comes to debt, there is a point that if you go past, you can never pay it back.

 

[Thump553]

I doubt there are any rational thinkers anywhere that think Calvin Coolidge's economic policies are something to be emulated, especially in a modern economy. Through his moronic policy of cut governemtn spending in order to balance the budget in the wake of substantial stock market crash, Coolidge managed to accelerate a moderately severe (but fairly routine) stock market crash into the greatest financial collapse the world has ever seen.

Do you ever step back to evaluate and look at the real world results of the failed, disasterous policies you so feverently advocate?

 

[MovingTarget]

You finally started a thread worth posting in.

Notice how spending changed after the depression. Once social programs are instituted, they do not go away. The people start looking for a handout. Before long we have generations that are living off government assistance.

Also notice it did not take very long after the federal reserve and the income tax were established until the U.S. started spending more then it was taking in.

Why do people mention this like it is in a vacuum? Social programs have done a massive amount of good in alleviating poverty, hunger, suffering, etc. People act like these things didn't exist before the dawn of the new deal. Even if I were to believe this "generational dependence" theory (i.e. that social programs that alleviate poverty cause people to stay in poverty), it is asinine to believe that if we simply removed or phased out the programs that some magical incentive to live in poverty would decline. It won't. The generational aspects of the 'poverty trap' have nothing to do with existing social programs. Poverty perpetuated itself with much more vigor and ferociousness without (and before) them.

 

[nextJin]

I doubt there are any rational thinkers anywhere that think Calvin Coolidge's economic policies are something to be emulated, especially in a modern economy. Through his moronic policy of cut governemtn spending in order to balance the budget in the wake of substantial stock market crash, Coolidge managed to accelerate a moderately severe (but fairly routine) stock market crash into the greatest financial collapse the world has ever seen.

What in you're opinion caused the Great Depression? What was the lead up to it and what was the driving factor that ppretty much put it over the edge? Was it his policies that caused it having FDR come in and save the day?

 

[soulcougher73]

What would really have helped a lot of people out is if all these rich fucks would have created jobs with all the money they've saved from the litany of tax cuts over the past 60-70 years, which is always their argument for reducing taxes, yet there are so many less jobs than there were.

What are you talking about? Their are plenty of jobs out there if you are willing to look for them in say China or Vietnam or India or any of the other countries we outsource to

 

[CycloWizard]

Why do people mention this like it is in a vacuum? Social programs have done a massive amount of good in alleviating poverty, hunger, suffering, etc. People act like these things didn't exist before the dawn of the new deal. Even if I were to believe this "generational dependence" theory (i.e. that social programs that alleviate poverty cause people to stay in poverty), it is asinine to believe that if we simply removed or phased out the programs that some magical incentive to live in poverty would decline. It won't. The generational aspects of the 'poverty trap' have nothing to do with existing social programs. Poverty perpetuated itself with much more vigor and ferociousness without (and before) them.

People mention it because they understand basic math. Giving everyone a house, clothing, food, water, education, healthcare, cars, bikes, and jobs are all possible. However, they cost money. I'm not an accountant, but I believe there's an equation that has to be satisfied. It's asinine to believe that funding social programs with debt is a feasible approach in the long run. The people relying on them will be much worse off when the bill collectors come calling.

 

[MovingTarget]

People mention it because they understand basic math. Giving everyone a house, clothing, food, water, education, healthcare, cars, bikes, and jobs are all possible. However, they cost money. I'm not an accountant, but I believe there's an equation that has to be satisfied. It's asinine to believe that funding social programs with debt is a feasible approach in the long run. The people relying on them will be much worse off when the bill collectors come calling.

Social programs cost money. No argument here, but that wasn't my point. I was calling out the 'accepted wisdom' that having social programs is a cause of poverty. Many say that if we didn't have these programs, the poor would make do and finally pull themselves out of poverty. It really is asinine.

Funding social programs with debt over the long term is not feasible. In the short term, it can be beneficial though. There are larger fiscal issues that do need to be addressed without resorting to the whole "welfare queen" argument. I do disagree that people relying on them will be worse off when the bill comes due, because when it does, at least they have something instead of nothing. When it does come due, we are all boned regardless of income level.