sprinter Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 This is the root cause of the debt: http://www.businessinsider.com/costs-of-war-charts-2011-6?op=1 never ending WARS. And what have we accomplish in Afghanistan? We got the poppy fields churning out opium again. http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/ORAS_report_2011.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html Note the date of the second article. It was written before the "war on terror" began. Afterwards the Taliban was accused of using the profits from the opium trade to finance their cause. Wake up people, the Taliban was against drugs. They framed the ban ''in very religious terms,'' citing Islamic prohibitions against drugs, and that made it hard to defy, he added. Those who defied the edict were threatened with prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Afghanistan wasn't about drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Afghanistan wasn't about drugs. Some people just don't have a clue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 This could be your future: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/outcasts-tonight-tens-of-thousands-of-formerly-middle-class-americans-will-be-sleeping-in-their-cars-in-tent-cities-or-on-the-streets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 No doubt he cares. The question is, he cares about what? He certainly didn't seem to care about scaring the crap out of a bunch of old people telling them he can't "guarantee" that they will get their SS checks; even as he knows the checks are automatic (and covered by current revenues). He's also said he won't accept a short-term deal on the debt ceiling even though he's been offered one. If he'd rather scare old people to promote his agenda then what he really cares about comes into question. See now, if we had put that social security into a "lock box", we wouldn't have this issue right now. If you believe in the parallel realities theory, billions of people in some alternate present universe are living a much better life than we are right now......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Ha! Just found this. 2001: read and weep: LINK (with apologies for going there again - but it was just too good to pass up. Eerily prophetic.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) This is the root cause of the debt: http://www.businessi...rts-2011-6?op=1 never ending WARS. And what have we accomplish in Afghanistan? We got the poppy fields churning out opium again. http://www.unodc.org...report_2011.pdf http://www.nytimes.c...-aides-say.html Note the date of the second article. It was written before the "war on terror" began. Afterwards the Taliban was accused of using the profits from the opium trade to finance their cause. Wake up people, the Taliban was against drugs. $3.7 trillions was wasted on a lost cause. Russians also tried and they gave up there when the USA use to fund the Taliban with $700 millions per year also another lost cause just like the many others had found out that tried before Russia, you should have let the Russians finish off Bin Ladens mob rather than fund them. Soon as we pull out the poppy fields will spring up again, nothing will ever change in Afghanistan. Just like Greece with their debt, bailing them out will fix nothing no way is their economy ever going to become another German economy rich enough to pay back the massive bailout money they now owe (every Greek man, woman child & baby now owe $40,000 of government debt each & with just $5,000 a year average wage which they are already struggling to live of off with sky high food, fuel prices & an already high taxes they are going to have very little left over to pay down massive bailout loans). Greece's 30 year loooooong term bailout loans will mean 30 years of long term austerity for the Greeks, but it won't get that far as they will default again within a year. Sad to see todays story that Moody's is warning that the USA is at risk of losing its AAA status if you don't get this debt ceiling sorted out soon, Moody's have rated the US AAA ever since 1917. LINK Edited July 14, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) See now, if we had put that social security into a "lock box", we wouldn't have this issue right now. If you believe in the parallel realities theory, billions of people in some alternate present universe are living a much better life than we are right now......... Whether the "lock box" had been filled with IOUs or cash, the funds would still run out as fast as they are now. At least it would have given Al Gore something to do I suppose, but........ Ha! Just found this. 2001: read and weep: LINK (with apologies for going there again - but it was just too good to pass up. Eerily prophetic.) ....as it is, the last 10 years have been very prosperous for me, so I can't complain. Even my boss (a perpetual democrat) admitted things were great (for our company) under Bush even though he thought Clinton was going to make him a millionaire (we almost went out of business in 1998) and Bush was going to put us into bankruptcy. In the end, whether you believe the answer to America's financial problem is tax increases or raising the debt ceiling, or both, the thinking process is based on a single premise...... If the government takes more from the people (or obligates them deeper), then the government will learn to live within it's means, and prosperity for all will ensue. As far as I can tell, that is a false premise. The U.S. hasn't had a balanced budget in over 50 years. Disagree? Then cite the year when the U.S. National Debt stayed the same or went down. Don't give me Clintons "projections". I mean the actual numbers. Or if I am wrong, how does one have a balanced budget, yet the debt goes up? Here's the actual numbers from the U.S. Treasury website: Fiscal Yr Total Outstanding Debt 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00 09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00 09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00 09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00 09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00 09/30/1980 907,701,000,000.00 09/30/1979 826,519,000,000.00 09/30/1978 771,544,000,000.00 09/30/1977 698,840,000,000.00 06/30/1976 620,433,000,000.00 06/30/1975 533,189,000,000.00 06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55 06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09 06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50 06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54 06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93 06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41 06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88 06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54 06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48 06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64 06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30 06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41 06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87 06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05 06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37 06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22 06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81 06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62 06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46 06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57 06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04 Edited July 14, 2011 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) I'm happy for you and your boss that business is still strong (no cynicism in that statement - I really am). I'm sure you know the parable of the frog in the well. I rode that bubble all the way to the top too. Until it popped. I saw 215 of my colleagues get laid off before I did. I felt lucky to still be hanging on, but I was horrified at the devastation of once respectable lives. When my wife and I were looking for a place to downsize to we were shocked to learn the number of distress sales and foreclosures on the market, including in our own neighborhood. My wife finally picked up a job (outside her area of experience, and at about half her former pay - that seems to be the pattern in our new economy) after 21 months out of work and untold hundreds of applications sent out for everything from management positions down to nursing home aid, hotel maid, and stocking racks graveyard shift at a local clothing store 16 hrs. / wk (i.e. no benefits - and $10.00 / hr.). Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of applications. And then I see jackasses trotting out stories about how the unemployed magically get jobs right when their benefits run out. It so happens that a woman who worked at my former office is now working at the place where my wife got hired (a sparkling new hospital - thank God for our excessive healthcare spending). We got talking. This woman and her husband (with 2 high school age kids) lost their house last year. They just had to walk from it, after 8 years living there. One of her sisters had also lost her house. (Another sister had been diagnosed with cancer for the third time - but that's probably not Bush's fault.) These are regular formerly middle class people leading respectable lives and living by the rules - oh, they probably didn't have 2 years worth of mortgage payments banked up for a rainy decade. God forbid, they were probably depending on their incomes to finance their lifestyles - you know, not having bulging investment portfolios that would skim cash off the labor of others in perpetuity even if they never lifted another finger themselves. Regular people. Job doers, not your mythical "job creators" (who, by the way, still aren't doing their jobs despite the tax cut extensions - yep, all that savings will go straight to the bulging portfolios - or maybe to snap up the homes of the former job doers at fire sale prices - sick sick system). How are all these people who are all of a sudden making half what they did before - or nothing at all - going to float the economy? How is somebody whose job is now being done in Shenzhen (your former factory worker) or Mumbai (your former information worker) going to make a purchase from their local merchant (who has been put out of business by WalMart anyway)? Is it some big mystery that this doesn't work? Here is another link to historical deficit spending, with interesting side bar commentary. LINK p.s. come on though, you gotta admit that Onion parody was freakin' CLAIRVOYANT. p.p.s. the 3rd chart in the link I posted shows that federal debt (the green field) was shrinking under Clinton. Not sure why the discrepancy. Perhaps this measures deficit spending and not debt? Edited July 14, 2011 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) up? Here's the actual numbers from the U.S. Treasury website: Fiscal Yr Total Outstanding Debt 09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00 09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00 09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00 09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00 09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00 09/30/1980 907,701,000,000.00 09/30/1979 826,519,000,000.00 09/30/1978 771,544,000,000.00 09/30/1977 698,840,000,000.00 06/30/1976 620,433,000,000.00 06/30/1975 533,189,000,000.00 06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55 06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09 06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50 06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54 06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93 06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41 06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88 06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54 06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48 06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64 06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30 06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41 06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87 06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05 06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37 06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22 06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81 06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62 06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46 06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57 06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43 06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93 (Look, it went down!) 06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04 Numbers mean nothing look meaningless & are a flat RangerM smoke screen. Things were chugging along nicely with the US national debt clock until the Cortina ended production in 1981, and then Ronnie got a job 1981 to 1989 when the first big spike appeared in US national clock, Bush Senior caused another big jump 1989-93, then there was a bit of a loll then Bushie the idiot arrived in 2001-2009 and completely screwed up the worlds economy single handedly, the National Debt Clock suddenly went through the roof of the Empire State Building and they run out of digits on the debt clock. Edited July 14, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 How hard is it to grasp a simple concept? Spending has grown faster than revenues. Take a look at the curve: Does any one believe that taxes can rise on the same track? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) How hard is it to grasp a simple concept? Spending has grown faster than revenues. Take a look at the curve: Does any one believe that taxes can rise on the same track? Taxes wouldn't need to rise on that same track, so apparently you don't grasp the simple concept. The graph shows debt, and says nothing about total spending and revenue. Anyway, the total debt numbers is not nearly as important and the debt to GDP ratio. The last president to really lower the debt to GDP ratio was Clinton. H.W. Bush and Carter didn't do bad either. Reagan and W Bush were disasters for the debt to GDP ratio. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ves/debt-limit/ Edited July 14, 2011 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) If we paid 32% of our GDP in taxes - 4% lower than the OEDC average, we would be running a budget surplus. To me it seems simple: Balanced budget amendment, and immediate action to close loopholes, cut no longer useful programs, means test Social Security and Medicare, and raise taxes to cover the rest. Then, after that, work to get ourselves down to 28% or 20% or 2% or wherever we think they really ought to be. Truth is, most Americans would come down somewhere between the 2 extremes. It seems that the politicians, with their ridiculous boy scout pledges to Grover Norquist and so forth, are no longer capable of doing that. Hey Mr. Senator, take your oath of office promising to uphold the constitution, and leave the pledges off there, alright? How about serving one master, ok? Is it us, or is it the puppet master? Make your damn choice. If congress can't act, let the people decide. Take every budget item, put it on a giant referendum, with an election pamphlet type description of what the money is going to, and let the people have at it - percent cut or total cut. Put a super ballot to determine if whole departments should exist, or be subsumed into a different department. Tax increases are not going to kill our economy. Our economy is already dead - on tax rates that have hardly budged for 50 years, and are lower than our peer nations (who the right would love to see tank too, just so they could say "told you so"). The main difference between now and 50 years ago is that so much of the money is going to debt service (i.e. bankers and investors - most people only ask for one house. How many do those parasites need?) instead of productive public good. Good God, when the right and left stop sniping at each other and take a good hard look at who's screwing us both, there's going to be hell to pay. Edited July 14, 2011 by retro-man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 HERE But, you know, if the red states wanted to split off and give it a whirl on their own, I'd be ok with that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Retro, Pour your self a glass of wine and relax a little. We tried that succession thing once already. Civil wars are not, overall, good for the economy or the populace. If the US was taxed to the level you are talking about, basically doubling every tax there there is, (the recession has dropped revenues to about 14.8% of gdp from the longer term average of about 18%) we might as well just turn off the lights. Stupid is as stupid does, and we are not doing that... One thing I can tell you for sure is that I would have to shutter 5 companies immediately. With that kind of tax burden there just wouldn't be any point in even trying. The additional costs would put every one of us so far out of the competition that it wouldn't be funny. As it is I may have to send half a dozen people home due to a new 'finding" by the EPA that makes a glue we use in manufacturing no longer acceptable. I will have to send the work to China. I have been paying these people for four years while the company was losing money, (so I would have skilled people on hand when things pick back up). Every one of those people will know exactly who and what caused their job to leave the country. So please just raise my taxes, and put out of my F'n misery. You liberals don't realize that we have to have a few good years to survive the bad ones. No one seems to comprehend where capital comes from you bitch and moan about bankers and then make it impossible for any one to make and retain capital, forcing us to go to those bankers and pay them for the privilege. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) The 32% I quoted is all taxes, federal, state, and local (as an aggregate average). Right now we are being taxed - at all levels - at about 28% of GDP, which has remained constant for about 50 years, give or take 2 or 3%, but we are spending 32%. I don't mind cutting some of that spending - not at all. Hardly anybody minds cutting some (as long as it's not them personally who gets cut). So I am not talking about "doubling every tax there is". The 18% you mention is federal taxes only. Re. the difficult environmental regulations, and having to move production to China, believe me, I am sympathetic, because I know how hard it is to get building projects done with all the regulatory hoops to jump through, and what a thin financial margin the ones that do get done are on. It seems to me we have 3 possible responses to the environmental regulations issue: a.) Harmonize our environmental regulations with China's (or Botswana's, or whatever) so that we are no longer at a "disadvantage" (and so that our air stinks and we can no longer drink our tap water), b.) Slap a tariff on their goods to reflect what the price would be if they had to produce under our environmental and labor standards (they can have the tariff removed if they produce the goods under conditions that meet our minimum environmental and labor protections), or c.) Keep doing what we are doing, and watch our jobs, money, and power go away. Which one of those possible responses seems best to you? Because, seriously, I am gathering it must be 'a'. Outsourcing to skirt environmental regulations is externalizing costs, not making them go away. The people in China are paying with their air and water. We want to have clean air and water, but we don't want to pay for it. Guess what? IT COSTS MONEY. How is it that Germany (for example) manages to remain a going concern, even having absorbed East Germany, with those crushing taxes and environmental regulations they have? Edited July 15, 2011 by retro-man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UUNIeOB0whI 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.c...d&v=UUNIeOB0whI Nice video Sprinter, Ron Paul get my two thumbs up. Ron Paul would get my vote if he is all for getting your debt mountain down, like others have already said like Retro the cost you are paying in interest to service the debt is massive. Any country like the USA with trillions of debt could be accident waiting to happen, all it need is another big economic disaster like a spike in oil the sent the money making best selling pick-ups sales crashing. The future does look in for a bit of an unstable when you look at things like peak oil graphs. Oil that is left will become harder to find & get it out of the ground, it will cause spikes just as the Chinese & Indians join the oil drinking party. Every British family owns $126,000 of British Government run up debt, the debt mountain was racked up by a vain Labour governments of bLair & Brown with the we look politically good for the now & f@ck the future mentality, they also sold off all Britains gold reserves, robbed every Brit of their pensions to the tune $100's of billions in taxes on pensions, then spun the yarn we are all going to live till we are 200 so its all our fault MMmmm. UK has just lowered its 40% tax bracket to suck in millions more taxpayers, its sucked me into the 40% tax bracket, now just to show you how hard it is to pay down the UK £1.5 trillion debt mountain, we got told our income tax would have to increase by 12% for everybody for the next 50 years, meaning folk on just a little bit above average wage like myself will pay income tax at 52% rate, below average pay i.e. shop worker & burger flippers income tax rate will jump from 33% to 45% for the next 50 years to pay down Great Britains huge one and half trillion debt mountain. Daily Mail - UK Government needs to increase income tax by 12% for every taxpayer for 50 years to pay down the UK debt mountain. LINK Lots of nice comments to read on what Brits feel about it in the Daily Mail.. So the British worker has to pay off the Bankers debts , the fraudulent derivatives, The corporate captains of industry like the top shop folk fiddle their tax returns and will pay nothing. A general strike is what is called for, withdraw all your money out of the banks do not comply with your own slavery. - John Marsh, Bridgetown Barbados The bankers have cheap money at the tax payers expense using that money to invest into commodities, and your paying for it. What has the government done penalise the poor. - luke, london, 15/7/2011 04:07 Edited July 15, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) p.s. come on though, you gotta admit that Onion parody was freakin' CLAIRVOYANT. Cynicism about the government isn't something I have a hard time with. Here's why...... p.p.s. the 3rd chart in the link I posted shows that federal debt (the green field) was shrinking under Clinton. Not sure why the discrepancy. Perhaps this measures deficit spending and not debt? Deficits and debt aren't calculated the same way. (Nice to know the government uses Enron-style accounting methods, huh?) My understanding is the deficit during Clinton's time was erased by siphoning money from the Social Security trust fund, however the debt includes that money in the total. It would be no different if you were to borrow money from your IRA to make up for a shortfall, and then say you had no shortfall. And then you still include that money in the IRA (or in this case, the SS Trust Fund), because you owe it back (to yourself). It's double-counting the same money. In other words, the money used to "balance" the budget (erasing the deficit) is also included in the total funds in the SS Trust fund. Most people I'd think would now say the Trust Fund money no longer exists, since it's already been spent toward budgetary items. If people still want to say that Clinton balanced the budget, fine by me, except I also would like them to acknowledge that the SS Trust Fund is a phantasm. (think how much lower the debt would be if we simply wrote off the amount taken from the SS Trust fund!) Now the Trust fund does contain IOUs (in the form of Treasury notes), but in order to redeem those notes (to make up for a payroll tax shortfall) the SSA must go to the government for redemption. But the government doesn't have the surplus to pay them back, so then the government must publicly issue new bonds to cover the ones in the Trust Fund. If people stop buying them (or we hit the debt ceiling), then the SS bonds must be covered from general revenue. Edited July 15, 2011 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) The 32% I quoted is all taxes, federal, state, and local (as an aggregate average). Right now we are being taxed - at all levels - at about 28% of GDP, which has remained constant for about 50 years, give or take 2 or 3%, but we are spending 32%. I don't mind cutting some of that spending - not at all. Hardly anybody minds cutting some (as long as it's not them personally who gets cut). So I am not talking about "doubling every tax there is". The 18% you mention is federal taxes only. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. GDP is approximately 14.6 Trillion. 28% of that is 4.1 Trillion. (according to this website, the actual total taxes at all levels was about 4.2 Trillion in 2010) 32% of that is 4.7 Trillion. A net gain of 0.6 Trillion Total 2009 spending in the US (Federal, State, Local) was 5.9 Trillion (a net -1.8 Trillion, assuming 28%). Our Federal deficit for 2009 was 1.4 Trillion. Total 2010 spending in the US (Federal, State, Local) was 5.8 Trillion (a net -1.7 Trillion, assuming 28%). Our Federal deficit for 2010 was 1.3 Trillion. All numbers were taken from here. Just to balance (overall) you'd have to tax (overall) at 40% of GDP, at current spending levels. We have a spending problem. Edited July 15, 2011 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadtrip Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 But, you know, if the red states wanted to split off and give it a whirl on their own, I'd be ok with that too. What an incredibly hateful thing to say. All this time, we were led to believe that liberals were so tolerant, that they embrace diversity (including a diversity of opinions and beliefs and values). That you would be "ok" that red states secede from the union suggests that you are not the patriot that you would have us believe (not that I believed it in the first place). If you were, you would NOT be "ok" with red states splitting off on their own, considering the consequences (considering what happened in the past when this type of thing actually happened). Don't bother to apologize: You typed it; you meant it; you own it. Fact: The majority of the American population is center right. Get over it, or . . . Suggestion: Move to one of those countries that you so frequently cite as examples that do better than we do here in the U.S. You know you want to, so just do it! They say that American expats are a miserable lot in general. If that's the case, you will fit right in. Misery loves company! P.S. Write back and tell us how great everything is abroad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 (edited) What an incredibly hateful thing to say. All this time, we were led to believe that liberals were so tolerant, that they embrace diversity (including a diversity of opinions and beliefs and values). That you would be "ok" that red states secede from the union suggests that you are not the patriot that you would have us believe (not that I believed it in the first place). If you were, you would NOT be "ok" with red states splitting off on their own, considering the consequences (considering what happened in the past when this type of thing actually happened). Don't bother to apologize: You typed it; you meant it; you own it. Fact: The majority of the American population is center right. Get over it, or . . . Suggestion: Move to one of those countries that you so frequently cite as examples that do better than we do here in the U.S. You know you want to, so just do it! They say that American expats are a miserable lot in general. If that's the case, you will fit right in. Misery loves company! P.S. Write back and tell us how great everything is abroad. I am not talking about a civil war - I am just talking about walking the talk. You want some kind of de-regulated, de-funded, antebellum libertopia, with no social security, no environmental regulations, no taxes, no public schools, no public anything, I'd just like to see it work - that's all I'm saying. You deserve the chance to try and make that work. I just don't want to be dragged back to 1850 with you, that's all. As it is (at least before the meltdown - 2006 being the last time the CONSERVATIVE Tax Foundation did such a report) the red states were by far the biggest recipients of government largesse - paying less than a dollar in taxes for every dollar received in services - some much less - while the blue states typically paid more than their share - some much more, including the villainous California. I'd just like to see how some red states do with their 71 cents on the dollar, that's all. I'm not the one whose world view is so distorted that I see the US as some kind of incipient Marxist hell-hole, accusing us of having a welfare state that'd put The Netherlands to shame - while at the same time claiming the majority to be "center-right". Waiting for an apology? Don't hold your breath. "The majority of the American population" voted Obama into office. The majority of the American population was in favor of health care reform, and as of today, the majority of the American population - including the majority of Republicans, are in favor of a debt solution that involves both spending and revenue. I don't disagree with any of those things, so I might be more mainstream than you think. I might be more mainstream than you are. Edited July 16, 2011 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I am not talking about a civil war - I am just talking about walking the talk. You want some kind of de-regulated, de-funded, antebellum libertopia, with no social security, no environmental regulations, no taxes, no public schools, no public anything, I'd just like to see it work - that's all I'm saying. What you're saying doesn't make any sense (to me), since I don't know anyone who is advocating that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 They say that American expats are a miserable lot in general. If that's the case, you will fit right in. Misery loves company! Um, I know 6 American ex-pats, 2 in Germany, 1 in UK and 3 in Canada, and all of them are very, very happy. Then again, they are non-dogmatic, intelligent and flexibly-minded, which is kinda outside the Gopper mind-set, especially compared to the conservative working-class and lower white-collar, who are slavish in their knee-jerk adoration of the GOP oligarchy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Then again, they are non-dogmatic, intelligent and flexibly-minded, which is kinda outside the Gopper mind-set, especially compared to the conservative working-class and lower white-collar, who are slavish in their knee-jerk adoration of the GOP oligarchy. The words of a prejudiced bigot. Change just a few words and you can slander any minority you want. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.