Size of US labor force: 151.4 million people (2006 est.) x $800 = $121,120,000,000 (which is nothing compared to our bloated defense budget)
% of total income taken by gov't per year (based on your $1 trillion estimate) = ~8.26%
Nat'l debt: $9,194,106,702,092
That national debt is almost as much as our GDP (or perhaps more). So while, "yea, we worked for it", we still have a gargantuan debt to repay. Sure, as long as we make the interest payments, we're okay for that point in time, but to me it just seems like a recipe for disaster to continue spending in the red and keep cutting taxes. Once we fail one payment, we've lost our good credit which will take generations to reinstate, which means the economy is really toast.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2008 5:26am by sweetumssama
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Free $800.00 just for being an American Citizen
Free $800.00 just for being an American CitizenFollow
Tax raising liberals, tricky, tax raising liberals.
Totem
Totem
Quote:
it just seems like a recipe for disaster to continue spending in the red and keep cutting taxes
Just a minor correction. Based on the article I cited the IRS takes in $2.4 trillion. The $1 trillion was only from us working drones.
shadomen the Irrelevant on Jan 18 wrote:
BTW, Fed funds futures are showing a 100% chance of a 25 basis point cut at their Jan 30 meeting. A 50 basis point cut is 65% and 75 basis point cut is around 45%.
The Fed cut 75 basis points this morning. It still hasn't helped the markets.
I am surprised they cut rates so close to their meeting. I wonder what they will actually do at their Jan 30 meeting now.
shadomen the Irrelevant wrote:
shadomen the Irrelevant on Jan 18 wrote:
BTW, Fed funds futures are showing a 100% chance of a 25 basis point cut at their Jan 30 meeting. A 50 basis point cut is 65% and 75 basis point cut is around 45%.
The Fed cut 75 basis points this morning. It still hasn't helped the markets.
I am surprised they cut rates so close to their meeting. I wonder what they will actually do at their Jan 30 meeting now.
Cut em again, and Bush will up the ante from $800.00 to $800,000.00 which is about the stimulus our economy needs atm...
If they sent me $800,000 I would spend more.
Of course, if they sent everyone $800,000 it would cost $1500 for eggs.
Of course, if they sent everyone $800,000 it would cost $1500 for eggs.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
bubspeed wrote:
shadomen the Irrelevant wrote:
shadomen the Irrelevant on Jan 18 wrote:
BTW, Fed funds futures are showing a 100% chance of a 25 basis point cut at their Jan 30 meeting. A 50 basis point cut is 65% and 75 basis point cut is around 45%.
The Fed cut 75 basis points this morning. It still hasn't helped the markets.
I am surprised they cut rates so close to their meeting. I wonder what they will actually do at their Jan 30 meeting now.
Cut em again, and Bush will up the ante from $800.00 to $800,000.00 which is about the stimulus our economy needs atm...
Contrary to popular belief, and what the media wants you to believe, the economy is not in the toilet. Bush's $800-$1600 stimulus package will help but, it is not the be all-end all solution.
The main problem here isn't consumer spending, its the credit issue or more importantly, the fact that consumers and business' can not get credit. The Fed is trying to break open the credit problem by smashing the rate down 75 basis points.
Once the credit situation is back to normal, people can start to get loans again to buy things they don't need. Hey, its the American way...
Edit: for clarity
Edited, Jan 22nd 2008 2:39pm by shadomen
Princess sweetumssama wrote:
Size of US labor force: 151.4 million people (2006 est.) x $800 = $121,120,000,000 (which is nothing compared to our bloated defense budget)
Well. To be fair, the defense budget last year was 520B, so 121B isn't exactly "nothing" compared to that.
And to be fair, Medicare/Medicaid collectively cost us 553B last year.
Just to put all of this in perspective for ya...
Quote:
Nat'l debt: $9,194,106,702,092
*cough* Bogus figure, since half of that isn't real debt. How many times do I have to explain that this figure includes intergovernmental debt, which is a simple accounting measure, does not actually count as "debt", never needs to be paid back, and actually grows as a result of reducing spending? Sheesh!
The figure you are looking for is "Debt held by public", which is real debt on which the government must pay interest and ultimately pay back the borrowed money someday.
Debt held by public as of the end of 2006 (the last full published year) was 4,829 Billion. Like I said. About half of the number you wrote above.
Um... And here's the interesting bit I was talking about. Since 2004, here are the yearly debt numbers:
2004 4,295.5 B 2005 4,592.2 B 2006 4,829.0 B Here's the neat thing. When we measure debt as a percentage of GDP, we get this: 2004 37.3% 2005 37.4% 2006 37.0%
Notice something? Although the debt value has gone *up* each of those years, the actual debt as a percentage has gone *down* over those three years (ok, stayed almost even the first two, then down in 2006).
This is the process I was talking about. The argument that Bush has somehow racked up a huge debt during his term is ludicrous. The lowest point during his administration it was 33% of GDP. The highest was 37.4% (in 2005). That's relatively constant amounts.
For comparison, during Clinton's administration, the lowest debt was in 2000 at 35.1%. The highest was in 1993 at 49.4%. Um... I'll make the point that this highest point was also the last full year in which the budget was created by a government in which the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Ah... But Republicans are bad for the economy, right? Trust me. You want to see our debt skyrocket? Just elect a Democrat to the White House, and let the Dems retain control of Congress.
Quote:
That national debt is almost as much as our GDP (or perhaps more).
Er? Look. Instead of making up numbers, or guessing, go visit http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf and learn the actual facts.
Quote:
So while, "yea, we worked for it", we still have a gargantuan debt to repay. Sure, as long as we make the interest payments, we're okay for that point in time, but to me it just seems like a recipe for disaster to continue spending in the red and keep cutting taxes. Once we fail one payment, we've lost our good credit which will take generations to reinstate, which means the economy is really toast.
It really doesn't work that way. It's not like there's a big giant collection agency that will show up at the White House door and start taking stuff or something...
Edited, Jan 22nd 2008 11:57am by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
For comparison, during Clinton's administration, the lowest debt was in 2000 at 35.1%. The highest was in 2003 at 49.4%. Um... I'll make the point that this highest point was also the last full year in which the budget was created by a government in which the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Edit: gbaji fixed his apparent typo. But I shall keep my post up for the giggles.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2008 1:58pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Lots o'stuff
Gbaji, I think you should also mention that every month, international investors by our domestic debt. We're not talking about chump change either. On a monthly average, foreign investors purchase close to 150bn dollars worth of our debt.
It is how our country keeps afloat. Its what funds our national debt. If international investors stopped buying our debt, we would be screwed but, that would never happen.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For comparison, during Clinton's administration, the lowest debt was in 2000 at 35.1%. The highest was in 2003 at 49.4%. Um... I'll make the point that this highest point was also the last full year in which the budget was created by a government in which the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Edit: gbaji fixed his apparent typo. But I shall keep my post up for the giggles.
Yeah. I do that all the time too. For some reason, I'm thinking 199x, but I write it as 200x. Usually I catch it before I post, but not this time darn you!
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
shadomen the Irrelevant wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lots o'stuff
Gbaji, I think you should also mention that every month, international investors by our domestic debt. We're not talking about chump change either. On a monthly average, foreign investors purchase close to 150bn dollars worth of our debt.
Without digging through the data on the other side of that link, I'm going to use my mighty powers of simple math and common sense and conclude that the number you're tossing around is total transactions and doesn't tell us anything about how much our debt is actually increasing each month.
I think when the total deficit amount is in the 300 Billion range for a whole year, it's kinda hard to argue that the 150 Billion number you quoted is actually being added to debt each month. I'm not sure how that number is derived but it can't actually be net debt per month, or we'd have a deficit of 1.8 Trillion dollars each year.
Common sense and simple math pretty obviously tells us that's not correct...
Quote:
It is how our country keeps afloat. Its what funds our national debt. If international investors stopped buying our debt, we would be screwed but, that would never happen.
/shrug
International investors make money on it as well. It also means that they have a vested interest in making sure that the US economy remains strong (that's a good thing for us). One of the more amusing things people will often talk about is how the Chinese government owns so much of our debt (something like 800 Billion last time I checked). It's implied that this is some horrible thing, either because this means China has some extra influence on us, or that China somehow is more financially "strong" because they're able to use some kind of surplus and buy our deficit or something.
But IMO that's the wrong way to look at it. What that's really telling us is that the Chinese government sees a greater return on their investment of 800 Billion dollars putting it into the US economy then putting it into their own. That's *huge*. It speaks volumes about the stability and strength of the US economy compared to other large nations.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Medicare/Medicaid collectively cost us 553B last year.
So, while we overspend on military (presumably that's what taxes are really for right?)our country may very well not be able to make good on it's debt to working class folks that will be retiring in the next decade (this would be the other kind of debt to which gjabi refers...the non-real kind). So, we should encourage those boomers to borrow more money just before they leave their jobs!
We need to reduce spending....<---period
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
More stuff
Leave it to Gbaji to to say I am incorrect when I was actually agreeing with him
gbaji wrote:
shadomen wrote:
It is how our country keeps afloat. Its what funds our national debt. If international investors stopped buying our debt, we would be screwed but, that would never happen.
/shrug
International investors make money on it as well. It also means that they have a vested interest in making sure that the US economy remains strong (that's a good thing for us). One of the more amusing things people will often talk about is how the Chinese government owns so much of our debt (something like 800 Billion last time I checked). It's implied that this is some horrible thing, either because this means China has some extra influence on us, or that China somehow is more financially "strong" because they're able to use some kind of surplus and buy our deficit or something.
But IMO that's the wrong way to look at it. What that's really telling us is that the Chinese government sees a greater return on their investment of 800 Billion dollars putting it into the US economy then putting it into their own. That's *huge*. It speaks volumes about the stability and strength of the US economy compared to other large nations.
The simple reason is they keep their exchange rate artificially linked to the USD. This also helps in hammering our trade deficit.
Elinda, Star Breaker wrote:
So, while we overspend on military (presumably that's what taxes are really for right?)our country may very well not be able to make good on it's debt to working class folks that will be retiring in the next decade (this would be the other kind of debt to which gjabi refers...the non-real kind). So, we should encourage those boomers to borrow more money just before they leave their jobs!
We need to reduce spending....<---period
We need to reduce spending....<---period
First off, I agree completely that we need to reduce spending. That's one of the things that Republicans got really nailed for in 2006. They didn't reduce spending like they'd said they would. Not that Dems will, but that's another subject.
I do want to clarify one thing. When I talk about intergovernmental debt, I'm *not* talking about this "debt to the taxpayers" like you said. Yes. Certainly, there are some programs with receipts carried over time in which we pay in and then take money out. That's social security primarily, but some of medicaid is paid this way as well. That's really a small amount of what's referred to as "intergovernmental debt".
The first thing you have to understand is that the "national debt" figure that's often quoted is simply a measurement of the dollar value of all outstanding treasury bills. Period. Doesn't matter who holds them or why. If they exist, they're counted as debt.
Debt held by public is one portion of that total debt. It occurs when the US government has a deficit (spends more then it generates in revenue). It makes up the deficit by printing up T-bills and offering them for sale. That's "real debt", since it has to be paid back.
Intergovernmental debt occurs when a government program has a surplus. Let me say that again:
Intergovernmental debt occurs when a government program has a surplus.
What happens is that the surplus money is put back into the treasury. However, assuming the program was funded via non-discretionary budget, that means that the budget for the program is mandated by law (ie: Congress passed a bill requiring X amount of money be allocated to this programs budget, typically with some kind of schedule automating the budget values for each year for some period of time. Typically 10 years). What that means is that you can't just reduce spending and take the money. It's required by law that the program receive the money. Thus, you have to give the program the equivalent in return for taking the surplus it's got. This comes in the form of T-bills as well.
The reason it's not "real debt" is because with the exception of programs like medicaid and social security, in which the programs maintain an amount of funding that carries over from year to year in order to continue funding some benefit over time, all other government programs are funded on a yearly basis. And the budgets are set to pay for what the program is supposed to do. So if there's a surplus this year, it's not going to be spent next year. Next year's budget will pay for next year. Typically, if a program is in surplus this year (and literally thousands of them are each year), it's probably going to be even more in surplus next year since it's likely got a mandated increase in budget.
What tends to happen is that budgets are mandated at levels higher then are actually needed. Surpluses are generated and sold back to the treasury for T-bills. At some point, Congress will pass an accounting bill in which they balance these sheets and a huge chunk of our national debt will magically disappear. Doesn't anyone remember about 3 years ago when there was a huge deal about how our national debt had exceeded the 10 trillion mark? How can it be lower if we've continued to run deficits since then? Simple. Congress did an accounting bill right after that point, dropping the debt down about 3 Trillion dollars. Now, it's back up over 9 Trillion.
Like I said. For the most part, the intergovernmental debt is meaningless. Yet, that's the figure most people quote (cause it's bigger I suppose). We can talk about social security and medicaid, but those are whole separate topics all by themselves. I'm just making the point that it's unfair to use the total "national debt" figure when talking about year to year overall economic health of the US. You should use debt held by public instead. There's a reason that's the number used by the CBO. It's not a mistake...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Of course, it should be noted that if the $800 cheque is spent by the recipient, rather than saved/used to pay off debt, then it will probably be spent on stuff that has been imported from China or Japan or wherever, because the US has stopped producing very much of anything itself.
So, in effect you are handing over yet another huge wedge of cash to the very people you already have a huge trade deficit with....
Thats the problem with an economy that is so reliant on consumer spending. It is only going to work well if you are producing a goodly amount of the stuff you are buying.
So, if the money is saved or used to pay off debt, its not going to stimulate the economy. And if its spent on 'stuff', its all going to go to the far-east, wich isn't going to help the economy.
But to be honest, why anyone is debating the merits of yet another 'plan' from Bush is beyond me. He's comprehensively turned everything he's touched into ****. Why the economy should be any different is beyond me.
Just sayin'.
So, in effect you are handing over yet another huge wedge of cash to the very people you already have a huge trade deficit with....
Thats the problem with an economy that is so reliant on consumer spending. It is only going to work well if you are producing a goodly amount of the stuff you are buying.
So, if the money is saved or used to pay off debt, its not going to stimulate the economy. And if its spent on 'stuff', its all going to go to the far-east, wich isn't going to help the economy.
But to be honest, why anyone is debating the merits of yet another 'plan' from Bush is beyond me. He's comprehensively turned everything he's touched into ****. Why the economy should be any different is beyond me.
Just sayin'.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I wonder how many people heard that they were getting $800.00 back from the government and went out and bought stuff...
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Of course, it should be noted that if the $800 cheque is spent by the recipient, rather than saved/used to pay off debt, then it will probably be spent on stuff that has been imported from China or Japan or wherever, because the US has stopped producing very much of anything itself.
... <some other stuff> ...
So, if the money is saved or used to pay off debt, its not going to stimulate the economy. And if its spent on 'stuff', its all going to go to the far-east, wich isn't going to help the economy.
... <some other stuff> ...
So, if the money is saved or used to pay off debt, its not going to stimulate the economy. And if its spent on 'stuff', its all going to go to the far-east, wich isn't going to help the economy.
Yeah. Because every single one of them is going to direct order stuff from China, and it'll all magically appear here via some kind of magic transportation system that avoids import fees, taxing, transportation, warehousing, etc...
And apparently, retailers don't exist in your universe either.
Quote:
But to be honest, why anyone is debating the merits of yet another 'plan' from Bush is beyond me. He's comprehensively turned everything he's touched into sh*t. Why the economy should be any different is beyond me.
Ah. The tried and true: "It's from Bush so it must suck!" argument. Didn't I already mention this as a truly stupid way to judge something?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Yeah. Because every single one of them is going to direct order stuff from China, and it'll all magically appear here via some kind of magic transportation system that avoids import fees, taxing, transportation, warehousing, etc...
And apparently, retailers don't exist in your universe either.
And apparently, retailers don't exist in your universe either.
Sure. A portion of that money wont get to the chinese mainland directly. Wanna take a stab at how much? No nor me. But if your implying that the majority of the alleged $800 is going to remain in the US economy, I think you're way off.
Quote:
Ah. The tried and true: "It's from Bush so it must suck!" argument. Didn't I already mention this as a truly stupid way to judge something?
Yeah, you did. And imo, you've been wrong just about every time. No reason to believe your hit rate is going to improve any time soon.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Ah. The tried and true: "It's from Bush so it must suck!" argument. Didn't I already mention this as a truly stupid way to judge something?
No, I'm with him on this one. Let's just take it to it's logical conclusion. If $300-$800 would help, let's give everyone $10,000. That would help more, surely.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
If the gubbernmint gave me $10k, I'd go on an holiday in foreign locations. So' that wouldn't help the economy either. (Tho, it might help the economy of Indonesians in the surf spots I tend to frequent).
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Sure. A portion of that money wont get to the chinese mainland directly. Wanna take a stab at how much? No nor me. But if your implying that the majority of the alleged $800 is going to remain in the US economy, I think you're way off.
The average retail markup for a product you might buy on their shelves is about 40%. That's the markup to their cost from the company that shipped it to them. They marked it up from the company that warehoused it. That company marked it up from the company that received it in the US, and that company marked it up from the company they purchased it from in China (for example).
I would be shocked if more then 10% of the average dollar spent on retail goods ends up directly in the hands of the original manufacturer in the country of origin.
Off topic of course. But you're still wrong.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
I would be shocked if more then 10% of the average dollar spent on retail goods ends up directly in the hands of the original manufacturer in the country of origin.
Lol.
You can gold plate a ****. But its still a ****.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
Quote:
I would be shocked if more then 10% of the average dollar spent on retail goods ends up directly in the hands of the original manufacturer in the country of origin.
Lol.
You can gold plate a ****. But its still a ****.
Um... I'm still right though. What part of that do you not get?
Look. I've said many times. I don't know exactly what sort of economic factors they're attempting to adjust for with this proposed plan (remember, it's still in the "maybe we should do something like this" stage). But some of you seem hellbent on attacking it before any details have been released at all based solely on who's proposing it.
See. I like to look at the actual thing rather then the person involved. So far, while I'm not jumping up and down declaring this the greatest idea in the universe, I'm also not going to bash it until I know more about why it's being proposed and how it's supposed to help.
It's always either/or with you guys isn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
It's always either/or with you guys isn't it?
Not so much that as it's always we're capable of having an opinion about the viability of a policy before it's enacted, usually based on past experience. For instance, "us guys" were under the crazy impression that funding a $200B war while cutting taxes on dividends wasn't going to lead to Clinton like economy.
Any moron can throw up his hands and say "there's no way to know, let's see what happens"! It doesn't make them right, it just makes them ignorant.
Cest la guerre.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2008 7:32pm by Smasharoo
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 170
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Free $800.00 just for being an American Citizen
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC