U.S. Debt Clock

48 posts

Flag Post

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If America was a Sims game, we’d have lost a long time ago.

 
Flag Post

and where does all that money go? right into the hands of the rich people that don’t pay taxes, receive bailouts, and make the profit of all the oil that is consumed by the military to, you guessed it, secure the oil supplies to the oil companies owned by, yes, those rich people.

they’re unfathomably rich, while the public as a group is greatly indebted to whom? international bankers. which is roughly the same clique of people.

have fun with that, slaves.

 
Flag Post

I couldn’t have said it much better, OmDo.
Lord knows, I’ve been at it on here for awhile….lol

Plus, Adolz (< sp?) did a good job of it on another thread.
If I have time…I’ll soon try to post it here.
It is most appropo

 
Flag Post
and where does all that money go? right into the hands of the rich people that don’t pay taxes, receive bailouts, and make the profit of all the oil that is consumed by the military to, you guessed it, secure the oil supplies to the oil companies owned by, yes, those rich people.

I never knew the $1.5t in entitlement spending in FY 2011 went entirely to rich bankers who pay no tax (which isn’t true, but hey, who cares – they’re just rich bastards) and to the CEO of Exxon-Mobil.

 
Flag Post

nor did i. because that’s not what i said.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

nor did i. because that’s not what i said.

and where does all that money go? right into the hands of the rich people that don’t pay taxes, receive bailouts, and make the profit of all the oil that is consumed by the military to, you guessed it, secure the oil supplies to the oil companies owned by, yes, those rich people.

Assuming you’re talking about the reason the US has a budget crisis. It’s because of entitlements. Maybe not what you meant, but it’s what you said. Oil subsidies and defense spending aren’t the issue.

 
Flag Post

So the defense budget that is equal to the defense budget of something like the next 13 countries combined…nope, that in no way contributed to the debt.
Not at all.
Nuh uh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

So the defense budget that is equal to the defense budget of something like the next 13 countries combined…nope, that in no way contributed to the debt.
Not at all.
Nuh uh.

Cut defense to $0 softest – you ain’t balancing the budget and you aren’t paying back a national debt <100% GDP. Entitlements are nearly 50% of the budget, and that number is only going to increase.

 
Flag Post

Yeah why bother with that nearly 1trillion dollar drop in the bucket right?
Oh but the PBS budget?!
OMG how can we afford that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Yeah why bother with that nearly 1trillion dollar drop in the bucket right?
Oh but the PBS budget?!
OMG how can we afford that?

Don’t get me wrong – we spend too much on defense. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan will help. And you’re also right, the PBS is completely symbolic, just as the President’s tax hike is. But, to say that cutting defense spending and raising $80-100b in new taxes will solve our fiscal situation as the President likes to do is dead wrong. It’s a band-aid measure when we need surgery.

 
Flag Post

Fair enough.
I just don’t think that we need to gut the social services, either.
Do there need to be cuts? Yeah, there probably need to be cuts.

But the stuff being proposed by the TeaOP lately is akin to executing the programs; a mistake.

I also don’t think it’s a bad idea to bring taxes up on the wealthy.
They’ve gained the most from this nation, they can pay back in. Not that they don’t already.

 
Flag Post

Fair enough.
I just don’t think that we need to gut the social services, either.
Do there need to be cuts? Yeah, there probably need to be cuts.

But the stuff being proposed by the TeaOP lately is akin to executing the programs; a mistake.

I agree with all of this – although I reckon we would disagree on the amount of cuts.

I also don’t think it’s a bad idea to bring taxes up on the wealthy.
They’ve gained the most from this nation, they can pay back in. Not that they don’t already.

I guess I don’t see raising taxes right now as the best situation. There are really two answers to the debt problem: long-term entitlement reform – specifically Medicare since SS is stupid-easy to fix, Washington just needs to do it. The second being economic growth. I think since the economy is so fragile right now, that implementing policies that would likely deter economic growth – whether it be severe austere cuts or raising taxes doesn’t seem to be terribly prudent. It seems like a cut for tax tradeoff should take place in a couple of years when (ideally) the economy is more robust.

But, it looks like we’re going to get the tax hike regardless, at least what I’ve read coming out of the fiscal cliff talks. Hopefully the economy can begin to pick up. I’m doubtful, but I’m hopeful.

 
Flag Post

entitlement includes just about all expenditure, so yeah…

why did pensions epxense rise so much during the 50s and 70s, and why did health expense double in 1991?

i’d say “defense” (why is it still called that when you’re not using it for defense but for aggression?) could suffer some.

 
Flag Post
entitlement includes just about all expenditure, so yeah…

I’m talking Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. You’re playing semantics.

i’d say “defense” (why is it still called that when you’re not using it for defense but for aggression?) could suffer some.

That still doesn’t solve the problem. If I’m hemorrhaging blood, tossing me a band aid won’t do much good.

 
Flag Post

sure. you can’t solve the issue by only addressing one type of expenditure. but you can’t take out defence, call it 5% or 15% or 25% or however much of the budget it is (sources are so contradictory on that one), and lump all the other 95/85/75% together and say that the latter is more significant and is the cause of the budget crisis and needs the cuts.

you’d need to make cuts in different areas, but looking for disproportional expenditures is a good way to start, and military spending certainly is one.

 
Flag Post

I THINK we all actually agree on that point.

 
Flag Post

ah, i get it. it’s 5% of GDP, but it’s 19% of total federal spending.

 
Flag Post

One time in a post I made the comment that a Liberal was a person who took money from the workers to give to those who refused to work until they run out of the workers money. Reading an article on the net, the author made predictions that I found interesting. I thought I would share it with you.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-12/remember-debt-ceiling

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

One time in a post I made the comment that a Liberal was a person who took money from the workers to give to those who refused to work until they run out of the workers money.

And that idiotic shit was totally rebutted in how it was extremely far from the truth about “entitlements”.

Such is the mantra of the extreme right and the very ignorant middle conservative.
Simple fact, those who refuse to work are faaarrrrrr fewer in number than the working-poor.

Once again jhco is unable to “believe” that he is looking in the wrong direction for the “whys” about how money is generated to adjust the hugely unfair imparity of incomes that are caused by “the rich” & largely done so on two fronts. The rich are in control of both the pay scale of American workers…..and, in charge of Congress which puts the burden—of making up for those shortfalls of working-poor economic benefit—squarely on the shoulders of the “more-fortunate-working-class”.

The result is: instead of doing the right thing by not being so fucking GREEDY and by establishing a more rational distribution of the wealth generated by ALL OF THE WORKING CLASS…the rich continue to get richer while the poor AND THE MIDDLE CLASS continue to get poorer. How is THAT for a mantra…one that has been around for a loooong time and has been demonstrated to be quite true by many, MANY salient observations of reality.
.

Reading an article Reading an article on the net, the author made predictions that I found interesting. I thought I would share it with you.
And that article reeks of the typical jhco-found-conservative crap. Even the author of the blog won’t identify him/itself….operating under a pseudonym.
This link has this to say about that blog:

“The mysteriousness has served Zero Hedge well thus far, but the messianic zeal and the sometimes strident tone serves to undercut their typically good content. It clearly boosts traffic (ZH has become popular in a very short period of time), but does it in the end serve his cause? In the long run, it raises question about credibility, and I worry not just his/theirs, but of financial blogs generally.”

 
Flag Post

The whole debt ceiling tantrum/hostage situation/whatever…someone remind me, how did that wind up again?

Oh that’s right, the US got its credit rating downgraded.

Yeah, brilliant tacticians, the TeaOP.
Brilliant.

 
Flag Post

Just out of curiosity, while I was snooping through this site, I noticed traditionally conservative states tended to have more unemployment and more food stamps recipients than liberal states. Conservative states also had higher debt to GDP ratios, though many had a little less debt per person for some reason.

Interesting stuff to use in arguments between arguments between liberal and conservative economic decisions.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Just out of curiosity, while I was snooping through this site, I noticed traditionally conservative states tended to have more unemployment and more food stamps recipients than liberal states.

I don’t think it’s what you were meaning to say, but could this be a large part of why those on the far right are usually against welfare on a more fundamental level than most others? It often comes across as they find the whole concept of welfare fundamentally offensive.

Perhaps part of this might be because as you say, states with a high percentage of such people and a likewise far right leadership, have greater problems with individuals on welfare, that they don’t know how otherwise to get rid of?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by onlineidiot1994:

Just out of curiosity, while I was snooping through this site, I noticed traditionally conservative states tended to have more unemployment and more food stamps recipients than liberal states.

I don’t think it’s what you were meaning to say, but could this be a large part of why those on the far right are usually against welfare on a more fundamental level than most others? It often comes across as they find the whole concept of welfare fundamentally offensive.

Perhaps part of this might be because as you say, states with a high percentage of such people and a likewise far right leadership, have greater problems with individuals on welfare, that they don’t know how otherwise to get rid of?

this is more of an anecdote than anything. Welfare as a concept isn’t the offensive part, it’s the fact that you’re forced against your will to give money to the government which then very inefficiently distributes that money.

No one is against helping people, they’re against the government doing it by pointing a gun at your head and then wasting half of that cash anyways.

 
Flag Post

Welfare as a concept is offensive to quite a few. There seems to be quite a sizable group that are quite gleeful of welfare recipients falling on hard times or having that money revolked entirely. Enough that I have come to associate the concept of letting those who cannot currently work for whatever reason be reduced to begging on the streets, with the far right.

 
Flag Post

Remember that any money given to welfare recipients comes from someone else.