Andrew: good summary, and good suggestion.
And FWIW the 2012 deficit is $1.089 trillion. Last year's deficit was $1.297 trillion.
The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
And the overall National Debt is pushing 17 trillion...
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
test
Last edited by Lord Jim on Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
Huh?Lord Jim wrote:Well, if you and Meade want suck each others dick, who am I to stand in the way of love?
My only posting in this thread (before this one) reads, in full:
Would you care to explain how that constitutes sucking MajGenl.Meade's dick?Andrew D wrote:For clarity's sake, I suggest using terms this way:
"Deficit" refers to the budget deficit -- the amount by which expenditures exceed revenues in any one fiscal year.
"Debt" refers to the national debt -- the total amount which the US owes to all of its creditors.
"Liability" refers to the amount which any program or combination of programs is expected to have to pay over some stated period of time.
I think that using the terms that way would make it much easier for the rest of us to follow along.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
Would you care to explain how that constitutes sucking MajGenl.Meade's dick?
Happy Thanksgiving...No, I wouldn't would you?
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
So you had to delete your posting which I quoted.
Because you are ashamed of it.
And rightly so.
Because you are ashamed of it.
And rightly so.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
I don't know if I'd say "ashamed" exactly....
I just thought it was a little excessive and unnecessary....
I'm hardly the first person to delete some comment they thought better of...(In fact Meade himself has done so.)
I don't see anything wrong with that....
I just thought it was a little excessive and unnecessary....
I'm hardly the first person to delete some comment they thought better of...(In fact Meade himself has done so.)
I don't see anything wrong with that....
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
I've never deleted any post that I've written here at Plan B.
Posts are not written. They are typed on a keyboard
Posts are not written. They are typed on a keyboard
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
You've been hanging around with Meade too much....Posts are not written. They are typed on a keyboard
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
So every year for the last bunch we have had a yearly deficit of over $1trillion. We now owe a debt of over $17trillion. And we want to take on more? We don't want to slash gov spending we want to increase it? And the solution is to tax the rich? Those who make over $200k? Here on LI and I am sure other high cost areas, $200k does not constitute RICH. And even if you did take more from the "so-called" rich, what part of gov spending are we cutting back on as gov spending is going to go up in the hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly over a trillion dollars a year) to pay for Obama care alone?
We are headed for "hell in a handbasket" and right now I don't see a real leader who can get us out.
You know what, now that I think about it, give Obama everything he wants. Give him his national health care, give him his "tax the rich" give him all he thinks is going to fix this country. I am buying my arms and bunker and MRE's and all I need (got the generator and 100 gallon gas tank filled already) to last at least a little while when armegedon hits. Isn't the world ending on 12/21/2012 anyway?
We are headed for "hell in a handbasket" and right now I don't see a real leader who can get us out.
You know what, now that I think about it, give Obama everything he wants. Give him his national health care, give him his "tax the rich" give him all he thinks is going to fix this country. I am buying my arms and bunker and MRE's and all I need (got the generator and 100 gallon gas tank filled already) to last at least a little while when armegedon hits. Isn't the world ending on 12/21/2012 anyway?
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
Yes, we are running up on $17 trillion of total debt. An annual deficit of $1.1 trillion for 2012 and more of the same scheduled for next year, and the year after and the year after, etc. So before we have any hope of slowing down the rate of debt growth, we will have a borrowed debt of $20 trillion. As has been pointed out many times, the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 37% of the taxes, and the top 5% pay about 59% of the taxes to support this spending.
Add to that the $8.6 trillion Social Security actuarial liability that should be on the U.S. government balance sheet as future promised benefits for those who paid taxes into the system. There are annual tax wage base increases to fund Social Security, though we are in the third year of a tax break of 2% to fund Social Security. Once those expire, we will be back to the highest taxes for Social Security ever.
Add to that the $25-30 trillion Medicare actuarial liability that should be on the U.S. government balance sheet as future promised benefits for those who paid taxes into the system. There have been several large tax increases to fund Medicare over the last 30 years, and taxes have never been higher.
Add to that the many trillions in local and state government debt on the books (i.e., bonds already issued) and off the books (pensions and retiree health benefits). State taxes have never been higher.
Compare our GDP of under $16 trillion, and we have a serious debt problem. To suggest we don't have a spending problem and all we have to do is raise are already high tax burden, is absurd. More revenue will be needed, but there absolutely will need to be sizeable reductions in the rate of growth in the spending on general government, and the Social Security/Medicare programs, as well as state programs. And the sooner plans are in place to begin reducing the gap between revenue and expenses, the better.
Add to that the $8.6 trillion Social Security actuarial liability that should be on the U.S. government balance sheet as future promised benefits for those who paid taxes into the system. There are annual tax wage base increases to fund Social Security, though we are in the third year of a tax break of 2% to fund Social Security. Once those expire, we will be back to the highest taxes for Social Security ever.
Add to that the $25-30 trillion Medicare actuarial liability that should be on the U.S. government balance sheet as future promised benefits for those who paid taxes into the system. There have been several large tax increases to fund Medicare over the last 30 years, and taxes have never been higher.
Add to that the many trillions in local and state government debt on the books (i.e., bonds already issued) and off the books (pensions and retiree health benefits). State taxes have never been higher.
Compare our GDP of under $16 trillion, and we have a serious debt problem. To suggest we don't have a spending problem and all we have to do is raise are already high tax burden, is absurd. More revenue will be needed, but there absolutely will need to be sizeable reductions in the rate of growth in the spending on general government, and the Social Security/Medicare programs, as well as state programs. And the sooner plans are in place to begin reducing the gap between revenue and expenses, the better.
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
My previous observation about the use of terms needs amending. For clarity's sake, I suggest using terms this way:
"Deficit" -- or, better, "total deficit" -- refers to the amount by which expenditures exceed revenues in any one fiscal year. It includes both:
--> "On-budget deficit", which refers to the amount by which the expenditures included in the budget exceed the revenues included in the budget in any one fiscal year; and
--> "Off-budget deficit", which refers to the amount by which the expenditures not included in the budget exceed the revenues not included in the budget in any one fiscal year.
"Debt" refers to the national debt -- the total amount which the US owes to all of its creditors.
"Liability" refers to the amount which any program or combination of programs is expected to have to pay over some stated period of time.
I think that using the terms that way would make it much easier for the rest of us to follow along.
Sorry for the omission.
"Deficit" -- or, better, "total deficit" -- refers to the amount by which expenditures exceed revenues in any one fiscal year. It includes both:
--> "On-budget deficit", which refers to the amount by which the expenditures included in the budget exceed the revenues included in the budget in any one fiscal year; and
--> "Off-budget deficit", which refers to the amount by which the expenditures not included in the budget exceed the revenues not included in the budget in any one fiscal year.
"Debt" refers to the national debt -- the total amount which the US owes to all of its creditors.
"Liability" refers to the amount which any program or combination of programs is expected to have to pay over some stated period of time.
I think that using the terms that way would make it much easier for the rest of us to follow along.
Sorry for the omission.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: The U.S. Does Not Have a Spending Problem
For a long, long time, people who are sometimes referred to as "deficit hawks" have been saying that we are spending our way to perdition. William "Blowjob" Clinton was the first to project deficits of $250Billion as far as the eye could see, then Newtie fucked him up by balancing the budget two years later, and WJC took credit for it.
It now appears that the tsumami of debt will engulf us all in the foreseeable future, but it has looked like that for a long time.
What I DO know is that raising taxes on The Rich will not make a significant dent in the TOTAL DEFICIT. The Rich have an irritating habit of hiding and deferring their income when they have the sense that they are being picked upon. The additional revenue will be minimal.
It now appears that the tsumami of debt will engulf us all in the foreseeable future, but it has looked like that for a long time.
What I DO know is that raising taxes on The Rich will not make a significant dent in the TOTAL DEFICIT. The Rich have an irritating habit of hiding and deferring their income when they have the sense that they are being picked upon. The additional revenue will be minimal.