Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 15 Trillion in debt. What to do???

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 2, 2011, 9:09 p.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer (2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The top 1% earns $1.3 Trillion so even it we tax them at 100% it will not help bring down the debt. We can up tax rates but we still need to do more.

So we can either let our children and grandchildren worry about it when it hits $30 Trillion or we have to make some cuts. What would you cut to shave off $500 Billion?

Federal Spending by Category Top Ten (In billions)

  1. 21% - $743 – Medicare/Medicaid
  2. 20% - $695 – Social Security
  3. 20% - $663 – Department of Defense
  4. 17% - $571 – Income Security
  5. 6% - $164 – Interest on National Debt
  6. 3 % -- $78 – Department of Health and Human Services
  7. 3 % -- $72 – Department of Transportation
  8. 2% -- $52 – Department of Veterans Affairs
  9. 2% -- $52 – Department of State and Other International Programs
  10. 2% -- $48 – Department of Housing and Urban Development

Not so easy is it?

129 Comments

129 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by looselyhuman (3117) 7 years ago

Revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in 60 years.

Let the Bush Tax cuts expire, then raise top marginal and capital gains rates to Eisenhower levels. Raise the FICA top eligible income to $180k - which brings it in-line with its historical average as a percentage of all income.

Then do some serious stimulus to get growth going again - investing in badly-needed green infrastructure (high-speed rail, geothermal, R&D, solar highways) to boot. And once we're expanding again, revenue really picks up - and THIS time, don't squander the surplus on tax cuts and foreign wars, but instead finish off the debt.

Then, cut military spending by at least 35%

Then, Medicare for all to really tackle long-term healthcare costs. We'll decrease private and public debt all at the same time.

Then, address the trade deficit with intelligent tariffs, export certificates, etc.

I could go on.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

I'd offer one friendly amendment, which would be to reinstate the tax cuts for wage earners up through the middle class. We need to re-start consumer spending as part of getting the economy moving again.

And a question: You'd really raise the top marginal tax rate to 91%?

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 7 years ago

Like all liberals, I'm open to compromise - which is often our downfall.

:) (smiley-frog)

On tax breaks, I've always been skeptical of their stimulative effect - money people don't realize they're getting tends to be tucked away, but, since people need to to start saving again (middle class savings are at a low), as well as spend, I'm OK with it. I do prefer stimulus that puts unemployed people to work (WPA, etc) or at least extends unemployment benefits.

On top marginal rates, again, willing to compromise, but since these rates would only apply to dollars earned over $380k, 91% doesn't bother me much. As then, effective rates for top-earners (considering cap. gains would be at 25%) would probably be in the 35% range (vs 18% now). Additionally, as then, deductions for investment in American industry would be available, and perhaps even more for investment in sustainable development, etc...

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

Now that I've stopped cracking up over the smiley frog -

I did not realize that a top marginal rate of 91% would translate to an effective rate of 35% in practice, but now that I've read it, I see how that would make sense.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 7 years ago

Yeah, as much as I like the idea of taxing everything Jamie Dimon earns at 91%...

Ribbit.

[-] 4 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

I'd say you're impossible, but actually you're just highly unlikely.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

@ lslyhmn : Sorry to piggy-back your post but ...

a) Just HOW has 'FarmerJoe' managed to give his "Federal Spending by Category Top Ten" WITHOUT a single mention of 'The Military' (Bases Abroad, R&D, War Pensions; Vets, The Injure & Maimed, WARS, Empire etc.) ?!

b) As a balancing item : http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm !

c) Le Petit Moi = <Shakes Head & Slaps Forehead With Palm>!!

fiat lux ! et fiat pax ?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I am with you on everything except investing because that is code for spending which is code to giving money to your friends.

Let private industry invest in green infrastructure and the other things. If a technology is viable private sector will invest in it. If it is not, like ethanol, it will not.

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 7 years ago

Why didn't Eisenhower let the market build the national highway system?

They have paid for themselves to society (think significant externalized costs) a thousand times over, but the initial investment was too great for private industry, and unless you like toll roads, a profit model just wasn't there. Similiar forces apply to saving the planet and building a sustainable civilization. Nobody will get rich on green public infrastructure, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit society. Profit and the common good are not the same thing.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I don’t have a problem with the government providing infrastructure. Infrastructure, security, and defense are really what they should be providing.

That is different from funding something like ethanol for ten years when it takes more energy (BTUs) to create a gallon than you get out of it. History has shown that politicians are not as careful with money as entrepreneurs are. And if an entrepreneur looses the tax payers should not be bailing them out.

By the way, some of the best highways and parks in the country are privately managed.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 7 years ago

That's fair. The ethanol fiasco is the product of campaign finance, lobbying and general washington pork, and I would like to see a lot of that crap banned. It's been greenwash all along, BTW, serious environmentalists were never really into ethanol.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"I don’t have a problem with the government providing infrastructure. Infrastructure, security, and defense are really what they should be providing."

"That is different from funding something like ethanol"

Energy Independence falls under security and defense..

Subsidizing the transition from fossil fuels to ethanol, that neither individual automobile companies nor individual oil companies have any incentive to take the first steps towards falls under Infrastructure..

Whether you agree we should do it or not, it does fall under all 3 categories you mentioned.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

It takes more energy (BTUs) to create a gallon of ethanol that the energy you get out of it. It is a losing proposition. No amount of government subsidies will change that. The subsidies go to friends of politicians in their home states. They help with re-election.

My point was that private industry would not invest in a losing proposition. I do not trust politicians. Look at Solyndra. They dumped over $500 million into that company that built a Taj Mahal office building. It cost them $6 to create cells worth $3. When Solyndra went belly up the tax payers were out $500 million.

There are private comapnies investing in a great renewable energy source called geothermal. It is not costing the tax payer anything bacause private companies see that it is a vaible source of renewable energy.

This is why free markets always work better than crony capitalism (Politicians giving money to their friends)

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"It takes more energy (BTUs) to create a gallon of ethanol that the energy you get out of it. It is a losing proposition."

I'm no big ethanol advocate(I think we should wait for Genetic Engineering to modify the plants first to produce more ethanol) but I read that study back around 2001. I'm pretty sure a lot has changed.

"My point was that private industry would not invest in a losing proposition."

Whoa!!! There must be a problem with the space-time continuum. You must be from the year 2007 or perhaps early to mid 2008. A lot has changed since then my time-displaced friend. The belief in the divinity of unregulated markets is no longer a sane position. Many times it's better. Sometimes it's not.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Yes but that was because of government involvement. That was not pure free markets. The govenment encouraged the loose rules vist the Commuity Reinvestment Act, and promised to insure the loans via the FDIC, Fannie, and Freddy. That was not a pure free market environment. We bailed out the private failures. As long as we do these thing we eliminates the aversion to high risk. The same holds true for energy.

As for energy I would use Solyndra as an example. They should not have been given $580 million towards a losing proposition. Solyndra was developing more expensive technology that did not use the industry-standard silicon conductors.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"Yes but that was because of government involvement. That was not pure free markets."

I'm getting tired of this fallacy..

Did you ever notice that people taking medicine always seem to be sick?? Must be that medicine makes people sick, right??

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

So you are denying that there was government involvement in the housing market crisis?

It was government intervention that created the subprime market! In fact the CRA encouraged “No money Down” loans and regulators accused banks that did not offer them of “unfair lending”

Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.

The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of “affordable” mortgages.

The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can’t blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA.

By the way, most medicines do destroy your body.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"So you are denying that there was government involvement in the housing market crisis?"

So you're denying that cancer patients receive "treatment", coincidentally, while their condition is getting worse??

Again, it's a fallacy that is heavily subsidized by the banks. Was housing mismanaged by these agencies?? yeah. Did deregulation of these industries play a much huger role?? Absolutely. Does that mean we should abolish all regulation of these industries?? Only if you're dense enough to believe all that corporate-sponsored propaganda.

"By the way, most medicines do destroy your body."

So we should abolish all medicine and let the free markets mechanisms within your body determine your fate??

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Now you are just being silly. I never said we should abolish all regulations or medicine.

What I said was that it was the policies (not the regulations) that lead to risky lending practices and the collapse of the housing market. I would say that politicians and government are really not good at doing much of anything. I believe politicians they put their own interests ahead of what is good for the people.

As for the medicine statement I was thinking about those disclaimers at the end of TV commercials.

Side effects may include: nausea, vomiting, water weight gain, lower back pain, receding hairline, eczema, seborrhea, psoriasis, itchy chafing clothing, liver spots, blood clots, ringworm, excessive body odor, uneven tire wear, pyorrhea, gonorrhea, diarrhea, halitosis, scoliosis, loss of bladder control, hammertoe, the shanks, low sperm count, warped floors, cluttered drawers, hunchback, heart attack, low resale value on your home, feline leukemia, athlete's foot, head lice, club foot, MS, MD, VD, fleas, anxiety, sleeplessness, drowsiness, poor gas mileage, tooth decay, split ends, parvo, warts, unibrow, lazy eye, fruit flies, chest pains, clogged drains, hemorrhoids, dry heaving, and sexual dysfunction.' I'm thinking I'll just stick with itchy, watery eyes."

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 7 years ago

Actually, no. The policies did not encourage more risk. Only 6% of the sub-prime mortgages can be traced back to anything remotely associated with the government or its policies. Indeed, most of the sub-prime loans that were backed by the government had to meet certain guidelines, and they didn't, so they were not issued. The laws you are referring to, passed by the Carter administration, were very narrowly focussed, and the kind of lending we see here was outside of the law's purview or focus, and would not have qualified for the program. The entirety of the mess was created by the private sector acting alone, completely rogue.

The myth of regulations encouraging shoddy and deceptive lending practices and high risk secruritization of them was invented by the Republican Party in an attempt to smear government and pressure it de-regulate banks further.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Again, I did not say regulations. The regulations were relaxed and the practices were encouraged.

Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.

The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of “affordable” mortgages.

The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can’t blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 7 years ago

Energy could very well be infrastructure.

[-] -1 points by classicliberal (312) 7 years ago

Energy is a private good, because it is excludable and rivalrous. Therefore, it is not the domain of the government.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 7 years ago

Why not compromise and set rewards for certain projects? E.g. First to provide practical carbon-free energy on a commercial scale or something to that effect?

I'm really curious, I have been wondering if there's a specific reason why government doesn't/can't do that.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"Why not compromise and set rewards for certain projects? E.g. First to provide practical carbon-free energy on a commercial scale or something to that effect?"

Perhaps too broad??

Perhaps setting benchmarks that entail tax incentives??

Like a huge tax break for producing cars that meet a rigid set of criteria (mpg, weight of vehicle, etc. etc), but only tax incentives for each one sold.

[-] 1 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 7 years ago

Yeah! Sure, and that works better. Just something to encourage developing better systems rather than maximizing profits on the current one. I think we have plenty of intelligence to devote to fleshing the nuances out, we just need someone to initiate the idea.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 7 years ago

What a lovely fantasy land you must live in. revenue is low because of spending way in excess of long term averages. It needs to be back down below 18%. As for investing in green infrastructure, bull, if the private won't investing in it, then it should simply die.

[-] 3 points by Puff6962BorgTroll (28) 7 years ago

Add a $1.00 tax on gasoline to pay off the debt. Americans pay only half as much for gasoline as people living in Australia, S. Korea, or W. Europe. Even with a $1.00 tax, we will still pay less for gasoline than others in the western world. But cry baby Americans don't want to feel any pain. Either that or sell Alaska back to Russia.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

End the wars and end the fed. Then after a few years... Problem solved.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Dont forget war appropriations arent counted on the budget. Neat little trick they came up with...

[-] 2 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 7 years ago

if you cut social security then you also have to stop charging for it... net gain = very little. Medicare definitely outstrips what is collected but that is because of insurance companies, hmos ,and big pharma driving health care costs through the roof. Some of those other programs save more than they spend. A few are absolutley necessary. The only ones I am eying are DOD and Dept of state. We could reduce the VA over time by reducing DOD, but veterans are entitled to recover the hell we put them through. If we got rid of DOT how would we travel efficiently in about 3 years. Interstates would have so many potholes that you couln't go over 25mph.

[-] 2 points by OccidentWillStrike (42) 7 years ago

Debt = Saving!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Cut the stupid useless WARS you forgot to mention that ran up 2 trillion dollars of debt already and still rising.

Why would you hide the biggest reason for the deficit?

Are you a Repelican?

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I agree 100%. Cutting the military budget would not cut our defense. It would actually improve our defense. We should not be policing the planet. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes us to take use taxpayer money for an offensive position. There must be a clear and present danger. Now they are targeting Iran as the next evil place to spend a trillion defeating.

Actually I am a Libertarian but I vote Rep, Dem, and Lib based on a candidates voting record or issue statements (If they are new).

[-] 2 points by KahnII (170) 7 years ago

The majority is owed to the Federal Reserve and other international central banks.. In other words we owe the money to the bankers and the .0001% of the 1%. Fuck 'em, we should walk out on the tab, a multi-trillion dollar dine and dash!

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Actually about 63% is owed to US citizens in the form of treasury bonds, retirement funds, the Social Security Trust Fund, public and private worker pension funds... So basically you would be putting people out in the streets by taking away all they have saved and were promised in SSI.

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

You are being tricked by a numbers game. There is NO WAY to pay the debt. All of our money is created as debt to the Federal Reserve Bank, it is owned by the international banking cartel. We owe INTEREST on every dollar and the FED is the only legal source of money. If we paid back every dollar in existence we would still owe interest. We would have to borrow more to pay what we owe, incurring more interest and principal. It is the biggest con game in history and it is world wide.

The real question is, what do you tell a con man when you figure out you have been tricked? You tell him to Fuck Off, and TAKE your money back. Arrest all the Bank Owners that got a bailout. Seize their assets, and redistribute them to the people of America and the world that they were stolen from.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Actually most of the debt is held by US citizens in retirement funds, treasure bonds, mutual funds...

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

You mean citizens as in corporate "persons" right? Even if you have "money" in your account, it is still debt, and it all belongs to the same bank that printed it. There is always more debt to be paid than money in circulation, someone has to default. It is a sick game of musical chairs. The chairs are the money, the children walking are the debt, and someone cannot have a chair. (default) The system is designed to create debt the system itself is debt. No amount of austerity will fix it.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

No I mean real people that are expecting to get thier pension and social security. I mean people that have been saving so that when they are older will not have to lose their homes when their property taxes are ten times what they were when they bought their house.

We do not need to get rid of all the derbt however the interest on the debt is 10% of the budget. We can do things like cut defense spending, raise the retirement age, go after medicare costs.

The other way to fix it is to encourage international comapnies to locate in the US.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

Granted many real live people have invested in retirement accounts. Property taxes are slavery no matter how much they cost. I agree that we could spend less on the military. We should not raise the retirement age. Universal health care would get rid of the corrupted medicare system. Insurance is just another scam to inflate costs.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Why would universal health care cost less? When my dad switched to Medicare his bill went up 20%. He asked why and they said "Don't worry you are not paying it. That is what Medicare pays."

The private insurance companies push doctor rates down. They tell the office if you want to be a "participating" doctor here is what you can charge. They can chose not to be "participating" however they will lose a lot of customers.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

Do, you really think doctors could charge $100 for an office visit if insurance was not involved? of course they couldn't they would have few if any customers.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Insurance is actually a great idea but these companies best serve when they are non profit. The best concept is fire insurance. If 1,000 people put up an amount based on the value of their home. Most likely we will have one or two houses burn. So the victim of the fire and pull from the funds more than they put in. If there are no fires some of the money stays in the fund to keep it solvent and the participants get some money back. Many car insurance companies operate this way.

The problem today is currently at the state level. There currently are non profit insurance companies in some states however the many states have laws preventing you from purchasing insurance across state lines. In some states they also prevent you from purchasing health insurance as a group unless you are an employer. Again if government would get out of the way and let the free markets work, I could get together with 100 of my neighbors and broker an insurance deal with an insurance company in any state.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 7 years ago

Spend more .... now is not the time for austerity. I have three proposals:

1) Fair tax reform (a border tax that charges the same tax on imports into the US that the country of origin charges on our exports [including value added taxes], charges an amount that approximately negates the effects of currency manipulation/other barriers to our goods & services, and any economic advantages gained through gross environmental abuses, such as dumping toxic waste in ground water or emitting poisonous gases, and human exploitation e.g. child labor, prison labor, sweat shops, etc.). The tax amounts will be dictated by the commerce department with input from the EPA (using our current tariff collection system, administered by customs). Reverse the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, cap deductions ("all" deductions, including charitable deductions), replace the AMT with a new tax (an additional 10%, above the top tax rate) for income over $1 million, reduce the corporate tax rate to 25%, and treat capital gains/dividend income [over $100,000 per year] as ordinary income. This will provide the additional revenue needed to avoid any cuts in entitlements and fund healthcare (including a new public option, with enhanced protections for patients).

2) Education renewal (increase the Pell Grant to an amount equal to the cost of tuition at state universities, and this minimum grant will be available to "all" students, regardless of parents income, funding to expand and improve state universities and community colleges to accomodate an expectly large number of new students, student loan forgiveness of up to $60,000, and increases in state aid for primary childhood education).

3) Fiscal stimulus (a stimulus program funded by public borrowing of approximately $4 trillion--modernization of our electrical grid [including accomodations for intermittent power sources such as solar and wind], water delivery/sewage lines and treatment systems, bridges, airports, public transportation networks [including both rail and bus lines], roadway improvements, build out our natural gas pipeline network [so it extends throughout the country], construct pipelines to handle ethanol [adjacent to our current pipeline infrastructure], a homeowner bailout of approximately $3-400 billion, which brings mortgage debt down to below 110% of home value, double our investments in basic research, and give tax credits for purchasing energy efficient cars and trucks, installing cleaner turbines at power plants (e.g. natural gas turbines), and upgrading refineries (e.g. installing gasification and fermentation capacity to produce ethanol from municipal waste, low grade biomass, and other sources, accompanied by new regulations that require these upgrades).

Very simple. Yes, we spend a considerable amount of money, but this sort of program would do more to improve our future outlook (including our fiscal outlook) than austerity could ever come close to accomplishing. Indeed, austerity right now would be exactly counterproductive. It would result in a much more burdensome long term structural deficit, whereas if we renew and revitalize our manufacturing, technology, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and overall economy, not only will our current recession quickly become a bad memory, but we will set the seeds for another amazing American century. Small thinking will never get us anywhere.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

So your answer to reducing the debt involves spending money we don't have. Hmmm....

It reminds me of my wife coming home and telling me how much she saved at the department store. We would have saved more if she stayed home.

The government cannot creat jobs without spending which means taking money from someone, borrowing it, or printing more (reducing its value). All three of these things a bad.

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 7 years ago

Small thinking will never get us anywhere.

Vision. What a concept.

[-] 2 points by genanmer (822) 7 years ago

We have more than enough resources but never enough money to fix problems.

We wouldn't be able to spend more money than we have, if this weren't true.

Stop mobilizing our nation's Resources for war, and start mobilizing our Resources for peace.

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 7 years ago

$15 trillion debt, with 6.6% inflation for 1 year, becomes $14 trillion debt.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

First of all we should hope we do not experience and 6.6% inflation.

Also, if you a budget deficit of more than $1 trillion it will not become $14 trillion.

  1. In 2008 the National debt was $10.0 trillion.
  2. The National debt is now $15.1 trillion.

That happened in just three years.

[-] 2 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

Our debt is our money we have to stop having debt based money before any other reforms can be made to last.

[-] 2 points by mvjobless (370) 7 years ago

Cut defense by 75%. Then take a billion from here and there from the rest of the list. Social Security can go to means testing for benefits, what the hell do millionaires need social security for?Once the debt gets under control, interest on it will be wittled away over time.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

What a bunch of bull. This is what was asked for in FY2010 by the President. These amounts are not what was funded. Go back and do your homework. You are a lazy researcher.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Subject: Simple Math

  1. United States Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
  2. Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
  3. New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
  4. National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
  5. Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget.

  1. Annual family income: $21,700
  2. Money the family spent: $38,200
  3. New debt on the credit card: $16,500
  4. Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
  5. Total budget cuts: $385
[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 7 years ago

yup. its a mess alright. http://www.usdebtclock.org/# ..Good post Joe..

Printing paper backed by nothing at interest isn't honest money, it dilutes the value of our currency which is why it takes More dollars to buy things. And there is always more debt created than dollars. (because of all the interest.)

How -much- has this already devalued the purchasing power of our money?

check this interactive graph out - http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

And dont forget. Even Ben Bernanke admitted that inflation Is a -Tax- ...a stealthy one, by the way..

the gov will have to take a sizable haircut too. military spending (not defense spending). education. Imposing position limits on investment banks and breaking up the too big to saves would be a good start as well. An Opt out for medicare and social security might be reasonable since the funds were spent long ago, in all probability.

Bring honest money back and keep it out of politics.


[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"The top 1% earns $1.3 Trillion so even it we tax them at 100% it will not help bring down the debt. "

Nobody is suggesting taxing them 100%, dipshit.

If we increased the taxes to the rate from 1999, we'd start getting debt surpluses again, just in 1999.

The fact that you repeat false talking points from your chain e-mails says all I need to know about you.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

If you actually read the entire post instead of just the first line you would understand that. My point is we need to address spending as well. We need to attack the problem on both sides.

We should not be paying $663 billion to police the planet. Our military budget should be cut in half. We need to raise the retirement age. Finally we need to fix Medicare costs. I posted the top ten items so people can see where the money is going. We have to address the top three items to make a dent.

The reason we had a surplus in the 1990s is the economy was booming and congress was cutting spending. Clinton actually cut the capital gains tax rate and we brought in more money.

Before you make personal attacks by calling me a dipshit, read the rest of my posts on this page.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 7 years ago

"The reason we had a surplus in the 1990s is the economy was booming and congress was cutting spending. Clinton actually cut the capital gains tax rate and we brought in more money."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Under Clinton and Bush, lowering the rate made revenue go up for just a couple years before it plummeted below the amount of revenue received before they cut the capital gains tax. The only reason to do this is to make your presidency look good before royally screwing the next guy. If you anticipate dying or not living in US after a few years, then it's great, but for the rest of us that plan on living here a long time, it's bullshit.

[-] 1 points by fwankie123 (490) from Immokalee, FL 7 years ago

tax all Wall St. financial transactions at 1%. Raises $400 billion a year. A 3% annual surtax on incomes over $1 million raises another $200 billion a year. end the wars is another 100 billion a year. cut the defense dept back to where it was in 2000 saves 300 billion a year. end subsidies to oil companies etc. in the tax code saves another $100 billion. i could keep going. do you have any more illiterate questions?

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

This what I would say...

We can build a better worl by example rather than by protest. We can help each other rather than camping, and occupying. Here is what I chose to do with my volunteer time.

http://americasgrowarow.org/

And this

http://www.habitat.org

And this http://meals-on-wheels.com/

The great thing about these organizations is that you do not have to have money, you can donate your time. Togethere we can make a better world!

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 7 years ago

Awesome....and thnx! Good on you and congrats! I have worked as a volunteer for many different causes over the time....so THANX again! Cause it's always great to hear that you ARE appreciated....

I recommend anyone to check out the above links....and as Joe says.... be the example yourself!

In the meantime joe....please do check out those links I provided...you may be more interested than you first thought...

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I looked breifly and will look later. I have to go to work now.

[-] 1 points by blazefire (947) 7 years ago

look forward to hearing your response! ;

[-] 1 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 7 years ago

Start by revoking the Federal Reserve Charter:

Allowing the Federal Reserve to exist and force us to use their Federal Reserve Debt Notes was the start of the downfall of our economic future.

Those Federal Reserve Notes are just like your house or car note... they are debt instruments but you can't pay them off... you lose about 5% every year we continue using them. That's why our dollar is so worthless. I bought my first car with only $3000 $1.00 bills. Now it would take near a wheel barrel full of $1.00 bills to buy a new car. That's because the Federal Reserve Notes are designed that way. It is a way of stealing from you. When we used silver dollars, they could not clip a little off each coin because we would notice. They could not steal directly from the vault because we would notice it. So they found a way to steal using just plain paper for our trade and commerce.

Everyone should know by now that those banksters are not Federal and that there is no Reserve at least for our benefit and the the Notes indicate debt for us as long as we allow the use of the Federal Reserve Notes... Demand... we go back to Constitutional money.

Do you know what Constitutional money is? It is central to our freedom under the Constitution! As long as they can destroy your ability to have a rich financial future. they have taken your freedom for everything else away too!

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Very nice post!

Spending is the real tax. They government does not have money. When the government spends they either tax us immediately, issue debt notes which are "future tax", or print more money which is "inflation tax". No matter how they slice it, spending is the tax.

[-] 2 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 7 years ago

Using Federal Reserve Notes is like taxing our selves over and over.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Using them is not the tax, printing more of them or as they like to call it "quantitative easement" is the tax because they become worth less.

The sad thing is that most Americans do not even see or understand how this happens. They go to the store and products cost more and get mad at the store or the "corporation" that made the product.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Nothing you can do.

Cut spending enough to avoid a collapse- riots and chaos.

Keep spending like we are- riots and chaos.

Either way, the country is going to look radically different in 10 yrs.

[-] 1 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 7 years ago

That's their plan

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 7 years ago

Well apparently forgiving everyone's debt would fix it. I juts don't see how to get the other sane countries to agree with that idea.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

You need to know that most of the debt is owed to Americam citizens that hold Treasury Bonds as well as in their retirement funds, pension funds, and mutual funds.

Asking them to give up their retirement savings so we can contine to spend money subsidizing things like green energy and bombing other countries seems a bit harsh.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 7 years ago

I was talkng about debt on an international scale.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I was talking about the $15 Trillion and growing in US debt.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

Social Security was intended to be self funding and not to come out of the annual budget. It is a service that has already been paid for and has a $4.4 trillion surplus but the government has been borrowing from the fund to make it look like the budget is balanced for decades. To cut these costs would be the greatest theft of the hardest working people in US history.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

This is exactly why we should not trust politicians. Throughout history governments cannot be trusted with our money.

You have to remember that when Social Security was created the average life expectancy was 59.3 and today it is 79.5. People are collecting more than they put in. I am not suggesting cutting the program I am suggesting raising the retirement age a few years. I am willing to work two more years if it will save the program.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

I don't think that 79.5 is the official number and even if it is that does not represent the average life span of a working American. The lower classes lifespan has only increased a few years over the last 5 decades. That number is inflated due to more successful births.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I have seen is as low as 78.1 but that is still much higher than 59.

The US census bureau puts it at 78.3 however for people born today they project it to be 79.5.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 7 years ago

Eliminate the concept of money. BOOM! No more debt.

It's obvious we will NEVER pay our debt off, or be able to cut the vast majority of our spending.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

Of course it isn't easy - not when you've taken the bushite tax breaks off the table.

I think that if you and dubbya want to cover the cost of ten years in Iraq - plus the interest - we can probably manage the rest.

and yes, some form of revenue generation will be part of the solution.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Who took them off the table? I said after we end them we are still in trouble. Read it again.

I agree on bringing the troops home. We should not be policing the world. Let the folks in other countries sort it out for themselves.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

kay - I stand corrected.

I don't know what the answer is - I would need a pie chart. Do you have a pie chart?

I'd like a slice of apple.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I believe we need to encourage comapanies to locate here in the USA. That would be a great start.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

Yes, but not at the expense of our natural qualities that attract tourism, or the health of our children.

If we cannot drink the water or breath the air we have a problem.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I did not say we should mess the place up!

You don't have to let companies clear cut a forest or pour toxins into the rivers to attract them. You need to have a productive, educated work force and friendly business climate without tons of red tape like Sarbanes Oxley and other burdensome regulations.

Reducing the corporate tax rate would help as well.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

regulatory authority, properly implemented, provides business boundaries that, when followed, prevent lawsuit, and secure their reputations from taint.

regulatory authority that is sabotaged from within or without is a service to no one.

and yes, a fair system of taxation is necessary.

[-] 2 points by anonwolf (279) from West Peoria, IL 7 years ago

On:

regulatory authority that is sabotaged from within

See: http://occupywallst.org/forum/oira-why-regulations-dont-work/

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 7 years ago

I've been looking for that link!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22974) 7 years ago

It is easy for me. I would cut the Department of Defense by $500 billion.

But, my preference would be to tax the rich. If you are only looking for $500 billion then taxing the rich along with cutting defense would be the way to go.

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 7 years ago

This DEBT is ONLY the budgeted debt. Most of the debt is off the books, like the social-security trust fund IOU's.

The DEBT obligation of the USA is $200 Trillion USD which is impossible to pay back. The $15Trillion is just candy-money for public consumption. The real deal is the back-room Federal-Reserve off-budget book's that are ran between FED-RES and US Treasury. The $15B is only money that was authorized by the US Congress, but because the FED-RES can operate in secret they do as they wish, and they have made our currency worthless.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 7 years ago

Stop pharma. Stop mega farming Stop banksta Stop AMA Stop FDA Stop FCC Stop shipping tropical foods to temperate climates.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 7 years ago

De-valuate the dollar and erase the debt. Start again with better laws. Incarcerate the criminals. Educate the population and discover clean energy. There, how's that sound?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Devalue the dollar??? Very bad idea

You need to read up in Germany after WWI. They tried that and the result was hyper inflation. This in turn lead to the rise of the National Socislist Workers Party.

Look up Weimar Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

[-] 0 points by pinker (586) 7 years ago

Focus on those that are unnecessary, such as Dept of defense. Also, fraud in Medicaid/Medicare - we need those in our system, but the amount of abuse is enormous.

[-] 0 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

The first two do not belong on the list since those two are 100% funded by all of the generations that are and were employed since they both began.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

You seem to think that people only take out what they put in. That is not true.

People are living longer therefore we need to raise the retirement age. If people are working longer it will help Medicare as well.

[-] 2 points by rmolsonguitars (7) 7 years ago

Why isn't society taught/conditioned to save for themselves rather than everyone taught/conditioned to depend and receive their little SS checks?

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

You seem to think that they all live to age 65 which is not true, only a small percentage live to that age. You also seem to forget how long these programs have been around. Do the math, all those peoplethat did not live to age 65 since Medicare and Social security began there should be a large surplus of money plus all the interest. Medicare payments to providers pays less then half of what is billed so you are being fooled by our government that tells you the BS that they do.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Actually it is not a small percentage. The AVERAGE life expectancy is 78.3 years. When social security was created it was 59.3.

When someone who is now retirement age 65 started working (1946) the average wage was $2,900/year and their social security tax (what they put in) was $20/year. For those same people that are just retiring the average pay out $1,177/month. They will live on average to 78.3.

Do the math.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

The average life expectancy that you quote of 78.3 years is based on if you live to 65 years of age which most people do not. Social Security would not have survived its first year if every person made it to retirement age.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

The statistic I quoted is from the 2010 United States Census. The average life expetancy of 78.3 means that on average people are living to 78.3.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Yes, that is yourt mantra but we have already discussed why I believe that that is a really bad idea. I prefer not to repeat it.

[-] 0 points by patriot4change (818) 7 years ago

1, 2 & 3 can be cut in half by eliminated Medicare/Medicaid FRAUD; and Social Security Disability FRAUD; and bringing our Military back home to protect our Borders.

4 & 5 should be eliminated by DEFAULTING. Period. We now owe nobody anything. That's right. We're starting over from scratch.

6-10 should be eliminated and all such programs DISMANTLED. Period. That's right. No more Liberal touchy-feely programs to cater to the people who will suck this Country dry until kingdom come.

There you have it. I just balanced the American budget. That wasn't so hard, now was it?

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I can agree on some of that but defaulting on our debt is not one of them. Most of that money is owed to American citizens who hold Treasury bonds, have retirement funds, pension funds, and a good portion is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

So in a sense you would be asking Americans to forfeit their retirement savings so we can spend money policing the planet and subsiding others.

[-] 0 points by patriot4change (818) 7 years ago

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the repercussions. In fact, what you have typed here is exactly what I was thinking as I responded to your message. However, what this Country needs is a good "shock" to wake them up from a deep, hypnotic trance. When a national DEFAULT takes place, everyone will finally realize what the U.S. Government has done. Which is rob/steal from the American people to the amount of $16 Trillion dollars. And, to be realistic about it all, there is no real way to recover from such a crime. The only recourse is to start over from scratch, and hold the cowards in Congress accountable for everything they have willing done and participated in-- the biggest Ponzy Scheme ever contrived since the beginning of mankind.

[-] 0 points by DunkiDonut2 (-108) 7 years ago

FIRST, stop paying for medical care and education for illegal aliens. Second, repeat, stop paying for medical care and education for illegal aliens. Third, same as above. Fourth, cut back on giving huge amounts of money to countries that hate us and want to kill us. Fifth, the American population has not grown at the same rate as the spending. Cut every agency by 5% this year and 10% next year. Review any changes that has been made.

[-] 0 points by Supplysider (53) from Richboro, PA 7 years ago

Eliminate:

$48 - Department of Housing and Urban Development

$72 - Department of Transportation

$78 - Department of Health and Human Services

$132, $149, $139 Cut Defense, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security by 20%

$618 Billion to with any extra going to start to pay down the debt

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 7 years ago

spend another 15 trillion what else

[-] 0 points by tomcat68 (298) 7 years ago

yes this is just too confusing, I'm getting a migraine. Only Shopping can cure a migraine.

Lets go spend, shall we ladies? and gentleman who are "secretly ladies on the inside"?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 7 years ago

Please don't cloud the issue with facts. Liberals are not concerned with facts. They are concerned about feelings.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 7 years ago

Raise revenues, cut spending.

If you want to change the world, you will need to become an Eisenhower Republican.

[-] -1 points by irsfaggot (171) 7 years ago

The world soveriegn debt is now $600 Trillion, all back by CDS ( credit swaps ) written by WALL-ST. It's an insurance policy that justified all this debt as 'AAA'.

Minor trouble is that there is nothing in escrow to pay the claims, even the recent triggered default in GREECE nobody got paid, they simply announced a 50% haircut to the investors.

The elephant in the room that NOBODY can see is that all DEBT including US debt is backed by nothing. Thus it will all evaporate, meaning that all money is US banks doesn't really exist.

When the US government 'rescused' AIG&GS back in 2008, and they let LEHMAN die it was because NOBODY could cover the CDS on LEHMAN, the insurance was SOLD but nobody could cover cuz the LOSS was never supposed to happen. Funny thing is WHO buys these CDS bets if in fact they're never paid, its like all insurance in the USA 'collect premium, deny claims', most CDS are sold by municipality's, what they're told is to sell a CDS to cover something that will never happen and then they get the premium of millions of dollars so city's all over the country bit the bait, and of course wall-st go commission on every deal, now most city's face bankruptcy cuz the bet is called and they got NO MONEY.

Everyone here is talking about the budget, on the pretense that tomorrow the money you have will be there for you and the government I hate to shit on you peoples party, but tomorrow your money and their money will NOT be there.

Everyone has been fucked, except of course the people in WALL-ST who wrote all the CDS insurance and collected BILLION's in commissions.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

Who is The world Sovereign? Sovereign is another world for king. And make no mistake someone owns ALL the central banks.

[-] 1 points by irsfaggot (171) 7 years ago

Please don't play fucking games, if you don't know what SD is then go to google and read, and then come back and engage in the conversation. We're not talking about kings or bank, just debt. Who gives a fuck? People like you want a fucking face on the problem, the problem was caused by everyone in the western world, cuz they partied like a PIG for 40 years, and now the party is fucking over and your credit is gone, and you have NO hope of paying the fucking tab.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 7 years ago

So, you believe that a 1% of 1% of the population got to have nearly all of the money by some random accident?

[-] 0 points by irsfaggot (171) 7 years ago

97% of all human society only lives day to day, been that way forever,

The few who plan their estates and their childrens future end up with ALL the poker chips in a few generations.

All animal and human populations are this way, best book on this is 'richest man in babylon'.

[-] -1 points by irsfaggot (171) 7 years ago

$16 BILLION is bullshit, based on budget debt for the current accounting.

The REAL debt-obligation of the US government is $200 TRILLION dollars.

If interest rates today were back at their historic normal of say 5% the interest on this debt would be $10 trillion a year, as much as the GDP.

In summary the US government is way past any fucking hope, its all going down and hard.

All this talk about austerity is just to keep the dead alive a few more hours and give politicians TIME, so they can move to a new country and wire there money there, and wait out the fucking storm of history.

[-] -1 points by classicliberal (312) 7 years ago

Cut defense by 100%!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Please go live somewhere else if you want to live with no defense.

How about Botswana or Nambia

[-] -1 points by classicliberal (312) 7 years ago

Or the USSR! They spent some on defense but at least there was equality! Yes We Can!

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 7 years ago

Eh my wife grew up in SSSR of the USSR. Her stories about life are basically animal farm. "Multiple families must live in the same flat, we must unite and abolish the selfish concept of "The Family" as we are all equal". "Why does that person get to live alone in a nice townhouse in downtown Tbilisi if we are all equal?" Siberia

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Actually you are deceived. There were plenty of very poor and a small group living in palaces.

The United States is about in the middle of a list of 100 countries when it comes to income inequality.

Those with the least income inequality are generally small and wealthy countries like Luxembourg, Sweden, Germany, South Korea and the worst countries are poor countries like many in Africa, Central America, and of course Asia

[-] -1 points by classicliberal (312) 7 years ago

What are you guys talking about? The government creates jobs and wealth! They print the barfing money for gosh sakes! Our deficit is so high because we don't spend enough to make jobs and stuff!

[-] 1 points by SGSling (104) 7 years ago

actually the Federal Reserve (A privately held corporation) prints the money and loans it to the US government. The deficit is so high BECAUSE the government doesn't print the money.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

If you print more money its value goes down and you piss of the investors who will in turn lower the bond rating which will increase the interest rate.

So now we still have the same debt but our money is worth less so we cannot compete globally.

Bad idea!

[-] 2 points by SGSling (104) 7 years ago

No I meant that the government doesn't print the money. It borrows it from the Federal reserve which acts as a middle-man to foreign investors. The Fed loans money to the US and charges interest based on the bond market. The actual cost to print money is minuscule. The Fed pays back foreign creditors with interest but still makes a profit. That profit is distributed to the shareholders of the reserve. The Fed in theory is supposed to turn over the profit to congress but there is a lot of speculation that the profit is funnelled away. Especially since the Fed has never had a comprehensive Audit since its creation and laws to force a full federal audit get voted down.