Bush killing US financially - heading for $8 trillion debt

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
don et. al.:

You want to help reduce the publically-held debt?

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "
3. Mail check to -

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Department of the Treasury

This is not a joke, that money will go straight towards federal debt reduction. Instead of raising taxes, with all the losses that will inherently be incurred (as well as misappropriations), you can ensure all the money you want to contribute will go where it's supposed to.

Let us all know when you send your checks!




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
don et. al.:

You want to help reduce the publically-held debt?

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public "
3. Mail check to -

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
P O BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

Bureau of the Public Debt, U.S. Department of the Treasury

This is not a joke, that money will go straight towards federal debt reduction. Instead of raising taxes, with all the losses that will inherently be incurred (as well as misappropriations), you can ensure all the money you want to contribute will go where it's supposed to.

Let us all know when you send your checks!



Can we send the money the goverment taxes us there? Our is this like a tax write off thing.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I'm sure you can write it off as a tax-free contribution, but other than that, it does not reduce your tax burden. But, since some people here like complaining so much about Bush's tax cuts, I'm sure they'd have no problem contributing their tax rebates directly to reducing the debt.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Codemaster_01
I am a retired professor of Economics. The U.S. is not going broke. Here are the most basic of facts.

As a percentage of GNP, our debt is not as great as in past decades.


It's a good thing you are retired, because you are ignorant of basic economic facts. Did you see the graph in my post above? As a percentage of GDP, the national debt is at a higher level than at any time since before 1960, when the debt from World War II was still being liquidated.



For 60 years until Richard Nixon became president, the U.S. had run a deficit.


Are you saying that during the period 1908 to 1968 the federal government never had a balanced budget? You may be right, but I would like to see some documentation.


For a few decades thereafter, the government was satisfied that balancing the budget on a federal scale served no purpose and continued to spend more than they took in.


You forgot to mention that we had a budget surplus during the last three years of the Clinton presidency.


The difference between a federal budget and a household budget is that a collector cannot call his debt due. The debt is owned by American citizens who buy bonds. We make money off the government's debt.


You are leaving out the fact that a significant percentage of the debt is held by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries. As a retired economics professor, you should be able to tell us what that percentage is.



A household or corporate budget is completely unlike a governmental debt. Stop worrying. The US will not collapse.


Excuse me, but the U.S. will collapse if the policies of George Bush are allowed to continue. He wants even more tax cuts. If you keep cutting taxes and increasing spending, eventually the U.S. will not have enough tax revenue to meet basic financial commitments like paying the interest on the debt, and entitlements, like social security and medicare. That is called collapse.


Every presidential candidate and his advisors are completely aware of this but complaining about the debt makes good press and gets votes from ignorant citizens.


After the lack of knowledge of basic economic facts displayed in your post, you really shouldn't be talking about other people being ignorant.



Just in case you believe, for example, that the current candidate wanting to win the presidency will balance the budget, listen to what he says. He wants to spend more, not less. That won't break us either.


Are you suggesting that it would be impossible to balance the budget and run a surplus by increasing taxes? Clinton already showed it is possible. We can do it again.


[edit on 7/29/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   


Are you suggesting that it would be impossible to balance the budget and run a surplus by increasing taxes? Clinton already showed it is possible. We can do it again.


Clinton's policy had little to do with the economy. He cut back spending, and raised taxes. What made the 22 million jobs he created possible was booming tech industries. There was nothing impressive there.

People have been whining about the defecit for years. The economy isn't going to collapse. There isn't some vast conspiracy here.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


Are you suggesting that it would be impossible to balance the budget and run a surplus by increasing taxes? Clinton already showed it is possible. We can do it again.


Clinton's policy had little to do with the economy. He cut back spending, and raised taxes. What made the 22 million jobs he created possible was booming tech industries. There was nothing impressive there.

People have been whining about the defecit for years. The economy isn't going to collapse. There isn't some vast conspiracy here.


Sure, don't give Clinton any credit for the great economy while he was President. But be sure to blame Clinton for the recession that Bush claims he inherited from Clinton. Did you look at the historical graph of national debt as a percentage of GDP, which I posted earlier? If Bush's policies are allowed to continue, the federal government will be bankrupted.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You can't run on the platform of "raise taxes" because you'll almost surely lose.

Why? Because the American public has been so ingrained with "taxes bad" and "cutting good" that they believe every word of it. On top of that, you cannot show them the long-term advantages of raising taxes because everyone wants results this instant and not ten years from now. It's a side-effect of our ignorant populus and the predisposition that we want everything now.

I believe in raising taxes. I believe in long term goals. Most people don't. Most people, especially the ones in control, want money and they want it now; they do not care about long-term consequences to their actions.

I did want to say something else, but I forgot what it was. If it comes to mind, I'll post it.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
donguillermo says



For 60 years until Richard Nixon became president, the U.S. had run a deficit.


Are you saying that during the period 1908 to 1968 the federal government never had a balanced budget? You may be right, but I would like to see some documentation.


I haven't been able to find detailed figures for federal budgets during the time period in question. But I have run across several statements that both Truman and Eisenhower balanced the budget. The following is typical.


However the only times that the federal budget balanced prior to the 1990s was once under Truman, twice under Eisenhower and once at the straddle between Lyndon Johnson and Nixon terms.


www.lewrockwell.com...

So, once again, it appears our intrepid retired economics professor doesn't know what he is talking about.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawk
You can't run on the platform of "raise taxes" because you'll almost surely lose.


Agreed. But you can raise taxes after you are elected. Kerry is saying he will only raise taxes on those with incomes over $200,000. If he gets elected and both houses of Congress go Democratic, he can raise taxes as much as he wants.



Why? Because the American public has been so ingrained with "taxes bad" and "cutting good" that they believe every word of it. On top of that, you cannot show them the long-term advantages of raising taxes because everyone wants results this instant and not ten years from now. It's a side-effect of our ignorant populus and the predisposition that we want everything now.


You are exactly right. George Bush panders to the short-term selfish interests of the voters, ignoring the fact that his tax cuts are mortgaging America's future and doing long-term damage to the American economy.


I believe in raising taxes. I believe in long term goals. Most people don't. Most people, especially the ones in control, want money and they want it now; they do not care about long-term consequences to their actions.


As Jay Leno would say, Exactly! Exactly!


I did want to say something else, but I forgot what it was. If it comes to mind, I'll post it.


If you remember what it was, be sure to let us know.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
DNC Don

You sure post a lot but never really say much. Please tell us exactly how much you wan't taxes rasied and on whom? And, try to do it without a link to Kerry's website. I would like to see your opinion please.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Hi All:

Just though I would mention that the debt situation being discussed here ties in nicely with my thread titled Conditions Ripe for Recession/Depression?

We are headed for some serious economic trouble in my opinion no matter who wins the damn election.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
DNC Don

You sure post a lot but never really say much. Please tell us exactly how much you wan't taxes rasied and on whom? And, try to do it without a link to Kerry's website. I would like to see your opinion please.


You are too funny. You never post anything but rhetorical BS, and you are criticizing me for never really saying much? I am not affiliated with the DNC or the John Kerry campaign, and my information and ideas do not come from the websites of either organization.

How much I want taxes raised is irrelevant. I am not running for office. What I have offered in this thread is a criticism of the tax cut policies of Reagan and Bush.

I would advocate rescinding all Bush tax cuts. Bush's first tax cuts were a good idea, because the economy was in recession. The tax cuts were made temporary for a reason. Since the economy came out of recession, Bush has made more tax cuts, and has pushed to make temporary tax cuts permanent. This is extremely irresponsible fiscal management.

Would rescinding all the Bush tax cuts erase the budget deficit? I don't know. I don't have the data or the economic modelling software available to answer that question.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The reason our foreign debt has been rising to troublesome levels is the fault of Bush's wreckless economic policies, Fed Chairman Greenspan keeping interest rates too low for too long and Asian central banks not letting the dollar depreciate enough.

All of these factors have worked to keep US bond yields artificially low and the dollar artificially high. This has encouraged the US consumer to spend up a storm, the government to squander hundreds of billions and at the same time discouraging anyone to save.

All this is fine until China lets the Yuan appreciate and stops buying dollars and Japan stops supporting the Yen. Once this artificial manipulation stops there will be a very erratic correction causing US bond prices and the dollar to fall rapidly. Who will be left to buy our debt without requiring much higher rates for compensation? How will the average US consumer fare with rapid interest rate hikes? What happens when the US housing bubble bursts? How will the asian economies fare without their beloved US consumer to buy their goods? Hmmmmm going to be INTERESTing times ahead.

Well at least Bush's $500 billion gamble in Iraq has paid off with the capture of those terrorists that were responsible for the deaths of 2000 innocent US citizens on September 11.......ummm....errrr.......doh!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Ah yes, the old liberal rally cry: "tax and spend! tax and spend!" I see why nobody has enthusiastically posted about them sending money to the address I posted above; they want the debt paid off, but they want it paid off by everyone else. That's the silent part of the rally cry: "tax [anyone but me] and spend [to benefit me]!"

Oh, wait, I have an idea: let's cut some of that pork out of the budget. You see, instead of spending more and taxing more, we can actually cut taxes and reduce the debt! All we need to do is cut out some of that pork barrel. Citizens Against Government Waste has some great examples of the waste of congress (oops, I mean of Bush - it's all Bush's fault!).



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
Ah yes, the old liberal rally cry: "tax and spend! tax and spend!"


Excuse me, you are creating a strawman argument. No one in this thread is advocating increasing spending.


I see why nobody has enthusiastically posted about them sending money to the address I posted above; they want the debt paid off, but they want it paid off by everyone else. That's the silent part of the rally cry: "tax [anyone but me] and spend [to benefit me]!"


Again, a strawman argument. No one has said tax anyone but me, or spend to benefit me. What I am saying is that when the Congress votes to spend money, they should also vote for taxes to pay for that spending.



Oh, wait, I have an idea: let's cut some of that pork out of the budget. You see, instead of spending more and taxing more, we can actually cut taxes and reduce the debt! All we need to do is cut out some of that pork barrel. Citizens Against Government Waste has some great examples of the waste of congress (oops, I mean of Bush - it's all Bush's fault!).


I have no problem with cutting government spending, as there is undoubtedly a lot of waste. Let's start with the Pentagon budget, shall we. Apparently, the Pentagon has lost track of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money over the years, and cannot account for what happened to it.

Yes, it is all Bush's fault. He signed every appropriations bill. I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of an appropriations bill that Bush vetoed. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there are any such examples.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I belive Bush will send the US economy into one drastic downturn. I'm from Canada where we pay higher taxes than most of the world. However, our social services are second to none and our healthcare system(although still ripe with problems) can't be beat. Imagine never having to pay for medical care??

Canada started getting more responsible in the early '90s with Chretien and has posted surplus budgets for I believe the last 6-7 years. This has led to huge gains on the American dollar and has allowed our government more flexibility in long term planning because the fiscal condition of the government is good. Tax Cuts are always dangerous and never affect the lower to middle income people. The benefits are usually only felt by corporations and the rich. They should only be used to jump start the economy out of a recession and should not be used for anything else. Especially political re-election.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
Yes, it is all Bush's fault. He signed every appropriations bill. I am still waiting for someone to give me an example of an appropriations bill that Bush vetoed. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there are any such examples.


You're correct, Bush hasn't vetoed a single bill yet. He has used the threat of veto, however. I'm actually impressed with his restraint; most presidents abuse their veto power. If a majority of the 535 members of congress think a bill should become law, the president better have a very good reason to veto it. I'm not absolving Bush of all responsibility, but it is certainly not all his fault. Our elected represenatives need to learn restraint, and we need to teach that to them. People focus way too much on the president; let's give credit where it is due, shall we?


Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
However, our social services are second to none and our healthcare system(although still ripe with problems) can't be beat. Imagine never having to pay for medical care??


You still pay for medical care, it's just called something different - TAX. Or are you one of those who don't pay any taxes? Men do not institute governments to provide every comfort for them; governments are there to ensure order and provide for collective services: defense, police and fire (debatable), negotiate treaties, etc. Not everyone wants to pay for social programs - if you do, fine go ahead and start or contribute to a private organization for that purpose. If I want to see the arts flourish, I will contribute to an art museum, it's not the government's job to do that for me.

[edit on 7/29/2004 by PurdueNuc]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Well before we make this partisan let's focus on the debt.

'Over 47% of the personal income taxes (but not of total tax revenue) collected in 2003 will be spent on paying interest on the debt.'*

Doesn't that essentially mean that if the debt is paid off, Americans could recieve a 43% income tax reduction, across the board?

Also, foreign banks are often the ones providing the US with money:

'Treasury statistics indicate that foreigners bought 58 percent of the securities that Treasury sold to investors. Some 60 percent of that 58 percent was bought by central banks. A large percentage of that went to the central banks of Japan and China. This exposes the United States to financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasuries - or selling them heavily.

This is seen as a very substantial risk by some who study geopolitics and creditary economics.

Another risk of possibly even greater magnitude is the possibility that OPEC will begin to price oil in Euros, as Saddam Hussein began to do in 1998 - until this decision was reversed by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to economist Henry K. Liu, the 'float' achieved by the necessity of all industrial nations needing to keep a U.S. dollar reserve to hedge against rising prices of oil, is also numbered in trillions of dollars. '**

*
**
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
This exposes the United States to financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasuries - or selling them heavily.


This is often held up as a scenario by which "hostile creditors" might somehow use their leverage to destroy the U.S. economy. In fact, that idea is closer to "mutally-assured destruction".

There is very little incentive for an owner of bonds or other debt instruments to run the price down on them and attempt to bankrupt the debtor. Same with equities: running the price of stock down is generally bad for stockholders (unless you're trying to run it down and buy it, of course).

The principle is that of not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Most people with billions of dollars, especially the tens of billions that would be be necessary to actually harm the credit of the U.S. government, are probably not interested in seeing most of their holdings evaporate that way.

The directors of any foreign bank that pulled such a stunt would be subject to public lynching for their crimes against their stockholders, creditors and depositors.

As best I can tell, foreign investment is actually a form of "insurance". It binds foreign interests to the well-being of America, and is thus more likely to influence foreign political decisions than those of the U.S, although in practice there is an effect on both.

The reality of international finance is that there is always contention and competition for a wide range of advantages and positions of leverage, and speculators and market manipulators abound, but the ultimate net effect of all this activity is not very sinister: an overall desire in the financial community for a fairly stable and predictable status quo and good returns on investments.

It is against that backdrop that the "movers and shakers" move and shake, but without it, they would themselves have nothing to work against, and the competent ones know that intimately.

The biggest problems with overly large national deficits and debt service are actually more complex than they might appear on the surface, because there are both good and bad consequences.

However, and this is simply my opinion, such as it is, the cost-versus-benefit ratio of chronic federal deficit spending and large debt loads for me as a citizen is unacceptably high. The trick is wresting control of the government from those who do profit from deficit spending and heavy debt loads.

Calling attention to what is going on is at least a start, and I encourage anyone concerned about the U.S. economy to discuss issues such as these loudly, publicly and -- ideally -- rationally.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
The biggest thing that sticks with me is 47% of fed income tax going to the interest alone. Man, I'd love a 47% tax decrease across the board. Even if it took 20 years of slightly larger income taxes to erase that debt I think it'd be worth it, because it's only a problem that will continue to plague our country.

Imagine if 47% of your income automatically went to the interest of credit card debts. That's the condition of the US Government at the moment. :/





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join