A Common Man's Guide to the Federal Budget.

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


A veritable gold mine, Wrabbit!

Thanks for sharing all of it with us like this.

I do feel there is actual progress being made for all of us...and not the least of which is happening at/through ATS.
Thank you, ATS....and thank you to all of us.




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   


My apologies.
/end sarcasm/



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Lots of data, but funny how you don't address the elephant in the room. For starters, who is all that debt interest being paid TO?

The fact that the government is outlaying hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for the profit of banks is insane. It is a parasitic system by design and as your charts eloquently express the scandalous drain will only get worse.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Hard Answer (and probably only working one):

The United States comes to outright embrace the word austerity for several long years with MUCH higher taxes over MUCH lower benefits.


Although you're probably correct from the standpoint of trying to cling on to our monetary system, personally I feel that there is another way. That is to abandon money all together, collectively realize that money is nothing more than imaginary numbers and that although we need water and food to survive money is only something we need because we believe we need it, but do not actually need it. Where we need air and air was here before us, where we need water and water was here before us, we do not need money and money came from us as in we invented it and we can un-invent it.

This isn't about trade either, it's about sharing with one another because if we don't we'll have exactly what you described, deeper slavery than what we already have. Where economies always break down sharing can last forever. Moreover as a race we'll realize that if we ever decide to stop sharing and start hoarding again, well we'll just end up right back here and no one wants that now do they?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Symbiot
 

I love your outlook, but at the risk of offending here, I cannot see how that could ever happen in the real world we live in. Now, in fairness, the solutions I pose as a last resort for lack of anything else, aren't real solutions either.

Starting with mine, Austerity at the level I think 20+ Trillion would require to reverse within our lifetimes (well..I'm pushing 40... My lifetime) simply wouldn't happen for long. I don't think Americans in general could handle the level of sacrifice it would entail. We aren't the generation that endured the depression and then a full World War with that 'stiff upper lip'. We've become the generations that call the cable company in a screaming hissy fit if the Internet is down for more than one thinks is 'reasonable' for any likely occurrence. Horrible to say, but I'd dare anyone to really argue that and keep a straight face while honestly considering the world we see every day.

In that way, coming to yours... Well. I can see your approach working in the same way I believe mine would, but it's the only way it ever could with success. It would work on a small scale and with like minded people. However, sharing and going without money or the need to do better than the guy next to us isn't a value I think can be 'adapted'. I think it would take generations of deliberate effort through changes in society and education for it to even have a chance on a broader scale.

Depressing isn't it? We're honestly too far down for austerity coupled with taxes to do much more than trigger massive civil unrest. Collapse is the same on steroids, of course and with no control whatever....and I have no doubt that in terms of my fellow man and true nature, if I walked down into the area of town with the homeless, covered in bling and obviously carrying money....I wouldn't be when I returned and by force, if I survived the experience at all.

So what to do? Not to get too far off on my own thread with the solution idea...but, while I can throw ideas, as I have, I honestly don't know a viable and functional solution. I really don't see one....and perhaps, that is why our leaders continue to live well and spend carelessly. They must know all I've learned and shown on this thread with much more I can't possibly know in my position as an average citizen. It's apparent to me that they not only lack solutions themselves, but stopped trying entirely some time ago......like, around 2006, I'd personally say for a time.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LamontCranston
Thanks for the research and bring the topic for discussion.

I always have a problem with the numbers so here's a easy explanation for those like me who can't grasp the amounts.

It puts it into a much better perspective..

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $16,000,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $160,000
* Total budget cuts so far: $3.85

Easier for me.

The numbers are a few months old, but the idea is still valid.
edit on 8/9/2012 by LamontCranston because: (no reason given)


I updated the National Debt for you.

It looks like President Mitt Romney will have to do some financial gymnastics when he

moves into the White House January 2013.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The fact that Mitt Romney does not seem to have very much experience related to personally being in debt and recovering indicates that he might not be up for the job.

That is one area of expertise he cannot claim with any amount of credibility...neither can Paul Ryan. That might be why they really don't have a specific plan to share with us yet. Their idea of them having it easier financially than they already do so that we can somehow, by osmosis, maybe? also do good is more along the lines of what their life experience in regard to debt and finances.

Everyone criticizes Obama for being comfortable and well-off these days...but there is evidence that backs up his claim that he's come from a less advantaged past and even into his marriage they both had student loans and it is plain that he's telling the truth if you look at his tax returns.

It is easy to manage money when you have a lot of it but it takes prudence and patience to come from behind and then pay off two student loans for upper-end college educations and then get approved for a mortgage loan for a house that cost $1 million.

I have personally experienced both ends of that spectrum although not in the degree that he has...it was easy to pay my bills when my bank account was fat.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


There is most certainly no offense taken. I fully understand your thoughts regarding long term education in order to possibly bring about a society of people willing to share and forgo the game of oneupmanship many of us so love today. Personally I feel that putting forth the effort to get that ball rolling is a good idea, but again that's just my opinion. Other than that I would say that the drastic austerity measures you speak of or the possibility of full blown severe depression could hasten such a thing. during the great depression people, at first, began to go a little typical anarchy in which they fought with one another over scraps. However; it didn't take long for people to realize they were better off helping one another than fighting to go it alone. People actually began to share with one another during the great depression, but the depression was not deep enough to make this a lasting mentality.

I think that if people were to willingly give up money in support of sharing and brotherhood there would probably need to be some long term efforts, but if money were essentially taken away against their will in the event of it losing essentially all of its value then changes could come much quicker. If there were to be a severe enough depression ahead, and there certainly might be, I think it would behoove us all to remember that those who survived the great depression did so by helping one another, those who fought quickly realized it was a futile effort. So if we can remember this and try to spread that word early than perhaps we can shorten or even avoid all together the early fighting/hoarding aspect of a depression and just go straight to the sharing aspect. Moreover realize that regardless of what one does the monetary system will always end up in depression at some points so why not just continue to share rather than reverting back to what we have today.
edit on 10-9-2012 by Symbiot because: typo



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Lots of data, but funny how you don't address the elephant in the room. For starters, who is all that debt interest being paid TO?

The fact that the government is outlaying hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for the profit of banks is insane. It is a parasitic system by design and as your charts eloquently express the scandalous drain will only get worse.


As always the ones running the system get the interest They always get their cut, after all it is just a game.

I mean it's a pretty serious game which everybody is playing. But it does have rules like a game.

Now here's the real deal on this Who controls the money? Do governments control the money? Or. Do private individuals in enterprise, control the money? After all the debate is done, this is the question, Don't get quick on this, because we know how you hate those private bankers, what's the other option? Governments control the money? This would pretty much give, let's say a great deal of control to government. That don't look desirable either.

Perhaps private banking is the common man's only hope of protection from oppressive government.

These are the questions. I don't think there are very many who would be enthusiastic about a society with out the convenience of a money system.It would certainly indicate a smaller society with infinitely fewer conveniences. so I'm betting on the continuance of the money system. So we need to get after these questions.

The charts the figures the graphs, they all tell the same story. The system hit terminal velocity. Game over. It's like Monopoly, the board game. At some point it all just flows to one heavy end somebody got all the hotels, no one else can afford to play. This is the untold story of the money system. At some point it does have to start all over.

Everyone says how can this happen. "We've got to stanch the flow. Give me all the cash and I'll save the day." "No taxes, more productivity." But Wrabbitt"s charts show it all. There's no recovery. Crash and burn time.

But onto more realistic issues like conspiracy. It's not conspiracy, it's reality. Sure everyone is going to scurry around, trying to get this thing to work some more, but the reality is that it's time is limited.What sharp people need to start talking about now is, how do we replace it?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 





But Wrabbitt's charts show it all. There's no recovery. Crash and burn time.




There's no more bailouts either. Aye?

Here's another question: If the USA can't pay it's bills, what happens to the global economy?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


I think the primary effect on the global economy is a shift in power from US/Europe to China.

But, I don't think we're beyond the point of no return. If we take a long term outlook and approach, the debt could be more than manageable within 50 years. Taking measures to try and solve the whole problem in a decade might bring a crash quicker than doing nothing at all.

One generation. One generation that puts collective efforts into creating an efficient government will push the trend toward stability. We have to emphasize to young Americans that living a lifestyle that contributes to tackling the problem is not only beneficial but critical.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


The youth are idealists. 50 years to solve a problem? Our debt is due now, and we have no way to pay it. That's a stark factor in the nature of this economical beast. We have all our futures at stake, the whole global economy, and NOONE wants to say anything the disturbs the precarious balance we are all in. One wrong brick from the Jenga tower, and it all falls down.

Scary?



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


The way I see it, regardless of whether the debt is due now, it can't be paid now. So it's either accept collapse or develop a plan that realistically addresses the problem, which inevitably would be a long term solution. Unfortunately, people and politicians tend to prioritize short term favorability.

I think significant political progress is generally made by idealists, even if their thinking is delusional to an extent. Take the founding documents, for example. Many ideals were put on paper back then that weren't a true part of society at the time.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


The fact that Mitt Romney does not seem to have very much experience related to personally being in debt and recovering indicates that he might not be up for the job.

That is one area of expertise he cannot claim with any amount of credibility...neither can Paul Ryan. That might be why they really don't have a specific plan to share with us yet. Their idea of them having it easier financially than they already do so that we can somehow, by osmosis, maybe? also do good is more along the lines of what their life experience in regard to debt and finances.

Everyone criticizes Obama for being comfortable and well-off these days...but there is evidence that backs up his claim that he's come from a less advantaged past and even into his marriage they both had student loans and it is plain that he's telling the truth if you look at his tax returns.

It is easy to manage money when you have a lot of it but it takes prudence and patience to come from behind and then pay off two student loans for upper-end college educations and then get approved for a mortgage loan for a house that cost $1 million.

I have personally experienced both ends of that spectrum although not in the degree that he has...it was easy to pay my bills when my bank account was fat.


Britney Spears is more qualified than Obama to address the $16 Trillion National Debt.

Obama wants the USA to go over the Fiscal Cliff.

Then he can blame the Republicans and then during the ensuing chaos push through

what he wanted all along. - Nationwide Value Added Tax -



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by okyouwin
what's the other option? Governments control the money? This would pretty much give, let's say a great deal of control to government. That don't look desirable either.


Ridiculous response. Of course government should control monetary supply. Government should serve the people, not it's private, unaccountable lenders. Don't you think that $248 billion interest payment in the FY2013 budget could be better spent elsewhere? It's a gigantic sum of money, paid for by the people, that is not doing ANYTHING for the people. These taxes are going to waste. In 10 years interest payments on the debt are projected to quadruple. The annual budget will have to outlay a 1 trillion dollar interest payment. ONE TRILLION DOLLAR INTEREST. It is projected to cost more than medicare and defense spending. If you still don't understand how a system of debt slavery has been forced upon the people there is nothing more to say.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Druid42
 


The way I see it, regardless of whether the debt is due now, it can't be paid now. So it's either accept collapse or develop a plan that realistically addresses the problem, which inevitably would be a long term solution. Unfortunately, people and politicians tend to prioritize short term favorability.

I think significant political progress is generally made by idealists, even if their thinking is delusional to an extent. Take the founding documents, for example. Many ideals were put on paper back then that weren't a true part of society at the time.


"develop a plan to address the problem"

This is the difficulty. I don't believe there is one. I 'm not a real student of history, but the most common way of dealing with national debt that can't be paid seems to be hyperinflation. I think this is popular because it is the path of least resistance, and requires no real course correction. This happens to individual countries all the time. The unique thing about this time is that the debt crisis is pretty much global. The game really got big this time.

But look what we got from creating all this debt. Things worked out pretty well for the industrialized sections of the world. Sure a lot of this prosperity progress, and innovation came at the expense of the third world, but most came from ready supplies of capital. Capital accumulation is key to industry, and money based on debt creation works out well for this. It's always the interest on debt that gets in the way. But somehow I feel that interest is essential. I hope someone can explain to me how it's not.

Growth and debt. We got addicted. Can we go back peacefully? No way. No one want's to lose what they got and very few realize that what they got comes from the system, so they have no incentive to save it.

This could get a lot better real quick. There is potential here. The only problem, and this is truly ironic, is availability of ready capital, or lack of. If those with the wealth sitting around on the sideline, and you know who you are, say"what the hell'" and put the dough out there. Things start happening. Jobs galore. This ain't over. We could bring this back. Got to be careful with the energy though.Scale back gracefully. WE don't need a new car every year. And really, General Motors don't need to sell us one. A question. "Why lay off workers just to keep productivity numbers up?". Ask yourself, "Does an unemployed consumer actually cost more than declining productivity numbers.?". I know we all have a good heart, and truly want the best for all. The truth is: the ones closest to you are the most dear, and of course you want to protect them. But all that unemployed capital will not make them secure, in fact it may keep them from it, Should collapse happen.

Get people working. We all know that's what's best for them. Give em a stake in this operation, and you will do better yourself. Fear. That's the problem. Risk. How did the the banking games work out for you?. Perhaps entrepreneurship could be government backed like the banks.Sort of an FDIC for investors.

I don't know but you guys got to get back in the game, if there is going to be a chance.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by okyouwin
 





But Wrabbitt's charts show it all. There's no recovery. Crash and burn time.




There's no more bailouts either. Aye?

Here's another question: If the USA can't pay it's bills, what happens to the global economy?

I think you sum up a very large part of the problem, right there. The U.S. can't pay this debt and it's become exponential. However, the world cannot afford to even make major jokes about the U.S. defaulting because the world would crash harder than we would. After all, in the end, we are among 4 or 5 nations even capable of 100% self sustaining production for our own populations.

...and so it's been since 2006/2007 when the crash really began with the mini-dump and I think it finally became real for even the BIG people, the world has been playing games and smoke/mirrors games to keep things afloat until someone comes up with a solution.

There isn't one though, is there? Not a painless one, to be sure....and those silly games are about done now with QE-3. They were ever only going to work so long anyway.....not it'll be that much quicker to the final accounting on this tab.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Saw a news story this morning that student debt now exceeds a trillion dollars, so I figured I'd post some stuff about private debt here.


It's private debt that matters most. There is about $24 trillion in consumer and business debt held in the United States today and this dwarfs the federal debt, money supply, and the nation's GDP.



So as a predictor of future crises, we suggest that private debt growth rates combined with the absolute level of non-government, private debt are the two most important factors to flag.

From The Atlantic - 7/22/12

Your thread is about public debt at the federal level, which is 16T. Combine that with 24T in the private sector and 3T for state and local, the picture gets murkier.

That's a total of 43T and growing, with a population of 300-400 million were at over a 100K total debt per capita. GDP/capita is in the high 40K range if I'm right? So at current levels everyone needs to put a tenth of their salary toward debt for 10 years. That's unrealistic, of course, especially when considering prevailing spending demands for both the individual and the government. At this point it's an accomplishment to break even yearly.

I'm not sure if my number of 3T for state/local is correct, got it from www.usgovernmentspending.com.... But if it is, it seems that the difference between state debt and federal debt highlights the problem nicely. Budgets at all level are failing, but it is clear that the Fed is taking on too big a share. That number difference must be reduced by somehow transferring benefit responsibility to lower entities.

As for private debt, I'm at a loss to solve that one. I guess it's a matter of growing the economy and producing jobs. Can't find the proportion of that 24T number that is company debt as opposed to personal.

Man, the only way out seems to be some giant technological leap that will place the US at a major competitive advantage in business. GDP/capita basically has to increase by 50% in the next 10 years for any shot at paying this off short term, and the burden of taking care of the struggling must be lifted from the Gov to some degree.

Not probably, but possible.
edit on 9/25/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
never mind.
edit on 25-9-2012 by VforVendettea because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000Under current 1+ trillion deficits? We're probably talking upwards of 50% cuts to really see the debt number start to shrink...then several years of living at that level.


Based on your numbers and the estimated interest rate that the debt has recently been growing by, I made a spreadsheet to play with that lets me see just how much of a surplus we would need to get out of this mess.

With a constant surplus of 500 Billion per year it would be 2079 before our debt is eliminated. Increasing the surplus to 750 Billion means we are debt free in 2044. These projections would be unacceptable to any debtors(not to mention it is unreasonable to expect 30+ years straight of surplus). As much as my conservative friends want to lower taxes and stimulate the economy, we simply cannot lower taxes without bankrupting our nation. Even holding them steady would require cutting 50% of expenditures to reach that 750 Billion surplus.





new topics
top topics
 
54
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join