XLT,

Once again you demonstrate ignorance of unparalled proportions.

You have no idea what makes up the national debt, nor do you seem to have any grasp of the size of the debt. Look it up and the rest of us will wait and snicker.

Get it yet? The majority of the national debt is in the form of Treasury Bonds issued to US citizens. Not sending money elsewhere in the world isn't going to change that fact.

Once again you show your ignorance. The IMF isn't going to step in to help us. They will step in and wreck our credit rating which will make it far more expensive for America to borrow money.

You just don't get it. I have never proposed grand social programs. The _only_ thing I have said is that the Bush tax cuts are disingenuous. They serve to help Bush's image among dimmer people such as yourself while they wreck the US economy for the future.

NOT because tax cuts are bad, but because tax cuts that lead to huge deficits and ongoing deficits are bad.

-Don

 

sirket:

I wish you had some clue on how are economy and budgets work…

Let’s make this simple once again.

Deficits/National debt is caused by?

More money flowing out of the federal revenue then is coming in. Since there is no such thing as “negative” money flow its like this:

If you make $1,000 a week but your bills are $1,200 a week you have a deficit of $200. Are you with me so far? So, if you reduce your bills to $1,000 a week you have neither a surplus nor a deficit, correct? Yes of course I am correct…

Moving along, if we were to stop sending money overseas that is the same as reducing our monthly bills, and thus that would assist us in REDUCING our deficit/national debt, it has nothing to do with “Treasury Bonds issued to US citizens”.

Treasury Bonds issued to US citizens only funds the CREDIT of the United States it would be like you if you were only making $1,000 a week but your bills were $1,200 you would use your “credit” card to make up the difference as the United States uses Treasury Bonds to make up the difference because we spend to much money.

Stop sending money overseas and there may be no need to sale more Treasury Bonds to fund the debt of OVERSPENDING….

What makes up the national debt is quit simple, it’s OVERSPENDING and the national debt is a HUGE credit card that covers what we can NOT pay for.

 

Okay .... that article is basically a theory of *what* could happen if things remain the same. But yet I saw no reference to what could happen now that our economy is growing.

The economy is growing, people have more money to spend/play with which means the gov't will make some of the money they gave back (to taxpayers) back, plus more importantly unemployed people will be getting jobs and paying more taxes then if they remained unemployed.


Overall it sounds as if a few are getting paranoid over a theory. Some are dismissing it as nothing
But overall it's something to be aware of.


Some more things from the article


I did find this statement amusing

 

I run my own company so I understand just a little bit about budgets.

That results in a deficit. Sustained deficits result in a debt.

There is a difference, however, between the national debt, and the deficit. The IMF is concerned about sustained deficits, and not the national debt.

Please stop with examples. This isn't the third grade.

It would assist us in reducing our deficit, but it will do little to effect a change in the national debt.

Stick with real problems. The prescription drug plan approved by Bush could cost us as much as a trillion dollars a year.

-Don

 

And monkeys COULD, theoretically, fly out of my bunghole.

Your posts have so much BS in them, they're not worth debating anymore.

 

I don't know, 'monkeys out the bunghole' could require a lot of aspirin.

 

 

quote:
Stop sending money overseas and there may be no need to sale more Treasury Bonds to fund the debt of OVERSPENDING….


interesting theory, but, it doesn't hold water. The US rarely ever puts money into a foreign country without some form of quid pro quo. As an example, for every dollar the US puts into Africa, corporations take ten out. Maybe the Bubbya's should try getting some of that back in taxes rather than giving them ever larger tax breaks and subsidies. After all the corporations are using the tax breaks and subsidies to line executives pockets and give shareholders ever larger dividends while sending all the jobs overseas where they don't have to pay anything like a realistic wage. Some poor schmuck in China is getting paid 3 bucks a day or less so you can spend $150 for your cool pair of Nikes. How many of you guys actually check labels to see where your pair of Levi's are made? It sure ain't the USA.

 

I can back my statements up with facts. Can you?

"Things look bleak in the long run, too. Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Medicare bill could cost from $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion during its second 10 years, as the huge baby boom generation retires and foists added costs on taxpayers."

-Don

 

OK that seemed like an honest mistake.
Instead of a trillion a year it should have been 170 to 200 billion a year.

What's a few hundred billion between friends?

 

A few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there and sooner of later it adds up to real money.

-Don

 

Agreed…

Somewhat agreed, I agree there is a difference somewhat between the national debt and a yearly deficit, but the yearly deficit feeds the national debt which is just taking a lose for the year and putting it towards ongoing lose which is the national debt.

And I would agree a yearly surplus is also related to the national debt because if it is applied it reduces the national debt.

Again, somewhat agreed. Depending on what was actually done with any money sent overseas it could have a decent effect on the national debt. That would require all money not sent to be applied towards the national debt and no extra spending.

Agreed, there is no need for yet another expenditure when they can not control the growth of the expenditures they already have from all prior administrations including the current one.

We both seem to agree that spending should and must be reduced. I believe where we disagree is on tax cuts and that we may as well as agree to disagree.

My position is this, we the American citizens should not have to fund programs more then the cost of living each year. Neither you or I get any kind of salary increase beyond the cost of living and some kind of pay raise (you’re a bit different since you own your own business) but you get my point.

Why if you only see, to stay competitive, a 5% increase in your salary should you have to give 10% to the government to fund a program? I think the answer is for the most part the people sent to Washington to the Congress really do not have the mentality to try to solve problems but rather take the easy way out and throw money at it.

This is why I am strongly for tax cuts, not just to help the economy but more of a tool to force those in Washington to BALANCE their checkbooks and either come up with real solutions or a damn good reason for why an increase may be necessary.
I want people in Washington to quit asking the stupid question of ”How are we going to pay for this tax cut?” and replace it with a good question of ”How are we going to pay for this new program?”

I understand there will always have to be taxes to fund the federal government but what should the limit be? What is the adequate amount of federal revenue needed to “properly” fund the federal government? This is where I think the debate should be at rather then tax cuts do or do not cause deficits.

My position is known as well as yours but we seem to agree the budget is all out of whack and that spending must be reduced. I think we just disagree on the method we should take in order to try and “force” those in Washington to do so…

 

That sounds more like it sirket. Thanks for proving me right again.

 

Raoul, good buddy. Since a goat herder is the number 1 paying job ............

 

Wow... sorry folks I just caught the typo.

I actually didn't realize why Frank was acting so smug until I went back and read my previous post.

That was supposed to say "a trillion dollars a decade," and not "a trillion dollars a year." I think everyone got the point.

As it turned out I had underestimated the number anyway (as far as the per decade amount). Sorry for the confusion.

-Don