• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Another day older and deeper in debt

New posts

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Not sure if anyone read this today, but it depressed the heck out me. I thought both these charatcers were interested in balancing the budget? It appears no matter who we get, the debt will continue to rise and the dollar will continue to weaken.
:idontno:

Under current law (assuming the tax cuts expire on schedule, the AMT is not patched) the CBO projects that debt held by the public would remain roughly constant over the next ten years, growing from $5.0 trillion in 2007 to $5.2 trillion in 2018. Because of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the explosive growth of the AMT, tax revenues are projected to increase from 18.8 percent of GDP to 20.3 percent over that time interval while spending is expected to fall from 20 percent of GDP to 19.4 percent, despite significant increases in mandatory spending (for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). Discretionary spending (including war spending) and interest on the debt are projected to decline.

Under either Senator Obama?s or Senator McCain?s plan, however, the debt would likely continue to rise as it has over the past eight years, even under the CBO?s relatively optimistic assumptions about spending. Senator Obama?s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain?s plan would add $4.5 trillion. This does not include the cost of expanding health insurance coverage and assumes that Senator McCain?s proposals phase in and phase out on schedule. It also assumes that all of the candidates? optimistic revenue offsets materialize. If any of these assumptions turned out to be unwarranted, the national debt would grow even more.​


How depressing is that??

The whole thing can be read here -
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693​
 
Extremely depressing and I hope one day to read a news story like this one.

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

And I honestly do not care which candidate is able to make it happen, just make it happen.
 
Sounds like a dose of this thread is needed.................;-)

[ame="http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?p=422628#post422628"]Turn Your Face To The Sun - SoWal Beaches Forum[/ame]
 
Not sure if anyone read this today, but it depressed the heck out me. I thought both these charatcers were interested in balancing the budget? It appears no matter who we get, the debt will continue to rise and the dollar will continue to weaken.
:idontno:


Hardly a surprising analysis, coming from Brookings. Congress has an insatiable appetite for spending. It will not be stopped until we the people get fed up with it and do something about it. Ironically, we blame the budget on tax cuts, even though tax cuts resulted in increased "revenue" to the federal government. Depressingly, instead of pressuring the Congress to cut back on spending, we as a nation are clamouring for more. There is a collective attitude of please Government, take care of us. Give us "free" health care. Throw more money at schools. Give me my meds for "free". And the beat goes on.

This reminds me of why I became a Libertarian in the first place. Democrats want to raise spending by 7%; Republicans want to increase it by only 5%. I want to decrease it by 90%. :yikes:
 
Ah the surplus. I remember when that was released no one exclaimed with joy that we could pay down the national debr. In fact people panicked almost instantly that it would be the end of treasury bills thus affecting many interest rate calculations. At the time I was working for SallieMae (student loans are a set percentage plus the 90 day T-bill), and we actually went to a 4 hour training class to explain what would happen if they stopped issuing T-bills.

Thankfully Bush was elected and the crisis was averted.
 
Extremely depressing and I hope one day to read a news story like this one.

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

And I honestly do not care which candidate is able to make it happen, just make it happen.

Amen, my sister. That was the same year that I just decided not to have a car payment and to pay off my credit card balances (thanks to a little inheritance I received)--I was lucky. I have $0 credit card balances today.

Why should the average American family actually care whether we have a national budget surplus or a balanced budget when they are personally overextended at the family level? I.E., how may people took their $ 600 IRS check and paid of credit card balances VS those who went to the Mall shopping? Which was a better use of the money?
 
Last edited:
Budget surpluses only mean that the citizens were overtaxed. Government has no incentive to cut spending when there are surpluses in place, which is the main argument for deficit spending. In order to seriously cut bridges to nowhere, etc, the well has to be dry, not overflowing.
 
Budget surpluses only mean that the citizens were overtaxed. Government has no incentive to cut spending when there are surpluses in place, which is the main argument for deficit spending. In order to seriously cut bridges to nowhere, etc, the well has to be dry, not overflowing.

Not necessarily overtaxed. It could mean that the economy is booming and citizens and corporations are earning more taxable income. Yes more tax revenue is generated, but I don't think that in itself qualifies as being overtaxed. I will gladly trade today's environment for the years of the booming stock market, large capital gains, and yes capital gains taxes, which by the way were lowered during the Clinton administration. If that's the price to be paid for a budget surplus, sign me up, count me in, whatever.
 
Budget surpluses only mean that the citizens were overtaxed. Government has no incentive to cut spending when there are surpluses in place, which is the main argument for deficit spending. In order to seriously cut bridges to nowhere, etc, the well has to be dry, not overflowing.

Unfortunately, "starving the beast" sounds great on paper, but doesn't work with our government in practice - they just spend anyway and borrow from social security, us, and other governments.

Congress can pass laws that prevent them from spending what they don't have, and force the allocation of tax receipts to debt if they want to. But they don't.

My big frustration here and the point of this post was simply that both candidates originally talked about a balanced budget and paying down debt but have completely backed off those statements. McCain in the past had voted against tax cuts that arent balanced, and is one of the very few senators who has voted to take social security out of the general budget. But now he's toeing the party line and has a plan to spend trillions we don't have. Obama has often spoken of in support of pay-go and has stated it will take a new breed of politician to balance things, but his policy doesn't indicate a real commitment to it. I'd be willing to bet if you threw in his healthcare spending he and McCain would be about even.

It's just sad. They both suck in my book. I thought things were going to change in this election but I get the sense that was a pipe dream.
 
Not necessarily overtaxed. It could mean that the economy is booming and citizens and corporations are earning more taxable income. Yes more tax revenue is generated, but I don't think that in itself qualifies as being overtaxed. I will gladly trade today's environment for the years of the booming stock market, large capital gains, and yes capital gains taxes, which by the way were lowered during the Clinton administration. If that's the price to be paid for a budget surplus, sign me up, count me in, whatever.

By definition, it the government is taking in more than they spend, they are too far into my pocket and further emboldened to spend frivolously, which they proved. I'm familiar with and appreciative of Clinton lowering the capital gains rate, but our corporations are taxed more their competitors in every industrialized state but Japan. If the current Democratic candidate wanted to lower the gains rate, I could live with him more than I could now with his position to nearly double it.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top