Five Fun Facts About the $14 Trillion National Debt

[billwald]

http://www.alternet.org/story/150371/five_fun_facts_about_the_$14_trillion_national_debt?page=entire

 

[mandym]

And now back to reality

 

[glfredrick]

Holy cow (reference to a false religion intended)!

What a biased hit piece on conservatives. I can't remember when I've seen a worse piece of what purported to be authentic journalism.

Was that a NYT writer?

 

[Arbo]

http://www.alternet.org/story/150371/five_fun_facts_about_the_$14_trillion_national_debt?page=entire

Is Alternet your only news (and I use the word 'news' loosely) source? You need to broaden your horizons beyond this liberal drivel.

 

[Salty]

From the link: "We could have paid for everything as we went through higher taxes but we didn't ..."

Other than constitutional mandated items, such as the Post Office, roads, military, ect, it is NOT the governments job to provide for everything.... let the people decide how to spend their money on themselves.

The article spoke of entitlements - Yes, I agree SS is an entitlement - but virtually none of the other programs are - WIC, Food Stamps, welfare ect...
They are give-away-programs

 

[Jkdbuck76]

So is our tax system. I know I kid who paid $400.00 in Federal Income taxes, but since he has some college debt and lives at home (still), he gets $1,500.00 back.

$1,500.00!!!

I suppose that $900.00 just fell out of the sky magically.

 

[rbell]

billwald is becoming more and more troll-like.

He posts garbage, then refuses to interact.

Oh well...when you have no argument; when facts aren't on your side, and when you cannot make sense...I guess it's the best you can do...

Of course, "alternet" makes comic books look like the Wall St. Journal...

 

[billwald]

What is there to add? I agree with the information I posted and you all don't. End of story. No one explained to me why the data was wrong. Only Salty had an opinion that was worth its salt - pun intended.

Maybe WIC isn't an entitlement but the purpose of WIC is not to help women, infants, and children. The purpose is to transfer tax money to commodity (international corporation) farmers, wheat, dairy, corn . . . .

 

[glfredrick]

What is there to add? I agree with the information I posted and you all don't. End of story. No one explained to me why the data was wrong. Only Salty had an opinion that was worth its salt - pun intended.

Maybe WIC isn't an entitlement but the purpose of WIC is not to help women, infants, and children. The purpose is to transfer tax money to commodity (international corporation) farmers, wheat, dairy, corn . . . .

I'll be happy to explain why the information you posted was wrong...

Let's start with the most GLARING of the many incorrect statements:

3. Republicans Leave More Debt Than Dems

Really? I noticed that the writer neglected to mention President Obama who has now created more debt than ALL of the other Presidents in history all by himself.

Sadly, the chart above only records 2009 data, since then, Obama has added 2 more TRILLION to his totals... His debt is so massive that we have to run the printing presses at light speed just to keep up with monetary demand!

Second, the idea that adding taxes would have solved our debt problems...

We could have paid for everything as we went through higher taxes but we didn't –

IN FACT, the tax cuts by Reagan, mentioned specifically in the article, stimulated the economy to the point where government revenues increased every time a major tax rate cut was made by an administration, whether Republican or Democrat:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.

Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.

Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.

Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.

The third glaring error in the piece was the little blurb about our money residing in the SS trust fund:

And 4.6 trillion – about a third – is held by the government itself. Almost 18 percent of the T-bills outstanding are sitting in the Social Security trust fund, earning interest and making the retirement program incredibly secure despite all the claims to the contrary.

The Social Security Trust Fund is filled with IOU's, not dollars. Those dollars were LONG AGO stripped from the fund as a greedy Congress used the money for entitlements that helped them retain their office. I'll remind the readers again of whom has been in charge of Congress for most of the past 80 years -- Democrats.

The writer does tell us that Clinton balanced his last three budgets, and makes that sound as if the President had something to do with that, but of course, the President does not write the budget, Congress does, and the Congress during Clinton's last terms was a Republican majority for the first time in over 60 years during that time! Clinton was forced to balance the budget by conservatives.

Here, from another liberal source (CBS) is a brief synopsis of the Trust Fund:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retireme...ife/the-social-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/

Our political leaders continue a long tradition of using words to describe Social Security that give you an impression that is different from reality. Normally, when you hear the words “trust fund,” you think of an arrangement where money and investments have been set aside that are dedicated to a specific purpose, such as providing retirement benefits. And typically, the money and investments in a trust fund are separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund. The trust funds supporting your 401k and pension benefits operate this way.

But the Social Security “trust fund” is invested in special government bonds issued by the federal government. Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law. The bonds in the Social Security trust fund are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability, since they are part of the total federal debt. Basically, one hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the trust fund.

Note carefully that the "trust fund" is not actually a trust fund, full of cash. It is a fund full of letters of credit, that our own government has promised to pay back to itself. In other words, IOU's. They cannot pay back the fund, because the fund was used to reduce the debt, and it is itself part of the debt. We will go further into debt to reduce debt that has already cost us debt. In other words, we're using one mastercard to pay another mastercad, which is used to pay another mastercard, but there is no ACTUAL money anywhere to pay any of them, and when the time comes, and the ACTUAL money is needed, there will just be another mastercard added to the system.

Another explanation (from CNN, another liberal source):

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/social_security_value.fortune/index.htm

There's real money in the world, then there's funny money -- stuff that looks real, but isn't.

Today, let's talk about one of the world's biggest piles of funny money -- the $2.54 trillion Social Security trust fund. The trust fund matters now, because Social Security revealed last week that it plans to tap it for $41 billion this year, and will begin tapping it on a regular basis in less than five years.

This year's cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the Treasury will have to borrow money to redeem some of the trust fund's Treasury securities. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.

Here's why the trust fund has no economic value. Let's say I begin taking Social Security when I hit the full retirement age of 66 later this year. Because its tax revenues are below its expenses, Social Security would have to cash in about $3,400 of its trust fund Treasury securities each month to get the money to pay my wife and me. The Treasury, in turn, would have to borrow $3,400 from investors to get the money to pay Social Security. The bottom line is that the government has to borrow from investors to pay me, regardless of how big the trust fund is.

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalh...curity-trust-fund-may-be-worth-less-than-zero

It is well known, if not universally acknowledged, that the Social Security Trust Fund doesn’t hold any assets of value to offset the government’s cost of benefits.

Every dollar’s worth of special-issue Treasury bonds held by Social Security — and there are currently about $2.6 trillion worth — is a dollar that Treasury must come up with by issuing new debt, raising taxes or taking away from the rest of government, which is in far worse fiscal shape.

But an analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office last year on the effect of high government debt levels suggests that unless the government gets its fiscal act together, the value of the trust fund is less than zero.

I'm sure with nit-picking, I could debunk a lot more from the article, but these few big items are enough to place the article in the circular file or worse.

What really sucks is that people in America read this sort of drivel, then vote for the people who push this crud forward, then we end up with presidents and congress who continue their great push to ruin America with their tax and spend worldview, designed for ONLY ONE PURPOSE -- to socialize America and remove the power of the people, placing it into the hands of a select elite who hold all the cards. Sad day for America! :BangHead:

 

[dh1948]

I'll be happy to explain why the information you posted was wrong...

Let's start with the most GLARING of the many incorrect statements:



Really? I noticed that the writer neglected to mention President Obama who has now created more debt than ALL of the other Presidents in history all by himself.

Sadly, the chart above only records 2009 data, since then, Obama has added 2 more TRILLION to his totals... His debt is so massive that we have to run the printing presses at light speed just to keep up with monetary demand!

Second, the idea that adding taxes would have solved our debt problems...



IN FACT, the tax cuts by Reagan, mentioned specifically in the article, stimulated the economy to the point where government revenues increased every time a major tax rate cut was made by an administration, whether Republican or Democrat:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676



The third glaring error in the piece was the little blurb about our money residing in the SS trust fund:



The Social Security Trust Fund is filled with IOU's, not dollars. Those dollars were LONG AGO stripped from the fund as a greedy Congress used the money for entitlements that helped them retain their office. I'll remind the readers again of whom has been in charge of Congress for most of the past 80 years -- Democrats.

The writer does tell us that Clinton balanced his last three budgets, and makes that sound as if the President had something to do with that, but of course, the President does not write the budget, Congress does, and the Congress during Clinton's last terms was a Republican majority for the first time in over 60 years during that time! Clinton was forced to balance the budget by conservatives.

Here, from another liberal source (CBS) is a brief synopsis of the Trust Fund:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retireme...ife/the-social-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/



Note carefully that the "trust fund" is not actually a trust fund, full of cash. It is a fund full of letters of credit, that our own government has promised to pay back to itself. In other words, IOU's. They cannot pay back the fund, because the fund was used to reduce the debt, and it is itself part of the debt. We will go further into debt to reduce debt that has already cost us debt. In other words, we're using one mastercard to pay another mastercad, which is used to pay another mastercard, but there is no ACTUAL money anywhere to pay any of them, and when the time comes, and the ACTUAL money is needed, there will just be another mastercard added to the system.

Another explanation (from CNN, another liberal source):

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/09/news/economy/social_security_value.fortune/index.htm



http://blogs.investors.com/capitalh...curity-trust-fund-may-be-worth-less-than-zero



I'm sure with nit-picking, I could debunk a lot more from the article, but these few big items are enough to place the article in the circular file or worse.

What really sucks is that people in America read this sort of drivel, then vote for the people who push this crud forward, then we end up with presidents and congress who continue their great push to ruin America with their tax and spend worldview, designed for ONLY ONE PURPOSE -- to socialize America and remove the power of the people, placing it into the hands of a select elite who hold all the cards. Sad day for America! :BangHead:

Great response! Thanks for your time and efforts to present the facts.

 

[billwald]

Don't know how to copy the PDF but see chart on

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

if it works . . . note that the long term capital gains rate is always much lower than the marginal tax rate. No sane person ever paid the real high marginal tax rates because there are other ways to pull out cash. For example, most well paid CEOs are paid mostly in shares. He holds the shares more than a year and they become capital gains. So if you have lots and lots of double time pay because it was negotiated by your union <G> you pay the highest tax rate on your final increment. But the guy who sells ten million bucks of his shares pays a max 15% on the entire ten million.

 

[Havensdad]

Don't know how to copy the PDF but see chart on

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

if it works . . . note that the long term capital gains rate is always much lower than the marginal tax rate. No sane person ever paid the real high marginal tax rates because there are other ways to pull out cash. For example, most well paid CEOs are paid mostly in shares. He holds the shares more than a year and they become capital gains. So if you have lots and lots of double time pay because it was negotiated by your union <G> you pay the highest tax rate on your final increment. But the guy who sells ten million bucks of his shares pays a max 15% on the entire ten million.

Even if this were true (and its not as simple as you make it out; salaries are NOT primarily paid in stock options...the company loses tax deductions by doing this. They are paid, some, in stock but this is limited), 15 percent is as much as ANYONE, regardless of how rich, should pay in taxes! Counting the other taxes that these people pay (state income taxes, state sales taxes of up to 9 percent, gas tax, etc., etc.) they STILL pay nearly ALL of their money to the government.

The products that you buy, are made by companies with CEOs. If these CEOs are taxed more, we pay more for the products. If we raise the taxes or increase regulations on these companies, they just raise the cost of their product. Who ends up suffering? The worker, who is forced to be more and more subservient to the government, in order to eat. High taxes turn workers into slaves, forced to bow down to "the man" uncle Sam.

Low taxes, by contrast, bring in new companies, increase revenue, resulting in higher wages for workers, and more freedom from government intrusion. Yey, low taxes! Friend of those who love freedom...

 

[Bob Alkire]

What is there to add? I agree with the information I posted and you all don't. End of story. No one explained to me why the data was wrong. Only Salty had an opinion that was worth its salt - pun intended.

Maybe WIC isn't an entitlement but the purpose of WIC is not to help women, infants, and children. The purpose is to transfer tax money to commodity (international corporation) farmers, wheat, dairy, corn . . . .

The more I read your post the more you sound at times like FDR, who liked Benito Mussolini Fascism in Italy. Even Hitler wrote FDR a letter congratulating him on his point of view, I want no parts of that.
Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. It was openly recognized as true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.