News Tired of skyrocketing public debts?

[Pengwuino]

I got just the solution! Who needs to wait for higher taxes?

1. Make check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt.
2. In the memo section of the check, notate Gift to reduce 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

Brought to you by the United States Treasury Department.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

Think I'm kidding? Grab a Pub 17...

 

[Manchot]

Yes, but I'm not putting my money where my mouth is, because I shouldn't have to pay a debt that I'm not responsible for.

 

[SOS2008]

If you would like members to participate in a poll, it helps if you do some homework first.

The U.S. public debt, commonly called the national debt, gross federal debt or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government.

...The $4.6 trillion of public debt is debt purchased by the public, including foreign entities. This largely comes from the issuance of US Treasury securities. Nearly half ($2.2 trillion) is composed of Treasury notes (aka T-notes), while T-bills and T-bonds (including savings bonds) cover most of the remaining public portion of the debt. Bonds sold for infrastructure projects are also part of the national debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt

The most common methods to "reduce" the debt is by:

1) Growing the nation's GDP

2) Increasing revenue through increased taxes and other fees, such as import tariffs.

3) Simply printing more money. However, this is destructive to an economy, as it results in inflation, reducing the actual worth of the national currency.

4) Reducing wasteful spending.

a) Most notably eliminating spending on extremely costly and unecessary wars of attrition.

A new study by two leading academic experts suggests that the costs of the Iraq war will be substantially higher than previously reckoned. In a paper presented to this week’s Allied Social Sciences Association annual meeting in Boston MA., Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes and Columbia University Professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz calculate that the war is likely to cost the United States a minimum of nearly one trillion dollars and potentially over $2 trillion – that’s almost half of the public debt right there.​

b) Eliminate pork-barrel spending, which amounts to nothing more than bribe-taking, where politicians use their constituents' tax dollars to support their reelection (and often allocated through last-minute additions to appropriation bills).

Examples of pork-barrel spending in fiscal year 2000 include:
· $375,000,000 for an unrequested and unneeded amphibious assault ship in the state of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.);
· $700,000 for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Washington, the district of House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), despite a $4.2 million privately-funded facelift; and
· $500,000 for the Olympic Tree Program in the state of Senate appropriator Robert Bennett for the 2002 Winter Olympics.​

As a W2 citizen, I pay more than my fair share in taxes, and also purchase T-bills/Bonds in my 401k -- I don't want to hear this nonsense. The best way to retain responsible fiscal behavior is to voice your opinion at the polls by not reelecting representatives such as those mentioned above.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think that could have all been reduced to the 2nd option SOS. I didn't know ones duty to their country requires a vote every 2 years. I also find it utterly hilarious that you tell me to do my research and then, somehow believing it helps your cause, you claim to own part of that same debt. It was the 2nd option SOS, you could have made it nice and compact.

 

[SOS2008]

I think that could have all been reduced to the 2nd option SOS. I didn't know ones duty to their country requires a vote every 2 years. I also find it utterly hilarious that you tell me to do my research and then, somehow believing it helps your cause, you claim to own part of that same debt. It was the 2nd option SOS, you could have made it nice and compact.

Pengwuino, what you are saying is I should write a check to the government to pay for the T-Bills I already purchased – in other words buying back what I already bought.

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino, what you are saying is I should write a check to the government to pay for the T-Bills I already purchased – in other words buying back what I already bought.

That would be a wonderful and generous idea don't you think? I mean, especially for someone who continually complains about the national debt...

 

[Cyrus]

I got an even better Idea pengwuino, how about the government stop wasting all my tax dollars?

 

[Pengwuino]

I got an even better Idea pengwuino, how about the government stop wasting all my tax dollars?

Well I've never seen you complain about low taxes or high debt so i'll let that one slide!

 

[Cyrus]

Increasing or decreasing taxes won't make a bit of difference if you are not responsible in how you spend your money in the first place. Its that simple.

 

[Manchot]

That would be a wonderful and generous idea don't you think? I mean, especially for someone who continually complains about the national debt...

Or how about not spending $845 of my money on a war that I didn't support in the first place?

(Oh yeah, it's about to go up to $1254.)

 

[SOS2008]

That would be a wonderful and generous idea don't you think? I mean, especially for someone who continually complains about the national debt...

I think those who haven’t already loaned money to our government should go first—are you writing a check? And would it be better if we didn't address the debt and pretended to be happy about it like the hard-core Bush supporters?

I listed all the ways to reduce the debt so one can see which is preferable. Increasing the GDP is easier said than done, and takes time. The fastest, less painful way is to have a fair tax code, i.e., requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share, including retention of Estate Taxes (which affects far less than 1 percent of estates), and elimination of excessive corporate tax benefits for overseas work – to quote John Edwards:” Not only do we rarely tax overseas income from US companies--we often given them an extra $78 billion in tax breaks." If you added this all up we'd probably have a surplus again.

But as Cyrus pointed out, all this is useless when there is so much wasteful spending.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm just pointing out that its hypocritical to complain about the national debt yet refuse to do anything yourself. It's easy to tell someone else to do something about it yet still complain; its harder to actually put your money where your mouth is.

And what is "fair share" for rich people? 80% tax rate? 90? They already pay more then anyone else. But then again, that logic follows the whole "make someone else pay for it" mentality that you have shown to be a die-hard supporter of.

 

[Pengwuino]

Or how about not spending $845 of my money on a war that I didn't support in the first place?

(Oh yeah, it's about to go up to $1254.)

I don't support paying for abortions, paying illegal aliens to work here, paying for prisoners comfort, etc etc. Your stance doesn't sound very logical all of a sudden now does it?

 

[SOS2008]

I'm just pointing out that its hypocritical to complain about the national debt yet refuse to do anything yourself. It's easy to tell someone else to do something about it yet still complain; its harder to actually put your money where your mouth is.

And what is "fair share" for rich people? 80% tax rate? 90? They already pay more then anyone else. But then again, that logic follows the whole "make someone else pay for it" mentality that you have shown to be a die-hard supporter of.

I’ve pointed out that I pay my taxes (no loop holes for W2 withholdings) and have loaned the government money via T-bills/Bonds. How does this make me hypocritical?

In regard to the tax rate, why don’t you put your claims where your mouth is and provide credible evidence of how the current tax code isn’t more beneficial for the wealthy?

I don't support paying for abortions, paying illegal aliens to work here, paying for prisoners comfort, etc etc. Your stance doesn't sound very logical all of a sudden now does it?

I see no dichotomy between the two positions. Reduction of wasteful spending can apply to unnecessary war costs as well as the expenditures you mention.

 

[Pengwuino]

Why don't you provide credible evidence as to how the tax code doesn't treat rich people unfairly? I know a higher tax bracket is soooo unfair to upper class people!

And I guess you don't understand why you're being hypocritical. You are personally putting the government into deeper debt yet you still complain about the government having such a high debt. I'm not sure what the exact definition of hyportic might be, but I have a feeling that is just maaaaay apply here!

I also don't think you understand what I was saying to Manchot. One shouldn't say they shouldn't have to pay taxes beacuse part of its being used for something they don't agree with. I showed a few things I don't agree with but I don't go around saying I want my money back when its spent on those things.

 

[Manchot]

I also don't think you understand what I was saying to Manchot. One shouldn't say they shouldn't have to pay taxes beacuse part of its being used for something they don't agree with. I showed a few things I don't agree with but I don't go around saying I want my money back when its spent on those things.

I'm didn't say that I want my money back (though I do), I said that we wouldn't have this huge debt if it wasn't for them spending $1254 a person on something with no discernible benefit (to me).

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm didn't say that I want my money back (though I do), I said that we wouldn't have this huge debt if it wasn't for them spending $1254 a person on something with no discernible benefit (to me).

Well that still isn't much of a logical argument. Most government expenditures (1/300,000,000th of it ) don't benefit you. Ok ok, we can assume if it helps people in your position, it helps you too. It still doesn't make for a logical argument. Propping up the UN doesn't help me much... but I'm ok with paying up to have it there because the majority of people feel I should.

 

[Manchot]

Well that still isn't much of a logical argument. Most government expenditures (1/300,000,000th of it ) don't benefit you. Ok ok, we can assume if it helps people in your position, it helps you too. It still doesn't make for a logical argument. Propping up the UN doesn't help me much... but I'm ok with paying up to have it there because the majority of people feel I should.

It's one thing to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me: it's quite another to pay for something that actually harms me.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's one thing to pay for something that doesn't directly benefit me: it's quite another to pay for something that actually harms me.

Well that's something completely subjective so there's no reason to get into that for this discussion.

 

[SOS2008]

Why don't you provide credible evidence as to how the tax code doesn't treat rich people unfairly? I know a higher tax bracket is soooo unfair to upper class people!

I provided this information before in earlier threads on the topic:

"Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich" – http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

A new report, entitled “Shifty Tax Cuts: How They Move the Tax Burden off the Rich and onto Everyone Else,” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that between 2002 and 2004, the Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states.

I also don't think you understand what I was saying to Manchot. One shouldn't say they shouldn't have to pay taxes beacuse part of its being used for something they don't agree with. I showed a few things I don't agree with but I don't go around saying I want my money back when its spent on those things.

Fair enough about government spending that one doesn’t agree with. I feel we should stop waging unnecessary wars, and stop spending on the things you mentioned as well.

The point about benefit is also legitimate. If there was a flat tax (no tax shelters), the wealthy would pay more for services then they benefit from. But taxes aren’t being cut by Bush, just shifted, with lower-income Americans being shafted. Pengwuino, study Bush’s tax cuts. Who has investment income, capital gains and dividends? The…wealthy? That’s who benefit from Bush’s tax reductions. While the poor and middle class are hurt by the minimum tax requirement.

Now what would you prefer, to have our national security jeopardized by allowing Japan and China to own us, or to eliminate budget shortfalls by collecting taxes from the top 1%? Bush doesn’t care about U.S. security; only about tax breaks for himself and his cronies.

 

[turbo]

Why don't you provide credible evidence as to how the tax code doesn't treat rich people unfairly? I know a higher tax bracket is soooo unfair to upper class people!

Have you been alive or awake for the last decade? Bill Clinton left his service with a huge surplus in the federal budget (something that Reagan and Bush1 didn't care about) and W has endeavored to kill that as soon as possible. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, and neither do most Americans, but there are special "americans" who get special breaks, and it sucks to have to pay for W's oil-company aggressions and for Cheney's Halliburton/Brown-Root treats Our government is not for sale - it is already bought and we cannot buy it back.

 

[wasteofo2]

"Dear Federal Government,

You've spent far more money than you have. That was a bad idea. I think I'll give you some money. I trust this will teach you a valuable lesson about not racking up debt.

- Joe Public"

Somehow, I don't think that would work...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, let's all help the ultra-rich get righer [psssst, if you give it to them they will spend it]; this while tax breaks are given to corporations that move overseas.

Also, I have a used truck and some swamp land that I would like to sell. Pengwuino, we need to get together.

 

[Pengwuino]

I like how the last 4 replies were all rhetoric, no substance. At least SOS gave some links even though they were to a special interest group that did not cite their own resources.

A quick search turned up some interesting information on your source. AFL-CIO funded... known to ignore data that does not help them... tisk tisk!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When you realize that mine wasn't just rhetoric, then you have learned something.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I hope it doesn't take you as long as it took me.

 

[Pengwuino]

True Ivan, I guess that campaign slogan there has been repeated so many times, no one really needs to investigate its worthiness as an argument.

 

[turbo]

I like how the last 4 replies were all rhetoric, no substance.

My post was not rhetoric. When Clinton left, we had a large surplus, and as soon as W took office, he destroyed that surplus, giving it to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, to corporations, and to all sorts of hangers-on who bought him. His favorite lobbyist is in the tank now. W has made a gesture, giving $6000 of the money that Abramoff gave him to the American Heart Association, but is keeping the BIG money that Abramoff gave him. Lest you call this post "rhetoric":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402111.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/07/abramoff-bush-2001/
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789267/
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_30124.shtml

If you want more, just Google Abramoff and Bush. Our government has been bought, right up to the top. Whether you realize it or not, you have been victimized by this administration. Bush has authorized spying on everyone in this police state - not just people making or receiving international calls, as he would like you to believe, but everyone who uses Internet search engines, emails, etc. Oops, I hope you haven't Googled Abramoff and Bush yet, lest you get hauled in for questioning.

 

[SOS2008]

I like how the last 4 replies were all rhetoric, no substance. At least SOS gave some links even though they were to a special interest group that did not cite their own resources.

A quick search turned up some interesting information on your source. AFL-CIO funded... known to ignore data that does not help them... tisk tisk!

Wow, you did some work. What independent research would you believe...stats released by the White House? As I said, look at Bush’s tax reductions on your own. The reductions apply to investment income, capital gains and dividends.

 

[Amp1]

Penguino, something else I don't think was mentioned that you don't seem to get.

If an elderly couple on a fixed income pays only 10 percent of 36,000. Its more as a proportion of their income than for some super rich persons who earn 36 million are paying even if their rate is 40 percent.

40 percent of 36 million is 14,400,000

10 percent of 36000 is 3600

14.4 million is more than 3,600 numerically but as a proportion of 36 million it is smaller than 3600 is for 36,000.

approx. 2.7 x 10 ^-1 for the elderly couple as opposed to approx. 2.7 x 10 ^-6 for the super rich people.

 

[loseyourname]

Penguino, something else I don't think was mentioned that you don't seem to get.

If an elderly couple on a fixed income pays only 10 percent of 36,000. Its more as a proportion of their income than for some super rich persons who earn 36 million are paying even if their rate is 40 percent.

40 percent of 36 million is 14,400,000

10 percent of 36000 is 3600

14.4 million is more than 3,600 numerically but as a proportion of 36 million it is smaller than 3600 is for 36,000.

approx. 2.7 x 10 ^-1 for the elderly couple as opposed to approx. 2.7 x 10 ^-6 for the super rich people.

I can't seem to understand this. What sense of the word "proportion" are you using? How can 10% of X be a larger proportion than 40% of Y is of Y? The proportion in one case is 1/10 and in the other 4/10, or 2/5 if you prefer.

 

[Amp1]

LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.

 

[SOS2008]

LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.

This principle of proportional giving is at the root of the tithe (10% flat) and goes back to Jesus who made the comparison:

Luke 20:45-21:4
[21:1] As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

 

[Amp1]

Thats what I meant SOS, thanks. I didn't dare mention the verse or any religion. The point is a reality, especially in this day and time. The impoverished and middle class who pay taxes are giving more than many wealthy and ultra wealthy people - note: I said many, not all- who are quite able to pay at the least their fair share,which could amount to more than most people earn in a lifetime of work, and hardly feel it.

Bill Gates regularly gives away millions in philantropy. He does get a write off that's true but the money reenters the economy and also more importantly, it benefits a lot of groups or individuals who need such aid. While their are others, who seemingly hoard their gains and obviously use it to make more money. Their excess isn't put to the same work as a Gates and consequently doesn't achieve the same multiplier effect within the economy.

They however do gain, sometimes very large yields which stagnates while they figure out how to hoard it without paying their fair share. I would use Cheney as an example but he is extremely secretive about his (monetary)worth and income.

Philantropy returns a greater gain to the economy as a whole than singular investing because of the multiplier effect it has in the economy which increases many different facets of the GNP.

 

[loseyourname]

LYN, I meant to make a correction. What I meant though is the amount that is spent by the elderly couple is a larger share of their livlihood than the 14,400,000 paid by the wealty couple. In other words they give out of their need and the wealthy out of their surplus. The proportion indicates this difference.

You're saying they pay a larger proportion of what would otherwise be disposable income, as in, after taxes, they have no disposable income, whereas the super-rich generally still do. Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Amp1]

No worries

 

[edward]

I'm just pointing out that its hypocritical to complain about the national debt yet refuse to do anything yourself. It's easy to tell someone else to do something about it yet still complain; its harder to actually put your money where your mouth is.

And what is "fair share" for rich people? 80% tax rate? 90? They already pay more then anyone else. But then again, that logic follows the whole "make someone else pay for it" mentality that you have shown to be a die-hard supporter of.

According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

Assuming that the number is accurate, where exactly will this money come from? We do know that higher government debt translates into higher interest rates. This means that the people in the average income bracket will be paying out a much higher portion of their income for debt service.

All things considered the "make someone else pay for it mentality" will be a necessity for the average income family. They simply do not have the money and they never will.

This narrows the options pretty much to cutting all entitlement programs entirely, increased taxes for the wealthy, or a combination of both.

Somewhere there has to be a balance that is fair to everyone and I don't see that cutting health care for the less fortunate, which is what the administration is doing, as being as fair as taxing an extra million from a guy who makes twenty million per year and owns three houses and five cars.

 

[SOS2008]

According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

Assuming that the number is accurate, where exactly will this money come from? We do know that higher government debt translates into higher interest rates. This means that the people in the average income bracket will be paying out a much higher portion of their income for debt service.

All things considered the "make someone else pay for it mentality" will be a necessity for the average income family. They simply do not have the money and they never will.

This narrows the options pretty much to cutting all entitlement programs entirely, increased taxes for the wealthy, or a combination of both.

Somewhere there has to be a balance that is fair to everyone and I don't see that cutting health care for the less fortunate, which is what the administration is doing, as being as fair as taxing an extra million from a guy who makes twenty million per year and owns three houses and five cars.

Why should the average American sacrifice basic needs like health care (preventative care is less expensive), retirement benefits, etc. while political leaders (BushCo) and CEOs alike are collecting benefits often of astronomical proportions? Aside from Bush’s skewed tax reductions, why is the U.S. “nation building” in Iraq, and giving huge amounts of aid to countries like Israel, countries that are not the poorest and most needy? Why aren’t we bringing troops home, and allowing other countries to take more financial responsibility in their regions? Why are we spending so much on old technology per the energy and transportation bills, instead of investing more in future technology, related jobs and exports?

The average American already has a good portion of their paychecks going to taxes and social programs, and struggles with increasing cost of living because wages aren’t keeping pace. It would be great to see leaders like Bush face the music for fiscal mismanagement right along with the executives from Enron.

 

[loseyourname]

According to the FEB AARP Bulletin, the debt now amouts to $156,000 for every man woman and child in America (God I hope they are wrong. Is it really that high?)

I just did this by sight, but wouldn't that be around $70 trillion? The debt right now, according to the public debt clock, is a little over $8 trillion.

Not to say that isn't high, but I'm not sure that $70 trillion even exists.

 

[Amp1]

LYN, assuming a pop of 300 mil it comes out to about 47 tril. There once was a counter up at 14^th street and Union Square here in NY, and the cost per individual was moving up faster than the hundredth sec counter in a down hill ski competion.