Americans DON'T want the debt ceiling raised

[bendog]

Because the debate is not about spennding or even the debt ceiling. It's about defunding obamacare. If the gop wants to shut down the govt, the dems appear willing to let them do it.

And, sarcasm aside, deficits that grow at less a rate than growth are sustainable, and actually serve to stimulate growth. That's econ 101. There's no doubt govt spending grew at unsustainable rates in the bushii admin, and ballooned in the recession. The question is whether we can sustain them with both obamacare and the boomers aging into soc sec and medicare. And that's an open question, with no "side" having a sure answer to. But, that is not the question the gop is raising; rather, it's about defunding obamacare because the extreme right wants no govt role in healthcare.

 

[g5000]

Of course Americans want the debt ceiling raised. If you asked them whether they would rather give up their mortgage interest deduction and their child tax credits and all the other presents they get from the government or...raise the debt ceiling to pay for all their stuff, I would bet they would scream to raise the debt ceiling immediately.

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it."

 

[Derideo_Te]

the sequester happened, it was supposed to destroy the economy, did it?

Why don't you ask the parents of kids whose schools were forced to close? Or workers who can no longer make ends meet because they have been forced to take unpaid "furloughs"? How many of them are about to lose their homes? Hurting hardworking Americans and their children doesn't sound a good plan to me but you want to make it even worse?

And you don't see it, do you?


You just outlined WHY government dependency and spending is so very wrong for this country.

BTW...how many people have lost their homes because the President has failed to work on the economy in lieu of a healthcare law that destroys jobs, and was unnecessary?

Ironic! Whine about government "dependency and spending" and then in the very next sentence whine that the government failed to do the very same thing. Of course Obama actually did work on the economy when he passed the stimulus package. Something that he did before he started on the ACA which is not destroying job and was absolutely necessary.

I don't see you or anyone crying about people losing full time jobs for part time jobs (isn't that what a furlough is, only on a temporary scale?) on a permanent basis.

Nope, a furlough is mandatory unpaid leave from work. For many defense contractors they are not allowed to take part time work during their furloughs since that violates their contracts. You might want to try googling the impact that furloughs are having on hardworking families.

There is only so much 'outrage' about sequestration people should be forced to listen too when other disasters of current policy are completely ignored.

The government MUST not spend money outside its income stream. If that means that there is some pain, it is preferable to the massive pain that is coming if we fail to act.

Notice how quickly congress exempted the TSA from the furlough as soon as they felt the "pain" that it caused them flying home. But they ignored the plight of everyone else's pain. What makes you believe it will be any different when there is "massive pain"?

So, answer this question. Why won't the Democrats in the Senate and the White House not work with the Republicans?

Compromise requires both sides to work together. That means both sides have to give up some of what they want. So far only one side has shown any willingness to compromise.

 

[Synthaholic]

the debt is a problem.

but we have to solve this problem in a rational and logical way.

slowly, surely, and progressively bring down the deficit till its zero.

that means more revenue and less spending.

Much more revenue and much less spending!

We need to raise the top rates to 75% on all incomes over $1 million regardless of source (ie dividends). This rate will drop back to 50% once the national debt is back to zero. It will automatically kick back in as soon as the national debt grows again.

We need to eliminate the income cap on social security.

We need to phase out all corporate subsidies across the board.

We need to impose a means test for Medicare.

We need to reduce defense spending by 50% to bring it back to pre-9/11 levels.

We need to gradually transfer social programs like public schools and Medicaid back to the states (and return their current share of federal taxes).

Sorry, but even I cannot support a tax rate that high on anyone.

If someone is making $20 million per year, you wouldn't support a higher tax rate on that 20th million? Just that 20th million?

Because that's how a progressive tax rate works.

 

[g5000]

Sorry, folks, but you are not going to pay off your $16 trillion in presents by going after just "the rich" to pay for it.

It's a big shit sandwich, and we all gotta take a bite.

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it." It is time to get out of that mentality.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The first people that need to get out of that mentality are the corporatist whores Americans elected as representatives. Most of the gimmes go to corps who then fund campaigns for reps who want nothing more than to get theirs and use the tazpayer as fodder.

But, keep on voting, America. You're doing a stellar job of nailing the llid on your own coffin.

 

[Contumacious]

Because that's how a progressive tax rate works.

And TAX AVOIDANCE works by taking that 20th million to New Zealand.

Or maybe someday American producers will say enough is enough and will start shooting the members of the parasitic faction.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Top income rates have been higher than 75% in the past. There is an inverse correlation between top rates and job growth. As far as eliminating the debt entirely why don't you enlighten me?

No they have not. The fast and dirty comparison between past and present tax rates does not take into account that there are MASSIVE differences in the tax code itself making the comparison apples to oranges. The comparison leaves out so much as to be utterly useless.

Current tax rates are artificially low. Whenever the top rates are low the economy suffers.

Money supply = debt. Zero debt = no money at all.

So tax revenues ="no money at all". That makes "zero" sense.

Look into how our monetary system works because if you don’t at least understand the basics there you can’t really understand what our debt and deficit means let alone how to effectively address it. I can only scratch the surface of this though there are some very knowledgeable posters here that have taught me a little on the subject.

Social Security is one of the finest programs of it's kind in the world. One minor tweak to remove the income cap and it will be there for generations to come. There is no "ponzi scheme" because no individual is profiting from it.

That is a lot of words without saying anything at all. I didn’t call it a Ponzi scheme though in essence that is the basic formula for it.

Correct. You called it a "pyramid scheme" instead.

They are related to the fact that the ‘insurance’ is fundamentally based on a pyramid system and that, by its very nature, is fundamentally flawed.

No one, to this date, has EVER been able to display the difference. The end answer always ends up ‘because the government runs it.’

The fact is that it is set up as an insurance program (to cover the scheme up) and you want to fundamentally change it to a redistribution program.

Nope, I just want to eliminate the income cap.

That along with other MASSIVE redistribution plans that you outlined.



IOW, your answers are basically seeing an end to the wealthy. That does NOT raise the poor up to the middle – it lowers EVERYONE to poverty.

Since I am doing nothing of the sort you will have to produce something factual to support that allegation.

Simply because something is difficult does not mean that it cannot be done.

It cannot be done not because it is difficult but because it represents a removal of central power from the government, something that I don’t think has ever happened in our government willingly.

I will fight for it (and have) but I don’t see it actually happening. That does not mean I don’t have any hope but I am at least going to be realistic.

We the People are in control of our own destiny. If we want to make it happen we can. We eliminated slavery, we extended voting rights, we put a man on the moon. None of these were easy but we did them.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sorry, folks, but you are not going to pay off your $16 trillion in presents by going after just "the rich" to pay for it.

It's a big shit sandwich, and we all gotta take a bite.

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it." It is time to get out of that mentality.

Agreed that we all have to take a bite, but some people need to swallow a bigger bite than others.

 

[g5000]

The first people that need to get out of that mentality are the corporatist whores Americans elected as representatives. Most of the gimmes go to corps who then fund campaigns for reps who want nothing more than to get theirs and use the tazpayer as fodder.

But, keep on voting, America. You're doing a stellar job of nailing the llid on your own coffin.

The largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance. That's a present worth $171 billion a year. Not for your corporation. For you. You are not taxed for the insurance premiums (income) you receive as a benefit from your job.

The second largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for pension contributions and earnings. That's a present worth $138 billion a year. Not for your corporation. For you.

The third largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for mortgage interest payments. That's a present worth $87 billion a year. Not for the corporations. For you.

Kind of makes all the hoopla over the pocket change spent on ObamaPhones look incredibly stupid, no?

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it."

One Look At This Chart, And You'll Instantly Get Why We Can't Fix The Tax Code

Everyone is protecting their presents.

 

[g5000]

If the road in front of your and your neighbor's house costs $500 a year to maintain, and you both earn the same amount of income, then your "fair share" is $250 a year in taxes to pay for the road.

But wait! Your neighbor has a mortgage, and you are renting. Therefore, your neighbor is rewarded with a lower tax bill. You must make up the difference...or the government must borrow the difference from China to pay for your road. Every dollar in tax breaks your neighbor gets is a dollar that must come from somewhere else.

So what is it going to be, raise the debt ceiling or your taxes? Or maybe the government should stop maintaining the road?

Americans would rather we raise the debt ceiling and borrow more from China. Clearly. They've said so time and time and time again when they refuse to accept a tax hike.

Shit, they'd rather the road collapse before they pay another cent in taxes!




Or maybe we should take away the ridiculous present your neighbor gets. It is insane he is paying less taxes than you even though you both make the same amount of income.

You are paying a tax penalty for not buying a house. You also pay a tax penalty for not buying the right car or buying the right refrigerator or marrying the right person.

Wake up!




So don't give me this shit about Americans not wanting to hike the debt ceiling.

They do. They most certainly do. When given a choice, they pick "MOAR DEBT!!!" every time.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The first people that need to get out of that mentality are the corporatist whores Americans elected as representatives. Most of the gimmes go to corps who then fund campaigns for reps who want nothing more than to get theirs and use the tazpayer as fodder.

But, keep on voting, America. You're doing a stellar job of nailing the llid on your own coffin.

The largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance. That's a present worth $171 billion a year. Not for your corporation. For you. You are not taxed for the insurance premiums (income) you receive as a benefit from your job.

The second largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for pension contributions and earnings. That's a present worth $138 billion a year. Not for your corporation. For you.

The third largest tax expenditure is the tax exemption for mortgage interest payments. That's a present worth $87 billion a year. Not for the corporations. For you.

Kind of makes all the hoopla over the pocket change spent on ObamaPhones look incredibly stupid, no?

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it."

One Look At This Chart, And You'll Instantly Get Why We Can't Fix The Tax Code

Everyone is protecting their presents.

Tax exemptions are now gifts.....

I suppose so if you believe the government owns all the wealth and allows you to have some (of what you earn). Twisted up, that logic.

What I'm referring to are things such as:

Bailing out failed banking institutions with taxpayer money. And a host of other easy to spot examples of corporatism in America.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Andrea Mitchell Dismisses NBC News Poll Finding Americans Don?t Want to Raise Debt Limit | NewsBusters

Very interesting situation here. Has America finally woke up? Doesn't look like dems will be able to clobber the republicans over the head with this this time.

Probably a waste of time to point out the FACTS of this but, wth -

Way too many Americans watch fux news so they have no idea what the debt ceiling really is any more than rw's posting here do.

Its the Rs who are holding the country hostage. They voted to spend money but now are saying they don't want to pay the debt they incurred.

People who get their "news" frum fux, dredge, lushbo, etc believe the lie that raising the debt ceiling means we're spending more money.

They're stupid and you can't fix stupid.

 

[bendog]

Well, we all see where facts get g5000. (-: Still, a few more facts The debt is around 80% of gnp. At the end of WWII it was around 115%. Seems high, and obviously iit is. Wonder where that peace dividend went. LOL

GNP is around 16 trillion. Govt reciepts are around 4 billion.

No repuplican has yet identified how the budget can be balanced simply by cutting spending. And that doesn't mean actually balancing the budget is sound econ theory, because it isn't. But, we can't sustain more deficit spending when the total outstanding debt threatens to exceed GNP.

And despite the absurd notion of the RW that excluding some form of income, or expenditure of income, IS NOT A TAX CUT, g5000 is right. If we really want to pay for what the govt buys, somebody's gotta pay something. If you add the tax breaks identified, you come pretty close to the 500billion needed to balance the budget.

But again, that's not really the issue. The issue is we have to find a sustainable way to increase spending by a percentage less than the historic increase in yearly gnp. People gripe about Obamacare. I'm not a real fan of what Pelosi cooked up in her witch's caldrun. But, considering the fact that the largest tax BREAK is employer sponsored care, Obamacare would be a positive if it reduced the rate healthcare costs escalate.

Meanwhile, all I hear from the gop is "cut welfare" or the Wall St. Bailout. Even if the Wall St Bailout costs 200 billion

Obama budget: Price tag for Wall Street bailout goes up - Washington Post

THAT'S LESS THAN HALF ON ONE YEARLY DEFICIT AND POCKET CHANGE TO THE NATL DEBT OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 14 AND 16 TRILLION

 

[FA_Q2]

Shutting down the government is an even greater insanity. This would just be the lesser of 2 evils and short of allowing the far right to hold the nation hostage it is a viable alternative to caving in to the demands of economic terrorism in my opinion. Personally I don't like either alternative but given that the Treasury dept has that tool at it's disposal it can do whatever it takes to keep the economy going.

As far as getting hurt is concerned those who are holding a gun to the debt ceiling are the ones who will be causing the harm to our creditors and seniors. Obviously they are not considering the damage they will do in order to get their way. Democracy is about compromise. Threatening to bring down the economy is economic terrorism in my opinion.

Which has nothing to do with anything I stated. This is simply a move to change the subject from the fact that the points in question that you brought up are incorrect without actually having to admit that

Why don't you ask the parents of kids whose schools were forced to close? Or workers who can no longer make ends meet because they have been forced to take unpaid "furloughs"? How many of them are about to lose their homes? Hurting hardworking Americans and their children doesn't sound a good plan to me but you want to make it even worse?

Funny that you make claims like this and then ignore the fact that the same effects happen on a MUCH more MASSIVE scale in the supposed 50% cuts in the military. Do you not think that those soldiers and airman that are cut by those changes or the contractors that are left without contracts are somehow not ‘hardworking’ Americans? No, the simple truth is that you only care about the suffering that ceasing spending in certain areas causes IF it happens to be an area that you simply do not agree with. When it is another area where you want spending suddenly the suffering of those no longer matters.

Consistency. Try some

 

[FA_Q2]

Top income rates have been higher than 75% in the past. There is an inverse correlation between top rates and job growth. As far as eliminating the debt entirely why don't you enlighten me?

No they have not. The fast and dirty comparison between past and present tax rates does not take into account that there are MASSIVE differences in the tax code itself making the comparison apples to oranges. The comparison leaves out so much as to be utterly useless.

Current tax rates are artificially low. Whenever the top rates are low the economy suffers.

A baseless contention and a complete sidestep of the fact that current rates have nothing to do with the past rates that you attempted to correlate them with. You are sidestepping here and I suspect because you did not really think through that list of yours.
This contention has no basis in reality and has nothing to do with the conversation up to this point.

Money supply = debt. Zero debt = no money at all.

So tax revenues ="no money at all". That makes "zero" sense.

Like I said, do yourself a favor and actually do some research into what debt actually means. This only makes no sense to you because you do not understand how our current fiat monetary system works. My statement has NOTHING to do with taxes in any way whatsoever. It has to do with actual money supply and is a basic fact. Again, no debt = no money. Until you bother to understand what that means you cannot comprehend what our debt actually mans no what you are proposing when you make asinine statements like reducing our debt to zero.

There is a way but that involves eliminating the fed – something that I don’t think you support and have not made reference to yet. I am not going to assume that is what you want to accomplish as that is a very rare stance (and mostly localized to the libertarians here which you I do not believe includes you) so I have to assume that you don’t actually understand what you are saying in full.

Look into how our monetary system works because if you don’t at least understand the basics there you can’t really understand what our debt and deficit means let alone how to effectively address it. I can only scratch the surface of this though there are some very knowledgeable posters here that have taught me a little on the subject.

That is a lot of words without saying anything at all. I didn’t call it a Ponzi scheme though in essence that is the basic formula for it.

Correct. You called it a "pyramid scheme" instead.

And you failed to show the difference. I note that you are also another in the long list of people here that simply cannot articulate the difference but continually demand that there is one.

Basically, you only belive there is a difference because you don’t want to admit that it is EXACTLY the same.

No one, to this date, has EVER been able to display the difference. The end answer always ends up ‘because the government runs it.’

The fact is that it is set up as an insurance program (to cover the scheme up) and you want to fundamentally change it to a redistribution program.

Nope, I just want to eliminate the income cap.

Which fundamentally changes the program. Damn Derideo, do you not understand how SS woks? It is, in essence, structured like an insurance policy where the payout is directly tied to the pay in. That means that SS IS NOT a redistribution system. Note: IT IS NOT a redistribution system. YOU want to fundamentally change that because you want to change it directly into a redistribution system and taking away the income cap is NOT the only thing that you want to do and I know that. If that were true, the new system would FAVOR the rich as the payout is tied to the amount that you tax and increasing the cap makes the system LESS solvent. That is what makes the system structure like insurance. I suspect (very strongly) that you also want to cap the payout thereby removing the insurance like structure and replacing it with a redistribution like system.

That is FUNDAMENTAL change to SS. It completely changes the underlying purpose of SS from a retirement insurance plan to a redistribution plan. To claim that you do not want to change that program shows that you don’t understand it in the first place.

That along with other MASSIVE redistribution plans that you outlined.

75% tax is not redistributive?

Really, how is that confusing?

IOW, your answers are basically seeing an end to the wealthy. That does NOT raise the poor up to the middle – it lowers EVERYONE to poverty.

Since I am doing nothing of the sort you will have to produce something factual to support that allegation.

I already have. A MASSIVE and unprecedented 75% tax on all income is trying to end the wealthy, period. Using past rates that you have failed to properly compare to current rates outlines why this has no connection with the past. Increasing taxes even further by changing the purpose of SS even further displays this. Then you also remove Medicare from those terrible rich basically demanding that they pay for everything but not receive a damn thing in return. Taxing the wealthy almost 90 percent (adding SS to the 75% that you already want to soak them with) and then demanding that they forgo the LARGEST federal programs in the process is essentially eliminating the wealthy no matter how much you want to deny it. By the way, AFAIK, NO other nation asks for anything even remotely this stringent from their wealthy. Not even the most aggressively thieving governments demand 90% from the rich and then tell them to pay for their own healthcare (while using that to pay for everyone elses)

Don’t kid yourself – that list you provided VERY much demands that the wealthy are eliminated.

Simply because something is difficult does not mean that it cannot be done.

It cannot be done not because it is difficult but because it represents a removal of central power from the government, something that I don’t think has ever happened in our government willingly.

I will fight for it (and have) but I don’t see it actually happening. That does not mean I don’t have any hope but I am at least going to be realistic.

We the People are in control of our own destiny. If we want to make it happen we can. We eliminated slavery, we extended voting rights, we put a man on the moon. None of these were easy but we did them. [/QUOTE]
Sure. That also has nothing to do with what I said at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Tax exemptions are now gifts.....

I suppose so if you believe the government owns all the wealth and allows you to have some (of what you earn). Twisted up, that logic.

What I'm referring to are things such as:

Bailing out failed banking institutions with taxpayer money. And a host of other easy to spot examples of corporatism in America.

Yes TASB, they are. Tax exemptions are VERY much government gifts to special favors and should be eliminated altogether.

The government does not ‘own’ all the wealth but as long as your neighbor is subject to taxes that you are allowed to escape from because you did what the government wanted it is a gift. That is simple logic and does NOT require you to believe that the government owns all the wealth. All it requires you to understand is that IF the government demands taxes it should be demanding that tax evenly from all as part of the shared use of resources rather than demanding that I pay for the road in front of YOUR house.

You might be against all taxes but even you have to admit that uneven taxes are about as terrible a tax system as you can get.

 

[FA_Q2]

Andrea Mitchell Dismisses NBC News Poll Finding Americans Don?t Want to Raise Debt Limit | NewsBusters

Very interesting situation here. Has America finally woke up? Doesn't look like dems will be able to clobber the republicans over the head with this this time.

Probably a waste of time to point out the FACTS of this but, wth -

Way too many Americans watch fux news so they have no idea what the debt ceiling really is any more than rw's posting here do.

Its the Rs who are holding the country hostage. They voted to spend money but now are saying they don't want to pay the debt they incurred.

People who get their "news" frum fux, dredge, lushbo, etc believe the lie that raising the debt ceiling means we're spending more money.

They're stupid and you can't fix stupid.

Meaningless and asinine drivel.

All you have in this post is claims that other posters are ignorant while displaying zero understanding of anything yourself. You refer to people that have nothing to do with the conversation and attack FOX news as though the left drivel has some sort of better news to bring to the table.

I don’t care what you consider your masters to be or what side they are on – masters are for idiots. You are clearly displaying that you follow your own brand of master by mindlessly attacking the same talking heads and news sources without a wisp of a fact.

Why don’t YOU actually show us that you understand the debt and its impacts more than those that you are attacking? Facts and intelligent discussion speak VOLUMES more than empty insults.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Shutting down the government is an even greater insanity. This would just be the lesser of 2 evils and short of allowing the far right to hold the nation hostage it is a viable alternative to caving in to the demands of economic terrorism in my opinion. Personally I don't like either alternative but given that the Treasury dept has that tool at it's disposal it can do whatever it takes to keep the economy going.

As far as getting hurt is concerned those who are holding a gun to the debt ceiling are the ones who will be causing the harm to our creditors and seniors. Obviously they are not considering the damage they will do in order to get their way. Democracy is about compromise. Threatening to bring down the economy is economic terrorism in my opinion.

Which has nothing to do with anything I stated. This is simply a move to change the subject from the fact that the points in question that you brought up are incorrect without actually having to admit that

For the record this is exactly what you stated;

And all those people that are holding our debt just suck up the fact that the nation fucked them over the barrel, right? That is a recipe for insanity.

Why is obliterating our obligations through printing seen differently than defaulting? The results are the same – a complete mistrust of government fiscal policy and the dollar as a world currency. All you have to do is look at other nations that tried this. The outcome was NEVER positive.

As a side not – many of those that hold those debts are the seniors that you are claiming to ‘help’ by raising SS. What you are ensuring is that they all end up poor.

We each get to decide how and what we answer. We might not like the way the other person answered but we cannot dictate how they must answer.

Why don't you ask the parents of kids whose schools were forced to close? Or workers who can no longer make ends meet because they have been forced to take unpaid "furloughs"? How many of them are about to lose their homes? Hurting hardworking Americans and their children doesn't sound a good plan to me but you want to make it even worse?

Funny that you make claims like this and then ignore the fact that the same effects happen on a MUCH more MASSIVE scale in the supposed 50% cuts in the military. Do you not think that those soldiers and airman that are cut by those changes or the contractors that are left without contracts are somehow not ‘hardworking’ Americans? No, the simple truth is that you only care about the suffering that ceasing spending in certain areas causes IF it happens to be an area that you simply do not agree with. When it is another area where you want spending suddenly the suffering of those no longer matters.

Consistency. Try some

I am not ignoring the impact at all. I pointed out the problems the sequester is having on defense contractors being forced to take furloughs in another post. So please refrain from trying to paint me as something that I am not. Defense spending needs to be reduced just like everything else. How and on what timetable is what needs to be negotiated to reach a compromise that will cause the least pain while achieving the desired spending levels. It is downright dishonest to claim that defense spending must remain at unsustainable and unnecessary levels simply because it will hurt working Americans. Other nations don't have anywhere near the same military spending and yet they manage to keep their economies going. All it takes is innovation. Are they better innovators than America?

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, we all see where facts get g5000. (-: Still, a few more facts The debt is around 80% of gnp. At the end of WWII it was around 115%. Seems high, and obviously iit is. Wonder where that peace dividend went. LOL

GNP is around 16 trillion. Govt reciepts are around 4 billion.

No repuplican has yet identified how the budget can be balanced simply by cutting spending. And that doesn't mean actually balancing the budget is sound econ theory, because it isn't. But, we can't sustain more deficit spending when the total outstanding debt threatens to exceed GNP.

And despite the absurd notion of the RW that excluding some form of income, or expenditure of income, IS NOT A TAX CUT, g5000 is right. If we really want to pay for what the govt buys, somebody's gotta pay something. If you add the tax breaks identified, you come pretty close to the 500billion needed to balance the budget.

But again, that's not really the issue. The issue is we have to find a sustainable way to increase spending by a percentage less than the historic increase in yearly gnp. People gripe about Obamacare. I'm not a real fan of what Pelosi cooked up in her witch's caldrun. But, considering the fact that the largest tax BREAK is employer sponsored care, Obamacare would be a positive if it reduced the rate healthcare costs escalate.

Meanwhile, all I hear from the gop is "cut welfare" or the Wall St. Bailout. Even if the Wall St Bailout costs 200 billion

Obama budget: Price tag for Wall Street bailout goes up - Washington Post

THAT'S LESS THAN HALF ON ONE YEARLY DEFICIT AND POCKET CHANGE TO THE NATL DEBT OF SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 14 AND 16 TRILLION

Incorrect. Debt to GDP is OVER 100 percent.
US Federal Debt by Year 2008_2018 - Charts Tables History

The difference from then and now is also the fact that the government had the full intent on paying the war efforts effect on that debt down. There was real and effective effort after to take care of that as well as the fact that the US was the only real producer left on the face of the planet at the time. Different world, different intentions and completely different circumstances.

Today, we don’t have any real plans other than magical growth to affect our debt to GDP ratio. That growth has been anemic and I don’t see any real evidence that we are somehow going to get out of that anemic growth to the point that we will be able to make significant gains within the next few decades.