How much debt is too much

[itfitzme]

Hell the government even adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home. LOL GDP is a joke.

Oh, here is the nipa primer presentation



So, what your saying is that the work people do on their property isn't really work that has value? That's what your saying?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

(R) Admin... $1 is too much
(D).. sky's the limit.

 

[itfitzme]

(R) Admin... $1 is too much
(D).. sky's the limit.

I can show statements by posters that call other people "liberals", thereby making the point they are (R) that basically say, "$1 is too much". That is just stupid.

I have not seen any statement by a poster calling other people a "conservative" that says anything close to "sky's the limit." That is just stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRRsfCD1Bh0&list=PL6A8827DB5AE454B0&index=18]Every Cent You Make (I'll be taxing you) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr Natural]

Remember the good old days before Obama when we didn't have to pay any taxes?

 

[itfitzme]

Remember the good old days before Obama when we didn't have to pay any taxes?

What I cannot figure out is why the real dollar per capita or per worker expenditures had to go up.

Even though it was flat from 1985 to 2000, it went right back to its trendline. That 15 year holding pattern wasn't sustainable. And unless something really new and different happens, that decline at the end won't be either.

All I know for sure was that a lot of things happened in 2000, including China manufacturing coming online, fuel costs beginning to climb, and the US employment to population rate beginning to fall.

Real fuel prices were flat, from 1950 through 2000, so that isn't it. The major change in the employment mix was mostly on the lower age bracket, 18-25 or so. As I recall, it wasn't retirement folks suddenly drawing pensions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hell the government even adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home. LOL GDP is a joke.

Oh, here is the nipa primer presentation



So, what your saying is that the work people do on their property isn't really work that has value? That's what your saying?

What I said was extremely clear. I said that the government even adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home. What you linked to provides proof that the government adds rent value of your home to GDP even if you are not renting out your home.

In response you say bull shit, then ask if what I'm saying is whether work people do on their property isn't really work that has value. ROFL yeah cause cutting my grass and painting once every ten years adds 2k a month to GDP. Dude put down the pipe.

 

[edthecynic]

• Raise the taxes of people making over $500,000.
• Raise the capital gains tax rate to mid-1970s level.
• Close all tax loopholes.
• End corporate subsidies.
• Cut the Pentagon budget.
• Eliminate Dept. of Homeland Security.
• Revive the Estate Tax.

the rich already pay most of the federal income tax
capital gains make your 401K account work
close loopholes---sure, and do away with EIC
corporations do not get subsidies, tax credits are not subsidies
the DOD budget could be cut, close all foreign bases unless the host country pays the entire bill
DHS is needed
The estate tax still exists, if your estate is 600K or more it will be taxes

It is the WAGE EARNER who pays most of the federal income taxes. The wealthy do not work for wages, their income is capital gains which grows completely UNTAXED until some part or all is "realized" at which point it is taxed at a lower rate than wages. Capital gains is like an unlimited IRA that grows tax free with no tax penalties for early withdrawal, no limits to the amount invested each year, and a discounted tax rate even if withdrawn before retirement.

Actually the estate tax exemption is $5,250,000. Hardly an amount that will cost someone the average "family" farm.

 

[Redfish]

• Raise the taxes of people making over $500,000.
• Raise the capital gains tax rate to mid-1970s level.
• Close all tax loopholes.
• End corporate subsidies.
• Cut the Pentagon budget.
• Eliminate Dept. of Homeland Security.
• Revive the Estate Tax.

the rich already pay most of the federal income tax
capital gains make your 401K account work
close loopholes---sure, and do away with EIC
corporations do not get subsidies, tax credits are not subsidies
the DOD budget could be cut, close all foreign bases unless the host country pays the entire bill
DHS is needed
The estate tax still exists, if your estate is 600K or more it will be taxes

It is the WAGE EARNER who pays most of the federal income taxes. The wealthy do not work for wages, their income is capital gains which grows completely UNTAXED until some part or all is "realized" at which point it is taxed at a lower rate than wages. Capital gains is like an unlimited IRA that grows tax free with no tax penalties for early withdrawal, no limits to the amount invested each year, and a discounted tax rate even if withdrawn before retirement.

Actually the estate tax exemption is $5,250,000. Hardly an amount that will cost someone the average "family" farm.

couple of things on capital gains.

The money that is invested was taxed when it was earned.

Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than normal income in order to incentive investemtn in the economy. This encouraged the "evil" rich to invest theri money in new businesses and create jobs. How awful

I do agree with you on one thing, SS tax should be collected on all income including captial gains.

 

[Bern80]

It is neither.

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

To start, I'm not a "lib". I simply present facts and fundamental drawn from how the money supply functions. If, in fact, they fail to support your own crap, that is because your a moron.

I have seen no demonstrated or deduced arguement that the $17 T debt is good or bad. It is simply an accounting on the national books. For every dollar of government debt, there is an equivalent dollar of private savings. Additionally, the money supply exists in dollar for dollar balance with some matching debt. So the question to be answered by you is, if not the government, then who should carry the debt? Households? Businesses? some mix?

To say something is good or bad requires evidence. So what is your evidence? Or are you just gonna go with the magical "cuz I think so"?

Many would answer it's bad because if a busines or individual had the same proportion of debt to revenue, they would be in a bad place financially. A cycle like that for a private business or person is not sustainable. So the question back at you is why is it okay for a government to have that kind of debt, but not an individual or a business? To conclude it's not bad, as you seem to be, requires a major presumption and suspension of logic. It poses some really big questions. Like if the amount of debt we carry, no matter how dispratortionate to our revenue, doesn't matter, why do we have a budget?

To answer your other questions, the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. Because they are the ones on the hook for it. It's bad because it is the result of expenditures a lot of people didn't ask for. There may be a dollar worth of assets or savings for every dollar of debt, but those are dollars the government would have to confiscate to actually pay it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

When the interest alone ensures it can never be paid off completely, that's too much. Looking at the Nation Debt counters I wonder if there's even any intent to ever pay it off. And what kind of fool would continue loaning us money if they know we can never actually pay it back?

...Guess this makes 3 conservative positions while identifying as a liberal. Anti-abortion (except for rape and health of the mother) and death penalty support (and expansion) being the other two.

 

[Bern80]

It is neither.

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

Here is the monetary fact of the macro economy.

Every dollar in government debt is a dollar in private and financial sector savings.

So the question is, for the moron yelling "lib", how do you propose that the economy should function? Who should carry the debt burdon? Financial markets? Households? Private businesses? And if so, why. If in some balanced percentage for each, then what percentages and why?

Do you have a clue how the macro economy and the money supply works? Or are you going with the moronic, "it;s just like a household budget" idea?

Depends, Are you going to be a moron and pretend the amount of money in the money supply has nothing to do with the value of the dollar?

 

[Lumpy 1]

It seems to me that it's the unfunded liabilities that are sinking cities, states and probably the country.

When retires get 10 cents on the dollar in their retirement plans, I'd call that a serious problem.


Currently the U.S. unfunded liabilities are 127 trillion (with a T) and each taxpayer is on the hook for 1.1 million.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[Redfish]

It seems to me that it's the unfunded liabilities that are sinking cities, states and probably the country.

When retires get 10 cents on the dollar in their retirement plans, I'd call that a serious problem.


Currently the U.S. unfunded liabilities are 127 trillion (with a T) and each taxpayer is on the hook for 1.1 million.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Yep, but the libs in both parties continue to spend spend spend like there is no tomorrow, and they may be right.

Its insanity. Its also insanity that virtually no one in DC is worried about it.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It seems to me that it's the unfunded liabilities that are sinking cities, states and probably the country.

When retires get 10 cents on the dollar in their retirement plans, I'd call that a serious problem.


Currently the U.S. unfunded liabilities are 127 trillion (with a T) and each taxpayer is on the hook for 1.1 million.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Yep, but the libs in both parties continue to spend spend spend like there is no tomorrow, and they may be right.

Its insanity. Its also insanity that virtually no one in DC is worried about it.

They want to get re-elected, that's about it. Cut social programs and the other side has fodder for the next election.. like .. "pushing Granny over the cliff" or "You want the poor people to die" or "you hate Black people" or....etc. etc. etc.

Being honest and true is considered the wrong side of the issue now-a-days...

 

[itfitzme]

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

To start, I'm not a "lib". *I simply present facts and fundamental drawn from how the money supply functions. *If, in fact, they fail to support your own crap, that is because your a moron.

I have seen no demonstrated or deduced arguement that the $17 T debt is good or bad. *It is simply an accounting on the national books. *For every dollar of government debt, there is an equivalent dollar of private savings. *Additionally, the money supply exists in dollar for dollar balance with some matching debt. *So the question to be answered by you is, if not the government, then who should carry the debt? *Households? *Businesses? *some mix?

To say something is good or bad requires evidence. *So what is your evidence? *Or are you just gonna go with the magical "cuz I think so"?

Many would answer it's bad because if a busines or individual had the same proportion of debt to revenue, they would be in a bad place financially. A cycle like that for a private business or person is not sustainable. So the question back at you is why is it okay for a government to have that kind of debt, but not an individual or a business? To conclude it's not bad, as you seem to be, requires a major presumption and suspension of logic. It poses some really big questions. Like if the amount of debt we carry, no matter how dispratortionate to our revenue, doesn't matter, why do we have a budget? *

To answer your other questions, the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. Because they are the ones on the hook for it. It's bad because it is the result of expenditures a lot of people didn't ask for. There may be a dollar worth of assets or savings for every dollar of debt, but those are dollars the government would have to confiscate to actually pay it.

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

 

[itfitzme]

It really is amazing how adamantly libs try to avoid answering a question they know the answer to when it isn't favorable to their ideology. It's as if you people actually think if you deny it, it's not true. Frankly Red, you don't need libs to admit it's bad. We all know it is. Whether people like ifitzme have the integrity to admit it is entirely irrelevant.

Here is the monetary fact of the macro economy.

Every dollar in government debt is a dollar in private and financial sector savings.

So the question is, for the moron yelling "lib", how do you propose that the economy should function? Who should carry the debt burdon? Financial markets? Households? Private businesses? And if so, why. If in some balanced percentage for each, then what percentages and why?

Do you have a clue how the macro economy and the money supply works? Or are you going with the moronic, "it;s just like a household budget" idea?

Depends, Are you going to be a moron and pretend the amount of money in the money supply has nothing to do with the value of the dollar?

Quite the contrary which is why I brought up the money supply. You didn't. The OP didn't. I did, idiot. And prices are the result of the money people have to spend, not the result of the money that they never had in the first place.

Still, you evade the question of how the debt should be held. It is either gov, HH, or firms.

The fact is that the mindless "debt is bad" idea doesn't hold water unless you are ignorant of hos the money supply and investment functions.

So, are you going to be a moron and pretend that debt is fundamentally required is the economy and that debt is investment, something that HH, firms and Gov does?

 

[Lumpy 1]

To start, I'm not a "lib". *I simply present facts and fundamental drawn from how the money supply functions. *If, in fact, they fail to support your own crap, that is because your a moron.

I have seen no demonstrated or deduced arguement that the $17 T debt is good or bad. *It is simply an accounting on the national books. *For every dollar of government debt, there is an equivalent dollar of private savings. *Additionally, the money supply exists in dollar for dollar balance with some matching debt. *So the question to be answered by you is, if not the government, then who should carry the debt? *Households? *Businesses? *some mix?

To say something is good or bad requires evidence. *So what is your evidence? *Or are you just gonna go with the magical "cuz I think so"?

Many would answer it's bad because if a busines or individual had the same proportion of debt to revenue, they would be in a bad place financially. A cycle like that for a private business or person is not sustainable. So the question back at you is why is it okay for a government to have that kind of debt, but not an individual or a business? To conclude it's not bad, as you seem to be, requires a major presumption and suspension of logic. It poses some really big questions. Like if the amount of debt we carry, no matter how dispratortionate to our revenue, doesn't matter, why do we have a budget? *

To answer your other questions, the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. Because they are the ones on the hook for it. It's bad because it is the result of expenditures a lot of people didn't ask for. There may be a dollar worth of assets or savings for every dollar of debt, but those are dollars the government would have to confiscate to actually pay it.

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

 

[itfitzme]

When the interest alone ensures it can never be paid off completely, that's too much. Looking at the Nation Debt counters I wonder if there's even any intent to ever pay it off. And what kind of fool would continue loaning us money if they know we can never actually pay it back?

...Guess this makes 3 conservative positions while identifying as a liberal. Anti-abortion (except for rape and health of the mother) and death penalty support (and expansion) being the other two.

Every day, treasury notes mature and are paid back. Everyday, new ones are purchased. So, apparently everyone with money to invest is a "fool" or you are just oblivious. Hmm.. Everyone im finance and business or you... Hmmm

 

[itfitzme]

Many would answer it's bad because if a busines or individual had the same proportion of debt to revenue, they would be in a bad place financially. A cycle like that for a private business or person is not sustainable. So the question back at you is why is it okay for a government to have that kind of debt, but not an individual or a business? To conclude it's not bad, as you seem to be, requires a major presumption and suspension of logic. It poses some really big questions. Like if the amount of debt we carry, no matter how dispratortionate to our revenue, doesn't matter, why do we have a budget? *

To answer your other questions, the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. Because they are the ones on the hook for it. It's bad because it is the result of expenditures a lot of people didn't ask for. There may be a dollar worth of assets or savings for every dollar of debt, but those are dollars the government would have to confiscate to actually pay it.

You haven't answered the question of where the debt should reside and it is the singularly significant question. *

All you've really presented is "it is bad because my credit card debt is bad for me." *That alone is false generalization.

You haven't addressed the money supply or investment.

You demonstrate the typical propensity for mindless assumptions that so piss me off. *

Nowhere have I said it was good or bad. *I simply don't have any qualifying opinion. *You live in that mentality that if someone doesn't agree with you then they must be disagreeing, that if someone doesn't believe a thing is bad then they summarily must believe it is good. *I said, on the outset, "neither" because the question presents a false choice.

Your mistaken concepts presented are to numerous to adequatly address in detail. *But they come down to a lack of comprehension of how the macro economy and the money supply function.

Home economics is not applicable to the government and the macro economy. *

You subjective pre disposition is demomstrated with the use of the term "confiscate". *

Everything you derive from these are summarily false. *Your main point presents no evidence of "bad". *

"...the government already does not carry the debt. The government doesn't have any of its own money. The government gets its money predominantly from the taxpayers. It alread is the tax payers debt, i.e. your households and businesses. THAT is why it is bad. "

None of that is either correct or even a bad.

As you haven't had the mind to address you're fundamental presumption, it is necessary to infer it.

You are assumimg, due to the misapplication of home economics, that the gov debt somehow magically reduces future consumption. *The avaolability of goods is definitively caused by labor and equipment employed in that production. *Everything produced is consumed. *And everything consumed is produced in current time. *We cannot consume future goods nor occupy future houses.

The taxes that are common among all individuals have no steady state effect on standard of living. The effects that tax rates have are a) temporary impulses when a change occurs or b) the result of income differential.

It isn't "the taxpayer's debt", not in accounting terms nor in actual effect. *The prices of all goods are the result of the amount of money available to be used in purchases. *No price is the result of monies that were never possesed. *Taxes are never in possession of individuals amd therefor not a causal factor on prices.

The reason I ask the simple question of whom should carry that debt load is because it gets to the point that debt isn't summarily bad. *Either govt, business, households, or some mix hold it.

If gov doesn't, someone else does. And if simple "debt is bad" is the arguement, then it is bad for businesses and individuals to hold it. Problem is, it must exist or no money. *So the very question of it being "bad" is, in and of itself, a completely meaningless question.

I hope you don't expect members to read this whole post...gads

Excellent effort though..

I expect that many people can't get beyond the Dr. Sueus readiing level.

It is unfortunate.