The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[blackhawk]

The national debt only matters to people when the party they support is not in control that is one of the reasons we have a 17 trillion dollar debt.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's the cause of our debt
-Welfare--->SSI, SSD, Food stamps, Medicade.
-Military= nation building
-85 billion per month to the banks/wall street--->about as much as we spend on either education or science for a year.

fact...

 

[g5000]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

Aside from the common sense that we are living longer and therefore we should be working longer, there is another common sense aspect to raising the retirement age.

If you start work at 18, retire at 65, and die at the average life expectancy of 78, then you are working 47 years to pay for 13 years of retirement.

Raise the retirement age to 70, and now you are working 52 years to pay for 8 years of retirement.

That means you would not need as much payroll tax withheld from your pay.

Presto! Your paycheck just got bigger! Good for the economy, too.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe congress should get to work on this instead of focusing on the ACA so much.

No maybe about it. Since the ACA is projected to add mega billions if not trillions to the debt, Congress should rescind it or at least defund it and put it on the back burner for the time being and focus on getting rid of everything else we can't afford too.

I would vote for that. Would you?

No, if congress focuses on creating jobs, it will create more revenue, yes? Then we can get back to being the most powerful nation in the world instead of treating our citizens like they are living in a third world nation.

But you feel free to make excuses for this pitiful congress.

Uhh, no. You want more revenue via taxation. If there were more people working, you would simply tax them too.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd tax the people making more then a million a year 2% more. Why not?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'd tax the people making more then a million a year 2% more. Why not?

Class warfare...

If people don't participate in the redistribution scheme, we tax them into submission instead.

You aren't allowed to be rich in America anymore.

 

[Billo_Really]

What we need, is a Financial Transactions Tax. Tax every financial transaction on Wall Street. 1/2% on every transaction. That'll generate some revenue.

 

[Geaux4it]

What we need, is a Financial Transactions Tax. Tax every financial transaction on Wall Street. 1/2% on every transaction. That'll generate some revenue.

Very dumb idea

-Geaux

 

[Billo_Really]

Very dumb idea

-Geaux

And why is that?

It's no different than a sales tax.

 

[Foxfyre]

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

How is asking the government to provide you a subsidy a conservative principle? How is asking the government to interfere in the housing market a conservative principle?

That's funny. The Right was all up in arms over government interference in the housing market when the economy crashed.

A mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy. It is an incentive that encourages home ownership by making homes more affordable. It does not dicker with lending reqirements or sound lending practices in the least. It requires not one red cent from anybody. A subsidy takes from one tax payer and gives it to another. I know that our liberal friends really can't comprehend how those two things are different, but conservatives can.

Just as conservatives see a tax deduction that is indiscrimately made available to everybody without respect for socioeconomic status or any other criteria as much different than the government essentially forcing lending institutions to make risky loans and refusing to heed the danger signals that a crisis was building.

The mortgage interest deduction has not added a penny to the National Debt because it does not take a penny out of the U.S. Treasury.

The National Debt is the result of a government who spends money that it was not given to spend.

And it doesn't matter how much we give them to spend. They will spend it plus much more. What we need to do is sharply restrict their ability to spend money.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This week our local newspaper reported that our own University of New Mexico is one of 25 universities selected by the Up to Us Campaign for a national competition. Each of the 25 university teams will develop a strategy to educate and engage their local campus communities on potential impacts of the skyrocketing national debt. I wonder if the media will reliably report the results of the competition?

This is a subject that should be of interest to every American.
I don't know how accurate this real time national debt clock is, but it does seem to come up with the accurate number at the end of each year so, for whatever it is worth, look at this:

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com

The national debt hit $17 trillion a little over a week ago, and today, if the debt clock is right, we are already well over $300 billion past that and counting. If the clock is right, and you do the math, we are adding between $40 and $50 billion to the debt each and every day.
And a huge chunk of that is money borrowed from countries who likely don't like us very much, much less have our best interests at heart.

Does this bother anybody other than me?

EDIT: Here is the link to what is probably the more accurate debt clock:
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

If it bothers you so much, you and others on the right should have been contributing to the economic recovery for the last almost 5 years, not engaging in partisan obstructionism. Had you done the former, we’d be further along in economic recovery with more Americans back to work, paying payroll taxes, and helping reduce the National debt.

Rather than engaging in partisan obstructionism, you and others on the right could have been working in good faith with Congressional democrats to develop budgetary policies designed to reduce the debt; instead, you and your fellow conservatives demanded unrealistic, extreme, reckless, and unwarranted fiscal policy be implemented resulting in a credit rating downgrade, sequester, and the latest republican government shutdown.

Given these facts, you can understand why most find it difficult to believe you and your fellow rightists are that concerned about ‘the debt.’

 

[TemplarKormac]

This week our local newspaper reported that our own University of New Mexico is one of 25 universities selected by the Up to Us Campaign for a national competition. Each of the 25 university teams will develop a strategy to educate and engage their local campus communities on potential impacts of the skyrocketing national debt. I wonder if the media will reliably report the results of the competition?

This is a subject that should be of interest to every American.
I don't know how accurate this real time national debt clock is, but it does seem to come up with the accurate number at the end of each year so, for whatever it is worth, look at this:

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com

The national debt hit $17 trillion a little over a week ago, and today, if the debt clock is right, we are already well over $300 billion past that and counting. If the clock is right, and you do the math, we are adding between $40 and $50 billion to the debt each and every day.
And a huge chunk of that is money borrowed from countries who likely don't like us very much, much less have our best interests at heart.

Does this bother anybody other than me?

EDIT: Here is the link to what is probably the more accurate debt clock:
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

1. If it bothers you so much, you and others on the right should have been contributing to the economic recovery for the last almost 5 years, not engaging in partisan obstructionism. Had you done the former, we’d be further along in economic recovery with more Americans back to work, paying payroll taxes, and helping reduce the National debt.

2. Rather than engaging in partisan obstructionism, you and others on the right could have been working in good faith with Congressional democrats to develop budgetary policies designed to reduce the debt; instead, you and your fellow conservatives demanded unrealistic, extreme, reckless, and unwarranted fiscal policy be implemented resulting in a credit rating downgrade, sequester, and the latest republican government shutdown.

Given these facts, you can understand why most find it difficult to believe you and your fellow rightists are that concerned about ‘the debt.’

1. First, let me address this paragraph with some simple questions:

What has Obama done to contribute to this "recovery"? What recovery are you referring to? Shall I pull BLS numbers on you?

2. Yet again, how did we "engage in partisan obstructionism"? As my memory serves, Democrats passed Obamacare with no regards to the resistance of Republicans in 2009. You have done nothing but spend $6 trillion in our tax dollars and were responsible for our credit downgrade. If the Democrats really wanted to address the deficit in any way at all, they wouldn't take 1500 days to pass a budget. They wouldn't block Republicans attempts to do so. I'll see your scalpel and raise you one chainsaw.

3. Given these realities, you can understand the fatal flaws in your own argument. Your points are bunk given for the sole reasons that the exact opposite is true. Our very philosophy is based on the limitation of government largesse and reckless spending!

 

[Two Thumbs]

This week our local newspaper reported that our own University of New Mexico is one of 25 universities selected by the Up to Us Campaign for a national competition. Each of the 25 university teams will develop a strategy to educate and engage their local campus communities on potential impacts of the skyrocketing national debt. I wonder if the media will reliably report the results of the competition?

This is a subject that should be of interest to every American.
I don't know how accurate this real time national debt clock is, but it does seem to come up with the accurate number at the end of each year so, for whatever it is worth, look at this:

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com

The national debt hit $17 trillion a little over a week ago, and today, if the debt clock is right, we are already well over $300 billion past that and counting. If the clock is right, and you do the math, we are adding between $40 and $50 billion to the debt each and every day.
And a huge chunk of that is money borrowed from countries who likely don't like us very much, much less have our best interests at heart.

Does this bother anybody other than me?

EDIT: Here is the link to what is probably the more accurate debt clock:
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

If it bothers you so much, you and others on the right should have been contributing to the economic recovery for the last almost 5 years, not engaging in partisan obstructionism. Had you done the former, we’d be further along in economic recovery with more Americans back to work, paying payroll taxes, and helping reduce the National debt.

Rather than engaging in partisan obstructionism, you and others on the right could have been working in good faith with Congressional democrats to develop budgetary policies designed to reduce the debt; instead, you and your fellow conservatives demanded unrealistic, extreme, reckless, and unwarranted fiscal policy be implemented resulting in a credit rating downgrade, sequester, and the latest republican government shutdown.

Given these facts, you can understand why most find it difficult to believe you and your fellow rightists are that concerned about ‘the debt.’

You presented no facts.

you leftist wanted to borrow, print and spend more.

Given those facts, it would be worse.

Government spending to get out of debt has failed twice, the idea was used twice.
fdr failed at it and so did Japan
So you are repeating a failed idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe congress should get to work on this instead of focusing on the ACA so much.

No maybe about it. Since the ACA is projected to add mega billions if not trillions to the debt, Congress should rescind it or at least defund it and put it on the back burner for the time being and focus on getting rid of everything else we can't afford too.

I would vote for that. Would you?

No, if congress focuses on creating jobs, it will create more revenue, yes? Then we can get back to being the most powerful nation in the world instead of treating our citizens like they are living in a third world nation.

But you feel free to make excuses for this pitiful congress.

Sarah, you know I love you. But I defy you to come up with a single post of mine in which I have defended this congress in much of anything though there might be something in all these posts because even a stopped clock shows the right time twice a day. I have supported the Republicans in their effort to stop the most destructive aspects of Obamacare and have railed against them when they caved in and turned chicken.

We have a President so Marxist in his views he probably could have written the Communist Manifesto. He hasn't yet seen a government program he didn't like or hasn't wanted to expand except Defense which he has raided to expand and create other departments/programs. (In his defense, that is typical of Democxratic Presidents since Carter so we knew that would happen when he was elected. Or should have known.)

Presiident Obama has taken the insane 'spend ourselves rich' concept to unheard of and unbelievable heights and he is defensive and petulant whenever he is thwarted in using the USA as his own personal cookie jar and/or petty cash fund. Which is why he has added far more to the national debt than I believe all the other 43 Presidential administrations added together.

And the Congress and President Obama gave us Obamacare which will be the most expensive program yet manufactured by the government and has been the greatest job killer in the history of this country.

So if you want more jobs and more revenue, join with us to repeal or postpone indefnitely the horrendous legislation called the ACA that the OMB projects to add more to the deficits/National Debt than any other program has ever been projected to do. And join with us in demanding that all unnecessary spending be stopped and our government be required to show fiscal responsibility and integrity.

 

[Flopper]

Five consecutive 1 trillion plus deficits. Holy smokes.

Yes, and the President who campaigned vigorously that the spending and deficits were unpatriotic, irresponsible, and indicative of poor leadership now seems to be oblivious to that being a problem. We won't be able to look to Washington for a solution. It will have to be a grass roots demand from the people.

Here is an additional perspective:

National Debt in Dollar Amounts

Current - 17,300,000,000,000 (rounded and counting)
09/30/2012 - 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 - 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 - 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

From the above data, it looks like Bush and Obama increased the debt about the same percentage. Bush ran the deficit up fight wars and Obama ran deficit up fighting off a recession.

 

[Foxfyre]

Five consecutive 1 trillion plus deficits. Holy smokes.

Yes, and the President who campaigned vigorously that the spending and deficits were unpatriotic, irresponsible, and indicative of poor leadership now seems to be oblivious to that being a problem. We won't be able to look to Washington for a solution. It will have to be a grass roots demand from the people.

Here is an additional perspective:

National Debt in Dollar Amounts

Current - 17,300,000,000,000 (rounded and counting)
09/30/2012 - 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 - 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 - 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

From the above data, it looks like Bush and Obama increased the debt about the same percentage. Bush ran the deficit up fight wars and Obama ran deficit up fighting off a recession.

Fighting off a recession? Obamacare alone has been the biggest job killer ever inflicted on a nation anywhere. You have to hunt high and low and far away to find ANY initiatives even suggested, much less accomplished by this President that had any chance to end the recession.

But as for the numbers, President Bush for whatever reasons--he did have 9/11 and Katrina to deal with as well as the wars in there--just under $5 trillion was added to the national debt in 8 years. Obama has added more than $7 trillion to that and counting in less than 5 years.

I'm not excusing either one. But don't try to make the Bush administration comparable to the Obama administration. Bush is quite criticizable on numerous but different issues. Obama deserves criticism for his own record and can't use Bush to justify his record no matter how much he and those who worship him try to do that.

 

[g5000]

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

How is asking the government to provide you a subsidy a conservative principle? How is asking the government to interfere in the housing market a conservative principle?

That's funny. The Right was all up in arms over government interference in the housing market when the economy crashed.

A mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy. It is an incentive that encourages home ownership by making homes more affordable.

It most certainly is a subsidy. And you left out the word "government" when you called it an "incentive". It is a government incentive. It is government meddling in the housing market. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You actually believe the housing market would suffer without your government crutch! That is NOT
a conservative principle. Not even close.

And it does not make homes more afforable. I told you it increases the prices of houses. A conservative knows this.

A subsidy takes from one tax payer and gives it to another. I know that our liberal friends really can't comprehend how those two things are different, but conservatives can.

Those subsidies have to be made up for. If the government is giving you cash back for buying a house, that is a subsidy no different than getting cash back for buying health insurance.

That cash back has to be made up for by someone else in the form of higher tax rates.

You are using rationale identical to that of a welfare queen, claiming you NEED that government incentive, and claiming it is good for the economy for the government to give you money.


If you have a road in front of your house that costs $500 to maintain, and you live next door to a neighbor who earns the same income you do, you both would be paying $250 apiece for the road. But for every dollar you get in mortgage subsidy, that is a dollar higher in tax your neighbor has to pay to make up the difference to pay for that road.

Or else your subsidy has to be borrowed from China.

You are being carried on other people's backs, and running the country deeper into debt.

 

[g5000]

A mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy. It is an incentive that encourages home ownership by making homes more affordable.

Nope. No. Wrong. Incorrect.


The Sacrosanct Mortgage Interest Deduction

While the rising percentage of Americans owning a home has paralleled the broadening of the income tax, there is surprisingly little hard evidence that the mortgage interest deduction has encouraged home ownership. The Harvard economists Edward L. Glaeser and Jesse M. Shapiro have found that it has only a trivial impact.

A major reason is that the deduction has long been capitalized into the prices of homes. That is, home prices are higher than they would be without the deduction. Thus to the extent that the deduction encourages home ownership, it is exactly offset by the extent to which high prices discourage home ownership.

The author of that piece "held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. "

 

[Foxfyre]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

How is asking the government to provide you a subsidy a conservative principle? How is asking the government to interfere in the housing market a conservative principle?

That's funny. The Right was all up in arms over government interference in the housing market when the economy crashed.

A mortgage interest deduction is not a subsidy. It is an incentive that encourages home ownership by making homes more affordable.

It most certainly is a subsidy. And you left out the word "government" when you called it an "incentive". It is a government incentive. It is government meddling in the housing market. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You actually believe the housing market would suffer without your government crutch! That is NOT
a conservative principle. Not even close.

And it does not make homes more afforable. I told you it increases the prices of houses. A conservative knows this.

A subsidy takes from one tax payer and gives it to another. I know that our liberal friends really can't comprehend how those two things are different, but conservatives can.

Those subsidies have to be made up for. If the government is giving you cash back for buying a house, that is a subsidy no different than getting cash back for buying health insurance.

That cash back has to be made up for by someone else in the form of higher tax rates.

You are using rationale identical to that of a welfare queen, claiming you NEED that government incentive, and claiming it is good for the economy for the government to give you money.


If you have a road in front of your house that costs $500 to maintain, and you live next door to a neighbor who earns the same income you do, you both would be paying $250 apiece for the road. But for every dollar you get in mortgage subsidy, that is a dollar higher in tax your neighbor has to pay to make up the difference to pay for that road.

Or else your subsidy has to be borrowed from China.

You are being carried on other people's backs, and running the country deeper into debt.

I still say it is something in the water that liberals drink.

A tax deduction does not have to be made up anywhere else if the government simply does not expect the money in the first place.

A competent budget process looks at the money that is expected to come in, allocates the money to to those things government HAS to do first, and if there is anything left over, can allocate money to things that are nice to do.

A subsidy is something government will pay out of the treasury and should be budgeted. A tax deduction is not budgeted.

To say that money the government does not expect to get in the first place has to be replaced by something is just nuts.

It's like saying that if you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

 

[g5000]

He goes further:

Reformers have long asserted that there are negative social and economic consequences to the mortgage interest deduction insofar as it does increase home ownership. For example, it may encourage people to buy more expensive homes even if it doesn’t affect the rate of ownership.

Encourages people to buy more expensive homes. Thereby increasing the risk of their defaulting.

Exactly the kind of dangerous governmental intervention in markets the Right was screaming about after the economic crash.

The mortage interest deduction violates every conservative principle.

The main argument for reforming the mortgage interest deduction is simple math – it is the second largest tax expenditure, reducing federal revenues by more than $100 billion. It will be harder to reduce tax rates if the deduction is declared off limits.

You are forcing others to carry you on their backs with higher tax rates.