If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Geopolitics)   Panic-fest 2014 hits the US Treasury as we now have to raise the debt ceiling again. Fark double-panic Bonus: Almost all the cash will be gone soon after due to your tax refunds   (glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com) divider line 206
    More: Scary, debt limit, Bipartisan Policy Center, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, tax refunds, treasuries  
•       •       •

4668 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:55 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-04 03:47:49 PM  

MaliFinn: I'm going to ignore all these political assholes the same way they ignore me and just wait for the announcement that we printed ourselves a few trillion dollars to push the decision off to some golden day in the future.


So you are going to act exactly like the folks that you loath?  Brilliant plan. That will show them.
 
2014-02-04 03:48:37 PM  
I don't ever get a refund anymore and I'm ok with that. I'd rather hold onto the money than let the gubmint hold onto it, thanks very much.
 
2014-02-04 03:57:02 PM  
Tax refund:

media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-04 03:59:20 PM  

ManRay: Would this be a problem if we got rid of refundable tax credits?


My non troll answer is,  being that the tax code is so convoluted these days. Yeah, probably.  It's needs to be gutted and re-written in a very simplistic way. Which, unfortunately, will never happen in Washington.
 
2014-02-04 04:04:32 PM  

menschenfresser: I have a dumb but serious question: Do other countries collect tax like this and expect people to file annual 'returns' after calculating their own taxes?

The reason I ask is that it seems not only unnecessary but dangerous, considering that most people aren't accountants. Is there an advantage to not having the government(s) taking out an agreed-upon rate of tax and just leaving it at that? Is it all the deductions and incentives that make this necessary?


France has a system that's pretty different from any of the ones described above.  Essentially, you earn the income one year, and then pay the income tax accrued on it in the following year.  So, for money earned in year N, you actually pay the tax bill in year N+1.  In August of year N+1 you file a "Declaration of Income" for year N's income, in September or October you get the bill, and you pay it by the end of November of year N+1.

For your first year working, you basically have to hold back 15% of every paycheck, because you're going to have to pay the tax on that all at once when it comes due.  For subsequent years, however, you have to pay a quarterly deposit equal to 1/3rd of the amount of income tax you paid the previous year.  So, for instance, if my 2012 income was such that I owed 600€ tax on it payable in 2013, in 2014 I'd have to make three deposits against what I'll owe for the income I made in 2013: I'd pay 200€ in January, 200€ in April, 200€ in July, file my tax return on my 2013 income in August, and settle up the balance in November if it happens to be that I owe more or less this time around.  Alternately, I could set up a direct deposit and pay 60€ each month from January to October, and then the balance in November.

I think a large reason that it works the way it does is because a lot of the things that might be tax credits or deductions in the States are handled by other parts of the government, and because the tax code here is just simpler, period.  So my tax returns here are much, much simpler - I'm single with no children, so my tax return last year probably had maybe ten lines filled in.  You declare your dependents, apply your dependent exemptions, list your income, a few random adjustments here and there for (very) specific things, and that's more or less it.

It also helps that income taxes are levied on the portion of your income which remains after the (not insubstantial) deductions for medical, retirement, social security, unemployment, etc. are taken out of your check.  Calculating your taxable income is as simple as copying a number from a box off at the bottom of the year's last pay stub.

On the other hand, since there is no such thing as a "withholding," it's up to you to be proactive and responsible and set the money aside each month.  No doubt there are a lot of people who need to have the money taken out of their pay envelope before they get it because of this, and I'm sure many of them have their paychecks garnished accordingly.  But for me, rather than floating the government an interest-free loan, I'm disciplined enough where I can take the cash right off of the top of each month's paycheck, stick it into an account that's paying me 2.5% interest, and consider it to be out of reach until it's time to pay up.  No, it's not a ton of money, but it's absolutely better than nothing, and I can exercise just that bit more control over my finances while still fulfilling my civic responsibilities.
 
2014-02-04 04:16:52 PM  
Oh woe is me. Whatever shall I do without that extra 30¢ a year?
 
2014-02-04 04:20:57 PM  

FLMountainMan: russsssman: Waiit a dat'gummed minute. You mean Obama isn't paying all the handouts from his own pocket and it's adding up to a disproportionate amount that's unsustainable?

Racist.

lennavan:  We'll defend their right to starve to death?

How many people starved to death in America last year?  Do you think it's fewer than the number employed and/or fed by the US Military?


So you're saying that the military is equivalent to welfare? I agree. And I'd rather not be building planes to mothball and tanks to park with that money. I'd rather put that money into building infrastructure that actually improves the country, like roads and bridges and so on. Hell, maybe even get really socialist and throw in some public transit. Crazy, I know.
 
2014-02-04 04:25:18 PM  

HeadLever: MaliFinn: I'm going to ignore all these political assholes the same way they ignore me and just wait for the announcement that we printed ourselves a few trillion dollars to push the decision off to some golden day in the future.

So you are going to act exactly like the folks that you loath?  Brilliant plan. That will show them.


After 25 years of paying taxes and becoming aware that my opinion is irrelevant aside from 15 minutes every four years, you learn to make better use of your time than yelling at people whose only talent is not listening.
 
2014-02-04 04:38:35 PM  

durbnpoisn: Sounds like a good reason to get your taxes done early if you expect a refund.


If you expect a sizable refund, sounds like a good reason to adjust your w-4
 
2014-02-04 04:40:00 PM  
Dear government:

Being poor doesn't make me so stupid I'm incapable of planning my finances or so un-wise that I actually rely on a calculated refund to stay above water in those plans.

Also, not being a member of the government, I'm not actually always ethically obligated to be an obstructionist asshole at every opportunity.

In conclusion, just delay the tax refunds while you get your house in order for a month or two.  Problem solved.

~Jim
 
2014-02-04 04:44:34 PM  
Meh. I don't know why the GOP makes this threat every tiem when everyone knows they are just going to cave at the last minute. Definition of insanity and all that, I suppose.  Just once I would enjoy watching the GOPees cut off their own dicks.
 
2014-02-04 05:14:07 PM  

trappedspirit: durbnpoisn: Sounds like a good reason to get your taxes done early if you expect a refund.

If you expect a sizable refund, sounds like a good reason to adjust your w-4


Wanna know how I can tell your not poor?

Earned Income Credit is about 90% of the hype on refunds.  It runs up in to the thousands for people living off of $300 a week.  Because these people are generally uneducated they usually don't even attempt to do their own taxes and just go to a tax preparer which was only regulated in the past few years (the first year testing was required was this year).  And thanks to all of those anti-predatory lending laws Obama passed, they aren't taking 10% interest loans out on the refund just to get cash a week earlier.

This refundable tax credit is the end-all-be-all for these people.  It's a mini-lottery winning.  This is how a lot of poor people manage to buy things like cars, refrigerators, computers, etc.  It's often the only windfall people get in a year.  It's probably one of the more successful welfare programs as it tends to wipe out large amounts of debt and allow for durable goods to be purchased without creating a psychology of dependency.

I knew one woman who paid tuition at community college this way.  Took her 4 years to get an associates, but it was all on uncle sam.
 
2014-02-04 05:22:46 PM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Meh. I don't know why the GOP makes this threat every tiem when everyone knows they are just going to cave at the last minute. Definition of insanity and all that, I suppose.  Just once I would enjoy watching the GOPees cut off their own dicks.


Yeah, they must be crazy or something.

www.obamadoublespeak.com
 
2014-02-04 05:54:14 PM  
They're going to raise the debt ceiling.  And on the off chance they don't, Lew will mint the coin or Yellen figure something else out.

They ought to just get rid of the debt ceiling altogether and stop this charade.
 
2014-02-04 06:13:32 PM  

Target Builder: stupiddream: Why don't just stop giving aid to the rest of the World for one year.  I don't want to do the math but I'm sure it would cover some of our... indiscretions?  Yeah, people would starve and things would be generally bad in some places but when I have bills to pay the first thing I cut is charity.  Charity starts at home.

A lot of that "aid" is basically to either bribe various people not to attack each other and draw the US in or to maintain US influence over a particular country, as opposed to then buddying up with China or Russia.

It's not exactly charity.


Furthermore, that aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget.  Cutting it isn't going to make any significant difference in the deficit, and might actually end up costing us more in the long run by destabilizing the parts of the world that benefit from it.
 
2014-02-04 06:52:54 PM  

anfrind: Furthermore, that aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget.


I think with foreign aid it's a bit of an RoI issue.  The actual expenditure is low, but I can't think of a dumber way to spend money than throw billions at a country that harbored a terrorist that killed thousands of Americans.  Further west, every billion we spend in the Middle East winds up costing us tens of billions more.  Our foreign policy has an RoI that would make Nute Gunray blush.  We can absolutely save money if we actually tried to extricate ourselves from that clusterfark.
 
2014-02-04 07:21:50 PM  

dragonchild: Ugh, HeadLever finally made my Ignore list.  I've seen a lot stupider and a lot worse, but I can only take the same goddamn debunked debtbug arguments so many times.
It's like that crazy uncle at family reunions. . . no, not the creepy one that just got out of jail, but the one everyone tries to avoid because every time it's the same conversation.


HL posts the same damn charts in every thread he can possibly shoehorn them into.  They're all, at best, hypothetical models but he waves them around as irrefutable forecasts of the debt demons to come.

His best effort so far was to post a hypothetical made in 2009 IIRC, projecting how things would be through to 2013 (under some dire assumptions), in a recent thread as a historical chart of what had actually happened from 2009-2013.
 
2014-02-04 07:45:42 PM  
Gaseous Anomaly:

It's not a matter of "can't" but "won't"; we could raise taxes to a budget-balancing point if we wanted to.

How exactly would we raise taxes by a trillion dollars a year?
 
2014-02-04 08:49:40 PM  
Oh heck, the US dollar is no different just counterfeit anyway.  It's only value is the threat of US attack if you don't accept it, as Iraq learned the hard way.

We went from the gold standard to the oil standard and now we're on the bomb standard.
 
2014-02-04 08:56:11 PM  

Dwindle: Gaseous Anomaly:

It's not a matter of "can't" but "won't"; we could raise taxes to a budget-balancing point if we wanted to.

How exactly would we raise taxes by a trillion dollars a year?


Deficit's only half a trillion dollars a year these days. That's 1/32 (3%) of a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. So tax everything 3% more, balanced budget ensues.
 
2014-02-04 08:56:50 PM  

El Pachuco: They're all, at best, hypothetical models but he waves them around as irrefutable forecasts of the debt demons to come.


Ahhh, ye old strawman argument from el pachuco.  Sorry to say it, but you are so limited in your understanding that that is about all you have in these discussions.
 
2014-02-04 09:02:07 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: Deficit's only half a trillion dollars a year these days. That's 1/32 (3%) of a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. So tax everything 3% more, balanced budget ensues.


Easier said that done.  Just raising rates is not a guarantee of increased tax revenue.  In the entire history of this country, we have ever surpassed 20% GDP just a handful of times.

watchdog.org

Our spending is currently at 22% of GDP.
 
2014-02-04 09:29:20 PM  

HeadLever: Gaseous Anomaly: Deficit's only half a trillion dollars a year these days. That's 1/32 (3%) of a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. So tax everything 3% more, balanced budget ensues.

Easier said that done.  Just raising rates is not a guarantee of increased tax revenue.  In the entire history of this country, we have ever surpassed 20% GDP just a handful of times.

[watchdog.org image 300x197]

Our spending is currently at 22% of GDP.


The rate where we go Laffer-negative is about 70%. There's a lot of headroom there.

And historical averages mean jack shiat. The economy's a lot different today than 1950, or even 1990, let alone 1900. The size of government is a social choice, not some law of nature.
 
2014-02-04 09:45:24 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: HeadLever: Gaseous Anomaly: Deficit's only half a trillion dollars a year these days. That's 1/32 (3%) of a 16 trillion dollar a year economy. So tax everything 3% more, balanced budget ensues.

Easier said that done.  Just raising rates is not a guarantee of increased tax revenue.  In the entire history of this country, we have ever surpassed 20% GDP just a handful of times.

[watchdog.org image 300x197]

Our spending is currently at 22% of GDP.

The rate where we go Laffer-negative is about 70%. There's a lot of headroom there.

And historical averages mean jack shiat. The economy's a lot different today than 1950, or even 1990, let alone 1900. The size of government is a social choice, not some law of nature.


Where's the rate where we start lowering growth?

Let's say that 60% tax rates get you 95% of the income of 70%.  That means that going up to 70% just ate away 10% of your economy and half of your private sector.   In large part because you just went from a required 2.5:1 return to a 3.33:1 return just to break even.

And anyone who wants to get rich and do something interesting either goes into government or leaves because no one's stupid enough to invest in anything other than a sure thing.  Which means that you don't get Microsoft, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc, and all the rest of the really cool companies that the US has spawned that are leading the technical fields, and the hundreds of floating startups that exist around them providing them with cool tech.

And then if you start at the same total GDP, sitting at 35% lets you grow at 4%, and 70% keeps you stable, than in 17 years, you've broken even.  And your private sector is 4x as large as the other guy.  Which is why Europe's running on about 60% of our GDP/capita (Just saying.  $20K/year lets you buy a lot of
inequality.)

/And it depends on your state, but we're anywhere from 1.7:1 to 2.3:1.
//And France is at 4:1.
 
2014-02-04 09:55:26 PM  

HeadLever: Actually, spending is still much higher (as a percentage of GDP) than historical norms (about 22%, currently).


My favorite thing about this comment is that the average is 22%, currently we are at 24% of GDP according to YOUR OWN GRAPH, and you characterize that as "much higher" than historical norms.

Jesus.
 
2014-02-04 09:58:45 PM  

meyerkev: Where's the rate where we start lowering growth?


Probably well above 22%, the highest level proposed in this thread AFAIK. But that depends on what we do with it.

For example, raising the Medicare eligibility age is a net cost to the country as a whole (not counting the health effect, just the raw dollars), despite being a reduction in the size-of-government. (Yes, this implies the optimal Medicare eligibility age is 0, but that's another thread).

Another, a perennial proposal of mine: If we publicly funded pharma R&D at or somewhat above the levels the private sector is currently funding it, we'd have no loss of innovation but would save the country a farkton of money (despite the increase in the size-of-government), even if we literally gave the drugs away to the world. Again in raw dollars, not counting the health effects.

/Not coincidentally, markets don't work in health care
 
2014-02-04 10:08:38 PM  
I remember one year my husband and I were supposed to get a whopping $7 back.  Then we remembered my husband had had jury duty or something...and we broke even.  I think it was jury duty...been a long time.
 
2014-02-04 10:23:32 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: The rate where we go Laffer-negative is about 70%. There's a lot of headroom there.


The Laffer curve is a theoretical construct that is pretty much independent of empherical context.  Hauser's law, on the other hand does have empirical data on its side.  You are correct that things are different today (they always are), but that 20% level has always been a real barrier that is only passed in times of economic bubbles.
 
2014-02-04 10:30:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: My favorite thing about this comment is that the average is 22%,


No, the average is 19.8% IIRC (post WWII).

currently we are at 24% of GDP according to YOUR OWN GRAPH,

Again, we are currently about 22%.  Notice how the graph stops at 2012?  Hopefully time has not stopped for you the past 2 years and hopefully you did not forget that we already have discussed this.
 
2014-02-04 10:38:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: and you characterize that as "much higher" than historical norms.


2% of GDP today is about $350 Billion or about 10% of total Federal outlays.
 
2014-02-04 11:03:03 PM  

LessO2: Bit'O'Gristle: Why not just raise taxes so high, that people are fighting over cans of dog food and pond water.

We already have that, it's called "United Airlines."


You must be sitting at the wrong end of the plane. My last dinner on United was an appetizer of coconut-crusted shrimp and roasted pepper soup, a braised short rib the size of a softball, and a tasty freshly made ice cream sundae.
 
2014-02-04 11:41:27 PM  

HeadLever: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Meh. I don't know why the GOP makes this threat every tiem when everyone knows they are just going to cave at the last minute. Definition of insanity and all that, I suppose.  Just once I would enjoy watching the GOPees cut off their own dicks.

Yeah, they must be crazy or something.

[www.obamadoublespeak.com image 850x320]


I like how those quotes show that being President alters your perception that you had before you were Presidents.  IT's like Presidents have more to think about then their State/District.
 
2014-02-04 11:54:40 PM  

HeadLever: cameroncrazy1984: My favorite thing about this comment is that the average is 22%,

No, the average is 19.8% IIRC (post WWII).

currently we are at 24% of GDP according to YOUR OWN GRAPH,

Again, we are currently about 22%.  Notice how the graph stops at 2012?  Hopefully time has not stopped for you the past 2 years and hopefully you did not forget that we already have discussed this.


And we can survive much, MUCH higher than 22%. Our government is spending less...and, after a recession, that is NOT GOOD. When the private sector fails, the government has to spend money to get it running again. Our infrastructure is in pathetic shape, the jobs that aren't outsourced are being done by fewer people working harder for less pay than a few decades ago due to corporate greed, the middle class is all but gone. None of these will be fixed by the private sector; they'll only be solved by government legislation and/or spending.

And again, if you care that much about the deficit? Jack taxes up on corporations and the wealthy citizens (and make sure they pay by removing tax-dodging loopholes), and gut Defense spending. Don't give me the "Won't you PLEASE think of the soldiers/contractors?!" bullshiat, either, because that just implies you're OK with paying people just for the sake of it, and might as well pay Farkers for sitting at the computer all day.
 
2014-02-05 12:34:07 AM  

LordJiro: And we can survive much, MUCH higher than 22%.


We have never been there, but I suspect that you are right.  However, don't forget that this is only the federal portion.  Total taxation is more along the lines of 34% of GDP.

LordJiro:And again, if you care that much about the deficit? Jack taxes up on corporations and the wealthy citizens (and make sure they pay by removing tax-dodging loopholes), and gut Defense spending.
 Generally, I agree, but you really need to be careful on how you do this.  Gutting defense spending is also going to have a huge impact on employment and certain types of R&D that really can produce positive ROIs in different areas.  Also, don't forget that tax policy is social engineering via the wallet.  If you reduce the deductions you also reduce the control that these policies give you.
 
2014-02-05 02:54:15 AM  
taxes are ridiculously high in the united states.
 
2014-02-05 03:34:52 AM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: They're all, at best, hypothetical models but he waves them around as irrefutable forecasts of the debt demons to come.

Ahhh, ye old strawman argument from el pachuco.  Sorry to say it, but you are so limited in your understanding that that is about all you have in these discussions.


Nope.

They *are* hypotheticals, you retard.  That's why they come from the intros of their source reports.  That's because they're projections.

Projections can never be used as historical proofs.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?  Do you just look at them and go, "ooh, pretty! I'm sure they are true?"  Do you never read the labels or something?
 
2014-02-05 05:37:05 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: BizarreMan: Tax refund? What's that+

That's the thing where we borrow money from the poor people at zero percent interest all year long, and then have to pay it back at the beginning of the next year. It's a huge thing in the peasant calendar, sort of like a harvest festival used to be. Lots of drinking and shooting guns and chasing wenches.


I find the chasing wenches part to be the best part...
 
2014-02-05 05:39:22 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: SlothB77: its not the spending that is out of control.  it is the republicans.

Why not both?

Because spending isn't  actually out of control. Deficit's shrinking, remember?


That we even have a deficit is proof that spending is out of control.
 
2014-02-05 05:42:02 AM  

tarheel07: rumpelstiltskin: BizarreMan: Tax refund? What's that+

That's the thing where we borrow money from the poor people at zero percent interest all year long, and then have to pay it back at the beginning of the next year. It's a huge thing in the peasant calendar, sort of like a harvest festival used to be. Lots of drinking and shooting guns and chasing wenches.

Devil's advocate, but if you owe taxes at the end of the year, the government's essentially loaned you money which you pay back interest-free too.


Oh, but unlike the refunds, you get heavily penalized if you pay the owed taxes late. The government doesn't get penalized for refunding you.
 
2014-02-05 05:50:01 AM  

MaliFinn: Spending on programs approved during Bush years as a percentage of teh GDP of an economy that Bush crashed?  Yep, that's what I would expect the chart to look like.

Tell you what, you guys go ahead and scream and shout and fret and shiat your pants, I'm going to ignore all these political assholes the same way they ignore me and just wait for the announcement that we printed ourselves a few trillion dollars to push the decision off to some golden day in the future.


media2.s-nbcnews.com
"See, old man... I told you they wouldn't blame us."
 
2014-02-05 08:39:25 AM  

DrPainMD: cameroncrazy1984: HeadLever: SlothB77: its not the spending that is out of control.  it is the republicans.

Why not both?

Because spending isn't  actually out of control. Deficit's shrinking, remember?

That we even have a deficit is proof that spending is out of control.


A national economy, let alone that of a superpower, is not a business or household budget. A deficit and a national debt are not, inherently, bad things. No, not even if the numbers are big and scary.
 
2014-02-05 09:31:13 AM  

El Pachuco: That's because they're projections.


And when did I ever say otherwise?  As such, pointing out your argument is a strawman stands.


Projections can never be used as historical proofs.

When did I ever future projections as historical proofs?  Now you are just making stuff up.  But I am not surprised as you have to in order to even attempt to make an augment.
 
2014-02-05 09:37:41 AM  

LordJiro: A deficit and a national debt are not, inherently, bad things.


Correct up to a point.  However, debt can still become a huge problem for the government just the same.  the issue is not so much the debt principal, but the interest that this debt requires.  When that cost to the government starts to squeeze out other spending and it becomes difficult for the government to maintain a stable debt to gdp ratio, that becomes a big issue.

You are basically forced into austerity in order to control these deficits, or you need to devalue your currency.  Neither option is very good for a country.
 
2014-02-05 01:39:31 PM  
Are there any charts that show government spending, government revenue, and GDP in absolute dollars, not one or two of those items as a percentage of another?

I keep seeing government spending as a percentage of GDP or revenue, so it looks like it skyrocketed, but I know that GDP and revenue tanked relatively recently... So I'm wondering how much of it is an actual increase, versus just the same spending or a nominal decrease.

The President did say he cut the absolute dollar value of the deficit since he hit office (If we're including the two wars as an Obama expense, which is wrong, his statement is still correct since he did that when he hit office), so I'm just askin' questions here.
 
2014-02-05 02:06:48 PM  

Summercat: Are there any charts that show government spending, government revenue, and GDP in absolute dollars, not one or two of those items as a percentage of another?


Here are the receipts and outlays.  You can back calculate calculate the GDP value by dividing the percentage GDP by the corresponding outlay/revenue number.

Summercat: The President did say he cut the absolute dollar value of the deficit since he hit office (If we're including the two wars as an Obama expense, which is wrong, his statement is still correct since he did that when he hit office), so I'm just askin' questions here


Correct, the President came into office with a huge deficit which stayed really high for the first couple of years, but has been quickly trending down recently.  The CBO estimates that this trend will continue for another year or so and then turn back around and start increasing again due to demographics.
 
2014-02-05 02:13:32 PM  

Summercat: Are there any charts that show government spending, government revenue, and GDP in absolute dollars, not one or two of those items as a percentage of another?

I keep seeing government spending as a percentage of GDP or revenue, so it looks like it skyrocketed, but I know that GDP and revenue tanked relatively recently... So I'm wondering how much of it is an actual increase, versus just the same spending or a nominal decrease.

The President did say he cut the absolute dollar value of the deficit since he hit office (If we're including the two wars as an Obama expense, which is wrong, his statement is still correct since he did that when he hit office), so I'm just askin' questions here.


So the basic problem is that:

a) The debt problem is a function of GDP/revenue* (The guy making $20K/year buying a Porsche is in a much worse place than the guy making $200K.).  The US debt has only gone up (with a few exceedingly notable exceptions) since FDR and the New Deal -> War on Poverty -> Reagan Buildup -> War on Terror -> Compassionate Conservatism.  It's just that we went from a nation with $250 Billion in debt against a $2 Trillion GDP in 1950 to a nation with $17 Trillion in debt against a $15.5 Trillion GDP in 2013.
b) The Great Recession only knocked about 5% off of GDP.
c) The end of Bush's term and beginning of Obama's term was odd.  Because you had $1.5 Trillion in stimulus combined with the structural deficits that we normally run during a recession.  So we were running $1+ Trillion deficits for 2008-2012 (of necessity), at which point we dropped down to a mere 3/4 trillion in 2013/2014 (Keep in mind that we were getting really annoyed with Bush over 2-300 Billion, and now we're happy to be at 2-3x that).  So it's not hard to cut that deficit.

* And honestly, it's a function of interest payments.  If you have $20 Trillion in debt at 1% interest payments, you have the same problem as $5 Trillion in debt at 4% interest payments.  It's just that $20 Trillion guy lives in utter fear of the day that interest rates climb back up to 4% (or god forbid, the 10+% that characterized the stagflation of the 1970's).

/Honestly, if you don't need to go back past 1960 or so, WolframAlpha is your buddy.  Just type in US debt, US deficit, US GDP/etc.  And then toss it into a logarithmic chart so you can see rate of change.
//http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
 
2014-02-05 02:23:51 PM  
So the answer to my question is: "No, do the research yourself"

Which satisfies my curiosity into how intellectually bankrupt the arguments are.
 
2014-02-05 02:56:09 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: That's because they're projections.

And when did I ever say otherwise?  As such, pointing out your argument is a strawman stands.


Projections can never be used as historical proofs.

When did I ever future projections as historical proofs?  Now you are just making stuff up.  But I am not surprised as you have to in order to even attempt to make an augment.


You posted future projections as historical proofs  here and here and doubtless in many other Fark threads plus god knows where else.

As I've told you before, I will be here indefinitely to point out to other Farkers that you post charts and verbiage sourced from a Fox News-frequenting, gold-hoarding, right-wing libertarian investment shill, and he sources them from a crazy, anti-Fed, conspiracy theory-ladened, liberty-quacking Austrian/Objectivist economic survival guide.  The debt-bug, Chicken-Little warnings you proffer in every thread you post in have not happened and are not going to happen.
 
2014-02-05 03:51:44 PM  

El Pachuco: You posted future projections as historical proofs  here and here and doubtless in many other Fark threads plus god knows where else.


I control F+ 'proof' for each of those links and I said proof exactly zero times. Yep, making stuff up again I see.
 
2014-02-05 03:59:51 PM  

El Pachuco: As I've told you before, I will be here indefinitely to point out to other Farkers that you post charts and verbiage sourced


lolwat?  That chart above is sourced directly from the US Treasury Department.   Go see Chart 5 here.
Pathetic dude.  Even for a certified liar like yourself.

From the first page of that report:

The Citizen's Guide (Guide) to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Financial Report of the U.S. 
Government summarizes the current financial position and condition of the U.S. Government 
(See "Where We Are Now", p. ii) and discusses key financial topics, including fiscal 
sustainability (See "Where We Are Headed", p. v). This Guide and the Financial Report of the 
U.S. Government are produced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in cooperation with the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Secretary of the Treasury, Deputy Director for 
Management of OMB, and Comptroller General of the United States at the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) believe that the information discussed in this Guide is important to 
all Americans.


But hey what do I know.  Maybe those folks in the Obama Administration are 'crazy, conspiracy-theory laden shills'.  I'll take your word for that.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report