The National Debt Keeps Piling Up! Is it True that Taking Money from the Rich Will Help Pay it off?
Flash,aka,Mr.Lightning
2012/04/17 14:40:54
|
|
|||||
|
24 votes
|
|
77% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
13% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
10% | ||
Are you concerned about the government's spending policies and the ever increasing debt our nation is piling up minute by minute every day? Or do you believe that spending programs must continue the way they are set up now because it wouldn't be fair to change or eliminate them?
Is it true what Obama is stating along with fellow Democrats that increasing the taxes on the rich and corporations would help with spending programs and the national debt? Is that the logical approach to an almost insane situation? Can things continue this way or could it cause the complete economic collapse of America?
Let's look at some numbers;-
Just do the math: The federal government collected $2.2 trillion last year-a huge heap of money that is nowhere near the $3.7 trillion it spent.
Imagine a household that makes $4,000 a month sitting down tomake a budget, and patting itself on the back for planning to spend $6,500 We’re not talking about impulse buying. We’re talking about planning to go $2,500 deeper into debt every month—$30,000 a year.
Comparing income to spending, that reckless family would actually be doing somewhat better than America.
Every year, the federal government takes an average of about $7,000 in taxes per American—and then spends nearly $12,000 per American. That is how it goes a heart-stopping $4 billion deeper into debt EVERY SINGLE DAY!
What would it take to actually pay the bills? Statistician David Burge, author of the famed Iowahawk website, offers one suggestion. To finance ONE YEAR of federal spending, just take the combined global profits of every one of the Fortune 500 companies; take all the tv ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls; take the combined salaries of all players in the nfl, mlb, nba and nhl along with all winnings from the pga tour and nascar; take every penny of household income in excess of $250,000; take all the money from every billionaire and near-billionaire; take every dime the nation is spending on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan; take everything pumped into foreign aid; and then make every American man, woman and child chip in another 40 bucks. Voila!
The bad news is, that would only pay one year’s bills, and the financial wherewithal of the nation would be gutted.
I’m guessing you have enough common sense to recognize that to “budget” yourself to go $1.5 trillion deeper into debt each year simply isn’t sustainable. It is lunacy.
Take a good look at all the money being
sucked out of America’s coffers by interest
payments on that debt. In fiscal
year 2011, the government paid $454 billion in interest. Last December
alone, maintenance on the debt cost $98.6
billion.
Think about where all that money for
interest payments is going. Trillions of
dollars are flying out of the U.S. into other
countries. Though borrowing may prosper
America for a moment, it prospers the
nation’s lenders in the long run—at America’s
expense, more and more over time.
So is the National Debt a grave concern for our nation or not? What think ye?
Is it true what Obama is stating along with fellow Democrats that increasing the taxes on the rich and corporations would help with spending programs and the national debt? Is that the logical approach to an almost insane situation? Can things continue this way or could it cause the complete economic collapse of America?
Let's look at some numbers;-
Just do the math: The federal government collected $2.2 trillion last year-a huge heap of money that is nowhere near the $3.7 trillion it spent.
Imagine a household that makes $4,000 a month sitting down tomake a budget, and patting itself on the back for planning to spend $6,500 We’re not talking about impulse buying. We’re talking about planning to go $2,500 deeper into debt every month—$30,000 a year.
Comparing income to spending, that reckless family would actually be doing somewhat better than America.
Every year, the federal government takes an average of about $7,000 in taxes per American—and then spends nearly $12,000 per American. That is how it goes a heart-stopping $4 billion deeper into debt EVERY SINGLE DAY!
What would it take to actually pay the bills? Statistician David Burge, author of the famed Iowahawk website, offers one suggestion. To finance ONE YEAR of federal spending, just take the combined global profits of every one of the Fortune 500 companies; take all the tv ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls; take the combined salaries of all players in the nfl, mlb, nba and nhl along with all winnings from the pga tour and nascar; take every penny of household income in excess of $250,000; take all the money from every billionaire and near-billionaire; take every dime the nation is spending on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan; take everything pumped into foreign aid; and then make every American man, woman and child chip in another 40 bucks. Voila!
The bad news is, that would only pay one year’s bills, and the financial wherewithal of the nation would be gutted.
I’m guessing you have enough common sense to recognize that to “budget” yourself to go $1.5 trillion deeper into debt each year simply isn’t sustainable. It is lunacy.
Take a good look at all the money being
sucked out of America’s coffers by interest
payments on that debt. In fiscal
year 2011, the government paid $454 billion in interest. Last December
alone, maintenance on the debt cost $98.6
billion.
Think about where all that money for
interest payments is going. Trillions of
dollars are flying out of the U.S. into other
countries. Though borrowing may prosper
America for a moment, it prospers the
nation’s lenders in the long run—at America’s
expense, more and more over time.
So is the National Debt a grave concern for our nation or not? What think ye?
Top Opinion
-
YES! This is a grave concern for ALL Americans! And we cannot continue doing ...
+7If your spouse spent money like the idiots in DC you'd divorce them! -Or, put 'em in a nut house! Time to divorce from these politicians.
If you tax the rich 100% the debt still won't be reduced.
but, as the party goers at GSA, the overseeing group, said it is not thier money.
this Obama crowd is getting a bit out of control.
So the government wants more money for things like that?
Those getting handouts, vote for more, Abama is increasing his base.
We are feeding OWS, Obamas signiture group.
You aib't seen nothin' yet
As the debt increases, the working generation will be less able to pay into Social Security. Once that happens, it last call for SS.
If you want to do something about it, ping me here.,
Complaining about one party versus the other only generates the gridlock that we have when neither party has a plan. I remember the promises made by Obama in 2008 and the Republicans in 2010. Neither side is going to keep promises.
The question is do you want to do something about it.
democrats have a platform
I lean to the republicns platform.
The problem I see is government is out of control.
those in government have to be subject to the same rules laws and regulations they subject us to
Once in DC they become DC, part of the DC/WS complex, one supporting the other and when the F up. the other one gives them our money
and I am doing things about it.
consider the dog and pony show, if a private sector comp, had some of the scandles of this administration congress would do one of thier worthless hearings, how about a hearing of the CEO of the U S.
\we need to get back to we the people
Time to get someone in offices who understands that deficit spending is spending money we do not have and have to borrow. Our debt is too great, our spending too high and must get under control
The debt cannot be controlled unless spending is cut dramatically.
First, no SS money has been pulled for other things. In terms of Social Security, the first 30 years of retirees enjoyed a free ride. That ride ended in 1983 when the system went into insolvency. The voters of the 1950s agreed to give themselves benefits at a cost to the children.
Second, according to the Social Security Administration the system is more than 17 trillion in the hole. That is more than the debt of the country. In 1983, Congress OK'd a plan which would push the majority of the hidden costs on people who had no vote at the time (that would be you). So instead of having 30 years of retirees which enjoyed a free ride, we made it such that 50 years of retirees would have a ride at less than full frieght.
Third, the payroll tax-holiday is a net benefit to Social Security. The 'holiday' is not a tax cut. It is a tax shift, where the general taxpayer is picking-up the revenue shortfall. It is a tax-cut for people who work but have no income tax obligation. Cost to the taxpayer in 2011, 105 billion - according to Charles Blauhous (Trustee).
Our effort is about honesty in the debate. That is why we invite people to tell us that we are wrong. That is how we grow.
Thanks,
So worship your Rulers, dumbos.
The number 1 answer that I get is nothing-I-do-will-make-a-diff... The problem is that doing nothing does make a difference. It enables DC. This problem is in our hands and on our hands.
If you want to help let me know.
The government stopping spending money like Wilma and Betty hoofing it down to the store yelling "Charge It" is the only way to start in the right direction.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was enacted when it appeared the Recession of 2001 would just not go away. While the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts focused on personal taxes, JGTRRA focused on investment taxes. Its goal was to stimulate business spending, freeing up funds to increase employment.
Specifically, JGTRRA:
•Reduced the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains from 20% to 15%.
•Reduced the tax rate on qualified dividends from the personal tax rate to a max of 15%.
•Accelerated many of the provisions in EGTRRA, which were supposed to be phased in more gradually.
•Increased tax deductions for small businesses.
What Is EGTRRA?:
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) was part of the George Bush tax cuts. EGTRRA gave income tax relief to families, who were expected to spend the extra money. This increase in demand would boost the economy and lift it out of the 2001 recession. It saved taxpayers $1.35 trillion over that 10-year period. The Urban Institute said the tax cuts benefited families with children, and those with incomes over $200,000, the most.
Specifically, EGTRRA:
•Reduced income tax rates for most taxpayers by a few points. Since it was retroactive to the beginning of 2001, re...
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was enacted when it appeared the Recession of 2001 would just not go away. While the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts focused on personal taxes, JGTRRA focused on investment taxes. Its goal was to stimulate business spending, freeing up funds to increase employment.
Specifically, JGTRRA:
•Reduced the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains from 20% to 15%.
•Reduced the tax rate on qualified dividends from the personal tax rate to a max of 15%.
•Accelerated many of the provisions in EGTRRA, which were supposed to be phased in more gradually.
•Increased tax deductions for small businesses.
What Is EGTRRA?:
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) was part of the George Bush tax cuts. EGTRRA gave income tax relief to families, who were expected to spend the extra money. This increase in demand would boost the economy and lift it out of the 2001 recession. It saved taxpayers $1.35 trillion over that 10-year period. The Urban Institute said the tax cuts benefited families with children, and those with incomes over $200,000, the most.
Specifically, EGTRRA:
•Reduced income tax rates for most taxpayers by a few points. Since it was retroactive to the beginning of 2001, refund checks were mailed out to taxpayers who had already paid their taxes.
•Created a new 10% tax bracket for incomes below $34,550.
•Doubled the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.
•Eliminated the “marriage penalty” by making exemptions for married couples equivalent to what they would have had if they were single.
•Provided greater tax deductions for education expenses and savings.
•Increased the amount of tax-deductible contributions taxpayers could make to their IRA accounts.
•Repealed estate and gift taxes.
http://useconomy.about.com/od...
http://useconomy.about.com/od...
Thanks for the info and the links my friend.