Future generations will pay for our trillion-dollar folly

[saveliberty]

Todays progressives don't care, as long as it isn't them

Progressives have nothing to do with it. Some of us just live in the real world and understand that people were saying the same thing in 1500AD.

Oh my ye king's decree will affect our heir apparent most certainly!

I forget. How many kings we have these days? Those with sweeping power in particular.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The era of chronic deficits and debt accumulation began coincident with the beginning of the era of relentless tax cutting.

You have to make the People pay for the government they get when they get it, or they will never stop asking for more government;

that means that big government requires big taxes.

The day the government gave you a tax cut without a spending cut to go with it, and the day the government gave you a spending increase without a tax increase to go with it,

those were the days the trouble started.

 

[saveliberty]

The era of chronic deficits and debt accumulation began coincident with the beginning of the era of relentless tax cutting.

You have to make the People pay for the government they get when they get it, or they will never stop asking for more government;

that means that big government requires big taxes.

The day the government gave you a tax cut without a spending cut to go with it, and the day the government gave you a spending increase without a tax increase to go with it,

those were the days the trouble started.

Good points.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

C'mon....................................40 million extra folk on commiecare, every scratch covered, statist imbeciles running the show............. and it will cost LESS..............

A f---ing fairytale any liberal scumbag could believe...................

 

[boedicca]

This says it quite well:

A Warm Thank You

To the Editor:

This 50-something, white, conservative Republican wishes to thank America’s youth for sacrificing their financial futures and standard of living so that boomers, such as my wife and I, can look forward to a long and comfy retirement, which we could easily have afforded on our own. Now we have the youth as our guarantors and providers of a little something extra.

As reported by the national exit poll conducted by Edison Research, Americans aged 18 to 29 voted 60% to 36% for Barack Obama. Prior to Obama’s re-election, I believed that it was morally wrong for my generation to pass a crushing national debt on to the next one.

The debt will top $20 trillion before Obama moves out of the White House, and it will include spiraling retirement-related costs that the administration has shown zero interest in bringing under control, largely driven by baby boomers piling into the Social Security and Medicare systems.

With the president’s electoral crushing of Mitt Romney, my overriding sense of morality and guilt have vanished. Thank you, kids!

Edwin D. Schindler

Woodbury, N.Y.

One generation got old; one generation got sold | Power Line

 

[ilia25]

Are you on welfare or something?

The debt hasn't gone down in 60+ years. Did the people who accumulated the debt 60+ years ago ruin your life, somehow?It's the real life wizard of oz.

The debt 60 years ago wasn't nearly as large as it is today.

Check your numbers, genius...

Debt (held by public) to GDP ratio:

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Future generations will pay for our trillion-dollar folly

If global-warming doesn't fry 'em, first.​

 

[saveliberty]

Check your freaking numbers, genius...

Debt (held by public) to GDP ratio:

My check of your chart shows we are back up to where we were 50 years ago. Of course, you're using percentages and Don't Taz Me is correct.

 

[ilia25]

Check your freaking numbers, genius...

Debt (held by public) to GDP ratio:

My check of your chart shows we are back up to where we were 50 years ago.

The point, saveliberty, is that we were able to successfully reduce much higher debt levels. And we did all that while fighting in Korea and Vietnam and generally putting the USSR out of of business.

Of course back then we had the advantage of 70-90% marginal tax rates.

Of course, you're using percentages and Don't Taz Me is correct.

And what I should have used instead? Potato chips?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

dick tater and his minions care not a whit for "future generations"

....Much-the-way those ill-educated T-Baggers are kickin' the.....

....global-warming "can".....

....down-the-road, towards future-generations.

 

[saveliberty]

You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cool I'll be dead. Have fun with that.

Way cool because I'll be gone as well. Hope they have fun with the new America.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Debt to GDP.

 

[G.T.]

You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.

If he actually meant hard dollars, then him responding to a post that was saying "the debt hasnt gone down in 60+ years" by saying "well, the debt is higher than 60 years ago," is a little frivolous, wouldn't the sane-mind-say?

 

[boedicca]

Check your freaking numbers, genius...

Debt (held by public) to GDP ratio:

My check of your chart shows we are back up to where we were 50 years ago.

The point, saveliberty, is that we were able to successfully reduce much higher debt levels. And we did all that while fighting in Korea and Vietnam and generally putting the USSR out of of business.

Of course back then we had the advantage of 70-90% marginal tax rates.

Of course, you're using percentages and Don't Taz Me is correct.

And what I should have used instead? Potato chips?

I call shenanigans. That 70-90% marginal tax rate has been debunked over and over again. The tax brackets were higher and there were tons of deductions which lowered the effective tax rate.

If your "theory" that people actually paid those high taxes were correct, tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been far higher than the typical range of 18% +/- in no recessionary periods.

 

[Againsheila]

Is there any reason for today's Americans to care about what happens to tomorrow's Americans? After all, what have tomorrow's Americans done for today's Americans? Moreover, since tomorrow's Americans don't vote, we can dump on them with impunity. That's a vision that describes the actual behavior of today's Americans.

The federal government gets by without having to provide transparent and honest financial statements. The U.S. Treasury’s “balance sheet” does list liabilities such as public debt, but it does not include the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and other federal future obligations. A conservative estimate of Washington’s unfunded liabilities for the year ending in 2011 is $87 trillion. That’s more than 500 percent of our 2011 GDP of $15 trillion.

America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. If Congress fleeced them of their assets, stocks, bonds, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry, it would get us to at least late fall.



The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. The true tragedy for our future is that there are millions of uninformed Americans who will buy the political demagoguery and treachery that our problems can be solved by taxing the rich.


Future generations will pay for our trillions - Conservative News

I think part of our problem is that we haven't been taxing the rich enough. Those so called tax breaks were suppose to trickle down, instead we got trickled on.

In reality, I don't think there is anyway in heck that we can pay off our debt at this point. I think the ultimate collapse of the dollar is inevitable and I think it was planned. I doubt anyone will go to jail over it but they should.

 

[ilia25]

You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.

Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that. Even potato chips are better because they provide some sort of adjustment for inflation

As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.

You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.

 

[boedicca]

You could have acknowledged he was right about actual dollars, but the percentages play into the analysis. In this case however, the amount of economic growth required is not achievable or sustainable in order to effectively reduce it this time.

Actual dollars are meaningless when comparing historical debt levels -- everybody should know that.

As for the slower growth -- it is not all that important. Japan had slower growth for decades, its population is shrinking and it has its debt rating cut way back in 2002 and its debt to GDP ratio is now at 230% GDP. Yet it borrows at lower rates than the US.

You can't declare our debt as being "unsustainable" just because it looks big to you.

You think we should become another incredibly shrinking society with Robot Companions like Japan?

Jeebus.

 

[ilia25]

My check of your chart shows we are back up to where we were 50 years ago.

The point, saveliberty, is that we were able to successfully reduce much higher debt levels. And we did all that while fighting in Korea and Vietnam and generally putting the USSR out of of business.

Of course back then we had the advantage of 70-90% marginal tax rates.

Of course, you're using percentages and Don't Taz Me is correct.

And what I should have used instead? Potato chips?

I call shenanigans. That 70-90% marginal tax rate has been debunked over and over again. The tax brackets were higher and there were tons of deductions which lowered the effective tax rate.

What deductions, can you name a single one? The effective rates are always lower than the top marginal rate, even if there are no deductions.

If your "theory" that people actually paid those high taxes were correct, tax receipts as a % of GDP would have been far higher than the typical range of 18% +/- in no recessionary periods.

That is because most people did not pay those rates, they were designed for a few super-rich.

 

[WillowTree]

Cool I'll be dead. Have fun with that.

Way cool because I'll be gone as well. Hope they have fun with the new America.

Just give all you shit away before you die. So the shitheads on the left can't get it.