Helping Kids Understand Debt

[Indiana Oracle]

Here is a link forwarded by a friend for children of college age. Very useful at this time.
InDebtEd

 

[Iriemon]

It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

 

[editec]

Useful in what sense, exactly?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I took the indebted quiz, answering as my daughter. She scored as a 'Savings Guru'. Guess the things we taught her stuck!

Check out Fall Out Boys vid on the link; great song.

Fall Out Boy - “I Don’t Care” | InDebtEd

 

[Iriemon]

It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

 

[Newby]

It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

 

[Iriemon]

Quote: Originally Posted by Iriemon
It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Any luck hitting that strawman?

 

[KMAN]

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Isn't it amazing how the hypocrisy from the left never ends...

 

[Newby]

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Any luck hitting that strawman?

Square in the heart. You just keep defending the Obama spending, it's what you do best.

 

[Newby]

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Isn't it amazing how the hypocrisy from the left never ends...

It will never change unfortunately.

 

[Newby]

Just for you Iriemon....

First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns


President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration.

By Stephen Clark

In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.

But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

"You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.

"The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."

Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.

And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."

"There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. "Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."

The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.

There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).

On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.

Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.

"Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."

He said Obama is doing too much too fast.

"It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.

But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.

"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.

Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.

"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.
"It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"

But, let me guess..... it's from Fox News , so it's not 'legitimate' in your eyes...

 

[Iriemon]

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Any luck hitting that strawman?

Square in the heart.

Fair assessment.

 

[Iriemon]

Educating is great. Providing false information as a scare tactic is not.

What's the matter, Iriemon? Don't you like the numbers on that page?

When is was Bushie in the Whitehouse, it was an outrage, but now that it's Obama as the POTUS, the deficit is just fine.

Isn't it amazing how the hypocrisy from the left never ends...

Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite? If so for what.

 

[Iriemon]

Just for you Iriemon....

First 100 Days: Obama's Federal Spending Spree Raises Management Concerns


President Obama's spending spree in his first 100 days in office has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration.

By Stephen Clark

In the early months of his presidency, President Obama has shown he isn't afraid to spend billions of dollars on corporate bailouts or to run up trillions of dollars in U.S. debt to battle an economic crisis.

But in doing so, he has initiated the largest expansion of federal government since World War II and set up a massive challenge for his administration -- one that officials are already warning will be fraught with peril.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, Obama has signed a $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program and created other billion-dollar programs to help grease the economic wheels.

Analysts call the spending spree "unprecedented" when the nation is not in a declared war, and they say the challenges that accompany it are a logical result.

"You take any organization in the world and you double its size in 90 days, it's going to have a hard time managing that transition," said William Gale, vice president and director of the economic studies program at Brookings Institute.

"The sheer management issues that come up are very important," Gale said, "because I can imagine the people running those projects that are about to be doubled may not want to see their face on '60 Minutes' as the poster child for government waste and useless spending."

Among the warning signs: The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that states need help covering the cost of overseeing their share of the massive federal stimulus program.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressionally appointed oversight panel this week that America's banks are still broken, despite all their bailout billions.

And an inspector general assigned to the bailout program concluded this week that a private-public partnership designed to buy up bad assets is tilted in favor of private investors and creates "potential unfairness to the taxpayer."

Brian Reidl, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said all the spending may lead a Democratic-controlled Congress to "overreach and create expensive, unworkable new programs that will not be easy to fix or cut later."

"There are significant economic risks to rapidly expanding the size of government," Reidl said. "Countries with large governments produce less wealth and create fewer jobs than countries with minimal government."

The number of programs and the dizzying array of acronyms describing them are enough to leave a Scrabble champion exhausted.

There's TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility) and PPIP(Public-Private Investment Program).

On top of that, Obama's budget proposal includes $770 billion in tax cuts over 10 years for the middle class, $150 billion for funding "green" energy sources and $634 billion toward the introduction of universal health care.

Reidl forsees legislative hurdles.

"Congress has a lot on its plate this year," he told FOXNews.com. "It will be hard for Congress to write useful legislation on energy, health and education while passing all the regular spending."

He said Obama is doing too much too fast.

"It's extremely difficult to craft intelligent legislation in so many areas at one time, especially in a president's first year, when he is facing the same learning curve that any president would face," he said.

But Gale said he believes the White House has done an "enormous" amount right in the first 100 days.

"The flip side of the very aggressive posture the administration has taken is if the economy goes through the floor, we're going to see budget deficits like you've never seen," he said.

Even if the administration is able to get all the programs up and running, Gale said, an exit strategy is lacking to extricate the federal government from the credit markets and all of the state and local government spending.

"I'm not confident that Congress or the administration will have the political discipline to keep these things temporary," he said.
"It kind of reminds me of Iraq," he said. "We're here. Now what?"

But, let me guess..... it's from Fox News , so it's not 'legitimate' in your eyes...

Interesting, but what does this have to do with the thread?

 

[Toro]

We might as well teach them about debt now. They're going to need to know in the future!

 

[Iriemon]

We might as well teach them about debt now. They're going to need to know in the future!

At least understand why they have to pay 70% tax rates.

The greatest generation paid 70% tax rates to pay down the debt of fighting WWII.

Gen-x will pay 70% tax rates to pay for the boomer generation's tax cuts.

That's the short of it.

 

[WillowTree]

It's a fucking shame isn't it? Immoral isn't it? I've been saying this same shite for 8 years.

It's ironic you say it would be useful at "this time." Because at this time a Dem is in power?

Only 9 years ago the debt was half it is now, and with a surplus budget the Govt was paying the debt down. That was the time the website would have been really useful.

Because the "pass the buck generation" didn't like the idea that they were govt was taking "their money" for paying down their debt, and lapped up the lies of policitians and their tax cut supporters who told them they could cut taxes and pay down the debt too.

It's the legacy of Ron George and George. And the way it is looking, Barack too. Hopefully not, but I'm not optimistic.

The website is misleading though. $11 trillion is actual debt owed. The $53 trillion (and therefore the your share figure) is falsely labelled "real debt." It is not. It is a projection of SS/Medicare costs over the next 75 years if nothing changes. Of course, if taxes are raised or benes cut that figure can be reduced or eliminated with a stroke of a pen.

There is real reason to be concerned about the debt and the immorality of the fact that for decades the pass the buck generation and its leaders have financed tax cuts with debt theire children and grandchildren will bear.

But there's no reason to use false scare tactics to make the point.

Get serious. My post has nothing to do with politics. It is a shame at a number of levels, but educating our children on the basics of debt and spending is a good thing.

you really rang her chimes didn't you??

 

[ItsFairmont]

This is a college survey. It's good, but I'm an old fugger.

 

[DiveCon]

This is a college survey. It's good, but I'm an old fugger.

its designed to help college kids