US Debt Clock

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by TheAngryLiberal, Jan 28, 2019.

  1. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,744
    Likes Received:
    5,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when you can't debate the facts.........
     
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not this one

    "Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation."
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,744
    Likes Received:
    5,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I gave you the facts, which is the congressional voting record of every bill proposed from 2001-2007. Every single one killed by republicans.
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,744
    Likes Received:
    5,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.
     
  6. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And when you can't debate the facts.........

    Not this one

    "Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation."
    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac

    Once again you refuse to discuss the issue and refute what is posted....................oh well.
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,744
    Likes Received:
    5,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can’t refute historical fact, lol. I gave you every bill proposed and showed republicans killed every single one of them.
     
  8. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you document that? I'd call it bullshit based on my previous investigations into it but I want to give you an opportunity to prove your statement first.
     
  9. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    16,317
    Likes Received:
    2,107
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is always the possibility that the member states may choose to amend their treaty. I believe article five of the treaty outlines the process.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  10. markrc99

    markrc99 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Pretty certain that one of the biggest falsehoods is that tax cuts for the top always raises revenue & trickles down & a tax increase always impacts the economy negatively. The greatest snowball of all, your personal situation is directly linked to GDP. The following was written by Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan:

    So the only thing being said by this former adviser to Reagan is that sometimes a tax cut can help, sometimes an increase can. To end or greatly mitigate divisiveness & gain widespread support, why don't republicans put forth a proposal that will favor the middle class & pay for itself? Or, after 2 years, rolls back the other way to accomplish what they insist is a worthy goal? You think perhaps it's just a coincidence that there's never any such guarantees?...it isn't. With respect to the debt here's Trump some time ago:

    Most would probably agree that regardless of whether Trump knows what he's talking about, he lacks certain recognized credentials. But I've noticed that even economic experts who do & say the same thing are also ridiculed. The primary counter is always the same, the expert or in this case, the president has confused trade deficits with the national debt, when he hasn't. However, should he have been probed further, it's highly unlikely that he would've gone down the dollar recycling road. I suspect he was merely speaking to his base that have America as the victim around the world. But back to his point, the counter never explains how we're paying for the massive imbalances? We export a lot, but we import hundreds of billions more on an annual basis! HOW are we paying for that?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The facts speak for themselves, after the Bush43 tax rate cuts revenues exploded and they lowered the deficit to that measly $161B. After the Gingrich/Kaisch tax rate cuts tax revenues exploded and they actually did produce budget surpluses. And yes those tax rate cuts work with other policies to produce the supply side effects.

    And Bartlett claims that Paul Krugman has been the most accurate economic's pundit which is laughable on it's face and now supports liberal Keynesian economics in spite of the fact we just witnessed a total failure of it under the Democrats from 2007 - 2015




    Which is why he has a good team of economic advisers.
     
  12. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Riiiiiiiiiiiight. You're ignoring that in the case of Reagan, the Fed reduced interest rates and Reagan ramped up military spending. And in the case of Bush, Clinton's revenue grew faster. So did Obama's.
    https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

    Typically, when GDP grows or shrinks, revenues tend to grow or shrink along with it for obvious reasons. And the GDP grows and shrinks in cycles. The revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering and growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP.

    [​IMG]

    Compare investment changes following tax cuts and tax increases:

    [​IMG]


    And BTW, it is tax INCREASES that benefit businesses:

    [​IMG]

    Oh, did the working class see improvements in their lifestyle and prospects from 2007 to 2015? Did I miss it? That is when wealth and income disparity grew at record paces, real median wages remained flat as they had been for 30 years, and consumer debt went back up to what it was prior to the 2007 crash. So what was this "total failure" again?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ACTUAL REVENUES an ACTUAL DEFICITS, I don't care about ratio's to GDP. I am talking tax dollars to the treasury. The goal should be to lower the ratio as we grow the economy while growing government and the money it takes in in taxes less. And yes tax cuts leaving the money and capital in the economy help grow the ecomony, not government taxing and spending it.



    Ahhh your chart leaves out the 1996 capital gains tax rate reduction which got the economy back in and gear after Clinton's tax rate increase slowed the economy and slow the strong rate of tax revenue increase he inherited.

    Year - Revenues - % chng

    1991 1,055.0 2.2%
    1992 1,091.2 3.4%
    1993 1,154.3 5.8% <- Clinton tax increase signed AUGUST 1993 but 2/3's of the addtional revenues deferred until 1995 and 1996
    1994 1,258.6 9.0%
    1995 1,351.8 7.4% <-"Taxpayers who owed additional 1993 taxes due to the
    OBRA93 tax rate increases were given the option of
    deferring payment of two-thirds of the tax that was in
    excess of the tax that would have been owed at the 31
    percent rate. Half of the deferral taxes were to be paid in
    1995 and the remaining half in 1996 [2].
    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/93inintrts.pdf
    1996 1,453.1 7.5%
    1997 1,579.2 8.7% -> Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts
    1998 1,721.7 9.0%
    1999 1,827.5 6.1%
    2000 2,025.2 10.8%
    2001 1,991.1 -2% Bush tax rate cuts passed 8 months into the fiscal year, 3 months after the start of the recession, to be phased in over 6 years
    2002 1,853.1 -7%
    2003 1,782.3 -4% Bush tax rate cuts phase in accelerated, begin full implimentation
    2004 1,880.1 5% Bush tax rate cuts fully implimented
    2005 2,153.6 15%
    2006 2,406.9 12%
    2007 2,568.0 7%


    Well let's just triple corporate and employment taxes and see how well it benefits business



    No they didn't do well at all under those Democrat policies.

    And that's what we got for listening to Bruce Bartlett and Paul Krugman and trying Keynesian trickle up economics.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I gave you all the data and explanations. Your understanding of economics is so poor that you can't even reason through the data and explanations. I'll give you one example....
    You said "Well let's just triple corporate and employment taxes and see how well it benefits business".

    Yet IN THE LINKS AND DATA it said correctly that when personal income taxes on higher incomes are raised, in order to avoid that tax the corporate elite takes less income and directs more revenue to business growth instead, where it can provide a tax deduction, and to personal investments that are tax-advantaged. (!!!)

    Yet you go on about "let's just triple corporate and employment taxes and see how well it benefits business" when that wasn't even the point or meaning.

    And BTW, when personal income taxes on the higher incomes are cut, the corporate elite take more revenue as personal income to take advantage of the low tax, and income and wealth disparity grows.

    Got a clue yet?
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just gave you the historical budget data and the accurate explanation. And you were the one that said higher taxes on business is good for business so why not triple the corporate tax rate if it helps them so much?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  16. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ZOOOOoooooooommmmmm!!!!
    You entirely missed my rather obvious statement. I never said higher taxes on business is good for business.

    Now, if you want to discuss anything about this further, go back to post 262 and reply to each of my points. I'll not have you ignoring what I said and just skipping on with your unchanged distorted and misguided opinions like nothing happened.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And how many of those business are pass through taxes? Tell me when have tax increases grown the economy and have been good for businesses? What you posted is pure conjecture, I posted the historical data, go back and address it which you did not.
     
  18. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I posted more historical data than you did. I posted it to PROVE personal tax increases are good for business. I'm done with your one-sided game until you read 262 and reply to it.
     
  19. markrc99

    markrc99 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I would've appreciated you answering questions as well. Again, you're so certain that by serving the interests of the top, the appropriate amount of the wealth just magically trickles down to the rest of us. Why then can't republicans add stipulations to their legislation & tax policies that ensure the outcomes you view as a no-brainer!? Trump's economic advisers that you laud are the ones behind telling the working class that his corporate tax cuts will greatly increase their wage pay.

    The administration's hope is that U.S. based multinationals will repatriate their exorbitant profits stashed in offshore safe havens. My understanding is that those shelters result in paying no tax & w/o any repercussion. A lowering of the nominal tax rate does nothing! Also, these firms are credited for any foreign taxes they do pay, which just further rewards the offshore behavior! Instead of the windfall to corporations why doesn't he offer a tax break to firms that provide a significant pay raise to employees first?

    My 2nd question pertained to Trump's comment regarding our massive trade imbalance, essentially, how is it being paid for? From the Census Bureau, dated June, '18:
    https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

    In any given year for the last several decades it hasn't been unusual for us to have an imbalance upwards of $500B! That U.S. trade debt posting of $888B on the debt clock doesn't add up. That can't be some outstanding figure because that which is held by foreign countries is over $6T. That clock is lying about trade, war & the pillaging of those trust funds (S.S. & Medicare).
     
  20. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    100,933
    Likes Received:
    14,739
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wages are increasing as opposed to under the trickle up policies of the Democrats. It is income that trickles down and it's not magic it's basic economics. And what "stipulations" are you talking about. If you are waiting for the government to get your wages increased and your wealth to accumulate you are going to be waiting a long time. Go out and do it.

    They have been repatriating and what makes a profit exorbitant? They result in the money left over after the country in which it was earned taxes it does not get taxed again by the US government, a double taxation.

    What about it, we are the richest nation on the planet of course we are going to buy more from other countries but what he is doing is getting rid of obstacles to our exports. Reports this morning that the new China deal is almost complete and will greatly increase our exports to them, they have already agreed to a HUGE soybean deal.

    So what do you want done exactly?
     
  21. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,744
    Likes Received:
    5,242
    Trophy Points:
    113
    trickle down economics (supply side) has 40 years of data showing it to be a complete failure. All that happens is the richest 1% take a greater share of the nations wealth, and then the deficit and debt EXPLODES.
     
    markrc99 likes this.
  22. markrc99

    markrc99 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Are you for real? The rational for the windfall put forth by the administration is, given that corporations place much of their tax burden onto workers, cutting their tax rate will translate to higher wages. The promise was that average yearly middle & upper middle class incomes are to increase anywhere from $3k to $9k long term. But these firms aren't obligated to increase wages in any way. Classic pie-in-the-sky rubbish. I'm semi-retired, my personal situation doesn't apply, pretty pathetic assumption.

    Yes, largely in the form of share buybacks, which has nothing to do with wages or investment. Which again was easily foreseeable. Trump's carrot should've ensured investment or the increase of wages. The amount is what's exorbitant, obviously. What level of concentration of wealth would be a concern for you, if any? My understanding with respect to the credit is that it's a deduction that further encourages offshore holdings.

    Amazing, for the 3rd time, HOW are we paying for the excess goods & services? The thread is about the debt & your president clearly linked the two! The adverse effects of these trade pacts domestically upon the middle class have been well documented. The model you seemingly advocate for, weak central state, extreme concentrations of wealth & a large working poor class is everywhere. You may want to consider what the results are.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  23. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,891
    Likes Received:
    635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you knew what you were talking about, then you'd understand the formula used for the special treasury securities. The highest interest rate is 15.25% and the lowest 1.25%.

    What you're probably looking at is the effective rate, which is not the same as the actual rate, and the actual rate varies on a weekly basis, because that's how Trust Fund securities are packaged, on a weekly basis, if and only if there is a surplus of FICA tax revenues collected.

    So, there isn't just one gigantic treasury security, there are hundreds of treasury securities going all the way back to the 1980s.

    It wasn't until the last 8 years that you've had to start converting treasury securities, because prior to that, there was always a surplus of FICA revenues collected, so that all current benefits could be paid, and the excess converted to non-marketable treasury securities.
     
  24. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    20,396
    Likes Received:
    4,776
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I misunderstood what you were saying. Now that you spell it out, I see you are correct in what you've said. In the early 1980s I was selling fixed annuities getting 16% to clients. And it was a heck of a deal then with "FIFO" rules. ERISA changed it to "LIFO" and that took away the great deal it was for the investor. So yeah, Treasuries left in the TF from the early 1980s still get a high ROR.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  25. TheAngryLiberal

    TheAngryLiberal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,874
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Started this thread about 8 months ago and it wasn't $ 22 Trillion yet, as of today it's $22, 538, 000,000, so it's gone up over 538 Billion in 8 Months. Besides a lot of the dumb things Donald Trump says, I believe this is the one issue that might take him down in 2020. It's a BIG! problem and nobody has been able to figure out how to stop it and I don't believe ANY! of the Democratic candidates are going to cut spending, because all they are running on is more and more Freebies and Gimmies to millions of illegals or $ 500 BILLION in Reparations like Kamala wants to hand out, which is going to result in Big Tax increases for the middle class. The Debt has gotten to the point that it's simply an un-imaginal amount of Money that's going to take a Hundred years to pay down if we don't start doing something about it now. It's kind of a Catch 22, put a Tax and spend on Freebies Democrat in 2020 or watch Trump ignore this issue for another 5 years until we hit $30 Trillion.
     

Share This Page