Democrat says we're going bankrupt...
in [Design]
|
From: Benj on 23 Jul 2010 03:58 On Jul 17, 1:10 am, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: > Bankrupt? We only have a 14 trillion debt out of 200 trillion in > assets. So, if we just taxed 7% on assets, we can pay off the debt > this year. > > So, what is the balance sheet problem? > > -Bill Let's see: USA GDP = 14 trillion. National debt = about 14 trillion. Hence national debt can be paid off if all of us work and produce for a year and buy and consume nothing for the same time. As it turns out, the debt per citizen is $42,693. The assets per citizen (and that includes all business and corporate assets but not government assets) is $237,024 That would mean your idea would require an 18% percent tax on ALL assets or for EACH and EVERY citizen to fork over $43 grand to do their part. Yeah, that will work. Where's yours? Please mail it to B. Obama, White House Washington D.C. But wait, not just the government but Americans themselves have debt. And that is about 55 trillion which means it would take four years of GDP to pay off all debt. Of course current revenue is about 30% of GDP so that means it would take 12 years of government collecting revenue but spending ZERO. Well obviously that won't work because bureaucrats would raise hell. So lets just say the government somehow grows some balls and stretches up and allocates 1/3 of revenue to debt service so as to pay off the total debt of the citizens. So that means that it can be done in 36 years. But wait. There's more. To cut spending would mean that all government obligations would have to be cut. That would include all unfunded liabilities: Social Security, Medicare, Prescription drugs (and this doesn't even cover Obamacare). And those come to about 110 trillion dollars so to pay that off, using our 1/3 of revenue figure, That adds another 70 years or so to the total. So now we are up to 106 years! In other words if right now Government totally closed down paying NOBODY ANYTHING except for Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drugs, and we assume the economy keeps humming alone as per usual (or maybe actually BETTER given government is shut down) it would take 60 years, or nearly a lifetime to pay off the mess created up to now. So just what is the balance sheet problem? Idiot. I am SO glad I'm an old geezer and I don't have to deal with this problem. I'll be dead in a few years and all you young whippersnappers can use your lifetimes and all the work you do in that lifetime trying to fix this mess "we" made! Good luck! http://www.usdebtclock.org/
From: krw on 23 Jul 2010 18:33 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >On Jul 17, 1:10�am, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: > >> Bankrupt? We only have a 14 trillion debt out of 200 trillion in >> assets. So, if we just taxed 7% on assets, we can pay off the debt >> this year. >> >> So, what is the balance sheet problem? >> >> -Bill > >Let's see: USA GDP = 14 trillion. National debt = about 14 trillion. >Hence national debt can be paid off if all of us work and produce for >a year and buy and consume nothing for the same time. *AND* cut off all promises (pensions, SS, welfare, veterans benefits - EVERYTHING). >As it turns out, the debt per citizen is $42,693. The assets per >citizen (and that includes all business and corporate assets but not >government assets) is $237,024 That would mean your idea would require >an 18% percent tax on ALL assets or for EACH and EVERY citizen to fork >over $43 grand to do their part. Yeah, that will work. Where's yours? >Please mail it to B. Obama, White House Washington D.C. > >But wait, not just the government but Americans themselves have debt. >And that is about 55 trillion which means it would take four years of >GDP to pay off all debt. Of course current revenue is about 30% of GDP >so that means it would take 12 years of government collecting revenue >but spending ZERO. Well obviously that won't work because bureaucrats >would raise hell. So lets just say the government somehow grows some >balls and stretches up and allocates 1/3 of revenue to debt service so >as to pay off the total debt of the citizens. So that means that it >can be done in 36 years. > >But wait. There's more. To cut spending would mean that all government >obligations would have to be cut. That would include all unfunded >liabilities: Social Security, Medicare, Prescription drugs (and this >doesn't even cover Obamacare). And those come to about 110 trillion >dollars so to pay that off, using our 1/3 of revenue figure, That >adds another 70 years or so to the total. So now we are up to 106 >years! In other words if right now Government totally closed down >paying NOBODY ANYTHING except for Social Security, Medicare, and >prescription drugs, and we assume the economy keeps humming alone as >per usual (or maybe actually BETTER given government is shut down) it >would take 60 years, or nearly a lifetime to pay off the mess created >up to now. > >So just what is the balance sheet problem? > >Idiot. > >I am SO glad I'm an old geezer and I don't have to deal with this >problem. I'll be dead in a few years and all you young whippersnappers >can use your lifetimes and all the work you do in that lifetime trying >to fix this mess "we" made! Good luck! > >http://www.usdebtclock.org/ > http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199601
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Jul 2010 01:05 On Jul 23, 5:27 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:42:25 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > >the BIG part of the Lie was that the SS funds would be "invested". > > Except that any fool should know that the government cannot "invest" in > anything and still have a free society. All government is overhead that comes at the expense of its citizens. Total government, whatever its colors, is always totalitarian, always tyranny. I figure Mr. Obama's work thus far will cost me two extra hours each day, employed in the government's service (whose service in turn is of redistributing the proceeds of those two extra hours, and the three or four before them). Or I could just not. Change. Indeed. > >next was that the retirement age was 65;it's now rising and new entrants > >will not be able to retire until several years past 65. > > That ship left almost thirty years ago when the retirement age, depending on > your birth date, was raised from 65 to 66 or 67. Just raise it to 97--that'll fix the whole thing. > >It's a classic pyramid scheme. > > No, it's a tax-and-redistribute scheme. Pyramid schemes aren't enforced at > gunpoint. Au contaire--now, they are. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 24 Jul 2010 01:22 On Jul 23, 11:29 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> > wrote: > >The SS funds were invested in government bonds, which is the safest > >investment in the world. Where else would you invest the funds, the > >stock market that loses 50%, or a bank vault where it earns no > >interest? I prefer government bonds. > > No, they weren't "invested" in any way. That is only an accounting trick, and > a poor one at that. Basically, the government used the money for its > day-to-day expenses and left IOUs for your grandchildren to pay off, and > called it even. That is *not* investing. If anyone else had done this it > they'd be in prison. That's a good point. The funds weren't put into a factory that hired workers to make something people wanted and needed, an enterprise that creates jobs and value and makes the country richer. That's investment. These funds were handed out, like candy, and, like candy, now they're gone. The fact that the government promises to pay them back Tuesday with interest (by confiscating funds from people not then yet born) does not make it an investment, does not create value, make it safer, or sustainable. It's none of those. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 24 Jul 2010 11:21
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:05:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Jul 23, 5:27�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:42:25 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > >> >the BIG part of the Lie was that the SS funds would be "invested". >> >> Except that any fool should know that the government cannot "invest" in >> anything and still have a free society. > >All government is overhead that comes at the expense of its citizens. >Total government, whatever its colors, is always totalitarian, always >tyranny. > >I figure Mr. Obama's work thus far will cost me two extra hours each >day, employed in the government's service (whose service in turn is of >redistributing the proceeds of those two extra hours, and the three or >four before them). Or I could just not. > >Change. Indeed. > >> >next was that the retirement age was 65;it's now rising and new entrants >> >will not be able to retire until several years past 65. >> >> That ship left almost thirty years ago when the retirement age, depending on >> your birth date, was raised from 65 to 66 or 67. > >Just raise it to 97--that'll fix the whole thing. Except that "reelection" thing. ;-) From what I've read, delaying retirement age two years and deleting the "early retirement" option will pretty much do it. ...and only for those currently younger than 55, according to Ryan. >> >It's a classic pyramid scheme. >> >> No, it's a tax-and-redistribute scheme. �Pyramid schemes aren't enforced at >> gunpoint. > >Au contaire--now, they are. Our dictionaries differ. ;-) |