I have lost ALLLLLL faith in our legilative branch.  They constantly let me down.  Passing common sense gun rights bills does not make up for this insanity.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif that picture scares me Only because you are misinterpreting it.

Ok, explain it so it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy.  I'm not sure how you are going to do that considering the chart has both the debt and the ratio of debt to GDP.  While it is true the US economy is larger than it ever has been so is the debt, that's where the % of the GDP comes in and it's very easy to see that our debt is now approaching 70% of our GDP the highest it has been in the last 45 years.  So now please try and spin that and tell us how great it is.

Does anyone think the Terrorist are smart enough to think that they can just sit back and watch the US hurt itself financially, Spending itself down a hole?

ie.  I know these guys are not  financial wizards, but its kinda like when a someone wants to hurt a company, they can sue them, and then sit back and watch them have to pay all the legal fees to defend themselves.

Our dept goes through the roof.

The terrorist countries own all the oil,gold, and silver.  US inflation sky rockets the dollar is devalued (caused by printing more money), inturn the U.S. pays more for Oil, Gold, and Silver.

in a way they win, we lose.

Just a thought.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif that picture scares me Only because you are misinterpreting it. Ok, explain it so it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy.  I'm not sure how you are going to do that considering the chart has both the debt and the ratio of debt to GDP.  While it is true the US economy is larger than it ever has been so is the debt, that's where the % of the GDP comes in and it's very easy to see that our debt is now approaching 70% of our GDP the highest it has been in the last 45 years.  So now please try and spin that and tell us how great it is.

Like I said, you are misinterpreting it.

Debt, as a percentage of GDP, is the same as it was in throughout most of the Nineties. Dunno where you are getting that 'highest in 45 years' bit from.

Quoted: Does anyone think the Terrorist are smart enough to think that they can just sit back and watch the US hurt itself financially, Spending itself down a hole? ie.  I know these guys are not  financial wizards, but its kinda like when a someone wants to hurt a company, they can sue them, and then sit back and watch them have to pay all the legal fees to defend themselves. Our dept goes through the roof. The terrorist countries own all the oil,gold, and silver.  US inflation sky rockets the dollar is devalued (caused by printing more money), inturn the U.S. pays more for Oil, Gold, and Silver. in a way they win, we lose. Just a thought.

Yes.  That is what Bin Laden said he would do - send us home in shame because we could not continue to finance war against our enemies.

The problem is the entitlement programs, including social security, medicare, medicaid, and ALL the other horse puckey the Federal Government does that it is not specifically given the power to do in the constitution.

Nobody in Washington has the balls to gut and cut the programs that will lead to the death of this nation through a slow hemorrhage.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif that picture scares me Only because you are misinterpreting it.

More government borrowing and spending as well as increasing the money supply, increase GDP. So the fact that debt to GDP percentage has stayed in a range is expected. What the chart should tell you is that the value of the dollar has declined as debt level went up.

Quoted: Quoted: Does anyone think the Terrorist are smart enough to think that they can just sit back and watch the US hurt itself financially, Spending itself down a hole? ie.  I know these guys are not  financial wizards, but its kinda like when a someone wants to hurt a company, they can sue them, and then sit back and watch them have to pay all the legal fees to defend themselves. Our dept goes through the roof. The terrorist countries own all the oil,gold, and silver.  US inflation sky rockets the dollar is devalued (caused by printing more money), inturn the U.S. pays more for Oil, Gold, and Silver. in a way they win, we lose. Just a thought. Yes.  That is what Bin Laden said he would do - send us home in shame because we could not continue to finance war against our enemies. The problem is the entitlement programs, including social security, medicare, medicaid, and ALL the other horse puckey the Federal Government does that it is not specifically given the power to do in the constitution. Nobody in Washington has the balls to gut and cut the programs that will lead to the death of this nation through a slow hemorrhage.

I agree... we are going to have to pick one or the other.. WWII people made many sacrifices here on the home front while we faught the war in Europe and Japan.  We are going to have to either cut spending here, or there.  Which ever it is we need to make up our minds.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif that picture scares me Only because you are misinterpreting it. Ok, explain it so it makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy.  I'm not sure how you are going to do that considering the chart has both the debt and the ratio of debt to GDP.  While it is true the US economy is larger than it ever has been so is the debt, that's where the % of the GDP comes in and it's very easy to see that our debt is now approaching 70% of our GDP the highest it has been in the last 45 years.  So now please try and spin that and tell us how great it is. Like I said, you are misinterpreting it. Debt, as a percentage of GDP, is the same as it was in throughout most of the Nineties. Dunno where you are getting that 'highest in 45 years' bit from.

The debt as percentage of GDP is where it was when it peaked in the 1990's.  That was a peak then but in our case now it is still rising.  This might not be "a sky is falling" type situation but you have yet to explain how this is supposed to make us feel good.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif that picture scares me Only because you are misinterpreting it.

So you're cool with the 9 trillion?  You scare me.

Quoted: So you're cool with the 9 trillion?  You scare me.

Life as we know it is not ending.  The Europeans (the folks with the "strong" Euro) have a higher debt/GDP ratio than we do.  So do the Candadians.  So do the Japanese.  Check out this blog, all questions are answered:

www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/02/feb_2006_gdp_an.html

And this page (a few articles down):

www.optimist123.com/optimist/a1_national_debt/index.html

but how does the candian and japanse dollar compare to ours?

I love it how the GD "Experts" tell us it's cool to spend far more than you make every year. I wonder what business school teaches this? Try it with your personal finances. Try to run a business this way. I think we all know it isn't going to work. Yet, it's OK for our government. I just don’t make sense.

Quoted: I love it how the GD "Experts" tell us it's cool to spend far more than you make every year. I wonder what business school teaches this? Try it with your personal finances. Try to run a business this way. I think we all know it isn't going to work. Yet, it's OK for our government. It just don’t make sense.

I agree...

but some prefer to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything will smooth it's self out....like some twisted form of dollar cost averaging.  It won't happen.  Not on that scale.  Your cushy lifestyle won't always be there.  Get ready for some major, abrupt, and unpleasant changes in your perception of the American dream over the next 20 years.  And if it's not your perception, it will certainly change your children's.

9 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Quoted:  Get ready for some major, abrupt, and unpleasant changes in your perception of the American dream over the next 20 years.  And if it's not your perception, it will certainly change your children's.

it's already started ,  look at  median wage over the last 30-35yrs in constant dollars

Quoted: it's already started ,  look at  median wage over the last 30-35yrs in constant dollars

OK, how about over the last 14 years (1990-2004).

From the SSA: Link

Median wage in 1990 (2004 dollars): $29,161.37
Median wage in 2004 (2004 dollars): $34,197.63

That is 17% improvement after being adjusted for inflation.

The data does not quite fit your assertion, huh?

Modern presidential records

Statistics here are given in both raw numbers and in relation to the debt ratio, an expression of the federal debt as a percentage of GDP. Due to World War II, the national debt spiked to a historical peak of 121.2% of GDP in 1946.

National Debt Summary

President Party Years Increase in Debt Annual Increase Debt as a % of GDP


Jimmy Carter D  4 ---49.1% 10.5% 33.3%


Ronald Reagan R 8 ---188.2% 14.1% 52.6%


George H. W. Bush  R 4 ---46.2% 9.9% 65.9%


Bill Clinton D 8 ---13.7%   1.6% 57.7%


George W. Bush to 2004 R 4 ----26.0% 5.9% 64.8%


Source for percentage debt growth: Congressional Budget Office

Formula used for percentage debt growth: (outgoing election year debt - incoming election year debt) / incoming election year debt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So since our dollars are not backed by gold, and soon to be no longer falsely given value by oil pricing, isn't this a good thing for the US?  Kinda like running up the debt before a bankruptcy or owing monopoly money? Never has your moniker been more appropriate. My retirement, savings and paycheck in monopoly money? That doesn't sound so good. LOL You just don't get it do you??   Unless you where alive to see man walk on the moon, YOUR MONEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN FANCY MONOPOLY MONEY!!!

Yes you do.

So much for the Republicans being fiscal conservatives.

Quoted: I love it how the GD "Experts" tell us it's cool to spend far more than you make every year. I wonder what business school teaches this? Try it with your personal finances. Try to run a business this way. I think we all know it isn't going to work. Yet, it's OK for our government. I just don’t make sense.

This is known variously as "the fallacy of composition" or the "fallacy of aggregation".  What is true for a household or a firm is not true for a nation.  

GunLvr

Quoted: Quoted: I love it how the GD "Experts" tell us it's cool to spend far more than you make every year. I wonder what business school teaches this? Try it with your personal finances. Try to run a business this way. I think we all know it isn't going to work. Yet, it's OK for our government. I just don’t make sense. This is known variously as "the fallacy of composition" or the "fallacy of aggregation".  What is true for a household or a firm is not true for a nation.   GunLvr

Don't try baffling me with BS again. Nobody but a damn government employee or government apologist could defend this BS. It goes against pure common sense. I don't care how you try to sugar coat it, it's moronic.

No individual, business, or government should spend more than they take in as policy. I don't need a damn PhD to know this. Hell, any high school drop out bum on the street knows he would eventually go to jail for doing it. Yet, you will defend it and I find that amazing.

Paying the debt

The publicly held debt of the U.S. government is simply repaid whenever securities are returned for payment. The debt cannot be paid right away, partially because many securities are issued for decades-long periods. While social security is considered part of the national debt, it can never be totally paid off.

The most common method used today to "reduce" the debt is by growing the nation's GDP. The hope is that the deficit spending that increases the debt will increase GDP by a greater amount, and thus — in relative terms, at least — the debt would decrease. This worked to great effect in the U.S. between the end of World War II and 1980, even though the debt showed a net increase in absolute value over the same period.

The debt could also be paid down by increasing revenue through increased taxes and other fees, such as import tariffs. Over 47% of the personal income tax (but not of total tax revenue) collected in 2003 was spent on paying interest on the debt. Additionally, if it were possible to avoid incurring new debt, current revenues could be used to pay off the bonds sold and the loans taken. By U.S. law, a budget surplus must be used to pay down what the government owes, though the nation continues to issue securities.

Inflation reduces the real burden of the debt, but by definition makes the goods that people must purchase more expensive.


Risks

Any time money is loaned to a debtor, there is a chance it won't be repaid. These are the risks that all commercial lenders face, even lenders to nations. Lenders calculate the risk of nonpayment versus the return on the money they lend. If the U.S. is viewed as a credit risk then it will have trouble borrowing money.

The U.S. issues government bonds. The bonds are then bought by investors. If the U.S. can't entice investors to buy its bonds it will have to increase the interest rate of the bonds (strictly speaking, the bonds are issued at auction, so the U.S. does not make a conscious decision to raise the interest rates, but this is the effect of unwillingness by large investors to buy bonds at lower rates). On December 13th, the U.S. 30 year treasury note has a rate of 5.375%. In general, the higher bond rate the greater the credit risk of the issuer, in this case the United States.

National debt can be held by the citizens of the country, or by institutions outside of the country. However, unlike the debt of a corporation, a holder of the debts owed by governments can't force the government to pay the debt. This is due to national sovereignty.

With smaller nations, the modern financial system overseen by International Monetary Fund and World Bank, will however most likely enforce measures that resemble the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of an ill-faring private company. The nation in default makes periodic repayments.


Consequences of foreign ownership of U.S. debt

U.S. Treasury statistics indicate that, at the end of 2004, foreigners held 44% of federal debt held by the public. [1] About 64% of that 44% was held by the central banks of other countries. A large portion was held by the central banks of Japan and China. This exposes the United States to potential financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasury securities or start selling them heavily. In fact, the debt held by Japan reached a maximum in August of 2004 and has fallen nearly 3% since then. [2] However, even if both banks cease to buy U.S. treasuries, the U.S. could find new buyers by raising the interest rates they pay.

Some who study geopolitics and creditary economics are greatly concerned by this.[citation needed] With strong financial ties, others believe that there is an incentive for the U.S. to be protective of the respective nations.

For instance, military strategist Thomas Barnett believes that the world's nations are essentially paying the United States to be the world's policeman. This is in the interest of world's nations as long as the world without stable U.S. political and military power is less desirable than one stabilized by the single superpower. This can be compared with shop owners paying for the "protection" of mafia in an area fallen into lawlessness. There is a risk that military confrontations could occur between the U.S. and its debtors if the country cannot repay the debts, though most analysts believe that any confrontations would be entirely economic. The likelihood of any military confrontations directed against the U.S. is diminished by the fact that the U.S. military power is overwhelming.

A risk of even greater magnitude is the possibility that OPEC will begin to price petroleum in Euros, as Saddam Hussein began to do in 1998, until this decision was reversed by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. According to economist Henry K. Liu, the "float" achieved by the necessity of all industrial nations needing to keep a U.S. dollar reserve to hedge against rising prices of oil, is also numbered in trillions of dollars. A shift to a different reserve currency that would float as well, would send those saved dollars back to U.S. shores to be redeemed for goods. This would induce inflation, a rise in interest rates, and increases in bankruptcy as obligations and assets are called in, to increase flow of cash or goods to the offshore buyers redeeming dollars.

The impact of this would likely be that U.S. bonds have to raise rates to appeal to investors in a thinner market, which would trigger inflation around the industrialized world, given the central position the U.S. holds in it. This would introduce the possibility of a round of hyper-inflation that could break the capacity of states to react. This would be a larger scale repeat of the George Soros attack on the British Pound Sterling that forced Britain out of the European Union fixed-rate exchange system.

Every dollar of increased U.S. public debt, every rise in interest rates, and every shift in pricing of a major industrial commodity, decreases the cushion available, and increases the potential that the U.S. might default on its own bonds. This would likely mean that U.S. dollar savings would be worth drastically less. Far-fetched as this seems, it happened in Argentina when International Monetary Fund-required measures forced an economic austerity regime that was widely blamed by economists as leading to a meltdown in its currency.

You all should read the story posted awhile back called "SHTF Argentina."  Its written by a guy who lived through the economic collapse in Argentina, think it happened in the 90's, 80's? Someone should find that and link it.  Its a good read and will show you alot of what is in store. It aint pretty.

Quoted: Don't try baffling me with BS again. Nobody but a damn government employee or government apologist could defend this BS. It goes against pure common sense. I don't care how you try to sugar coat it, it's moronic. No individual, business, or government should spend more than they take in as policy. I don't need a damn PhD to know this. Hell, any high school drop out bum on the street knows he would eventually go to jail for doing it. Yet, you will defend it and I find that amazing.

Families and firms are nothing like a national government.  Every nation on earth has a long-standing government debt.  Even the big oil exporters.  Booming countries like India and China have a national debt.  Many economists believe a certain amount of debt (especially high-quality debt like the US issues) is necessary for world financial markets to function properly.  

And I'm not a government employee.  

GunLvr

 www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

Quoted: Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.

At what cost? Economic stability?

I, for one, am glad the government taxes me. I wouldn't mind an extra $5 taken out of my paychecks if it helped unfuck our problems here.

Oh, and cleaning up that illegal immigrant problem, too... I wouldn't mind to see their asses get taxed, to be honest. No, Pedro, no send money home today - Western Union closed - but Uncle Sam will gladly take it.

Quoted: At what cost? Economic stability?

If they are insanely low, then sure. Our taxes are nowhere near insanely low. If you were keeping up with current events, you would know that the tax cuts worked. The economy was stimulated and tax revenue is up 15% over last year. If folks like you had your way, the economy would not have grown as much, and overall revenue would not have been up by as much.

But hey, don't let 'facts' get in the way...

I, for one, am glad the government taxes me.

That's swell!

Quoted: If they are insanely low, then sure. Our taxes are nowhere near insanely low. If you were keeping up with current events, you would know that the tax cuts worked. The economy was stimulated and tax revenue is up 15% over last year. If folks like you had your way, the economy would not have grown as much, and overall revenue would not have been up by as much.

Well, I'm glad these facts manifested out of thin air. Surely, I will take your word as law and nod my head that spending more money than we earn means we have money.

However...
1.) I don't know about you bub, but I still helped "stimulate the economy" (such nice Greenspan terminology) with spending my money on things I wanted. Saving an additional $200 a year isn't going to help me - nor America. You are doing yourself a small service in order to disservice America. Doesn't work, but we can make ourselves think it does.
2.) So our economy always needs to be growing? Hell no. STABILITY is a thousand times more welcomed in economics than instable growth (which is what we are seeing).

If you don't believe me, look at gas prices from 3 years ago, and look at them now. If you still contest this, something is wrong with you.

That's swell!

Coming from the man that would rather deny his country, his nation's military, its infrastructure the money it needs... so that he can put it in a high-yield savings account.

Reagonomics is not a economic philosophy. It was never ment to be. Do not delude yourself like other fellow Kool-Aid consumers in the thinking that it is indeed viable; for it is not. It works for militarization and defense, but not for economic stability.

Or, do I need to break out the "bread vs. guns" chart for you that we all saw in 9th grade?

Quoted: Well, I'm glad these facts manifested out of thin air. Surely, I will take your word as law and nod my head that spending more money than we earn means we have money.

I already linked to the relevant article on page 1.

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

1.) I don't know about you bub, but I still helped "stimulate the economy" (such nice Greenspan terminology) with spending my money on things I wanted. Saving an additional $200 a year isn't going to help me - nor America. You are doing yourself a small service in order to disservice America. Doesn't work, but we can make ourselves think it does.

As demonstrated above, you are just plain wrong.

2.) So our economy always needs to be growing? Hell no. STABILITY is a thousand times more welcomed in economics than instable growth (which is what we are seeing).

Again, you are wrong. Dangerously so, in this case. Steady growth is stability; zero growth is disaster.

If you don't believe me, look at gas prices from 3 years ago, and look at them now. If you still contest this, something is wrong with you.

So the gov't should institute price controls? Let's hear your brainiac solution to gas prices.

Coming from the man that would rather deny his country, his nation's military, its infrastructure the money it needs... so that he can put it in a high-yield savings account.

Since you are rather dense, I'll repeat it for you: Tax revenues are up. As in, the gov't took in more money this year than last year, and that is on reduced tax rates.

The worst part is that you might vote. Lots of Kerry votes would whole-heartedly agree with your wrong view of economics, but that is shitty company to be in.

Tagislav

This graph means nothing and is even misleading.


This one gives the GDP so is more informative.

Quoted: I already linked to the relevant article on page 1

You're using the NY Times as a source?

...Wow. You're an idiot.

As demonstrated above, you are just plain wrong.

And, as demonstrated by your choice of sources, you're an idiot. NY Times supplies more bullshit than Kerry himself. I don't think so.

Again, you are wrong. Dangerously so, in this case. Steady growth is stability; zero growth is disaster.

Steady growth is not stability. Russian has been steadily growing since the collapse... are they stable? Nope. Not by a long shot.

So the gov't should institute price controls? Let's hear your brainiac solution to gas prices.

Oh, so you suggest we IMPLIMATE SOCIALISM INTO OUR ECONOMY and regulate how much companies can charge for a product.

Do you suffer a stroke whenever you hear "laissez fair"?

Since you are rather dense, I'll repeat it for you: Tax revenues are up.

And, that matters when we still have such debt and such a large deficit? That's comforting. It's like being in a sinking sub and instead of running out of air and dying, you'll instead die of implosion. It doesn't matter if tax revenues are up - they will never be up enough for our economy at this rate.

As in, the gov't took in more money this year than last year, and that is on reduced tax rates.

Ah. So it took in more money than last year, but spend the same amount - meaning we still have a deficit.

That's wonderful. Nothing's changed.

You are a Kool-Aid drinker, and an especially ignorant one at that.

Lots of Kerry votes would whole-heartedly agree with your wrong view of economics, but that is shitty company to be in.

Coming from the man that wishes to regulate prices, and marginalize the income gap by decreasing taxes. If anything, you're more Socialist than Kerry is!

Quoted: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg This graph means nothing and is even misleading. www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif This one gives the GDP so is more informative. mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtRealDollars1940-2009.gif web.whittier.edu/academic/math/jmiller/United%20States%20National%20Debt_files/usdebt1.gif

But, but, but... Belloc, why have facts when you could cite the New York Times?

At least we have the record trade deficit to cheer things up.

.

"The U.S. Department of Commerce today reported that the international deficit in goods and services trade reached a record level of $726 billion in 2005, an 18% increase over 2004. The U.S. merchandise deficit alone, which excludes services, was $782 billion, also an 18% increase.  The overall deficit increased $1 billion in December alone, to the third highest monthly level on record.  The goods and services deficit as a share of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) increased to an unprecedented 5.8% in 2005.  Rapid increases in the price of oil and related products were responsible for 63% of the increase in the deficit.  The growth of the trade deficit with China, which reached $202 billion in 2005, was responsible for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit.  The trade deficit in manufactured products (net of refined petroleum) increased $46 billion, to $655 billion (an 8% increase)."

Quoted: You're using the NY Times as a source? ...Wow. You're an idiot.

You are simple moron. You have not offered a single fact. You do nothing but babble on, and make a larger and larger ass of yourself.  It is a indisputable FACT that tax revenues are up. That you are too stupid to understand what that means is another matter; I blame public education rather than your parents, but either way, you have a lot of learning to do.

The #1 problem with this country are people like you. Even when facts are waved in your face, you would rather keep huffing spraypaint and ignoring the reality of what is going on. Hard numbers prove you wrong, and your own insane postings prove you an idiot.

Quoted: Quoted: You're using the NY Times as a source? ...Wow. You're an idiot. You are simple moron. You have not offered a single fact.

Yet, sadly, my lack of sources is probably more credible than some of your sources.

Also, you're own sources kinda work against ya:

But senior budget analysts, including the Republican who heads the Congressional Budget Office, cautioned this week that higher tax revenues may be a one-time phenomenon that in no way addresses the nation's grave deficit challenge.

You do nothing but babble on

Pot. Kettle. Black.

and make a larger and larger ass of yourself.

^^^

It is a indisputable FACT that tax revenues are up. That you are too stupid to understand what that means is another matter; I blame public education rather than your parents, but either way, you have a lot of learning to do.

And, it's an indisputable FACT that the $368 billion deficit of last year was a record high.

Increased tax revenues mean nothing when you're still going to have a deficit.

The #1 problem with this country are people like you.

What, you mean Republicans that support laissez fair governing?

Even when facts are waved in your face

Quoted: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/National_debt_as_a_%25_of_gdp.jpg This graph means nothing and is even misleading. www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image001.gif This one gives the GDP so is more informative. mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtRealDollars1940-2009.gif web.whittier.edu/academic/math/jmiller/United%20States%20National%20Debt_files/usdebt1.gif

I wouldn't talk.

Recession was handed to Bush by Clinton due to his bullshit economic forecast. Clinton had a PROJECTED budget surplus. That was not real or sustainable.

9-11

Numerous Hurricanes in Florida and East Coast.

War

Katrina

Numerous other disasters here and around the world.

WE are to blame for the record trade deficit. WE demand cheap junk and gobble it up instead of paying $50 more for a TV made here to support America.


I think Bush is doing a good job considering all the shit he's had to deal with since he's been in office. We as a nation are doing great. Unemployment is as low as it's ever been, the economy is growing so fast they have to keep rasing interest rates to try to slow it down some. Anybody priced a house lately? Gas prices are high because we are still buying as much or more than when it was low. supply and demand, same with houses.

Cheer up my fellow Americans, Focus on the positive!

Quoted: Yet, sadly, my lack of sources is probably more credible than some of your sources. Also, you're own sources kinda work against ya: But senior budget analysts, including the Republican who heads the Congressional Budget Office, cautioned this week that higher tax revenues may be a one-time phenomenon that in no way  addresses the nation's grave deficit challenge.

Well, at least I got you to actually look at the article. That's a start. Next, we'll work on reading comprehension (are you bright enough to understand what the word 'may' means?), but with you, baby steps will have to do.

And, it's an indisputable FACT that the $368 billion deficit of last year was a record high.

Of course, as a percentage of GDP, it was no record. Someday, you really need to look up the words 'growing economy' and 'inflation'.

Increased tax revenues mean nothing when you're still going to have a deficit.

Que? At the very least, it means you'll have a smaller deficit. Or are you confused about the word 'revenue'?

What, you mean Republicans that support laissez fair governing?

Ya. Sure. Republicans like you that bitch about high gas prices and want to pay more taxes. You're one helluva Republican!

I wouldn't talk.

Oh, if only that were true. I'll leave you to look at the fine graphs Belloc has provided. Your homework: Demonstrate how they refute anything that I have said, as you seem to be claiming.

Stocks are up!
Lesbians for everybody!

Quoted: Quoted: Tax cuts.....lets take less money in, while spending more......sounds logical to me.... Even the NYT thinks you suck at economics. For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion. ... The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well. Cutting taxes stimulates economic growth.

Yep.

I still think this spending spree sucks. So much for Republicans being conservative.

We are not in this situation because of tax cuts, we are not in this situation because China sends us goods and products.  We are in this situation because the government has been punishing success in the form of a very progressive tax structure while rewarding those who sit on their asses all day drinking cheap malt liquer and watching Jerry Springer.  Medicare, Medicade and Social Security along with other government handouts are what is causing this problem.

We spend too much money on education, heathcare, the environment and general welfare while taxing the hell out of the people who actually work and contribute to society.  But yet the people continue to pile on about cutting taxes for the evil rich while having compassion for the poor souls who continue to make poor choices in life.

America has had a national debt since 1791, when it was $75 million. Today it rises by that amount every hour.

$9 TRILLION
Is roughly four times Britain’s GDP
Equates to $1,500 for every man, woman and child in the world
Would buy all the tea in China. In fact it would buy all the tea in the world for the next 2,000 years.
Is enough to solve the Palestinian crisis by rehousing every Israeli and Palestinian family in a £1.5m detached house in Henley-on-Thames
Would build 28 Eiffel Towers — constructed out of gold.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2090441,00.html

Tag for later digestion.  I need to understand this information better.  

Quoted: We are not in this situation because of tax cuts, we are not in this situation because China sends us goods and products.  We are in this situation because the government has been punishing success in the form of a very progressive tax structure while rewarding those who sit on their asses all day drinking cheap malt liquer and watching Jerry Springer.  Medicare, Medicade and Social Security along with other government handouts are what is causing this problem. We spend too much money on education, heathcare, the environment and general welfare while taxing the hell out of the people who actually work and contribute to society.  But yet the people continue to pile on about cutting taxes for the evil rich while having compassion for the poor souls who continue to make poor choices in life.

Yup. "Entitlements" are undoubtedly at the root of most of this country's problems. End those and things will settle back into place.

And no I don't give a shit if a bunch of losers starve to death. Not even one bit.

I find bellocs chart on the debt VS GDP interesting. If you look at it you will notice the debt going up shortly after the introduction of the Federal Reserve, and then things really go up about the time the Gold standard was taken away. WWII had its spike but we have been going up ever since.

I believe we will keep going that way till we do away with the Fed. It would be better to come up with a way now than to wait till everyone finds out that the emperor has no clothes, all at once. Or in other words, we find out it's really monopoly money we are playing with.

My Question to you arfcomers that think a crash will have to come(I do). How long will it take? We have 2 parents working trying to keep the wolf away these days. My prediction is that shortly after it takes 2 parents 2 jobs to stay afloat the crash won't be far behind. My guess we could pull this off for 20 more years. If that long. Old timers have been saying it will crash for years so maybe I'm just getting old? How long can we last folks?

Quoted: Quoted: it's already started ,  look at  median wage over the last 30-35yrs in constant dollars OK, how about over the last 14 years (1990-2004). From the SSA: Link Median wage in 1990 (2004 dollars): $29,161.37 Median wage in 2004 (2004 dollars): $34,197.63 That is 17% improvement after being adjusted for inflation. The data does not quite fit your assertion, huh?

TRY  A  1970 BASELINE & SEE HOW THAT LOOKS  !!!  

(when there where still plenty of manufacturing jobs here)

Quoted: try that new   MEDICARE BOONDOOGLE-DEBACLE  passed by Bush & the GOP, that's almost a trillion right there  (a luxury NOT needed during a time of war ! )

GOP backed plan ,   $775 BILLION cost through 2015

Quoted: I find bellocs chart on the debt VS GDP interesting. If you look at it you will notice the debt going up shortly after the introduction of the Federal Reserve, and then things really go up about the time the Gold standard was taken away. WWII had its spike but we have been going up ever since. I believe we will keep going that way till we do away with the Fed. It would be better to come up with a way now than to wait till everyone finds out that the emperor has no clothes, all at once. Or in other words, we find out it's really monopoly money we are playing with. My Question to you arfcomers that think a crash will have to come(I do). How long will it take? We have 2 parents working trying to keep the wolf away these days. My prediction is that shortly after it takes 2 parents 2 jobs to stay afloat the crash won't be far behind. My guess we could pull this off for 20 more years. If that long. Old timers have been saying it will crash for years so maybe I'm just getting old? How long can we last folks?

10-20 years.
I've got a feeling the Chicoms have a better idea than we do.

2008 baby boomers start retiring at 62, 2011 second wave, 2015 2 workers for every retiree and all the while the national debt and trade deficits mushroom.

The Emperor is already naked and I am not sure the repercussions can even be stopped anymore. We should at least give it a shot though. As always the very wealthy will know before it comes and manage to screw the rest of us.

My advice to everyone is to remember who got us there when it comes. However, what I suspect is that the gov't will use the entire situation to turn us to war against the Chicoms who will have taken advantage of the situation to move throughout Asia.  Again, it will be the wealthy who ride that out at the expense of others.

The best thing we could do right now is start from scratch.

Quoted: TRY  A  1970 BASELINE & SEE HOW THAT LOOKS  !!!   (when there where still plenty of manufacturing jobs here)

OK:

Again from the SSA

Median wage in 1970: $6,186.24
Median wage in 1970 (2004 dollars): $30,346.38
Median wage in 2004 (2004 dollars): $34,197.63

That is 11% improvement after being adjusted for inflation.

The data STILL does not quite fit your assertion, huh?

Quoted: Quoted: TRY  A  1970 BASELINE & SEE HOW THAT LOOKS  !!!   (when there where still plenty of manufacturing jobs here) OK: Again from the SSA Median wage in 1970: $6,186.24 Median wage in 1970 (2004 dollars): $30,346.38 Median wage in 2004 (2004 dollars): $34,197.63 That is 11% improvement after being adjusted for inflation. The data STILL does not quite fit your assertion, huh?

 Actually no, not quite what I expected BUT  Thanks !
I was surfing around a bit earlier today and not finding any good data.

I wouldn't consider a 11%  improvement over  34yrs stellar though, what is that about .32% annualized

It would be interesting to compare that 11% improvement to other developed countires over the same time period.