http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...436_46news.gif
I guess we all agree to disagree, because the different "philosophies" do obvisouly, produce different results.
Whom those results are better for also differ.
Smokin,
Simple logic and common sense which you seem to lack.
Example: I make 100K per year for the past 20 years. For the past 20 years I spend 160K per year. The result is a simple debt of $1,200.000. How will this debt ever be paid.
If you spend more than you make, than it doesn't matter how much you make, you are going backwards, thus my earlier comment to which you called B.S.
Not gloom and doom just something that needs serious attention, immediately.
You folks have posted all the numbers and we can all interpolate them based on our beliefs. Personally, I strongly believe that some of the first steps on the road to a safe long term economy is cleaning up porkbarrel spending, reevaluate foreign aide programs, and other government waste, and use the $ to pay off the debt. Then step back and take a look at the economic situation after we cease to issue bonds to finance the debt, and the subsequent interest payments go away giving more descretionary spending power to the gov't. for the stuff we dearly need in this country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the majority of the citizens in this country of voting age don't see things this way, they want their entitlements, the health of the country be damned.
They have no more self control than their elected officals, if credit card debt and savings ratios are any indication.
When looking at the economy of the Reagan Era, one must factor in that the country was recovering (in every sense of the word) from both Watergate the '73 oil crisis, and the Carter years, and poised for a uptick, which, to the best of my knowledge, still represents th largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the country. The economy is cyclic, as we all know, and I think it worked, and was the right plan for the time.
The Clinton Era had the incredible boost of the dotcom boom, and he threw the military cuts onto the fire of ecomic growth as well, calling it a peace dividend, which, with the benefit of hindsight, seems rather ironic. With the Reagan tax cuts in place, oil resonably cheap and stable, and the dotcom boom, the revenue generated both jobs and tax money for the goverment to spend.
And, spend they did.
Then, the dotcom boom came back to earth, and the chickens in the middle east hen house finally came home to roost. After ignoring the Achille Laurel, the Beriut event, and burying our heads in the sand after the first attack on the WTC, we finally got whacked hard on 911. Comparing any prevous economy to what we are dealing with now, and trying to squeeze out some sense doesn't seem to me to be likely to produce perfection.
We are at war, and are going to be for at least a decade with people who desperately want to kill us and have a track record of carrying grudges for thousands of years.
Some people don't believe that, and we stand a house divided.
We are fighting to retain some control over our borders, the point being to stop people who want to kill us from coming here. The politicians are twisting the issue into something else, and we stand a house divided.
We buy a huge chunk of the oil that drives our economy from people who hate us. We need to find other ways to deal with energy issues, and I don't mean just electric cars or solar power or just more drilling. We need it all.
The politicians are twisitng this into something else, and we stand a house divided.
I sure as hell don't want to pay any more taxes, and for the life of me I don't understand how taxing anybody or anything is good for the economy. Taking money from the people and companies that make it and giving it to the federal government to spend isn't logical, it is a necessary evil.
Until those elected officals can prove to me that they are using the $ they have in an efficient manner on the things that the country needs, and that they have the constitutional authority to provide, I don't wanna pay no mo.
In all honesty, after being of voting age since 1980, I think the best thing that we could do for our country is to find a way to push through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and apply term limits on service in both houses of Congress. Until those who serve serve us first, and not the needs of their re-election coffers, we're in trouble.
If they were subject to to a maximum of 8 years in congress, they'ed be well able to go out and get a job to create a retirement, and we could free up a hell of alot of money if that particular breast went dry.
Economics 101 is a good foundation for planning, but this world is so unstable, so tenuous, and this nation is so crippled by political infighting, mudslinging, lying and media soundbite addictions that frankly I don't see any leaders on the horizon with the wherewithall to suck it up and do whats right because it is right.
Well, maybe one, but he ain't running at this point, however I am holding a kind thought.
I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.
I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.
Annother great post. Your giving out secrets from Econ 101.
I do not disagree that it is something that should not happen, but it is a fact of life that must be lived with.
It is going to take a constitutional change to get congress to live within it's means, with SOME out for extrordinary circumstances such as acts of god (hurricane and quake damages for example) and the need to defend the country at large.
You and I are not going to get this change in our lifetimes. It has been hard enough to get STATES to legislate this, let alone the spend or be damned poeple of both parties in the Federal legislature.
The us income (the GNP and GDP) are not static, and neither is the annual actual governmental INCOME from collected taxes. It (just as yours likely does, and as mine does) goes up unless there is a drop in the economy (a recession or depression) so your comparison is overly simplistic.
Also your figures are wrong. One step at a time.
Your $100,000 annual sallary, your example.
You have a current debt against that sallary of $60,000 (60% of your income)
You do not spend $160,000 a year. The federal govenment does not spend 160% of it's income.
If you look up the budget defecit, divide it by the tax reciepts (even I am jacking this because I am (not matching the annual numbers up) using the expected 2007 defecit with the 2006 tax reciepts (which were btw, 11% higher than the 2005 reciepts), the defecit is 12%
You spend $112,000, not $160,000, this year.
IF your income goes up 11% like the fed income did from '05 to '06, your income by year's end will have been $111,000, you only overspent $1,000, not $60,000.
Your new debt is $61,000, not $120,000, against your now $111,000 income.
Also, you COULD spend like that as long as lenders believed you would repay them. The US govt has a perfect credit rating and score, and ANYONE will loan them money, including you and I.
Smokin
I wasn't attempting apply govt specific percentages to use my example salary. I agree simplistic.
While your theory is pretty, it doesn't follow the data. The picture you paint indicates that the debt increases 1.6% anually. From $60,000 to $61,000
Sept 1999 the debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43 Eights years later the debt is $8,871,556,007,088.75. A 63% increase in the debt in eight years. Without doing the math, this should equal around 6% anually Your economic theory doesn't apply to the real numbers
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
Please note the increases during the previous eight years. Approximately 45%
Since 1993 our debt has doubled.
Smokin, that's the true picture
You folks have posted all the numbers and we can all interpolate them based on our beliefs. Personally, I strongly believe that some of the first steps on the road to a safe long term economy is cleaning up porkbarrel spending, reevaluate foreign aide programs, and other government waste, and use the $ to pay off the debt. Then step back and take a look at the economic situation after we cease to issue bonds to finance the debt, and the subsequent interest payments go away giving more descretionary spending power to the gov't. for the stuff we dearly need in this country.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the majority of the citizens in this country of voting age don't see things this way, they want their entitlements, the health of the country be damned.
They have no more self control than their elected officals, if credit card debt and savings ratios are any indication.
When looking at the economy of the Reagan Era, one must factor in that the country was recovering (in every sense of the word) from both Watergate the '73 oil crisis, and the Carter years, and poised for a uptick, which, to the best of my knowledge, still represents th largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the country. The economy is cyclic, as we all know, and I think it worked, and was the right plan for the time.
The Clinton Era had the incredible boost of the dotcom boom, and he threw the military cuts onto the fire of ecomic growth as well, calling it a peace dividend, which, with the benefit of hindsight, seems rather ironic. With the Reagan tax cuts in place, oil resonably cheap and stable, and the dotcom boom, the revenue generated both jobs and tax money for the goverment to spend.
And, spend they did.
Then, the dotcom boom came back to earth, and the chickens in the middle east hen house finally came home to roost. After ignoring the Achille Laurel, the Beriut event, and burying our heads in the sand after the first attack on the WTC, we finally got whacked hard on 911. Comparing any prevous economy to what we are dealing with now, and trying to squeeze out some sense doesn't seem to me to be likely to produce perfection.
We are at war, and are going to be for at least a decade with people who desperately want to kill us and have a track record of carrying grudges for thousands of years.
Some people don't believe that, and we stand a house divided.
We are fighting to retain some control over our borders, the point being to stop people who want to kill us from coming here. The politicians are twisting the issue into something else, and we stand a house divided.
We buy a huge chunk of the oil that drives our economy from people who hate us. We need to find other ways to deal with energy issues, and I don't mean just electric cars or solar power or just more drilling. We need it all.
The politicians are twisitng this into something else, and we stand a house divided.
I sure as hell don't want to pay any more taxes, and for the life of me I don't understand how taxing anybody or anything is good for the economy. Taking money from the people and companies that make it and giving it to the federal government to spend isn't logical, it is a necessary evil.
Until those elected officals can prove to me that they are using the $ they have in an efficient manner on the things that the country needs, and that they have the constitutional authority to provide, I don't wanna pay no mo.
In all honesty, after being of voting age since 1980, I think the best thing that we could do for our country is to find a way to push through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution and apply term limits on service in both houses of Congress. Until those who serve serve us first, and not the needs of their re-election coffers, we're in trouble. If they were subject to to a maximum of 8 years in congress, they'ed be well able to go out and get a job to create a retirement, and we could free up a hell of alot of money if that particular breast went dry.
Economics 101 is a good foundation for planning, but this world is so unstable, so tenuous, and this nation is so crippled by political infighting, mudslinging, lying and media soundbite addictions that frankly I don't see any leaders on the horizon with the wherewithall to suck it up and do whats right because it is right.
Well, maybe one, but he ain't running at this point, however I am holding a kind thought.
Very good post. Right on the money.
Annother great post. Your giving out secrets from Econ 101.
And I never went to economics 101 class.
I DID stay awake through English, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics tho.
Smokin
I wasn't attempting apply govt specific percentages to use my example salary. I agree simplistic.
While your theory is pretty, it doesn't follow the data. The picture you paint indicates that the debt increases 1.6% anually. From $60,000 to $61,000
Sept 1999 the debt was $5,656,270,901,615.43 Eights years later the debt is $8,871,556,007,088.75. A 63% increase in the debt in eight years. Without doing the math, this should equal around 6% anually Your economic theory doesn't apply to the real numbers
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
Please note the increases during the previous eight years. Approximately 45%
Since 1993 our debt has doubled.
Smokin, that's the true picture
Interesting how you manage to deny simple mathematics, with sourcing, into "theory."
1+1=2, but it's just a "theory".
In the example I specified, you apparently missed/ignored the FACT that the federal budget specified was 112% of the federal revenue. Read that again, a 12% defecit.
What confused you is that (and I simply fell into this one, it will vary year by year, budget by budget, and no matter how much you refuse to follow logic, I am NOT researching up and calculating it for the last 20 years) the same time the federal defecit was 12% more than the expected revenue, THE REVENUE WAS 11% HIGHER THAN EXPECTED, WHICH MAKES A 1% DEFECIT FOR THAT YEAR.
sheeesh!.
Oh well, the grass calls, and I'm gonna burn fossil fuel to cut it.
Maybe goats or sheep would be better, but they fart, methane is like 20x worse than CO2.
Galoot
Read your own response. Nothing confused me. I based my conclusion on the formula you provided.
I view the debt doubling in 14 years, as cause for concern.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote