chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Borrow and spendBy Matt Cover, December 7, 2012 (CNSNews.com) – The federal government ran a deficit of $292 billion for the first two months of fiscal year 2013 – October and November 2012 – amounting to $4.8 billion of borrowed money each day. “The federal budget deficit was $292 billion for the first two months of fiscal year 2013, $57 billion more than the shortfall recorded in October and November of last year,” CBO said in its Monthly Budget Review Friday. This means that the government borrowed $4.8 billion for each calendar day so far in 2013. If the Treasury Department restricted its borrowing to only weekdays, its per day average would jump to $6.5 billion per day thus far in fiscal year 2013. CBO reported that federal revenues rose by $30 billion – a 10 percent increase over last year, but spending increased more, going up by $87 billion or 16 percent. Overall, the two-month deficit figure was $57 billion higher than the October-November 2012 deficit. |
||
|
Jobs 'created' 73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government By Terence P. Jeffrey, December 7, 2012 (CNSNews.com) - Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments. By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June. In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall. |
||
|
There were the Nobles, Clergy, and peasants. Serfs were a special class of peasants. The serfs were bound to the land, usually because the land had been "given" to them by the wealthy but when the peasant could not service his debt, he became bound to it having to give the landowner special compensation. After taxes to state and church there was not enough money left to make ends meet. Starvation, poverty, poor living conditions were prevalent. The average lifespan of a serf was 36. They represented 95% of the population. Notice that the key phrase in this was that a serf was a former landholder, who owed the Noble for the land, and then was unable to service the debt. He then became bound to the land... bound to the noble or whomever the noble then sold the land to. We are racking up enormous debts that we can not repay. The workers will become indebted to somebody and will not be able to get out of debt. This is the new slavery, 2012. I believe it to be intentional. |
||
|
softy |
||
|
change We can see the pros and the cons about it and it is obvious we can not sustain this. It is true that BO just recently demanded the ability to up the debt limit as he sees fit... open ended checkbook to increase spending anytime, as much as he wants. We know that the Democrats have not provided a budget for four years, on purpose. It just seems to be a logical conclusion. |
||
|
|
||
|
K.E. Campbell, December 10, 2012 It should be big news, but in a world turned upside down it is not. On Friday, the Washington Times reported that "the federal government borrowed 46 cents of every dollar it has spent so far in fiscal year 2013, which began Oct. 1." According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, during the first two months of the fiscal year the federal government spent $638 billion. That's a whopping 14% increase over the first two months of last fiscal year, which itself was one of budgetary bloat. The U.S. government is now spending an average of $10.45 billion per day or a staggering and stomach-turning $435.8 million per hour. Focusing on the borrowed portion alone, at that current burn rate the national debt is growing by $4.8 billion every day. Put another way, the federal government is spending $200 million per hour "that is doesn't have - 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including Thanksgiving, Christmas and Ramadan." As a point of reference, federal outlays in the most recent two months alone exceeded the combined annual profits of the top 100 largest companies in the Fortune 500. According to the Times, the "higher spending on mandatory items such as Social Security, Medicare and interest on the debt led the way in boosting spending compared with the previous year." As Mark Steyn has pointed out, at the rate this government is amassing debt within a decade we will be paying more for interest payments (not debt service, rather interest only) than we spend on our military. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are you listening? For all the hubbub about an impending "fiscal cliff," at the current federal spending and borrowing levels we have already gone over the cliff and are free-falling. The only questions are when and how hard we will land. Some will say it doesn't feel that way. Maybe so, but as the old saying goes it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop. We are in what Peter Schiff and others have correctly described as a "government bubble." And bubbles pop. No household, business, or other entity can sustain such profligacy for long. While governments can paper over and defer the inevitable a little longer, they too are not immune to the laws of economics. Those who claim otherwise are either dependent on the continuation of such excess for their own gain or, for whatever reason, want to see this country, as founded, collapse. Liberals who claim we have a revenue problem are wrong. Federal revenues currently are near record levels and revenues so far this fiscal year are "up by $30 billion compared with last year, or about 10 percent." But wait, liberals will counter, there are more people than ever before too, so talk of high federal revenues is misleading. Not so. Since 1992 the U.S. population has increased by 23%. During the same 20-year period, federal receipts (as adjusted for Uncle Sam's debasement of our currency via the printing of money, aka inflation) have increased by more than twice that amount or 48%. It is on the spending side of the ledger where the problem lies. Federal outlays have surged by 71% since 1992 (adjusted for inflation) or three times the rate of population growth. And besides, even in 1992 - and more so today - the federal government's annual budget included much that was arguably, if not outright, extra-constitutional. The current budget-related debates and proposals emanating from Washington, D.C. lack seriousness, even sanity, and the parties involved know it. They are betting most people won't catch on or, for that matter, care. The fact of the matter is federal spending must be cut significantly and soon if our country is to survive. This means real/actual across-the-board cuts and eliminations, not merely decreases in the rate of spending growth. As for so-called "revenue enhancements," not a single additional dollar in taxes should be extracted from current taxpayers unless it is derived from real economic growth: from higher profits, more people working (not for government), and an increase in economic activity. Within the prevailing wealth-looting racket, if anyone believes that an additional dollar sent to Uncle Sam will reduce the deficit or pay down the debt rather than result in even higher spending and more debt heaped on the backs of current and future generations of Americans, I have some Solyndra stock to sell them. www.americanthinker.com This bears repeating: 46% of the money this government spends is borrowed! That means we spend every dollar we have, then borrow 46% more and spend that too!! The national debt is growing by $4.8 billion every day. The federal government is spending $200 million per hour that is doesn't have. Federal outlays in the most recent two months alone exceeded the combined annual profits of the top 100 largest companies in the Fortune 500. At the rate this government is amassing debt, within a decade we will be paying more for interest payments than we spend on our military. Since 1992 the U.S. population has increased by 23%. Federal outlays have surged by 71%. The current budget-related debates and proposals emanating from Washington, D.C. lack seriousness, even sanity, and the parties involved know it. They are betting most people won't catch on or care. |
||
|
THIS! |
||
|
dmaestro 10-Dec-12, 17:59 |
|
||
|
Understanding $16,000,000,000,000 in Debt replace every automobile in the US with a abrand-new, fully equipped Lexus ES460s. or completely cover all state budgets for about 24 years. or cover all foreign aid for almost three centuries. or pay for all gasoline consumed in the USA for the next 71 years or pay all home food costs for the next 15-plus years, 29 years on the USDA thrifty plan. The national debt currently costs every man, woman and child in the US $51,000. Even if the economy came roaring back with whatever policy for job growth is promoted and enacted, the $16T debt is virtually beyond the capacity for repayment. This country seems to be faced with default, or ultra-severe tax penalties on the next couple of generations. For those aged over 50, the consequence is not that great. The younger groups will be hit especially hard. www.americanthinker.com |
||
|
How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending? By Justin Hohn To best understand this spending aspect of the current budget negotiations in Washington, we must answer one crucial question: how much taxation on the top income-earners would be required to fully fund the present level of government spending? To do so, we must first make the unreasonable assumption that the rich will not respond to confiscatory tax rates and hide money from being taxed. This is unreasonable because no scheme of taxation since WW2 has been able to capture more than 21% of GDP. With current spending levels around 23% of GDP, history suggests that no level of taxation we have yet tried would actually fully fund our current level of spending. But if we indulged some "static scoring" and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels? For example, what would a 100% income tax on all those who earn over $10 million amount to? I'm not taking about a wimpy marginal rate, where one might tax only those dollars of income over $10 million (leaving the taxpayer $10 million). No, I'm saying you find all those who made more than $10 million and take every last penny -- an absolute tax of 100%. Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million. The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion. Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day. Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending. If we drop that "tax" point down to $1 million, the picture changes radically. The IRS says 236,883 Americans filed returns with more than $1 million in income. They reported a total income of $726.91B. While that is a lot of money, it's less than just Medicare and Medicaid, which cost $1 trillion together. Confiscating 100% of all income from those who made over $1M funds the federal government for 72 days. Therefore, we have to go farther down the income ladder. Merely taking 100% of what the "millionaires and billionaires" are reporting as income won't do it -- despite the campaign rhetoric from the president. Let's move the bogey down to $200,000 in income. That's even lower than the $250,000-earners President Obama thinks should pay more. What happens if we confiscate 100% of all the income for people who make more than $200K? The IRS received 3,924,490 tax returns showing an income over $200K. These returns represent a total income of $1.964 trillion! That's a huge amount of money. But it's still not enough. The federal government is spending about double that this year. Confiscating 100% of the income from those who made more than $200K funds the federal government for only about six months. Even if you think that $200K per year is filthy rich, taking all of the income of such people for an entire year isn't even close to funding our federal government for a full year -- never mind state and local government. The next step down in the 2009 IRS data is the $100K income point. There are a lot more taxpayers reporting over $100K income then there are over $200K. The IRS says that only 2.8% of returns reported over $200K in income, but 12.4% of returns reported over $100K in income. So even though the cutoff is half as much income, it represents about five times as many taxpayers. The data indicate that 17,446,537 tax returns showed an income over $100,000. These returns represented a total income of $3.765 trillion. Estimated 2012 spending comes in at $3.796 trillion (refer to page 205 here). This is still $30 billion more than a 100% confiscation of the annual income of all Americans that reported more than $100K of income for 2009. The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009. www.americanthinker.com So confiscating the total income of everyone in the country making $100k or more will ALMOST fund the Federal government each year. So these people will have to continue to work (for free) and be just as productive. OK, so we have the spending almost taken care of... but... that still leaves the $16 trillion debt to be re-payed. Obviously, the people making less than $100k will have to step up and take care of that. Oh, and don't forget the 13.75% ($2.2 trillion currently) interest accruing on the unpaid debt balance. Now that we have that ALMOST taken care of, lets talk about State expenses... then local expenses... good times. |
||
|
Thumper |
||
|
dmaestro 12-Dec-12, 11:22 |
|
||
|
dm This is what we will have for decades... high unemployment, very low GDP growth, lowered income average, stagnation, money losing its value and soon will come high inflation. Pulling money out of the economy will not provide a better economy. Phony projections about savings will not provide for a better economy. (btw... when you tell people that your are cutting spending when all you are really doing is reducing the base line projections of increased spending, that is called a lie... and it not provide for a better economy). |
||
|
|
Log in 
