CBS News: National Debt Tops $14 Trillion - Polidicks

CBS News National Debt Tops $14 Trillion [release] [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Glaber/NEWS%20items/image7209876.jpg[/IMG] The latest posting today of the National Debt shows it has topped $14 trillion for the first time. The U.S. Treasury website today reported that as of last Friday, the last day of 2010, the National Debt stood at $14,025,215,218,708.52. It took just 7 months for the National Debt to increase from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010 to $14 trillion on Dec. 31. It also means the debt is fast approaching the statutory ceiling $14.294 trillion set by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last February. The federal government would have to stop borrowing and might even default on its obligations if Congress fails to increase the Debt Ceiling before the limit is reached. Some Republicans in the new Congress have said they'll seek to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling unless a plan is in place to significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee warned yesterday that it would be "catastrophic" if the U.S. Government were to default on its financial obligations. "That would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity," said Goolsbee of plans to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling.[/release] Source: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027090-503544.html[/url] The real insane thing is all the spending by government that got them into this mess.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27189953]The real insane thing is all the spending by government that got them into this mess.[/QUOTE] :frog: No, it is all the tax cuts (and wars)

those fucking democrats omg with their SPENDING and SOCIALIST THINGS sarah palin 2012

Yay, new glaber thread. No glaber, it doesn't. Social programs don't create deficits nearly as much as a corrupted "free market" does. You know what makes debts glaber? Tax cuts. Failing drug wars. Failing REAL wars. Fuck off already. You [b]DON'T SAY ANYTHING NEW. EVER.[/b] You don't even make up the shit you say, you regurgitate it from right wing radio bloggers who have their own agendas and have their own heads up their asses. No, I'm not saying liberal media is better, it isn't really.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27189994]Yay, new glaber thread. No glaber, it doesn't. Social programs don't create deficits nearly as much as a corrupted "free market" does. You know what makes debts glaber? Tax cuts. Failing drug wars. Failing REAL wars. Fuck off already. You [b]DON'T SAY ANYTHING NEW. EVER.[/b] You don't even make up the shit you say, you regurgitate it from right wing radio bloggers who have their own agendas and have their own heads up their asses. No, I'm not saying liberal media is better, it isn't really.[/QUOTE] more like FIBeral media conSERVEative media is where it's at because they SERVE us with 100% truth and 0% bias

Let's solve this lack of money by giving tax cuts to rich people. That sounds like a wonderful idea that I bet :10bux: conservatives will propose as an actual solution to this problem.

stupid liberals you make me SICK

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27190033]Let's solve this lack of money by giving tax cuts to rich people. That sounds like a wonderful idea that I bet :10bux: conservatives will propose as an actual solution to this problem.[/QUOTE] Tax cuts to the rich sounds perfect! That way they can put that excess money in the bank and make MORE money, and we can propose a tax to them in 50 years that will erase the deficit! That sounds good!

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;27190035]stupid liberals you make me SICK[/QUOTE] So that's why they passed the Healthcare reform...! It was a set up for all the conservatives with future ulcer problems! BRILLIANT!

The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were completely overshadowed by the Stimulus Bill, actually.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;27190083]The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were completely overshadowed by the Stimulus Bill, actually.[/QUOTE] Which was originally Bush's idea(sort of), and [b]actually[/b] helped the economy out. Yeah, bad spending there. Well, more like Bush did the same thing and Republicans praised it, Obama does it and you fuckers climb out of the walls to scream bloody fucking murder. I see no reason you should be listened to.(not you in particular, just people with these view points.)

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;27190033]Let's solve this lack of money by giving tax cuts to rich people. That sounds like a wonderful idea that I bet :10bux: conservatives will propose as an actual solution to this problem.[/QUOTE] How about broadening the tax base? Oh, and Happy new Year Glaber Attack Squad.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27190101]How about broadening the tax base? Oh, and Happy new Year Glaber Attack Squad.[/QUOTE] If you, oh, I don't know, actually listened to arguments presented to you, replied to the points and arguments that matter rather than the ones that allow you to make snide, asinine comments(Like this one) we wouldn't "attack" you. [editline]3rd January 2011[/editline] But hey, I know you're going to ignore all the important posts again, so what the fuck ever. Oh, and on topic, broadening the tax base? Why? More money sits in the top 5% than the 95% below it, why the fuck would taxing the poor help? Why would you WANT to? Who does that help?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27190090]Which was originally Bush's idea(sort of), and [b]actually[/b] helped the economy out. Yeah, bad spending there. Well, more like Bush did the same thing and Republicans praised it, Obama does it and you fuckers climb out of the walls to scream bloody fucking murder. I see no reason you should be listened to.(not you in particular, just people with these view points.)[/QUOTE] It's not bad spending, but I don't think equating social programs and wars in terms of budget is reasonable. The Iraq war was never intended to stimulate the American economy (unless you believe it was for Oil), and considering the fact that America utterly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure I'd say it was their responsibility to rebuild it. Social programs, on the other hand, are directly related to the economy and should be factored in to account for that.

[QUOTE=Regulas021;27190118]It's not bad spending, but I don't think equating social programs and wars in terms of budget is reasonable. The Iraq war was never intended to stimulate the American economy (unless you believe it was for Oil), and considering the fact that America utterly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure I'd say it was their responsibility to rebuild it. Social programs, on the other hand, are directly related to the economy and should be factored in to account for that.[/QUOTE] Oh, ok. I see what you're saying now. I agree, but the US has this obsession with waging stupid wars that waste it's money pointlessly, mainly because of the military industrial complex. And the war on drugs at least, IIRC, has spent over a trillion dollars since the early 80's.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27190111]If you, oh, I don't know, actually listened to arguments presented to you, replied to the points and arguments that matter rather than the ones that allow you to make snide, asinine comments(Like this one) we wouldn't "attack" you. [editline]3rd January 2011[/editline] But hey, I know you're going to ignore all the important posts again, so what the fuck ever. Oh, and on topic, broadening the tax base? Why? More money sits in the top 5% than the 95% below it, why the fuck would taxing the poor help? Why would you WANT to? Who does that help?[/QUOTE] Maybe because the US doesn't comprise of only two classes; ultra-rich and ultra poor?

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27190145]Maybe because the US doesn't comprise of only two classes; ultra-rich and ultra poor?[/QUOTE] ...This serves what for the discussion? It's not like the middle class and lower class aren't taxed as it is, do you think they're not? What, should we start taxing below the poverty lines to fix things? No, of course not. So where do we get this money from? How about the rich? Because, you know, taking a little bit of their money here and there, [b]they can't even tell. It doesn't affect them. And don't start some "OH BUT THE ECONOMY FAILS" because factually, based on reality and precedents, when the rich are taxed high rates(The 1950's of america had the highest tax rates of any country around IIRC) the country does really well. But no, you're right, tax the poor more. [editline]3rd January 2011[/editline] I don't get it, do you guys never learn? When we bring up precedents, evidence, proof, facts, reality, etc, you just say "nope" and walk on and keep singing the old tune. Yeah, I get it, you think i'm the same, I'm not, I held the same views as most of you posters did a few years ago. Maybe I'll change again, but at least I can say I'm not an idiot to stand on a point and never let go.

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27190145]Maybe because the US doesn't comprise of only two classes; ultra-rich and ultra poor?[/QUOTE] Thats where we're headed! The middle class is slowly shrinking from the weight of the rich.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27190175]...This serves what for the discussion? It's not like the middle class and lower class aren't taxed as it is, do you think they're not? What, should we start taxing below the poverty lines to fix things? No, of course not. So where do we get this money from? How about the rich? Because, you know, taking a little bit of their money here and there, [b]they can't even tell. It doesn't affect them. And don't start some "OH BUT THE ECONOMY FAILS" because factually, based on reality and precedents, when the rich are taxed high rates(The 1950's of america had the highest tax rates of any country around IIRC) the country does really well. But no, you're right, tax the poor more.[/QUOTE] Did you even read my post, at all? At what point did I say "go tax the poor"? At a first glance, there seems to be something slightly unethical about just flogging all money from the rich because "they're rich, they can do without it". Does the US have sliding tax rates of percentage to the dollar afforded by an individual's gross annual income?

[QUOTE=Swilly;27190199]Thats where we're headed! The middle class is slowly shrinking from the weight of the rich.[/QUOTE] The sad thing is this it the truth. The gap between high class and middle class has expanded even more. The poor and lower class are separated too, it's not like this is imaginary... [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27190207]Did you even read my post, at all? At what point did I say "go tax the poor"? At a first glance, there seems to be something slightly unethical about just flogging all money from the rich because "they're rich, they can do without it". Does the US have sliding tax rates of percentage to the dollar afforded by an individual's gross annual income?[/QUOTE] Broaden the tax means what exactly then if not "tax more people(but not the rich)". Sure, it's unethical to ask for pay back for what society has granted the ultra rich, right? Safety, security, the chance to even MAKE that fucking money. Of course, they don't owe society. To the second point, I can't say for sure, but I do believe so?

Tax the rich more, tax the middle class and poor less. Stop the war on drugs Legalise cannabis Close several military bases in the EU and Asia Cut the military budget by 20% Spend that money on - increased tax incentives to starting new buisnesses, upgrading existing trade networks, increased spending in the science industry. Military bases, war on drugs, and a large military budget are money sinks based on fear and Cold War attitudes. America needs to spend more money on money facets and future growth. That'll cut the deficit.

i blame the jews wait a second i blame myself

[QUOTE=Glaber;27190101]How about broadening the tax base? Oh, and Happy new Year Glaber Attack Squad.[/QUOTE] People do the same to anyone that posts stupid or misinformed topics/posts. You just seem to make a habit out of it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27190211] Broaden the tax means what exactly then if not "tax more people(but not the rich)". Sure, it's unethical to ask for pay back for what society has granted the ultra rich, right? Safety, security, the chance to even MAKE that fucking money. Of course, they don't owe society. To the second point, I can't say for sure, but I do believe so?[/QUOTE] Broaden the tax means tax everyone - not just the poor, not just the ultra-rich. Obviously, tax rates would need to be appropriate - there's no "one size fits all". I suppose I'm really arguing that taxation needs to be appropriate for all classes - not just dumping huge levies and whatnot on the rich only because "they're rich". I suppose I really am arguing for the sliding-scale concept of the second point, but I'm not so sure if the US adopts that. I hope they would; I'm not remotely an expert in economics, but it seems fair. On a different point, what exactly are the "huge tax breaks for the rich" which everyone talks about, apparently occurring under the Bush Administration?

I wouldn't even know how to spend 14 trillion dollars even if i was running a country

so uh america, pretty stressed out right now aren't you

[QUOTE=Sniping Robot;27190334]I wouldn't even know how to spend 14 trillion dollars even if i was running a country[/QUOTE] $13 trillion goes to welfare fraud the other $1 trillion goes to actual government programs welcome to obamunism

[QUOTE=Prismatex;27190364]$13 trillion goes to welfare fraud the other $1 trillion goes to actual government programs welcome to obamunism[/QUOTE] How dare poor people be poor

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;27190384]How dare poor people be poor[/QUOTE] well obviously they should stop being poor it's as easy as just working harder

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;27190326]Broaden the tax means tax everyone - not just the poor, not just the ultra-rich. Obviously, tax rates would need to be appropriate - there's no "one size fits all". I suppose I'm really arguing that taxation needs to be appropriate for all classes - not just dumping huge levies and whatnot on the rich only because "they're rich". I suppose I really am arguing for the sliding-scale concept of the second point, but I'm not so sure if the US adopts that. I hope they would; I'm not remotely an expert in economics, but it seems fair. On a different point, what exactly are the "huge tax breaks for the rich" which everyone talks about, apparently occurring under the Bush Administration?[/QUOTE] It's not like no one else should be taxed, i agree with a progressive tax rate, that's what i'm arguing. The rich get a progressively higher tax bracket because they don't need/notice/care about the money if they aren't like corrupt businessmen who simply buy the senate/congress. These tax breaks are HUGE reductions on taxes to the rich and above because people still think trickle down economics works out side of the military industrial complex(Not even there really).