9 Trillion Dollar Debt = Compulsory Tax Burden + IncomeTax

[Czardas]

If you owe nine thousand dollars, you get your kneecaps broken in dark alleys. If you owe nine trillion dollars, you're leader of the free world.

I guess the US is just planning to test things to see how far it can stretch the debt = power equation.

Im paraphrasing Caeser here, but he said something along the lines of 'If you want your enemies to join you, make sure they cant afford to see you fail'. Basically, he borrowed TONS AND TONS of money from political enemies. So much so that if he didnt succeed, he couldnt pay them back, and theyd be bankrupt.

Honestly, the US is doing the same thing. But I dont think we're doing it on purpose.

Why shouldn't they be doing it on purpose? After all, some quite experienced and knowledgeable economists and politicians have been associated with the government for a decade or more now. Moreover, the last administration was quite hawkish, and lots of our debt is owned by China, whom one could consider a potential future enemy. If we hadn't made it unaffordable for them to see us fail, of course.

[DaWoad]

1-It doesn't matter. As long as congress can violently extort labor from people it's slavery. Slavery to a lesser degree but the difference between a man and a slave is choice. Also, democracy in any form is based on a logical fallacy.

. . .
really?
so . . .where does it say that congress can extort labor from people for no apparent reason? Cuase i would just love to see that one
and democracy (not a logical argument of anykind but actually just a definition) is a logical fallacy . . .you know that doesn't actually make any sense . . .at all. How can something that is not an argument be a falacy (I'll give you a hint, it can't).

2-When was the last time the police actually helped you? Police don't exist to protect or serve; they exist to issue fines, steal (sieze) property, beat, harrass, threaten, and kill and basically keep people in line with a big stick. And the courts have upheld this view as pointed out by Skeptikosia:

The police help me every single day. They keep my streets relatively safe. They make sure that roads are safe to drive on. They prevent me from being mugged at every street corner or shot and killed for no apparent reason.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

you . . .didn't actually read that did you? seeing as how you copied and pasted the opening lines im gonna have to go with no. the basis for that decision was that the restraining order was not legally binding in colerado and that it had no monetary value meaning that the "civil suite" which was filed could not be upheld. They didn't rule that "the police can do whatever they want".

Warren v District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.[2]

Ford v Grafton

A negligence claim brought against a town pursuant to G. L. c. 258, for a police department's repeated disregard of its responsibility to protect the plaintiff from her former husband against whom she had a G. L. c. 209A restraining order, was barred by the provisions of G. L. c. 258, s. 20(h) and (j), as amended by St. 1993, c. 495, s. 57, where the protective order did not constitute a specific and explicit assurance of safety within the meaning of s. 10(j)(1) [723-725]; where the exception under s. 10(j)(2) did not apply [725]; and where G. L. c. 209A contained no language that could create a cause of action under the saving clause of G. L. c. 258, s. 10 [725-726].

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital visit in January, 1983, prompted the county Department of Social Services (DSS) to obtain a court order to keep the boy in the hospital's custody. Three days later, "On the recommendation of a "child protection team," consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father."[1] The DSS entered an agreement with the boy's father, and five times throughout 1983, a DSS social worker visited the DeShaney home and recorded suspicion of child abuse and that the father was not complying with the agreement's terms. No action was taken; the DSS also took no action to remove the boy from his father's custody after a hospital reported child abuse suspicions to them in November, 1983.[2]. Visits in January and March, 1984, in which the worker was told Joshua was too ill to see her, also resulted in no action. Following the March, 1984, visit, "Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse."[3] Randy DeShaney served less than two years in jail. He currently resides in Appleton, WI.

did . . .did you actually read any of these? or do you perhaps not understand what a civil suite is? Or maybe you don;t understand what the law actually is? whatever it is every case you posted, excpet the last one, failed not on merit but on legal technicalities. If you don't understand why this happens you need to go talk to NEO Art. . . I'm not patient enough to explain it nor am I well versed enough in US law. (in the last case . . .no the system of justice in the states is not perfect but its a sight better than no law.

3-Prove it. Prove that every state program that so much as one cent of my taxes goes to benefits me. Even the optional stuff that I may or may not be in favor of. Like the elective wars or the ESA jumping on a newly discovered fairy shrimp in the Idaho desert.

Name any program that you think doesn't benefit you and I guarentee you i can prove it does. I'm not williing to go through every law on the books and funding program in the US of A just to make a point

[DaWoad]

\
The state and democracy are the opposite of civilized. They are barbaric theft plain and simple. And don't give me that "I prefer 'extrotion'. The X makes it sound cool" bit. Extortion is a crime because it robs people of the product of their labor and when you take someone's labor you are forcing them to work for free. There is a word for that, slavery.

when have you ever been forced worked for free for the state? one case. . .any case at all . . .

[Willman]

How about we arrest George Bush, put him on trial, shoulder the ENTIRE US BUDGET DEFICIT on him, then find him guilty of Treason and execute him.

[South Lorenya]

IIRC the church owes us a couple centuries of back taxes...

[Justorica]

So the USA is aiming to increase its foreign debt to 9 trillion dollars by 2020AD. But this means that every citizen will apparently have a high tax burden that they must pay.

This is your compulsory tax burden. You still have Income Tax to pay. Otherwise you would all be paying fifty grand a year in tax...and those who cannot pay fifty grand a year in tax are tax cheats...better to subject you all to an equal increase in service based tax payment.

What is the Solution?

I'm happy to see someone understands less about economics and international finance than I do.

The debt burden of the United States government is not divided up as a personal debt among its citizens. We, as individuals, are not required to contribute to the payment of that debt above and beyond our income tax liabilities. The only way the government can make individuals contribute to the servicing of the debt is to raise income tax or to impose other taxes and use that revenue to pay off the debt.

[b]I do like the idea of a National Bake Sale, though.[/b]

Me too! Imagine, we all chip in our best dishes, and then people from alll over the world (even those starving in Africa) can come to America and buy our food. We do this 3 times a year, and perhaps we can pay offf our debt soon. And wouldn;t it be a site, to see entire continents empty, as the entire world population is in America?

[Almagarde]

50% desert to Canada rather than work in compulsory labour as part of their tax payment...

ahhh canada is awesome public healthcare and education, lots of geographical change, diversity, lower guncrime rates and a managably sized millitary.

Not any more...60% of the US population just walked north across the border because they dont want to pay taxes in labour.

[Almagarde]

50% desert to Canada rather than work in compulsory labour as part of their tax payment...

ahhh canada is awesome public healthcare and education, lots of geographical change, diversity, lower guncrime rates and a managably sized millitary.

Not any more...60% of the US population just walked north across the border because they dont want to pay taxes in labour.

Im thinking I should have offered 4 months millitary service a year shooting Americans fleeing across the border to Canada.

[Meoton]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.
While I would like to see more responsible government, tightening spending in a economic down turn would further restrict the economy and slow its recovery. State governments aren't able to deficit spend like the federal government. That is slowing recovery in most states.

Also, most of the spending in Obama's first year was continuation of Bush's policies. Most of those supported by conservatives when Bush implemented them. Bailouts and 2 Wars ring any bells. The Dept. of Homeland Security formation and the restructering.
Go drink some tea and stop watching FOX.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.

No, no it isn't. debt/GNP above, debt/GDP below



sources: http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=352
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=231
http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_3ofs.doc

[Sibirsky]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.
While I would like to see more responsible government, tightening spending in a economic down turn would further restrict the economy and slow its recovery. State governments aren't able to deficit spend like the federal government. That is slowing recovery in most states.

Also, most of the spending in Obama's first year was continuation of Bush's policies. Most of those supported by conservatives when Bush implemented them. Bailouts and 2 Wars ring any bells. The Dept. of Homeland Security formation and the restructering.
Go drink some tea and stop watching FOX.

Based on what do you base your opinion? Based on the 1920-1921 Depression during which the Federal government cut spending and the economy made a quick recovery? Good call!

[Sibirsky]

\
The state and democracy are the opposite of civilized. They are barbaric theft plain and simple. And don't give me that "I prefer 'extrotion'. The X makes it sound cool" bit. Extortion is a crime because it robs people of the product of their labor and when you take someone's labor you are forcing them to work for free. There is a word for that, slavery.

when have you ever been forced worked for free for the state? one case. . .any case at all . . .

Income tax ring a bell? I believe the US average tax freedom day, or whatever they call it (it's a day, when you would be able to keep 100% of your income, assuming prior to that you gave 100% to the state in taxes) is sometime in May. That is more than 4 months a year, a typical American works for free for the state. Sounds like slavery to me.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.
While I would like to see more responsible government, tightening spending in a economic down turn would further restrict the economy and slow its recovery. State governments aren't able to deficit spend like the federal government. That is slowing recovery in most states.

Also, most of the spending in Obama's first year was continuation of Bush's policies. Most of those supported by conservatives when Bush implemented them. Bailouts and 2 Wars ring any bells. The Dept. of Homeland Security formation and the restructering.
Go drink some tea and stop watching FOX.

Based on what do you base your opinion? Based on the 1920-1921 Depression during which the Federal government cut spending and the economy made a quick recovery? Good call!

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/w ... ssion.html

[Rhodmhire]

Solution?

Invest in the Quadrilateral:



It's not like we're ever not going to need any of those things.

[Sibirsky]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.
While I would like to see more responsible government, tightening spending in a economic down turn would further restrict the economy and slow its recovery. State governments aren't able to deficit spend like the federal government. That is slowing recovery in most states.

Also, most of the spending in Obama's first year was continuation of Bush's policies. Most of those supported by conservatives when Bush implemented them. Bailouts and 2 Wars ring any bells. The Dept. of Homeland Security formation and the restructering.
Go drink some tea and stop watching FOX.

Based on what do you base your opinion? Based on the 1920-1921 Depression during which the Federal government cut spending and the economy made a quick recovery? Good call!

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/w ... ssion.html

Krugman? Lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression ... E2%80%9321

Austrian school economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War (which had marked a period of mass government distortions to free markets). Historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez faire economic policies during the 1920/21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery. Because there existed mass distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally mass "correction" to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time, government-free economic environment.
Woods argues that the massive 1921 recession and subsequent rapid recovery is an episode in the history of capitalism and economics that is woefully understudied. He believes it to be a watershed case proving that free markets adjust prices and supplies much more efficiently than any government coordinated action, and that Keynesian philosophy ignores the '21 episode because it suggests government intervention is not required in such "crises."

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I do like the idea of a National Bake Sale, though.

300 million people, and every last one of you brought Rice Crispies Squares? WHAT THE HELL?!

[Natapoc]

Although I stand by what I said earlier in the thread: debt or not I think it would be fun to do 12 hours a week as a fireman/nurse. Not a cop though. I don't like cops. Although... If everyone was a "cop" it could make things much much better. Esp if said cops could refuse orders

So yes please lets give everyone training in nursing, fire fighting, and police training.

I'd also like to rotate in other jobs just for the fun of it but nothing that involves or in any way supports killing or hurting humans or animals.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

The debt as a percentage of the GNP is actually less than what it was a few years ago.
While I would like to see more responsible government, tightening spending in a economic down turn would further restrict the economy and slow its recovery. State governments aren't able to deficit spend like the federal government. That is slowing recovery in most states.

Also, most of the spending in Obama's first year was continuation of Bush's policies. Most of those supported by conservatives when Bush implemented them. Bailouts and 2 Wars ring any bells. The Dept. of Homeland Security formation and the restructering.
Go drink some tea and stop watching FOX.

Based on what do you base your opinion? Based on the 1920-1921 Depression during which the Federal government cut spending and the economy made a quick recovery? Good call!

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/08/w ... ssion.html

Krugman? Lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression ... E2%80%9321

Austrian school economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War (which had marked a period of mass government distortions to free markets). Historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez faire economic policies during the 1920/21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery. Because there existed mass distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally mass "correction" to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time, government-free economic environment.
Woods argues that the massive 1921 recession and subsequent rapid recovery is an episode in the history of capitalism and economics that is woefully understudied. He believes it to be a watershed case proving that free markets adjust prices and supplies much more efficiently than any government coordinated action, and that Keynesian philosophy ignores the '21 episode because it suggests government intervention is not required in such "crises."

Actually I like Delong better than Krugman most of the time. I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to just believe something because Thomas Woods said it. That would be quite an easy way to go through life though.

[Sibirsky]

Actually I like Delong better than Krugman most of the time. I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to just believe something because Thomas Woods said it. That would be quite an easy way to go through life though.

And I'm supposed to believe something just because Paul Krugman said it? I don't like the guy. There was one paper he wrote that I happened to read, (forgot what it was, or how I ended up reading ti, cuz I don't like the guy) but, I did like it, and I agreed with him. It was an exception however.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Actually I like Delong better than Krugman most of the time. I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to just believe something because Thomas Woods said it. That would be quite an easy way to go through life though.

And I'm supposed to believe something just because Paul Krugman said it? I don't like the guy. There was one paper he wrote that I happened to read, (forgot what it was, or how I ended up reading ti, cuz I don't like the guy) but, I did like it, and I agreed with him. It was an exception however.

No, but you shouldn't dismiss it just because Paul Krugman happens to believe it, which seems to be exactly what you just did.

[Jocabia]

3-Prove it. Prove that every state program that so much as one cent of my taxes goes to benefits me. Even the optional stuff that I may or may not be in favor of. Like the elective wars or the ESA jumping on a newly discovered fairy shrimp in the Idaho desert.

Given the burden you've created, it cannot be proven. You want a direct benefit to be shown and it cannot be. Societal programs are, by design, meant to benefit society as a whole. There is no way to prove that if there were not a social welfare program that you'd get robbed. We can only look at the general benefits of such programs and suggest it decreases crime overall and that you as a potential victim of a crime benefit from such programs.

And police. And fire services. And the FDA. And other such things that decrease the likelihood of you being injured or made sick or becoming the victim of a crime. Don't worry though. Your premise stands so long as you ignore history.

[Sibirsky]

Actually I like Delong better than Krugman most of the time. I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to just believe something because Thomas Woods said it. That would be quite an easy way to go through life though.

And I'm supposed to believe something just because Paul Krugman said it? I don't like the guy. There was one paper he wrote that I happened to read, (forgot what it was, or how I ended up reading ti, cuz I don't like the guy) but, I did like it, and I agreed with him. It was an exception however.

No, but you shouldn't dismiss it just because Paul Krugman happens to believe it, which seems to be exactly what you just did.

Not exactly. Part of the problem in the 1930s was the Fed just sat there and let banks fail which led to a deflationary depression. It's somewhat similar now, as we are in a deflation. But the Fed saved banks. However all this stimulus plans, and spending programs are not necessary. FDR's New Deal was followed by a decade of unemployment averaging 18% and peaking at 25%. It's not that much different today. Sure they tell you it's about 10%, but that's the U-3 number. It doesn't count everyone. The government's own U-6 is 16% or so. The U-6 still doesn't count everyone. The real rate is somewhere between 16 and 21%. Not that far from the Great Depression.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Actually I like Delong better than Krugman most of the time. I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to just believe something because Thomas Woods said it. That would be quite an easy way to go through life though.

And I'm supposed to believe something just because Paul Krugman said it? I don't like the guy. There was one paper he wrote that I happened to read, (forgot what it was, or how I ended up reading ti, cuz I don't like the guy) but, I did like it, and I agreed with him. It was an exception however.

No, but you shouldn't dismiss it just because Paul Krugman happens to believe it, which seems to be exactly what you just did.

Not exactly. Part of the problem in the 1930s was the Fed just sat there and let banks fail which led to a deflationary depression. It's somewhat similar now, as we are in a deflation. But the Fed saved banks. However all this stimulus plans, and spending programs are not necessary. FDR's New Deal was followed by a decade of unemployment averaging 18% and peaking at 25%. It's not that much different today. Sure they tell you it's about 10%, but that's the U-3 number. It doesn't count everyone. The government's own U-6 is 16% or so. The U-6 still doesn't count everyone. The real rate is somewhere between 16 and 21%. Not that far from the Great Depression.

Why don't we look at Friedman

[Yootopia]

2-When was the last time the police actually helped you?

About a week ago, when I asked for directions.

[Ordo Mallus]

just because one policy works does not mean they will all work.