How much debt can Americans absorb?

As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )

My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.

Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.

Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

At least until we have another republican president, house, and senate.

Then we can just spend like there's no tomorrow, right?>> ^bobknight33:

How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

Hey China, why don't you just repo America's top richest 1%? I bet there'd still be some change left for, I dunno... healthcare?

>> ^bobknight33:

How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.


Hey bob, could you fill this thing out:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

And then report back with the link to your plan to correct the budget?

I'll go first, here's mine:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mt20bqv

I also think you should look at the whole picture. Cuts in spending are more likely to directly impact you and your children than increased taxes on high-income individuals.

Here's mine:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4kt14br1>> ^NetRunner:

>>
Hey bob, could you fill this thing out:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/def
icits-graphic.html
And then report back with the link to your plan to correct the budget?
I'll go first, here's mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13
/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mt20bqv
I also think you should look at the whole picture. Cuts in spending are more likely to directly impact you and your children than increased taxes on high-income individuals.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

If given the choices from you link then this is what I would choose:


Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
I truly believe a smaller government is a getter government.



>> ^KnivesOut:

Here's mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13
/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4kt14br1>> href="http://videosift.com/video/TDS-Dancing-on-the-Ceiling#comment-1246152">^NetRunner:
>>
Hey bob, could you fill this thing out:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/def
icits-graphic.html
And then report back with the link to your plan to correct the budget?
I'll go first, here's mine:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13
/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=4mt20bqv
I also think you should look at the whole picture. Cuts in spending are more likely to directly impact you and your children than increased taxes on high-income individuals.

The Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. They both spend like it not their money. ( Oh wait it not.) Both parties have to go.

The only different group that has any chance of breaking up the monopoly that makes sense is the TEA Party. Unfortunately they are a small group and need to wear the republican jersey to get past the front door.


Again, My question stands how much dept can each of us take on?
>> ^KnivesOut:

At least until we have another republican president, house, and senate.
Then we can just spend like there's no tomorrow, right?>> ^bobknight33:
How much debt can Americans absorb?
As of this moment in time, the debt per man / woman/ child is $46K or $129k per taxpayer. (7,13,2011 )
My 5 and 6 year don't have that kind of money in their piggy bank. Im sorry to say I don't have an extra 129K in my bank account.
Even if you raised taxes on the super rich would the government learn to spend less? Would they use the money to get of debt? I do not think so.
Government needs to shrink to a smaller size and let my children grow up in the land of the FREE not the enslaved.

And yet you still chose a ratio of 70/30 for cuts/taxes. Compared to politicians in Washington, you're practically a socialist. Democrats offered an 83/17 mix, Republicans rejected it and demanded a 100/0 mix.

In terms of your specific choices, the only stuff I'd really fight you on are raising the Medicare/Social Security ages, the tightening of disability, and means-testing social security. But then those are also where the big dollar-wise differences are between my way and yours.

I'd also note that unless you are substantially wealthier than the average person, you'd pay exactly the same taxes as you do today under my plan, and still be able to retire at 65. Under your plan you don't get any less of a tax burden, but can't retire until you're 70.

You want to keep working 5 more years before you retire, just so millionaires don't have to pay even a slight bit more in taxes? Why?
>> ^bobknight33:

If given the choices from you link then this is what I would choose:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
I truly believe a smaller government is a getter government.

The gov't made this problem. Now the gov't is going to fix it.

lolololololol

Excellent link @NetRunner, here's mine (can you tell I'm from Europe? )

@lantern53: ftfy

"The gov'tinvested interests, corporate lobbying and mindless warmongering (among other things) made this problem. Now the gov't is going to have to try to fix it."

@bobknight33

The Tea Party is the solution? Are you kidding me?

Video doesn't work for me, but the spending cuts vs tax increases game is fun I guess it might not be quite as much fun if you live in the U.S.?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=828k46pc

>> ^NetRunner:

And yet you still chose a ratio of 70/30 for cuts/taxes. Compared to politicians in Washington, you're practically a socialist. Democrats offered an 83/17 mix, Republicans rejected it and demanded a 100/0 mix.
In terms of your specific choices, the only stuff I'd really fight you on are raising the Medicare/Social Security ages, the tightening of disability, and means-testing social security. But then those are also where the big dollar-wise differences are between my way and yours.
I'd also note that unless you are substantially wealthier than the average person, you'd pay exactly the same taxes as you do today under my plan, and still be able to retire at 65. Under your plan you don't get any less of a tax burden, but can't retire until you're 70.
You want to keep working 5 more years before you retire, just so millionaires don't have to pay even a slight bit more in taxes? Why?
>> ^bobknight33:
If given the choices from you link then this is what I would choose:

Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget
I truly believe a smaller government is a getter government.


pwnt.

I love that he even agrees with a lift on the payroll tax cap. I'd be so happy if the republican party would just allow that. It's not even the revenue ceiling with me. It's the insistence that any tax adjustments be a sugar-coated regressing of the curve. Secretaries shouldn't have a higher realized tax rate than the CEO they work for. Especially not if you insist on robbing their savings account to pay for the CEO's wars.

They keep pushing this outmoded supply-side BS. This isn't about shrinking government. It's about keeping the PAC tap flowing.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html?choices=03l1n5rh


As we can currently observe, the richest persons/companies in the USA sit on their money and do not create new jobs.

Imho, "middle class" should represent the largest bracket in lieu of a population's makeup, driving culture, education, job creation and comfortable wealth. This is the most desirable realistic state (way of being) most persons would want to be in.

Democratically, from the bottom up, a society can thrive most, imho. This does not exclude anyone: A secure "low" society lifts the quality of living for the top gainers as well. The two-party system is highly detrimental for lasting change and sensible reforms. It is unlikely the two partys would part with the old system in favour of a more democratic coalition-based system, but a girl can dream.

I like Keynes, but Keynesian politics are hard to come by when the economy gets better. One big factor in the USA is the gaining economic libertarianism, which is on a utopian level of ideology on par with Reagonomics. Personally I prefer the soft ideology of reasonable adjustments orienting themsleves not along the lines of a factional party-framework, but along the lines of the realistically most beneficial proposal for the entire population. This sounds utopian as well, because it is: It is only possible in a multiple-party state, which the USA is unlikely to become.

What to do? Political "extremists" (left and right) should be shunned and kicked back to the margins where they belong, at least for a functioning two-party system.


This is all just my opinion, and it is in flux. If you spot a "mistake" in my reasonings or views, please tell me, I'm happy to learn and adjust my opinions, if reasonable. --> Tea-Partyers, fascists, communists and Libertarians can try, but they will probably just waste my time and theirs. --> Hard ideologies are all utopian in one way or another, secular religions all.