US debt clock running out of time, space
Mon Mar 27, 9:23 PM ET

NEW YORK (AFP) - Tick, 20,000 dollars, tock, another 20,000 dollars.

So rapid is the rise of the US national debt, that the last four digits of a giant digital signboard counting the moving total near New York's Times Square move in seemingly random increments as they struggle to keep pace.

The national debt clock, as it is known, is a big clock. A spot-check last week showed a readout of 8.3 trillion -- or more precisely 8,310,200,545,702 -- dollars ... and counting.

But it's not big enough.

Sometime in the next two years, the total amount of US government borrowing is going to break through the 10-trillion-dollar mark and, lacking space for the extra digit such a figure would require, the clock is in danger of running itself into obsolescence.

The clock's owner, real estate developer Douglas Durst, knew such a problem could arise but hadn't counted on it so soon.

"We really expected it to be quite some time," Durst told AFP. "But now, with the pace of debt growth only increasing, we're looking at maybe two years and certainly before President (George W.) Bush leaves office in 2009."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060328/bs_afp/afplifestyleusbudgetclock;_ylt=AlJ5m0eV3CMfNO9CpYf ikB.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
+++++++++++++++++++++++

The US dollar is going to tank...

See the future down the drain. See us selling our debt to the world. See the interest on the debt become the biggest item in the budget. See our credit rating slide, and the interest payments mount. See the end of tax cuts just to make the payments of the interest. See us print money to make the payments. See hyper-inflation coming soon to a walmart near you. Payment in Euros only. See the cars come to a stop as gas prices rise. See the economy collapse. See World War III.

The debt clock?

They did as much during the 80s. Of course that deficit clock was abandonned in the early to mid nineties because it was no longer relevent.

The U.S. can grow its way out of its debt, I'm not too worried about it, dammit.

Also, the same person that is crying about debt is the exact same one that will start howling whenever the government starts cutting government programs, especially if Bush can be blamed, dammit.

The debt clock?..........They did as much during the 80s. Of course that deficit clock was abandonned in the early to mid nineties because it was no longer relevent.

It was abandoned for the same reason that people turn their heads from seeing a train run off a cliff or an airplane crash into the ground;

..it's just too sickening to witness.

And if you think that America --given the shape it is in at present-- is about to "grow its way out of" 12 TRILLION dollars worth of debt, you're delusional.

The things Imagineer said --""See our credit rating slide....see the interest payments mount....see the end of tax cuts just to make the payments of the interest.....see hyper-inflation coming....see the cars come to a stop as gas prices rise........ see the economy collapse"" -- are absolutely correct.

I would be very happy to see the cars come to a stop. Bring on seven dollar gas prices! Americans are spoiled for cheap gas anyway!

The debt clock?

They did as much during the 80s. Of course that deficit clock was abandonned in the early to mid nineties because it was no longer relevent.

Yes, thanks to the American people demanding a balanced budget, and showing how serious they were about it by abandoning both the Republicans and Democrats to support Ross Perot for President in numbers that threatened both until the Graham-Rudman Act was passed. During the early nineties, thanks to the growth of productivity as desktop computers revolutionized business, and fiscal restraint on the part of the Clinton Administration and Congress, the deficit decreased, and we actually managed a surplus. This continued until the year 2000, when a new administration decided to cut taxes while increasing spending.

The U.S. can grow its way out of its debt, I'm not too worried about it, dammit.

THe only way we can grow our way out of this debt is with a decade of large growth in productivity, combined with fiscal restraint. It is possible that we can come up with such increases in productivity, although it will be difficult to match the impact of the desktop computer. The fiscal restraint can only happen with an end to the massive decreases in military spending, and with deep cuts in social programs that have already been cut. It may also be neccessary to increase taxes that have been cut irresponsibly. I forsee nothing of the kind happening unless the Republican Party is removed from control of Congress and the Presidency. They have proved their fiscal irresponsibility all through the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush Administrations.

Also, the same person that is crying about debt is the exact same one that will start howling whenever the government starts cutting government programs, especially if Bush can be blamed, dammit.

I will howl only if the cuts are placed on the poor and middle class, while the benefits all go to the wealthy. This would be the Republican program as seen for the last several decades. The Democrats have been little better. A change is needed, and it must happen soon. "Let them eat cake." is not a wise political philosophy, and heads will roll if it continues.

The U.S. can grow its way out of its debt, I'm not too worried about it, dammit.

We could, but since we're increasing spending faster than we're growing, it ain't gonna happen.

From information that I have seen, 40% of the national debt is money that one government branch owes another. Money that we owe ourselves.

Always been a problem with governments:
"The budget should be balanced;the treasury should be refilled;public debt should be reduced;and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

I will howl only if the cuts are placed on the poor and middle class, while the benefits all go to the wealthy.

You may as well begin howling now.....because THAT is the way that it is ALWAYS done in this country.

03/29/2006 $8,367,661,575,867.99

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

From information that I have seen, 40% of the national debt is money that one government branch owes another. Money that we owe ourselves.

Always been a problem with governments:
"The budget should be balanced;the treasury should be refilled;public debt should be reduced;and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

That is true, and the majority of that is owed to the social security trust fund. That is a huge part of the "social security crisis".

I am not for debt, in fact I hate it, but seriously, what relevance does this have to our daily lives? What relevance does a budge deficit or surplus have to us? I mean, unless they start taking more money out to pay deficits or start sending out checks when there is a surplus, it means nothing to joe sixpack, its just a talking point for politicians to bash each other over the head with.

Imagineer,

Do you have the slightest idea who you are talking to? Did you honestly think that you could float that bilge of a post by me?

Your lame replies......

Yes, thanks to the American people demanding a balanced budget, and showing how serious they were about it by abandoning both the Republicans and Democrats to support Ross Perot for President

Wrong, wrong wrong and WRONG! All Perot managed to do was split the Republican ticket. That is how Clinton managed to get into the Whitehouse with only 43% of the vote. The Democrats weren't interested in fiscal responsibility and neither was Clinton. I remember viewing the pre-94 budget deficit projections and they were on the way to the moon! Oh, Clinton talked a good line of talk. He promised a middle class tax cut in his book "Putting People First" and the second he got into the Whitehouse he and his Democrat cronies gave us the largest income tax increase in history PLUS Clinton tried to get the BTU tax passed. Nothing was done to decrease the deficit till the Republicans swept the Congress in '94. THEN Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into cost cutting measures like welfare reform. You may be able to fool the stupid, imagineer, but you it ain't washing with me, dammit.


This continued until the year 2000, when a new administration decided to cut taxes while increasing spending.

Yeah, and don't forget little factors like 9/11 and the war on terror. Plus it's a good idea for the government to learn it has to live on a budget, I sure as hell have to. Cut taxes some more and let the government know that they can't go and use other people's money to pander for votes, dammit.


The fiscal restraint can only happen with an end to the massive decreases in military spending, and with deep cuts in social programs

Yeah and in the real world, the only two government programs that have to face actual budget cuts are the military and NASA. Social programs are treated like they were ordained by God almighty himself on the seventh day right after He created the world. Bush tried Social Security reform and look what happened, dammit. Try and seperate the people from "their" medicare/medicaid and see what happens. Never mind that somebody ELSE is paying the actual bills through taxes.


I forsee nothing of the kind happening unless the Republican Party is removed from control of Congress and the Presidency.

And I'll enjoy reading your excuses for why we need yet another round of tax increases if that were to ever happened.

I will howl only if the cuts are placed on the poor and middle class, while the benefits all go to the wealthy.

I just loathe excuses for why certain groups of people should be taxed. Maybe one of these years you'll wake up and realize the politicians engage in class warfare, not because they're looking out for the common man or to make things fair, but because they've bled the American taxpayer white and they have an urgent need to villify certain groups of people in order to raise revenue. It's the taxation two step. First vilify, then tax. This is what happened with cigarettes. This is what's happened with SUVs and gas. And the rich really get vilified. Never mind that the top 50% of taxpayers are the ones paying some 96% of the taxes. Never mind that mentalities like you that keep the death tax alive and while some lazy rich kid gets the crap taxed out of his inheritance, some middle class son of a recently deceased farmer has to sell the family farm because the land is worth half a million and some son of bitch politician has decided it was "fair" to apply the death tax to him. Feeding politicians tax revenue is like feeding a tapeworm. All that happens in both cases is that both the beauracracy and the tapeworm grows and is never satisfied and is always looking for a new source of nutrition.

Taxation is not to be used for social engineering. Especially when it's real purpose is to fund an irresponsible government at every single level. Wake up!


I have spoken, dammit!

Do you have the slightest idea who you are talking to? Did you honestly think that you could float that bilge of a post by me?

Such smooth, callous ego. I'm impressed!

Never mind that the top 50% of taxpayers are the ones paying some 96% of the taxes.

I would love to see this statement backed up.

Napster,

The Rushlimbaugh website keeps the current stats on who's paying what in taxes, dammit.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
From the US Treasury, heres your proof Napster.

Link (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm)

Ummm...doesn't that just make sense?

1 person makes $2 millions and pays 50% in taxes = 1 million = 61.5%

50 people make $50,000 and pay 25% in taxes = $625,000 = 38.5%

While that one poor rich person has to make do on living on $1 million. All the lazy fat cats are lighting their cigars with the $37,500 they got to burn...

Rushlimbaugh is not a source....

And all of this is nothing compared to the amount of money business manages to weasel out of paying by having offshore accounts.

That's good, Windwip. I would have liked a more recent source, but that works.

Ummm...doesn't that just make sense?

Actually, it makes perfect sense, you are just reading it wrong, let me clue you in. The government gets X amount in revenue, 65% of that revenue comes from the top 10% of wage earners, while the the top 50% of earners pay some 96% of the taxes. What you are trying to do is say that someone earning two million and paying out one million in taxes is paying out 65% of his income, which isn't true, you are reading it backwards.


While that one poor rich person has to make do on living on $1 million. All the lazy fat cats are lighting their cigars with the $37,500 they got to burn...

First last and foremost, it's not the government's job to raid people's bank accounts because other people are poor. It's not. Get used to it. It's thinking like that that gets one quarter of my paycheck taken out in taxes and that is before sales tax, property tax, gas tax and car tax. Napster pointed out that I got rather callous and it's true, I'm sick and tired of the class warfare thing. I'm tired of more and more being taken out of my paycheck to fund perks for voters (read that free drug program). And I know damn good and well that whenever politicians talk about taxing the rich, the middle class is the very next target, and I hate it. Dammit.


Rushlimbaugh is not a source....

Just because you don't like the source of the facts doesn't mean you can dismiss them.


And all of this is nothing compared to the amount of money business manages to weasel out of paying by having offshore accounts.

Do you blame them? If I had some serious savings, I too would put it offshore so the govt couldn't get to it when I die.

Repeal the death tax. Implement a flat tax. Stop taxing interest and dividends. Stop taxing politically incorrect activities like smoking. I have to live on a set amount of money and that govt should have to as well.

I just loathe excuses for why certain groups of people should be taxed.

In much the same way that I loathe excuses for why we have to hand certain groups (the military/Industrial complex) a half trillion of our taxdollars every year.

__________________________________________________ ___

The way you keep the wars coming is to keep the populace in a state of perpetual fear. That allows you to continue the insane feeding of the military/industrial complex at the expense of the rest of the nation's needs.

Never mind that the top 50% of taxpayers are the ones paying some 96% of the taxes. Never mind that mentalities like you that keep the death tax alive and while some lazy rich kid gets the crap taxed out of his inheritance, some middle class son of a recently deceased farmer has to sell the family farm because the land is worth half a million and some son of bitch politician has decided it was "fair" to apply the death tax to him.

You're fucking clueless.

The "death" tax isn't even levied on estates worth less than 1.5 million dollars.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/politics/10tax.html?ex=1278648000&en=22a8028346e584e4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Few Wealthy Farmers Owe Estate Taxes, Report Says

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 10, 2005

The number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week. ...... The estate tax raised an estimated $23.4 billion last year. Repeal would shift part of the burden of taxes off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, some of whose fortunes were never taxed, onto the general population.

The lost revenue could be made up in three ways: through higher income taxes; reduced government services; or more borrowing, which would pass the burden of current government spending to future generations.

President Bush, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association have asserted that the estate tax is destroying family farms. None, however, have cited a case of a farm lost to estate taxes, although in June 2001 Mr. Bush said he had talked to such farmers.

The number of farms subject to the estate tax, always a minority, has fallen because Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to raise the threshold for estate taxes to $1.5 million, double that for married couples, for last year and this year.........Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation's 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Feeding politicians tax revenue is like feeding a tapeworm. All that happens in both cases is that both the beauracracy and the tapeworm grows and is never satisfied and is always looking for a new source of nutrition.

On THAT we are in compete agreement....and by far the BIGGEST bite out of the taxpayer's asses is the amount [currently over a HALF TRILLION DOLLARS YEARLY] we hand over to the military/Industrial complex each year.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Gore_Vidal/Dreaming_War.html

Dreaming War

Blood for Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta ----by Gore Vidal

Thunder's Mouth Press, 2002,

"It used to be that true politics involved an accounting of where the people's tax money goes and why. Since the American military currently gets over half of each year's federal revenue, that should have been the most important subject to chat about. But not this year' and so, dutifully, each candidate pledged himself to ever greater spending for the Great War Machine, as it idly trawls about the globe in search of enemies."

LOL, you know what it takes to make a 1.5 million dollar estate in CA? not much.

Repeal the death tax. Stop taxing politically incorrect activities like smoking.

I have to disagree on these 2.

Death tax is fine by me, I personally think that people should earn their keep. This will help the economy more by forcing people to work rather than have life handed to them.

Smoking has negative effects on the people who have to sit near them or who have to breathe in that crap. This is a cost to society that the individual is able to incur by smoking. If they are able to buy something that imposes a cost on society then it is only right that they pay not only for the product but a reparation for the damages they do to society as well.

They're taxing it too much right now for that argument, but I dont smoke so I don't care too much.

wait, so you are for the death tax so the kids of rich people have to get jobs instead of live on inheratance? LOL, thats a new one I havent heard.

Windwip,

Death tax is fine by me, I personally think that people should earn their keep. This will help the economy more by forcing people to work rather than have life handed to them.

It's great that you think people should make their way in the world. However, it's not the right of the government or anyone else to dictate what one may do or not do with their own private property, which most definately includes money. Money they had to earn, that they paid taxes on, that they've invested. It's theirs, and a person who has accumulated wealth should have the right to dictate where THEIR own money goes to when they are deceased. As I've stated before, the death tax isn't about making things "fair." It's about a government that has been engaging in out of control spending and is looking for any means of tapping into new streams of revenue. So our vaunted politicians have wrapped themselves in the flag of fairness for the common man and have treated this death tax thing as a crusade against fat rich kids who could look forward to a life of ease. It's government fomenting class warfare and an envious public going along with the idea. Do a check on your feelings, windwip, I'm thinking that you are suffering from envy. Part of envy is the desire to have what someone ELSE has, another part of envy is the desire to TAKE what the other person has if you yourself don't have it and can't get it. Of course, if you take some wealthy fat kids wealth, they'll throw you in jail. In steps the government who takes the wealthy kid's inheritance in the name of taxes and taxes in the name of "fairness" because others don't have a rich daddy to shower them with money. It's legalize plunder, and it's wrong. And don't think that just because the politicians are busy looting the "rich" of their wealth through death taxes, don't think they'll leave the middle class alone. That house that Joe Middle Class bought for $18,000 and is now worth 500,000 (no exageration btw) and wants to leave it for their kids...do you honestly think that a state or local government in debt isn't going declare THAT inheritance "wealth" and take it? It's a hell of a precedent you are going along with, dammit.

It's the same story with that cigarette lawsuit and taxes. The original idea was that cigarette companies get sued and the money was supposed to be used to print pamphlets (zillions of dollars to print pamphlets, must've been nice pamphlets, dammit) declaring cigarettes were bad for you and to fund cancer research, oh and to "discourage" people from smoking through high taxes. Of course what really happened was that was FIRST the idea of printing pamphlets and doing cancer research got forgotten THEN fed, state and local governments used the money to balance budgets, then came the pork projects and now cigarette taxes are used in the general fund and politicians are STILL running deficits. This is the kind of behaviour I'd like to discourage. Oh, and the idea of "discouraging" people from smoking is a joke. First last and foremost, smokers are ADDICTED to their smokes, which makes for a pretty damn good source for reliable tax revenue I might add. Secondly, we throw people in jail for smoking dope and people still do it, do you honestly think a punitive tax is going to stop SMOKERS? If the government was really serious about stopping smoking, they'd ban tobacco, but the money's too good and NO level of government can survive without taxing the crap out of cigarettes.

Dammit.

If the government was really serious about stopping smoking, they'd ban tobacco,

I thought this country was all about that whole "freedom" thing.

Just because you don't like the source of the facts doesn't mean you can dismiss them.Yes but a "source" that repeatedly spouts off complete bullshit as fact may be dismissed at will.

Limbaugh once said there are more Indians in the US now then when columbus landed. He also said there are more trees now then when columbus landed. Hes an outright propgandist spouting out his ass. He is not a source.
First last and foremost, it's not the government's job to raid people's bank accounts because other people are poor. It's not. Get used to it.Yeah I mean its not like our founding documents call to "promote the general welfare" or anything.....

Repeal the death tax. Implement a flat tax. Stop taxing interest and dividends. Stop taxing politically incorrect activities like smoking. I have to live on a set amount of money and that govt should have to as well. Funny that not a single word about wasting 2 trillion dollars to suppossedly liberate "savage islamists"...

He also said there are more trees now then when columbus landed.

Actually, there are, and more whitetail deer as well, dammit.


Yeah I mean its not like our founding documents call to "promote the general welfare" or anything.....

Using the tax code to plunder other's wealth is NOT promoting the general welfare. Which is what is happening.


Funny that not a single word about wasting 2 trillion dollars to suppossedly liberate "savage islamists"...

Please, the only reason you care about the whole war in Iraq thing is in order to Get Bush, don't waste my time, dammit.

And how, exactly, is he supposed to care more about the war? He posts article after article about it.

Yes but a "source" that repeatedly spouts off complete bullshit as fact may be dismissed at will.

well that about exhausts all your sources then

(Rush Limbaugh) also said there are more trees now then when Columbus landed.

Actually, there are, and more whitetail deer as well, dammit.

Actually, dammit, you're as bone fucking ignorant as Limbaugh.

The figures, according to U.S. Forest Service estimates: in 1492, there were approximately 1 billion acres of forest in the United States; in 1787, about 930 million; in 1992, 737 million acres.

how many trees are in an acre of forest then? he didnt say more acres, he said more trees. Logging companys plant trees all the time and probably get trees closer together and more of the to grow to adulthood.

Rush seems to have the uncanny ability of being about to count all the trees in the US individually! Would that make him one of the X-Men?

so does freethinker apparently, amybe we should get those two together sometime

Free never claimed that the US had more or less trees than before its inception. All he did was call Rush a fucking retard. You do know the difference, don't you?

"Actually, dammit, you're as bone fucking ignorant as Limbaugh.

The figures, according to U.S. Forest Service estimates: in 1492, there were approximately 1 billion acres of forest in the United States; in 1787, about 930 million; in 1992, 737 million acres."

this is what he said, we can only assume that he is assuming more acreage means more trees, or else he wouldnt have posted it

I'm trying really hard not to call you an idiot right now.

Tell me, do you believe Rush Limbaugh just because he's a right wing media icon? Seriously, examine your biases here. Rush Limbaugh has made the claim that there are more trees in the US now than before the American Revolution. Neither you nor Darth have provided any proof of this. You would believe Rush's unverified claim and that even though the discrepancy is almost 300 million acres of trees, that they are dense enough so that there are actually more trees?

I dont give a shit how many trees there are here then or now, nor do I care what Limbaugh claims. No one can prove anything, all I said was that Freethinker did contradict Rush's claim about the number of trees when you said all he did was call someone an idiot. And before that I asked freethinker how many trees are in an acre of forest.

All he did was call Rush a fucking retard. You do know the difference, don't you? No, he doesn't...

Way to play backtrack Trav...

how many trees are in an acre of forest then? he didnt say more acres, he said more trees. Logging companys plant trees all the time and probably get trees closer together and more of the to grow to adulthood.


You are (and I am SOOOOO shocked!) as bone fucking ignorant as Darth.

Here is Limbaugh's verbatim quote----


"There are more acres of forestland in America today
than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492"----Rush Limbaugh

***"According to U.S. Forest Service estimates: in 1492, there were approximately 1 billion acres of forest in the United States; in 1787, about 930 million; in 1992, 737 million acres.****

Last time I checked, 737 million was LESS than 1 billion.

It seems Limbaugh was <gasp!!!> .....WRONG.

I dont give a shit how many trees there are here then or now, nor do I care what Limbaugh claims.

That's odd.

If you ""don't give a shit"", then why are you going to such great lengths to defend Limbaugh's (laughably false) claims?!?!?

No one can prove anything

Au contraire, my imbecilic friend.

The U.S. Forest Service data proves decisively that Limbaugh is full of shit on the ""more acres of U.S. forestland now than in 1492"" claim.

A possible idea where Rush got his ideas from.............


Surprisingly, New England is more forested today than it was back in the early days. American Indians, early colonists, and farmers had cleared the land for settlements and farms and to stimulate bushy growth favored by certain game species. They had harvested wood for houses, tools, furniture, and fuel. By the time the 1800s rolled around, according to the NEFF, only 20 percent of southern and central New England was forested. By 1860, Massachusetts was only about one-third forested, two-thirds cleared for agriculture. But as Foster points out, this changed with the California Gold Rush. Many New England farmers headed west with bigger dreams, turning much of the farmland back into forest.


http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/summer_fall1999/paradise_lost.html


So, what did Rush mean, was it more ACREAGE or more heavily forrested?

A possible idea where Rush got his ideas from.............
So, what did Rush mean, was it more ACREAGE or more heavily forrested?

Your link states ---""Surprisingly, New England is more forested today than it was back in the early days.""

If Rush had said --""There are more acres of forestland in that section of the U.S. known as New England today
than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492"-- you might be able to argue that he was correct, and we would not be having this conversation. But he didn't say that. He said-- ""...there are more acres of forestland in America...""

Limbaugh authoritatively proclaimed (as he also does daily on his little three hour radio hate-fest) that something was a certain way, when in fact it was not that way.