National debt clock

[MrSamsa]

This is just a little something that I found

[MrSamsa]

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html this is the last time copy and paste

[Jimsween]

Lol... its.... going down.

[Memorize]

At 6/14/05 11:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: Lol... its.... going down.

It's the most amazing thing ive seen all year.

[MrSamsa]

At 6/14/05 11:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: Lol... its.... going down.

if you watch it for long enough it will go back up.

[Ravens-Grin]

It illustrates the fluctuation of national debt. ..

[TheShrike]

At 6/14/05 11:55 PM, MrSamsa wrote:

At 6/14/05 11:39 PM, Jimsween wrote: Lol... its.... going down.

if you watch it for long enough it will go back up.

I'm sorry, it totaly ruins the effect.

[TheloniousMONK]

Anyone want to tell me what is actually wrong with having national debt? Unless, of course, you have a fear of big numbers I do not see what is wrong.

[Jimsween]

You have to pay it back eventaully.

And the external debt can be used to cripple our country, which some theorize is already done by Saudi Arabia.

[fli]

At 6/15/05 02:26 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: Anyone want to tell me what is actually wrong with having national debt? Unless, of course, you have a fear of big numbers I do not see what is wrong.

You have to pay more taxes in the future. It will be hit us VERY hard. It will make the cost of living nearly unbearable if it's not eleviated some.

This in turn raises the cost of our exports-- other countries won't buy our products.

And if I remember well...
National Debt keeps us on toes on Inflation.

[Memorize]

At 6/15/05 05:49 PM, butterfli wrote: all this horrid stuff

That's like the worst possible situation imaginable by the cause of debt.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/15/05 02:51 PM, Jimsween wrote: You have to pay it back eventaully.

So?

And the external debt can be used to cripple our country, which some theorize is already done by Saudi Arabia.

I would love for you to explain this. Really.

At 6/15/05 05:49 PM, butterfli wrote: You have to pay more taxes in the future. It will be hit us VERY hard. It will make the cost of living nearly unbearable if it's not eleviated some.

Not according to history. In the 1980's Reagan initiated huge, across the board tax cuts, and, despite a growing debt, we were met with huge economic gains.

This in turn raises the cost of our exports-- other countries won't buy our products.

I see no correlation between debt and cost of exports. Perhaps you could exlpain that?

And if I remember well...
National Debt keeps us on toes on Inflation.

Please elaborate on this.

[JoS]

The only two nations in the world wich lend more than they borrow are Japan and Saudi Arabia over the past decade consistantly.

[PLUSgood]

At 6/15/05 05:59 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

Not according to history. In the 1980's Reagan initiated huge, across the board tax cuts, and, despite a growing debt, we were met with huge economic gains.

because he didnt have to pay it back right away and then we had the whole computer revolution.

[totalwar]

The U.S. having a little national debt isn't bad especially since most of it (last I heard at least 3/4) of it is held either by S.S. and other such government programs and by U.S. in the form of Treasury bonds. The problem comes when we get huge national debt like we have now. Because it means that we pay more and more interest which means less and less money for discretionary spending.

[fli]

At 6/15/05 05:59 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/15/05 05:49 PM, butterfli wrote: You have to pay more taxes in the future. It will be hit us VERY hard. It will make the cost of living nearly unbearable if it's not eleviated some.

Not according to history. In the 1980's Reagan initiated huge, across the board tax cuts, and, despite a growing debt, we were met with huge economic gains.

I don't see how this got to do with the National Debt. Not saying what you're saying is wrong (or correct), but I don't see how.

The Debt will hit us like a bitch with a sackful of bricks in each other hand. Not now. But one day-- possibly.

It isn't something to ignore.

[fli]

Also-- during the Reagan years, the debt didn't go down, if that's what you mean by economic stimulation. But we did see some decreasing of debt during the Clinton years. And if I remember now, Dubya is making a slight dent to it (or is starting to make it).

If I only had excel. It would be interesting how much debt increases for each presidental term.

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *

The ones with the stars-- those are rounded up.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/15/05 08:36 PM, butterfli wrote: I don't see how this got to do with the National Debt. Not saying what you're saying is wrong (or correct), but I don't see how.

The Debt will hit us like a bitch with a sackful of bricks in each other hand. Not now. But one day-- possibly.

It isn't something to ignore.

What I am saying is there is nothing wrong with debt as long as the economic gains match or exceed the debt.

So, let's say taxes are cut from 40% to 35%, causing a deficit in the government's budget. But, with this extra money, people go out and buy or invest. People and businesses then grow richer. Then, when the next tax season roles around, even though the people are being taxed a lesser percentage, they are a lot wealthier and therefore end up paying more in taxes than they would have at 40%. So, that debt that the government had the last year is suddenly harmless. That is basically what happened during the 1980's.

[Memorize]

At 6/15/05 08:44 PM, butterfli wrote: Also-- during the Reagan years, the debt didn't go down, if that's what you mean by economic stimulation. But we did see some decreasing of debt during the Clinton years. And if I remember now, Dubya is making a slight dent to it (or is starting to make it).

It went down for a time, then up. Then Bush Senior took office and caused the debt to go even higher.

But im going to have to agree with TheloniousMONK.

[Demosthenez]

Look at France before the Revolution. That is a good lesson in hostory of why debt is bad.

[fli]

At 6/15/05 09:10 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Look at France before the Revolution. That is a good lesson in hostory of why debt is bad.

And I have to agree with Fab on this one.

[JoS]

At 6/15/05 08:09 PM, totalwar wrote: The U.S. having a little national debt isn't bad especially since most of it (last I heard at least 3/4) of it is held either by S.S. and other such government programs and by U.S. in the form of Treasury bonds.

Last you heard wrong. $4 trillion of $7.4 trillion is in the form of tresuery Bonds etc, which is still money that has to be paid back, and with intrest lets not forget. The remaining $3.4 trillion dolalrs is owed to other gov't, the WB and IMF etc. When your debt exceeds your GDP you have a problem. But a slong as you can service your loans (pay the interest which is all your really able to do) no one can touch you.

Its like the saying goes, if you owe the bank $500 and cant pay, you have a problem. If you owe the bank $ 500 million and can't pay, the bank has a problem.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/15/05 09:10 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Look at France before the Revolution. That is a good lesson in hostory of why debt is bad.

Yeah, bad in the hands of economic ignoramus.

[SpiffyMcPerson]

At 6/15/05 05:59 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/15/05 02:51 PM, Jimsween wrote: And the external debt can be used to cripple our country, which some theorize is already done by Saudi Arabia.

I would love for you to explain this. Really.

I'm not exactly sure what the Saudia Arabia thing is all about, but I can say something about how we can be crippled externally by debt. Currently China is buying huge amounts of US debt to keep the American economy stable. They do this because we buy tons of Chinese labor and products. However if China were to stop buying our debt, we would suddenly have to pay this shit back and we don't have the money.

Either another country would buy the debt at killer rates or we'd have to dip into funds from other parts of the government. Either way it means massive tax increase, loss of disposable income and economic recession. Really, it could happen with any country who buys a lot of American debt.

Maybe Saudia Arabia does that? Even if that's not what Jim was talking about, it's still important.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/15/05 10:16 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote:

At 6/15/05 09:10 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Look at France before the Revolution. That is a good lesson in hostory of why debt is bad.

Yeah, bad in the hands of economic ignoramus.

What? Did you just say my point is not good? Did you insult me? Or were you insulting the French King?

Anyway you put it, excessive debt is BAD. I dont care what Ronald Regan or Ronald McDonald says, you gotta pay it back some day. And pre-revolution France couldnt. Prices skyrocketed. HUGE inflation. And as a result, the people got fed up and revolted. If America keeps on spending so irresponisbly like it does, we may yet one day meet that same fate.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 6/15/05 11:25 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: What? Did you just say my point is not good? Did you insult me? Or were you insulting the French King?

Well, I was just finishing your sentence for you, but now that you mention it, I think the discrepancies between pre-Revolution France and the modern US make it rather moot. I mean, their economy, society, and corrupt government could not handle debt. Ours can, and we have seen the wonders of the effective use of debt in the past.

[Jimsween]

At 6/15/05 05:59 PM, TheloniousMONK wrote: So?

How are you going to pay it back when you already owe money? Now of course your going to say well then just take out more loans, but you have to understand the banks already can't loan us all that money, much less want to, which is why we have to get countries like Japan and China to buy it. But then what can we do if nobody wants to buy it, we can try and give them a really good rate, which will screw us more, and get us into more debt.

It worked to an extent when economies were growing rapidly, as an investment. Now, all it is is lazy deabeat worthless adults not wanting to pay thier own share of the taxes so they get thier kids to pay it.

Honest to god, it's like somebody said, "You know what, I really hate taxes.... is there any way I can get my kids to pay my taxes?".

I would love for you to explain this. Really.

They have lots of our currency, so at any moment they can flood the market with it, thus reducing the amount the dollar is worth.

[Nylo]

Having demeaning American power-factories like Wal-Mart stationed in foreign lands that base their loyalty on the value of our business' money isn't the most comforting thought, either.

Seconding what Jimsween said, all the safeguards for financial whiplash have a nice way of allowing the people to borrow shitloads of money on the dime and spread out the payments on their shit as thin as humanly possible, which also makes them a bitch to pay off; especially if you keep borrowing.

Kinda reminds me of that Republican official that wants to 1/2 the U.S payments to the United Nations.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/16/05 12:52 AM, TheloniousMONK wrote: Well, I was just finishing your sentence for you, but now that you mention it, I think the discrepancies between pre-Revolution France and the modern US make it rather moot. I mean, their economy, society, and corrupt government could not handle debt. Ours can, and we have seen the wonders of the effective use of debt in the past.

I agree with you to an extent, but I also disagree with you to an extent.

1) Yes, we can handle debt better, but for how long can this irresponsible spending binge last?
2) France then had EXCESSIVE debt, when will we reach the point of no return?
3) We saw how the most advanced, wonderful country in the world back then can sink into nothingness, like France did, solely because they couldnt afford their debt. If we dont take this to heart at ALL, that is truely sad indeed.