0
   

Breaking the debt clock

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:46 am
I can't believe that Conservatives across American aren't up in arms about the state of our finances these days:


[URL=US debt clock running out of time, space Mon Mar 27, 9:23 PM ET]News.yahoo.com[/URL]
Quote:
US debt clock running out of time, space Mon Mar 27, 9:23 PM ET



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."

The clock was the invention of Durst's father, Seymour Durst, who nursed a keen sense of fiscal responsibility and believed government profligacy to be a national curse.

The elder Durst, who died in 1995, originally thought of the idea in the early 1980s as the US budget deficit started to mount during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, but the technology was not immediately available to realise his vision.

The original 11 foot by 26 foot (3.3 meter by 8.9 meter) clock was eventually erected a block from Manhattan's Times Square in 1989 when the national debt stood at 2.7 trillion.

For the next decade it tracked, odometer style, the government's red ink with an extra feature which, by dividing the main figure by the number of families in the country, offered an estimate for how much each family owed as their share.

Toward the close of the millennium, with a booming economy fuelling annual budget surpluses, the clock began to slow and finally ran into its first mechanical problem.

"It wasn't designed to run backwards," Douglas Durst explained.

Believing that the signboard had served its purpose, the Dursts pulled the plug in 2000 with the debt total showing around 5.7 trillion dollars and the individual "family share" standing at close to 74,000 dollars.

The clock was covered with a red, white and blue curtain, but not dismantled.

"We'll have it ready in case things start turning around, which I'm sure they will," Durst said at the time.

He only had to wait two years as the Bush presidency coincided with an upsurge in borrowing. The curtain was raised in 2002 and the digital readout flickered back to life showing a national debt of 6.1 trillion dollars with the numerals whizzing round faster than ever.

In 2004, the old clock was torn down and replaced with a newer model which had optimistically been modified to run backwards should such a happy necessity arise.

Instead the debt continued to rise at such a rate that the once unthinkable total of 10 trillion dollars veered from alarmist fantasy into the realm of impending reality.

"When it became clear what was going to happen, our first thought was to free up the digital square occupied by the dollar sign so that we could cope with a 14th digit," Durst said.

The latest plan is for yet another replacement, involving a larger scale signboard.

"We're not happy at the impact we're making with this one," he said.

Durst insists that the clock is non-partisan in its effort to shame the federal government over what he sees as its willingness to gamble away the nation's future.

"We're a family business," Durst said. "We think generationally, and we don't want to see the next generation crippled by this burden," he said.

Last week, the "family share" readout on the clock stood some loose change short of 90,000 dollars.


We are running our economy into the ground with all this debt. How exactly do we plan on paying it off? And when?

Cycloptichorn
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,410 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:49 am
well, what do YOU propose?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:52 am
Replied before I could edit, so here's the link:

news.yahoo.com

I guess I would start, Chai, with getting rid of tax cuts for the rich.

<btw, I know a Chai here in Austin; wonder if you are her?>

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:54 am
The USA will probably just carry on as it always has, printing money and bonds, willy nilly.

These bills and bonds will be stored safely in banks overseas (China has just overtaken Japan in amount of foreign money stored....the vast majority of it being dollars.....1 trillion of them).

Everything will be hunky dory until the day comes when the dollar will no longer be the ONLY currency that can pay for oil.

When that day comes (Saddam was considering the Euro option, as is Iran)....when that day comes....you are in deep do do.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:58 am
Well, as Shrub says, that'll be for some other President to deal with.

Comforting that he has our welfare so much in mind...
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:01 pm
Because there are no true conservatives and liberals, like their "conservative" partners are spend spend spending away. the only difference between the 2 parties today is the republicans will not raise taxes as much as democrats. We even have republican knuckleheads running around trying to repeal the estate tax to through more "bones" to their corrupt contributers.

99% of the politicians today have no concept of fiscal conservatism and the concept of balanced budgets. Some talk the talk (mostly democrats today since they are the minority party), but none walk the walk.

Raising taxes is not the answer alone.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:05 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
Well, as Shrub says, that'll be for some other President to deal with.

Comforting that he has our welfare so much in mind...


One might surmise that he has no "historical legacy" in mind . . .
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:07 pm
I think real conservative are up in arms about this, cyc.

Ending tax cuts is like taking an aspirin for a brain tumor. You headache might go away for a small period of time but you still have a malignant growth in your head.

While we could argue all day about the best way to raise tax revenue, I don't think anybody would argue that spending is out of control and the real issue at hand. Until we stop spending money we don't have or at a tax rate that would break all of our backs, like lordy pointed out, we are in deep do do.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:09 pm
You're right, it isn't the answer alone. Just where I would start.

The second thing I would do is institute Public Funding for our elections.

The third thing I would do is enact legislation to end earmarks and Pork Barrell projects.

The fourth thing I would do is limit the power of Lobbyists severely. This Fourth Branch is one of the primary reasons we are in this mess.

The fifth thing I would do is have a nice sit-down with Americans and tell them the truth: that if they really want to be members of a globalized economy, that means we're going to get somewhat poorer here in America, and other countries are going to get somewhat richer. Simple market forces will make this happen.

The Sixth thing I would do is to fire everyone in the Regulatory branches of government, as fast as possible, and hire scientists to replace them, with contracts stating that they aren't allowed to go work for the industry they were regulating for at least 5 years after they leave their position with the government. Pay them a lot of money to help avoid corruption.

The seventh thing I would do is undertake a plan to change the nature of the Corporation, the entity which has lead to much progress here in America, but also is leading us to financial ruin at the same time through their huge amount of Rights, and complete lack of Morals.

The eight thing I would do is to start challenging the 'Christians' here in America to try and walk the walk, instead of talk the talk, when it comes to living a good life. There are simply tons of rich Christians out there who need a good reminding of what happens to rich people who don't share their wealth.

And that's just the beginning.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:12 pm
Don't feel too isolated, lads. The latest figures and forecasts for the UK are not too pleasing.

I think we need to tighten our belts, both sides of the pond.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:14 pm
God a spare room, Lordofthetimelyaccomodations?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:16 pm
For you Set, I would even throw in an egg and bacon breakfast.




I want payment in Euros though.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:17 pm
What ? ! ? ! ?

The Canajun dollar has been gettin' stronger every day, Boss, have a heart . . .
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:28 pm
just chiming back in for a mo' to say this thread is a learning experience for me.


oh...and clyclo....next time you see Chai....give her a big goose on the fanny....I'm sure you'll be able to decide then if we are the same person.


hehehe.
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:32 pm
I'm with you on numbers 3, 4 and 6 (if you stop right after the firing the whole regulatorybanch part).

Public funding of elections sounds good but I wonder if it would just cause more back room deals and Abramoff type scandals. I would like to see a one or two term limit put in place as well as an increase in the amount we pay our senators. The people who might actually do some good in those positions can make a lot more money in the public sector right now and have no incentive to bring their talents to public office.

5... I'm not sold on the whole global economy thing, yet. I think you might have a hard time selling this one. Same with 7. Moral ethical corporations who are worried about more than their profit margin sounds nice, but I have serious doubts as to the reality of this actually happening and the effects it would have.

8... amend "christians" to everybody who can help and I'm with you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:36 pm
Stop Lying About Tax Cuts

Mar 29, 2006
by Herman Cain

Every good liberal will tell you that low tax rates cause tax revenues to drop, hurt the economy, benefit only the wealthy and cause skyrocketing budget deficits. A Wall Street Journal article last week blew a hole in those liberal lies. The Journal reported that federal tax revenues for the first five months of fiscal year 2006 are up 10.3 percent from the same period a year ago. The 2006 revenue growth adds to a 15 percent tax revenue increase from 2004 to 2005. This good fortune for U.S. Treasury coffers is attributed to the steady and growing economy, which is largely a product of the 2003 cuts in income, dividend and capital gains tax rates.

The parallel growth in the economy and tax revenues is not a fluke and did not occur by chance. History has shown us that every time tax rates are cut, federal tax revenues rise, the economy responds positively and the wealthy pay a larger share of the tax bill.

Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge significantly cut tax rates in the 1920s, which caused both the national economy and federal revenues to grow. Harding repealed the World War I excess profits tax, dropped the top tax rate on individuals from 73 to 58 percent and set the capital gains tax rate at 12.5 percent. Coolidge further reduced individual tax rates and inheritance taxes. The Harding and Coolidge tax rate cuts caused income tax revenues to rise 61 percent from 1921 to 1929. At the same time, the economy grew by 59 percent. Additionally, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans grew from just over 44 percent in 1921 to over 78 percent by 1928.

President John F. Kennedy introduced a plan in 1963 to lower the highest individual tax rate of 91 to 70 percent, and the top corporate rate from 52 to 48 percent. The Revenue Act of 1964, passed after Kennedy's death, containted his proposed rate cuts and sparked considerable economic growth. Federal tax revenues rose 68 percent through 1968, and the economy grew 42 percent. The share of tax revenues paid by the wealthiest in the 1960s dwarfed the amounts paid by the middle class and poor. Tax revenues from those individuals making over $50,000 rose by 57 percent following the Kennedy rate cuts, while revenues from those making under $50,000 rose by just 11 percent.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.

Reagan's tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan's rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.

The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite - that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic.

Fiscal conservatives who advocate low tax rates, and even complete replacement of the income tax code with a consumption tax, can be assured that they are on the right side of history, and the right side of economic common sense. Liberals of both political parties who decry low tax rates would harm our nation's economic infrastructure, and the poor and wealthy alike.

Nearly everyone has a chance to succeed in our dynamic economy, provided that government does not confiscate their wealth through the tax code. As former President Abraham Lincoln once stated, "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise . . . I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good."
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 11:09 am
How anyone cannot be alarmed about this run-away deficit and debt is beyond me.
..................
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.42 billion per day since September 30, 2005!
.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Leveraged Loan - Discussion by gollum
Web Site - Discussion by gollum
Corporate Fraud - Discussion by gollum
Enron Scandal - Discussion by gollum
Buying From Own Pension Fund - Discussion by gollum
iPhones - Question by gollum
Paycheck Protection Plan - Question by gollum
Dog Sniffing Electronics - Question by gollum
SIM CARD - SimTraveler - Question by gollum
Physical Bitcoin - Question by gollum
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Breaking the debt clock
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 05:31:06