Slashdot Mirror

1) Here's a list of top dividend paying stocks, from Kiplinger's.

2) Here's a list of Treasury note and bill yields, from Treasury Direct.

You can see the differentials in returns. I guess 1 and 2 percent returns on stocks is superseded by the expected appreciation.

If you started buying stocks in 1987, "dollar cost averaging" with your income, you would be in a very good position today. My point is that the game has changed. The financial media used to whisper/joke about the "Greenspan Put". More recently one of the Fed Vice chairs (Stanley Fischer) said overtly that the Fed should take on a "third mandate", that of financial market stability. Today, it de facto if not de jure acts to support financial markets. It is going to stop its balance sheet runoff and interest rate increase program in response to the December stock market drops. This support has changed the nature of the game from dividends to chasing appreciation, since there the Fed is all but explicitly supporting the market. And it's not just here but also in the world's 2nd largest economy, China.

Oh and by the way, I listen to Bloomberg radio for financial market commentary most mornings. And I read The Economist for further observations.

I'm not heavily exposed to the stock market. But there are people I respect who have been, and are today, "all-in" on the stock market. And they've done quite well. I can only provide my perspective, FWIW, and YMMV. I support informed decisions.

Way to miss the point. You can't ignore some of your expenses and still claim you "have a surplus". Yet that is exactly the game played. Check the historical record, you'll find the last time we did not add to the national debt was 1957 under President Eisenhower. We've borrowed money every year thereafter.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

Suck it loser.

The charts show the budget - in other words, what was planned. It does not show unplanned expenses, it doesn't include interest payments on the debt, it doesn't show intra-governmental loans...

Instead of Wikipedia, why don't you go to the Treasury's own website? Go there, and look at the outstanding debt directly from the official source. The easiest way to see that there was no surplus is to simply look at the total outstanding debt - publicly held debt + intergovernmental debt + etc. It went up every year. It almost went down in 2000 - the deficit was only $17 billion that year. But the total debt still went up $17 billion that year.

The charts show the budget - in other words, what was planned. It does not show unplanned expenses, it doesn't include interest payments on the debt, it doesn't show intra-governmental loans...

Instead of Wikipedia, why don't you go to the Treasury's own website? Go there, and look at the outstanding debt directly from the official source. The easiest way to see that there was no surplus is to simply look at the total outstanding debt - publicly held debt + intergovernmental debt + etc. It went up every year. It almost went down in 2000 - the deficit was only $17 billion that year. But the total debt still went up $17 billion that year.

For the 2018 mid-terms the Democrats are running on a platform that included rolling back the Trump Tax Cuts, because Americans desperately want to pay more taxes, but can't figure out how to give more money to the government without it being demanded.

Ummm, most of them? Bonds and CDs are generally in-line with inflation. If you insist on a sure-thing inflation hedge, how about TIPS? Nowhere near as volatile as gold and will always keep up with inflation.

Yes, over time gold has appreciated at about the rate of inflation, but so has most real property. If you're a long-term investor then you're way better off investing in equities - you can either make the rate of inflation with gold or make a much better return with equities.

Looking at the Federal debt from the very beginning until present, you'll see the last time the debt went down was in 1957. Note that a "budget surplus" applies ONLY to items on-budget; it does not include trillions of off-budget spending. The US has increased its Federal debt every year since 1957 - and the only way a debt increases is if you borrow more money. And the only time the US Federal Government borrows money is when it is out of money - meaning, it ran a deficit.

Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend.

Um, no, they don't. Nobody does.

Historical Debt Outstanding

1900-1949

1950-1999

2000-2015

Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend.

Um, no, they don't. Nobody does.

Historical Debt Outstanding

1900-1949

1950-1999

2000-2015

Except the Democratic party actually finds ways to pay for what they spend.

Um, no, they don't. Nobody does.

Historical Debt Outstanding

1900-1949

1950-1999

2000-2015

Federal tax receipts are way up, when you adjust for inflation. For example, back in the 1950s when we still had those 94% top tax rates (and the last time the US ran an actual, real surplus - meaning it did not have to borrow money), the Federal Government took in about 25% of what it does today. We had half the number of people back then - around 150 million. Meaning that, today - adjusted for inflation and population growth - the Federal Government receives nearly twice the taxes than it did back with those high rates.

The effective tax rate back in the 50s, overall, was about half of what it is today. Deductions were larger and more plentiful, and the income tax was much more progressive (meaning the top rate applied to maybe the top 2%, rather than the top 15%). The statutory rates look really high - but the effective rate, after all deductions and the like, was about half of what it is today just by looking at the total revenue per capita. The bottom line is that the Federal Government today is piling on the debt, even though it has historically high tax income per capita, and spending is at an all-time high. Maybe the problem is the spending, not the income...

Record of Federal debt, to the penny. About $10.625 trillion to $19.947 trillion when he left office. That's about $9.32 trillion over 8 years - a bit more than $1.16 trillion a year, for 8 years.

Aha! So it's spending minus receipts! Now what if you put much of that spending "off record", so it doesn't count? Then you end up with a surplus... But is it really? The debt keeps increasing (and the debt listed by the Treasury Department is all debt that must be paid, per US Government promises - not future promises, but money already spent and financed by issuing bonds) even though we were supposedly spending less than we brought in. It's because of putting a lot of spending off budget so there is no accounting for that spend. But money WAS spent...

We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957.

That's an interesting chart.

Thank you! Many people don't look at the actual data of our national bank balance, so to speak...

Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."

The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.

Only if that money is put into circulation, either in an attempt to stimulate the economy (Government literally giving money away via zero interest loans), or spent (Government buying goods and services). Print all you want, until it's handed over it's not debt.

An analogy would be that you have $10,000 in your bank account. If you write a $1,000,000 check, you are NOT overdrawn until you hand that check over to someone else. Then that printed money - written check - has become an actual liability that you must honor.

According to the Congressional Budget Office there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001.

No, according to the CBO, there were real BUDGET surpluses, which only counts the on-budget spending. For example, the Federal Government does not consider spending on Social Security, the US Postal Service, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and several other large ticket items as "on budget". So you can keep the rest of spending just under budget, but blow trillions on these via borrowing - and still be, per the CBO, under budget and in surplus.

This would be akin to you having a $10,000/month take-home pay. You spend $9,000 per month on food, utilities, travel, clothing. You spend $3,000 per month on housing, and you spend $2,000 per month on your IRA/401K. Your total spending is $14,000 - with only $10,000 income. BUT, because you consider housing and your IRA/401K not "on budget", you actually ran a surplus! Never mind that your actual net worth dropped by $4,000 (you accumulated $4,000 of debt - excess spending relative to income). You were below your budget on the other things you want to put into your budget, so you're all good.

We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957.

That's an interesting chart.

The only way for the debt to increase is to spend more than was brought in.

Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."

The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.

The "surplus" was in name only, because it only dealt with some of the spending of the Federal Government. But we haven't had a surplus since 1957, back when Ike was rolling out the Interstate highway system.

According to the Congressional Budget Office there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001. You'll have to go to Historical Budget Data and open some Excel files to see the actual numbers, but if you do you will see that the debt held by the public decreased in each of those years.

However, that's neither here nor there. Quibbling over the exact numbers doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton (and a Republican congress) either generated a surplus, or brought America as close as it has been since 1957. But in either case, George W. Bush (and a Republican congress) turned it into the largest deficits in America's history, through a combination of new spending, tax cuts and a disastrous recession.

We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957. The only way for the debt to increase is to spend more than was brought in. The "surplus" was in name only, because it only dealt with some of the spending of the Federal Government. But we haven't had a surplus since 1957, back when Ike was rolling out the Interstate highway system.

The debt is just the sum of all the deficits. And Clinton never run a surplus

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.

$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B

If you look here you can see the debt increased each year he was in office. Which means he ran a deficit

E.g. from
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

you get

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Each year the debt increased because each year a deficit was run. Including 2000, Clinton's claimed 'surplus year'.

The debt is just the sum of all the deficits. And Clinton never run a surplus

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.

$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B

If you look here you can see the debt increased each year he was in office. Which means he ran a deficit

E.g. from
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

you get

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Each year the debt increased because each year a deficit was run. Including 2000, Clinton's claimed 'surplus year'.

Democrats don't hold a candle to Republicans when it comes to increasing national debt. It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.

Each one of those increased the debt

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bushâ(TM)s last budget, FY 2009.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34 percent increase from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

And if you don't trust that, you can check the figures here

https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

E.g. Nixon you subtract 1974's debt from 1969's. I.e. $475B - $353B = $121B

For Clinton you subtract 2001's debt from 1993's, i.e. $5.807T - $4.411T = 1.396T

Democrats don't hold a candle to Republicans when it comes to increasing national debt. It's already been said, but it's worth noting that the last Republican to lower the deficit on average was Nixon, yet Clinton and Obama both managed it.

Each one of those increased the debt

https://www.thebalance.com/us-...

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bushâ(TM)s last budget, FY 2009.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993.

Richard Nixon: Added $121 billion, a 34 percent increase from the $354 billion debt at the end of LBJ's last budget, FY 1969.

And if you don't trust that, you can check the figures here

https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
and
https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

E.g. Nixon you subtract 1974's debt from 1969's. I.e. $475B - $353B = $121B

For Clinton you subtract 2001's debt from 1993's, i.e. $5.807T - $4.411T = 1.396T

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/14...

Payment is unclear. A generous plan that covers all Americans is going to require more revenue. There's no exact plan for how to pay for Sanders' bill, but he did on Wednesday afternoon release a list of potential payment options. Among the proposals: a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers, a 4 percent individual income tax and an array of taxes on wealthier Americans, as well as corporations. In addition, Sanders' plan says the end of big health insurance-related tax expenditures, like employers' ability to deduct insurance premiums, would save trillions of dollars.

But even with all of those potential revenue-boosters, Sanders may still fall far short of the total amount of money needed to pay for his ambitious program. Altogether, his estimates of how much money his funding mechanisms would generate totals up to around $16 trillion over 10 years. In a 2016 report on his presidential campaign's "Medicare for All" plan, the Urban Institute estimated that the plan would cost $32 trillion over 10 years.

Right now the total US debt is $20 trillion

https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

So you're looking at adding another $16-$32 trillion to that over ten years depending on how overly optimistic his plan turns out to be. I'm sure that won't cause any problems, like a sovereign debt crisis for example, at all.

After all single payer for all worked out fine in Vermont. Oh wait, not it didn't.

https://www.politico.com/story...

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Now, go and look at the record of annual debt and tell me when it went down. Oops! You can't - at least after 1957. Even FactCheck fell for the lie, as you did. They define a deficit correctly - it causes the debt to go up. But then they hand-wave and say "well it still went down because we shifted some debt from one account to another". Doesn't work.

Face it - you're wrong. You are trying to find sources to support you - and they even contradict you (and themselves, interestingly enough). I know you WANT to believe that Clinton had a surplus, but the fact is - he didn't. Never happened. Read that quote again, especially the money quote: "the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit". Now check the years for Clinton. Debt went UP every year!

The fact is - if the debt goes up, there was a deficit. Plain and simple. The ONLY way to claim otherwise is to not count some spending, ignoring the debt incurred from that spending. But that's not really honest, is it? That's lying - and it's why you are so upset. You've been caught believing a lie - and now, rather than admit your error, you choose to defend the lie.

Tell me please - why is FactCheck wrong about the definition of a deficit?

There was budget surpluses each year between 1998 and 2001, 2001 being the last year of Clinton's budgets. In 2002, the first year of Bush's budgets, we once again had a deficit.

False. Please see the facts at the Federal Government itself. The national debt increased every single year since 1957. How does a debt increase if you have a surplus? Answer: it doesn't. The "surplus" was for a subsection of the entire national budget only. When you look at the entire, actual budget, we spent more than we brought in every single year since 1957. Proof? The national debt has increased every single year since then.

What Clinton did, was essentially ignore some of the spending. It would be like a person spending $7,000 per month, making $6,000 per month, and claiming they are actually cash-flow positive because they ignore the $2,000 per month in rent they pay. Hey, they only spent $5,000 per month on $6,000 revenue - if you ignore that $2,000 per month payment over there...

Smoke and mirrors. Completely false.

Federal Government says you are wrong.

Total debt on Jan 21, 2009 (first day of the Obama presidency): $10,625,053,544,309.79.

Total debt on Jan 20, 2017 (last day of the Obama presidency):$19,947,304,555,212.49.

Total increase in debt during the Obama presidency: $9,322,251,010,902.70.

That's a pretty stiff increase, just about doubling the debt. Quite a bit different than a reduction, eh?

FOUR trillion? You're off by a factor of 2.5... $10 trillion to $20 trillion in 8 short years...

Notably, Clinton reduced regulations and reduced the deficit (and national debt) for awhile.

Clinton and Gingrich reduced the deficit, but the debt hasn't dropped since Eisenhower.

Just last week, we tossed another $1.5 trillion of debt onto the pile with the new tax cut. How much "faith and credit" do you have in Donald Trump?

Huh, I go to the Federal Government and I see our debt has increased by about $360 million since the passage of the tax reform bill. Nope, not $1.5 trillion! That debt doesn't exist yet, does it?

Screw them. $0 in 2018.

That will fix all sorts of things.

Sadly, it won't dent the $20T US debt in 2017. Up from $5.6T in 2000. For that, we need drastic actions that no politician (or democrat) will like.

For reference: https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

No, I just know what my Government spends. That's the interest we're paying on our debt, annually. When t-bills and bonds are redeemed, we pay for those. We issue a lot more (to the tune of $1.4 trillion in the FY2016 under President Obama), but right now, we're paying $400 billion a year.

Here the quote from "The PolygamistRanchSister", who lives in the US:

You need to complete this form: https://www.treasurydirect.gov... You will need to sign the bonds at a US consulate or equivalent so they can "validate" that you actually signed. I'm sure you will need lots of ID. You will need your social security number. You need to include Dad's death certificate - that I had sent to you. Then you need to mail the bonds to: Treasury Retail Securities Site P.O. Box 214 Minneapolis, MN 55480 In the form you will need to specify a bank account in which the money will be deposited. This cannot be a Germany bank. So... you will need a bank account in the US. Then we would have to find a way to wire the money from the US bank to your bank in Germany.

No need. Instructions here: https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

Yeah . . . I've seen that info . . . but the whole process sounds like a royal pain in the ass . . . especially since the US folks will withhold tax money, which *I* will need to jump through hoops for, to get it back . . . this can take years. I had the same problem when a company in the US *awarded* me with stock options . . .

The authorities cannot stock drug dealers, terrorists and business tycoons from laundering billions of dollars . . . . but the authorities *can* make life for simple folks difficult!

No need. Instructions here: https://www.treasurydirect.gov...

It is? Can you identify which year was the last where the debt went down? The only way the debt increases is if we spend more than we brought in - a deficit. President Clinton had an "on budget" surplus, but that's not the entire budget - there are trillions in off-budget spending every year. And that runs a hefty deficit. Don't take my word for it - look at the link I provided that shows the Federal Government's own numbers. The last time we had an actual surplus - no deficit - was 1957.

True, to a point. However, when uber wealthy people get taxed substantially more highly, they are still left with a few billion dollars of discretionary assets so higher income taxes have comparatively little impact on them - perhaps they only have $20 billion to give away, not $40 billion (which might actually make their lives easier). The same can not be said of the middle/upper-middle class taxpayer.

A combined marginal 70% income tax rate on Zuckerberg would have little impact on his personal life with regard to living expenses (food, housing, transportation, etc) for him and his family even if he has quite high standards for each. He still would never need to, for financial reasons, wash his own car, clean his own toilet, cook his own dinner, paint his own hallway, forgo medical care, stay at a Motel 6, or work another day in his life except for the fun of it.

On the other hand, a combined marginal 35% income tax on a couple having a taxable income of $200K a year (somewhat below the burden that a California taxpayer would bear) is likely to feel in very measurable ways the impact of the taxes or any increase in them on their personal life. Both spouses may find it necessary to continue working because of the tax burden. They may find it necessary to retire later because they have less savings. They may not be able to help their kids as much with college expenses. They may not be able to afford a housekeeper so have to do their own housework at the expense of not having as much time to further their own education and earning power. The list is endless.

I don't begrudge uber rich Americans (like Gates $81B per Forbes in 2016, Bezos $67B, Buffett $65.5B, Zuckerberg $55.5B, Ellison $49.3B). I also have no problem if they are talking about raising marginal tax rates on the highest income levels to the point that such taxation would actually affect their everyday personal life. However, I don't think their opinion means much when it comes to what will inevitably result in middle class tax increases. All of these individuals are completely free to donate money to the federal government. For example, to reduce the public debt, here's where one can contribute, however given the fairly paltry sums collected this way, it's obvious that none of these uber wealthy people contribute a significant amount of their resources via this route.

It is interesting that Zuckerberg exploits (legally) strategies explicitly to minimize his and/or his heirs income taxes (such as via Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts) - if he's in favor of increased government spending and hence higher taxes, the question is why does he do this?

You can already do that — no need for new laws. US Department of Treasury accepts private donations — have you ever used that option? I don't think so... Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...

You can already do what? What are you replying to? What the fuck are you on about?

You can already do that — no need for new laws. US Department of Treasury accepts private donations — have you ever used that option? I don't think so... Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...

Please step away from the strawman. They are useless, petty arguments of the ignorant and short sighted.

You can already do that — no need for new laws. US Department of Treasury accepts private donations — have you ever used that option? I don't think so... Because you don't care to pay on your own — you wish to force others to do it...

Last fiscal year, the US Federal Government spent $1.423 trillion more than it brought in (source: US Department of Treasury). There are approximately 140 million taxpayers. This represents a DEFICIT spending $10,160 per taxpayer - spending above and beyond income. It is more than all the Federal Income tax paid! We would have to literally more than double the current Federal tax rate for all taxpayers to cover our deficit spending...

Or, we start cutting things that are outside the domain of the Federal Government, and scale back on spending. It's either increase revenue or cut spending - but it has to be done. We cannot keep blowing over $4 billion dollars a day in deficit spending (that is $29 per day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, per taxpayer).

You get the biggest, best-equipped military in the world.

Which we borrow every penny of funding for. Our deficit last year was $600 billion and so was our defense department budget. We borrowed literally every penny we spent on our military because we have a bunch of paranoid xenophobic repu

Not even close. The reported "on-budget" deficit was that much, but we actually spent $1.422 TRILLION more than we brought in. The real deficit was nearly 3 times the reported "on budget" deficit. It's a lot worse than you think it is - and also shows that it's not the defense that's the entire issue - it's the entitlements and social spending of the Federal Government (that also drives 70% of all spending).

Payments on the debt are made every month, and it's big dollars. Money coming out of the treasury that can't be used for anything else. You can check the latest figures right here.

National Debt Drops $34 billion

Yet again Trump is wrong. I'm not tired of all this winning!

US debt fell each year from 1919 to 1930. Would you like to explain how that happened without a surplus?
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm
Perhaps you mean the US had no net debt during Andrew Jackson's administration.

They just raised taxes and lowered spending to an appropriate level

No they didn't. The US continued to run deficits, and the debt continued to grow. The WW2 debt was never paid off. It was just rolled over into new debt. US National Debt by Year

rather than pretending that we can borrow endlessly

We CAN borrow endlessly. Sovereign national debt is not like individual debt. There is no reason that it ever needs to be paid. We have been running deficits for nearly a century, with just a few blips. The only serious effort to balance the budget resulted in the Great Depression. Debt hawks claim that debt will lead to a weak currency and inflation. After a century of rising debt, we currently have exactly the opposite problem. The dollar is strong, destroying our exporters, and inflation is near zero.

Actually, there is good analyses showing that Government intervention significantly lengthened the Great Depression. And given that our unemployment rate - if calculated as it was pre-2008 - is still around 9%, and inflation - if calculated as it was pre-1990 - is still around 8%, we are still in the recession (lowering the inflation rate artificially results in an artificially increased GDP growth rate).

Yes, the stock market is way up, but when you pump several trillion dollars straight into investment banks, it's no surprise that the value of the investments increases on paper. But hey, we're still adding around $1.4 trillion a year to the debt so we do have another year or two of ever-increasing stock market values.

Congress and Obama administration managed to spend (in $ millions) more than $28.7T:

2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,056
2012 3,536,951
2013 3,454,647
2014 3,506,114
2015 3,688,292
2016 3,951,307 (estimated)

Or about $3.5T per year, while taking in about much less, leading to deficit spending of:

2009 -1,412,688
2010 -1,294,373
2011 -1,299,590
2012 -1,086,963
2013 -679,544
2014 -484,627
2015 -438,406
2016 -615,805

Years after the "crisis" is over and we're still spending about $0.5T more than we take in.

On the day Obama administration took office (with the various Congresses he oversaw), the total national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08 ($10.6T). As of 11/30/2016 it stands at $19,948,064,697,245.75 ($19.9T).

http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/d...

It's not just the trade deficit, it's the spending we have to support as well. Even though the Federal Government took more than $10,000 per man, woman, and child (about $26,400 per worker - about $13.20 per hour worked in the US), it still spent $1,423,000,000,000 more than it took in (an additional $5.69 per hour worked). We have a LOT of Government to support - there are career politicians and crony capitalists to support after all!

Sources: number of workers, 124.73 million. Federal revenues: $3.3 trillion. Federal debt added FY2016: $1.423 trillion

Well, it's the UK so HMRC rather than the IRS, but Alan Sugar pays his tax.

Trump pays his tax, too. It's just that he uses the laws and regulations as best he is able to minimize his tax burden. Like pretty much everyone does. There's nothing illegal, or even unethical about that. As Judge Learned Hand (a staunch progressive from the 20th century, who "has been quoted more often by legal scholars and by the Supreme Court of the United States than any other lower-court judge") states:

Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.

I personally don't know anyone who does not avail themselves of every potential deduction and tax reduction strategy. And if a person feels they are paying too little in taxes (for example, Warren Buffet who's famous for "complaining" about a low tax burden), one can always just give more money to the Federal Government.

Federal spending on social services (pensions (driven by social security), health care, and welfare) and interest on the national debt already consume 69% of all Federal spending. Federal spending is about $4 trillion this year, so that spending is about $2.8 trillion. All the spending is also adding $1.4 trillion of that to the national debt, meaning we didn't have revenues to cover it - only the first $2.6 trillion.

So we're spending $2.8 trillion on pensions, healthcare, welfare and interest on the national debt, and that is more revenue than the Federal Government takes in. Completely eliminate - 100% - all military spending and you're still running a deficit. It's not military spending that is the problem - it's out-of-control social spending (which has far outstripped revenues and population on an inflation adjusted scale). And that's just the kind of spending that's easiest to buy votes and retain power...

In reality, we haven't had tax cuts, either. In 2016, Federal, State, and Local Governments will combine to raise $23,523 per US citizen. In 1990, that revenue was $7751. In 1957, that revenue was $716 (and that was also the last year we ran an actual surplus, we did not add to the debt). When you adjust for inflation you'll find the various Governments are pulling about 3 times the tax revenue now, as they did in 1957, and close to double what they did in 1990, on a per-capita basis.

What happened was that tax rates were monkeyed with, but exemptions that used to be allowed were dropped or heavily modified, and the result was a massive increase in the effective tax rate - witnessed by the massive rise in inflation-adjusted revenues per capita. The Governments today are fed 3 times what they had in 1957, and even so they combine to add over $1.5 trillion in debt just this year (don't let the reports fool you; the Federal Government is running a $1.3 trillion deficit this year, based upon the increase in the national debt). So even with 3 times the amount of funds - spending has skyrocketed even faster, building up massive debts.

There have been no effective tax cuts - there have been effective tax increases. That's the sad reality - that so many buy into the claims of tax cuts, while at the same time believing our Federal Government is only running a deficit 1/4 of what it actually is.