We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

we're paying $48k/yr. already for their cradle to grave care, so we'd save $1k/yr. by locking up the losers, plus give some prison guard a job. Sounds bueno to me, bro'

Nice math skills m runner! You are clearly brilliant!!!! Better go back to 4th grade to learn how to calculate 3% of a number

Isn't it funny how many on here criticize the OP for mismanaging his money, yet he's not in the hole. The government is and wants to still his money.

Really guys. If you want to give your money away, don't give it to the government. Send it to me.

[quote]k;ljk;lj wrote:

The government is and wants to still his money [quote]

lol

Steal his money... sorry, didn't proof the post.

Sorry if this was posted already:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49807529?__source=yahoo%7Cinstory%7C&par=yahoo

Breaks down what $250k means in different locales throughout the U.S.

After reading a bunch of posts, it's clear that this country is going to socialism hell. This country shouldn't be in any debt period. The government one way or another should be spending a lot less than it does and be debt free. I feel sorry for the unborn American children that have to wake up to this mess.

It's hilarious that most would love to double dip into the pockets of those making more than them. Everyone should be paying in at an equal percentage. No deductions. Everyone should have skin in this game. This would cause everyone to pay attention to their government and how it spends the peoples money.

To use 225+ year old quotes in an attempt to support your opinion is intellectually lazy. It matters little if you are a tea bagger, left wing nut job, Paulista, or of any other group - historical context matters.

Well there is always this wrote:

[quote]the identity of the OP is simply irrelevant. What is relevant is the topic introduce

You're just mad your cover got blown. Get back to your studies and stop discussing things you've only read about.

idiot tamer wrote:

"Taxes on consumption like those on capital and income, to be just, must be uniform." - Obama

Can I suggest that, perhaps, "uniform" in this instance doesn't actually mean what you think it means?

The government one way or another should be spending a lot less than it does and be debt free.

Why? Can you explain why, if you can borrow money at what is effectively (thanks to inflation) zero interest, debt is a bad thing?

I'll bet you can't.

mellon wrote:

Well there is always this wrote:

[quote]the identity of the OP is simply irrelevant. What is relevant is the topic introduced

You're just mad your cover got blown. Get back to your studies and stop discussing things you've only read about.

OK, in implying that the OP and moi are one and the same you have successfully demonstrated that you possess an IQ somewhere south of 70. Congratulations!

GenericID wrote:

The government one way or another should be spending a lot less than it does and be debt free.

Why? Can you explain why, if you can borrow money at what is effectively (thanks to inflation) zero interest, debt is a bad thing?

I'll bet you can't.

I don't have to tell you why. A picture is good enough:

You might be suffering from normalcy bias as most are, so if you can't see how this will all end in disaster, then there's really nothing that can be said to you.

So you can't explain. Thanks for admitting that, but it might have been easier to just say it.

Let's have another shot:

As a percentage of GDP, what is the annual cost of servicing the debt on your nice clock?

Is this percentage higher or lower now than it has been historically?

Historically, has the US ever defaulted on its debt, or devalued the dollar at times when the interest payments have been a higher percentage of GDP?

If the answer to that last question is "no" (it is, FYI), then can you explain what has changed that might cause a default or devaluation this time?

GenericID wrote:

So you can't explain. Thanks for admitting that, but it might have been easier to just say it.

Let's have another shot:

As a percentage of GDP, what is the annual cost of servicing the debt on your nice clock?

Is this percentage higher or lower now than it has been historically?

Historically, has the US ever defaulted on its debt, or devalued the dollar at times when the interest payments have been a higher percentage of GDP?

If the answer to that last question is "no" (it is, FYI), then can you explain what has changed that might cause a default or devaluation this time?

You sound like you think what you know what you are talking about...but you dont.

We are going into greater and greater debt not just in absolute terms, but in terms relative to GDP as well. Eventually people will stop giving us free money. It will happen and we will be screwed.

GenericID wrote:

So you can't explain. Thanks for admitting that, but it might have been easier to just say it.

Let's have another shot:

As a percentage of GDP, what is the annual cost of servicing the debt on your nice clock?

Is this percentage higher or lower now than it has been historically?

Historically, has the US ever defaulted on its debt, or devalued the dollar at times when the interest payments have been a higher percentage of GDP?

If the answer to that last question is "no" (it is, FYI), then can you explain what has changed that might cause a default or devaluation this time?

OK. You have tunnel vision and are looking at a tiny narrow view of the issues. So I will tell you how it works.

The USA will never default. The Federal reserve will print up as much money as it needs to to buy treasuries and keep rates unnaturally low and perpetually fund the USA. But there are heavy consequences for running up massive debts and using the printing press to paper it all over. History has demonstrated this hundreds of times over. This will end in disaster.

Sr. Software Engineer wrote:

OK. You have tunnel vision and are looking at a tiny narrow view of the issues. So I will tell you how it works.

The USA will never default. The Federal reserve will print up as much money as it needs to to buy treasuries and keep rates unnaturally low and perpetually fund the USA. But there are heavy consequences for running up massive debts and using the printing press to paper it all over. History has demonstrated this hundreds of times over. This will end in disaster.

Listen, I get that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and are panic-stricken because someone has finally called on you to demonstrate some actual knowledge, but each time you post without demonstrating the basis for your doom-laden predictions you look more and more clueless.

Please don't bother responding unless you actually want to have an adult conversation (and, in this instance, an adult conversation means that you PROVE your claims), because I'm simply not interested in you demonstrating your stupidity any further.

rhdgjjjjjjj wrote:

You sound like you think what you know what you are talking about...but you dont.

We are going into greater and greater debt not just in absolute terms, but in terms relative to GDP as well. Eventually people will stop giving us free money. It will happen and we will be screwed.

One question about the graph you link to - is the 231% of GDP based on GDP in 2050, or GDP in 2012?

GenericID wrote:

The government one way or another should be spending a lot less than it does and be debt free.

Why? Can you explain why, if you can borrow money at what is effectively (thanks to inflation) zero interest, debt is a bad thing?

I'll bet you can't.

What is your interpretation then.