Quote:

---

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.

The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, the chart is national debt, not federal deficit.

---

I thought the same thing at first, but I think JSF is right here.

Shouldn't there be at least a few years where the national debt decreased since we'd been told there were a few years of a surplus under Clinton, or are my wires crossed?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I found this, which I hope helps:

Quote:

---

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.

The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

---

One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So JO, I skimmed through your platform, here are a few comments

It's pretty long. I'm a fast reader, and all I could do is try to capture the major points. I'm sure I missed quite a few! Is there any way to condense, maybe put some in bullet form?

---

Quote:

---

how do you feel about our military budget? The environment? Relations with Russia and China? Free trade? Healthcare and insurance companies? Or public, corporate, and personal debt? Social relations, diversity, equality, free speech, political correctness, and internet neutrality? Infrastructure?

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be ignoring the conclusion uv the story - therez no stopping the end uv human labor.

---

Quote:

---

The wealthy and the jiant corporationz wont be going overseaz to find cheap workerz anymore, they will simply purchase droidz. Any lawz requiring human labor will chase them overseaz, but only to set up production with their droidz.

---

Quote:

---

Then a second staje happenz- peepl buying their own droidz to do all the chorez, so bu bi to maidz, house cleanerz, baby sitterz, rooferz, mekanics, repairmen, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Droidz will be the most popular big tikit product.

---

Quote:

---

The problem iz then how to get money into everybodyz handz to spend on that production.

---

Quote:

---

Duz everybody bekum a shareholder and liv off their dividendz? Do the goverments uv the world tax production & pay everybody hoo iznt rich or a share holder?[/quote

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

---

Oh Jeez...

I didn't even think of that.

Well... If that doesn't paint a depressing picture.

If a few years of surplus (gained by selling out our children's future to China and other international interests) back in the 90's still lead to the deficit growing because of interest rates, what does that say about our situation right now after 8 years of GWB, 8 years of Obama and 2 years of Trump?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So here is an example of what I was posting about:

You say, for example, that businesses are automating. But they aren't automating to make life easier ... no siree ... they're automating to reduce wages, to keep more money for themselves. That's what a capitalist does. You do a straight-line projection to the day when everyone will be automated out of a job, and then - recognizing the difficulty that people would face buying those goods and that capitalists would face selling them- you assume that the best solution would be to have the government wrench money from the capitalist (or print it) to distribute it "for free" to everyone. But yanno, capitalists, being capitalists, would rather keep their money and if they can't accumulate it by producing and selling goods, then they'll stop producing goods and simply accumulate money by owning and renting out things already in existence: Homes, water, electricity etc. They couldn't give a fig about how easy it is for you to survive, as long as they can keep squeezing something out of you.

What you don't seem to realize is that automation isn't necessary and inevitable, and it isn't even good for people or for the economy.

---

Quote:

---

People need to feel in charge of their future. They need to feel confident that they can ensure their future by being a necessary part in creating it, not some dingleberry on the ass end of a government handout (or a "redundant" part of capitalist production).

Expecting the government to give you money "for free" makes you dependent on the government, and it also allows local production to collapse, which makes the local and national economy dependent on production abroad. If you actually have the power to grab money from the wealthy, it would be far better to use that power to increase production and jobs by simply mandating that necessary production and maintenance - agriculture, energy conservation, home retrofitting, environmental restoration, education, infrastructure, steel, aluminum, fabric and clothing, electronics, etc be done at home, with skilled labor. Maybe encourage cooperatives where every worker IS a part-owner.

And why not? The drive towards automation only comes from a drive towards maximum profit. If you're able to think a future where you can corral that profit, go all the way and think of something REALLY new: Put yourself in charge. Give yourself the power.

So stop thinking in FDR terms, and start thinking like someone who is directing their fate.

*****

Same thing with foreign policy, banking, the environment etc. Put yourself in charge. Think like a person who is directing the future, not like someone who's demanding a handout from TPTB. YOUR future doesn't have to look like "more of the same". Maybe it can't be achieved right away, but you can certainly imagine it, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:Not ignoring. Just not accepting, because you've jumped from a premise all the way to the end without going thru any of the intermediate steps of presenting the how and why in order to convince anyone of your conclusion... There would have to be a worldwide revolution for that to happen...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Does aluminum tape serve the same function?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Does aluminum tape serve the same function?

---

Maybe not. It sez '3.6 mil'. I assume thats the total thickness, so the aluminum must be only haf uv that. At sum point uv thiness, you can see thru metal. I beleev IR can get thru even sooner.

You coud try putting it in frunt uv a TV remote and see if it bloks it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

https://money.howstuffworks.com/difference-between-u-s-deficit-nationa
l-debt-.htm

In simple terms, a budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends (called outlays) and what it takes in (called revenue or receipts). The national debt, also known as the public debt, is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.

---

Quote:

---

It's possible to have a yearly surplus (no deficit), and still not be able to pay down the accumulating debt (national debt).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending

Starting with debt at 50% GDP in n 1989

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-m
ajor-events-3306287
year debt($b) %GDP events

1989 $ 2,857 50 % Bush 41 budgets. S&L Crisis.
1990 $ 3,233 54 % Desert Storm.
1991 $ 3,665 59 % Recession.
1992 $ 4,065 62 %
1993 $ 4,411 64 % Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $ 4,693 64 % Clinton budgets.
1995 $ 4,974 65 %
1996 $ 5,225 64 % Welfare reform.
1997 $ 5,413 62 %
1998 $ 5,526 61 % LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 $ 5,656 58 % Glass-Steagall repealed.
2000 $ 5,674 55 % Budget surplus.
2001 $ 5,807 55 % 9/11 attacks. EGTRRA.
2002 $ 6,228 57 % War on Terror
2003 $ 6,783 59 % JGTRRA. Iraq War.
2004 $ 7,379 60 % Iraq War.
2005 $ 7,933 60 % Bankruptcy Act. Katrina.
2006 $ 8,507 61 % Bernanke chaired Fed.
2007 $ 9,008 62 % Bank crisis.
2008 $10,025 68 % Bank bailout. QE.
2009 $11,910 83 % Bank bailout cost $250b. ARRA added $241.9b.
2010 $13,562 90 % ARRA added $400b. Payroll tax holiday ended. Obama Tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95 % Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $16,066 99 % Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99 % Sequester, Government shutdown.
2014 $17,824 101% War cost $309 billion. QE ended. Debt ceiling crisis.
2015 $18,151 99 % Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $19,573 104% Defense = $767.6 b.
2017 $20,245 103% Congress raised debt ceiling.
2018 $21,516 105% Trump tax cuts.
2019 $22,776 106% Defense = $956.5 b.
2020 $24,057 (est.) 106% Defense = record $989 b.
2021 $25,333 (est.) 106%

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.

You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.

Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?

Of course not.

Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, it would have to be EXTREMELY cheap ... free... to expect that homeless people who're scrounging for a living would get one.

If "everyone" is replaced by automation do you think anyone would be able to continue their lifestyle?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, home automation ... Just OOC SIX, how many people have homes? How many people can afford the latest smartphone-controlled heating/AC system, refrigerator, and security system? heck, if you're renting you're not about to pay for major upgrades to your apartment (even if you could afford it) and if you're homeless ....

Yes, there will be all kinds of gadgets (which most people won't be able to afford) but that has nothing to do with droids automating everyone out of work, which was JO's poriginal premise. Not possible. I don't mean not technologically possible, I mean not ECONOMICALLY possible. The follow-on effects in terms of unempoyment and poverty would be catastrophic.

And not positive for us either. Not pysically good for us. Not psychologically good for us. Not neurologically good for us. Makes our economy weak, not robust, subject to shocks. Makes people even more dependent on centralized government and puts more power in the hands of politicians. Is that what we want?

So, if we're going to envision a future that we WANT, why not open up the scope of thought?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

---

Quote:

---

I'm not saying it's the future we want. I'm just saying that (assuming we don't blow ourselves up and the climate isn't going to kill us) that this is the inevatible conclusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm all for ending this line of dialogue if you're going to be obtuse about it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.

I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.

Just sayin'.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.

I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.

Just sayin'.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

LOL! I too had a cell phone (from work), actually a Blackberry, in the early 90's. It was cool having it …. for about a day. Then I felt like, who the hell needs to be getting all these stupid e-mails all day on my frikkin' phone, and worse, who the hell WANTS to be on call any time of the day or night. What a pain in the ass! Years later the I-Phone came out, and ever since then its been a worldwide obsession to possess the latest and greatest phone. Honestly, I don't get it, the whole stupid and obnoxious thing.

I look around every day at all these face-in-their phone zombies, and I'm like …

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.

You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.

Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?

Of course not.

Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I'm not saying that you're lying, but that you're mistaken. I don't think you had a blackberry doing emails in the early 90's. It was more likely the early to mid 2000's....I think you're right. My memory ain't what it used to be. When you're retired you lose track of time, and the past gets a tad blurry.

I love not having one now. My level of focus is so much higher than most of the people around me because I'm not constantly tethered to the hive mind....you're a rebel. The mold was broken when you came along

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sigh.

I thought we were going to skip this discussion?
I think, JSF, that there's a vast gulf between invention and widespread adoption.

We've had rockets that can take people to the moon and bring them back, but ... how many people have actually BEEN there?

When things are miniaturized they can come into widespread use... big bulky mainframes become smartphones and are widely adopted.

---

Quote:

---

Invention will keep happening, but you're conflating invention and widespread adoption.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Even wile sivilization and the envirement begin to crumble, tek will keep getting cheaper and better, making droidz az pervasiv az carz.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-a
nd-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/

When it comes to cars, Italy tops the list: 89 percent of Italian survey respondents reported owning one. America trailed closely behind with 88 percent. In general, developed countries showed a high rate of car ownership. In Europe, for example, the median national share of car owners was 79 percent.

Developed Asian countries like South Korea and Japan also reported high car ownership (83 percent and 81 percent respectively). But in other South and Southeast Asian countries, the proportion of car owners was incredibly low. In Bangladesh, for example, only 2 percent reported having a car.

---

Quote:

---

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-own-a-car-in-the-world-compared-
to-the-number-of-people-that-live-on-this-Earth A very very rough average for the world would be 150 per thousand people (cars, trucks, busses etc)

---

Quote:

---

Automobiles are a really bad apples to oranges comparison.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Even wile sivilization and the envirement begin to crumble, tek will keep getting cheaper and better, making droidz az pervasiv az carz.

---

Quote:

---

And besides, you would need to throw out every area that hasn't even bothered creating roads for them to travel on yet in 2019 to even attempt to begin to make it close to an equal comparison.

---