U.S. National Debt: Not so bad?

I guess we will just have to think of another tax to pay 'them bills'....we'll call it a Value added tax ....Vat for short...real catchy isn't it. "We must pay for our indicretions and mistakes in life....whether we like it or not." :confused:
 
Sorry but Moody's stated today that the US...as well as UK are closer to loosing their AAA rating....I just guess we'll have to pay them more interest to get money....cause of all our debt. Oh well....! LIfe goes on!
 
Hello all,

Again, thank you all for your wonderful comments and personal emails. As of November of last year, I have been focused on researching the healthcare policy (in regards to National Debt). It is the focus of my education and a true passion of mine. However, this time I feel that I am drawn to this process much like those who can’t look away from an impending accident; they simply must continue watching. In my opinion, this will have a very parasitic effect on the National Debt of our country, as the debt does not stem from capitalistic investment, but rather inefficient healthcare administration.

I write this now to ensure that my original opinion does not get misconstrued by the avid readers of this site. I believe that in most cases a modest national debt is actually a good thing. However, I am increasingly fearful of the healthcare bill that may come to pass. If it does, I will begin a thread that will periodically annotate the complex degradation of both the QOC (Quality of Care) as well as the increase in costs that will soon place further burden on this nation to once again reform healthcare.

I would love any opinions that could alleviate my fears, but so far the most common statement from some of my ideologically opposed colleges is simply that it is “better than nothing”… Sorry to be a kill joy, but this I fear the most.
 
Happy New Year everybody! May we all do at least as well as we did last year, if not better. It will be a challenge fit for the best of traders. (and I don't count myself as one of the best, just one of the least of the worst-on a 2 year basis, that is). I intend to pull up my score this coming year, was way too conservative this year :).

What we are facing down today is a fifty year Ponzi scheme. Drill that into your head folks - for fifty years we have created false output gains, with the last 40 of those years having between 15-20% of each year's supposed "GDP" not created by the work of people, but by BORROWING MORE MONEY which will have to be repaid with interest.
This is why we hit the wall in 2007.
To run an increase in GDP of about 5%, as so many "pundits" are claiming we will going forward, we would have to increase the total debt in the system to roughly $90 trillion dollars from the present $53 trillion over the next ten years.
That debt would, of course, need to be serviced. And nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that government could take on another $37 trillion - when the current oustanding public debt is just seven trillion (that is, government would have to increase its debt by 500%!)
If you take nothing else away from this Year in Review Ticker, it should be that singular chart above and a decent understanding of what it means:
To come back into equilibrium, assuming we do not decrease debt in the system at all, we would have to shrink GDP by about 20%. But shrinking GDP means that money available to pay down debt would also decrease which would generate even more defaults.
This is how deflationary depressions happen - years, even decades of playing Ponzi by layering debt upon debt. Bernanke and Geithner, along with President Obama, are well-aware of these facts which is why they are all pounding the table demanding that banks "loan more."
The problem with such a prescription is that the wise person won't borrow, for he knows what's coming. The unwise has no collateral to pledge, and thus can't borrow.
If the government forces (either by persuasion or legislation) lending to those who can't pay they only extend the Ponzi and in doing so make the inevitable collapse WORSE.
​
Click to expand...
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
 
While it is indeed unfortunate, I agree with Mick504. The election was similar to that of old shamans being selected by a tribe for their ability to conjure rain (promising the impossible)... Obama simply cannot complete his agenda as promised (many saw this from day one). This has the terrible side effect of forcing very important and complex legislation through the legislative pipeline faster than it should without the critique/input from experts in the field. For example, my PhD in Economics has a concentration in Healthcare, and yet I am admittedly quite confused as to how the current bill will do anything but raise costs for the consumer while simultaneously lowering reimbursement to the provider.
 
Obama has spent/obligated more in 9 months than Bill Clinton AKA Slick Willy...spent over his 8 years. I know Bill you hate that term...but I didn't give it to you! Obama is spending alot of money on programs that are going no where....not creating jobs like he is supposed to be doing. Just bailing out states that cannot control their budgets and spending habits. That's what the bailout was and is being used for.....promoting socialist programs that do not do much for the country at all. Focus man focus...on the job at hand.
 
450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png


The debt picture is really bad. Here's why it's so bad. Republicans have borrowed money to fund bizarre things. Democrats keep having to pay off the debt, especially now. Just look at the last 30 years.
 
http://tinyurl.com/yl85umt

Apparently since in the '60s we've had an opportunity to help pay down the debts! And we apparently have not taken full advantage of it - considering it is TAX DEDUCTIBLE!!! :)
Now, who among us would refuse our next-door neighbor the keys to our car, the last of our liquor stash, and our most recent paycheck to enable him to not only pay off his current tabs across the county, but then, to also return to us our next payday to repeat the procedure, with the difference being he hadn't paid off the tabs, but now shows an exponential growth in his personal debt, & the number of tabs has spread across the seas.
The debt clock posted earlier showed each U.S. citizens' share, changing by the nano-nano-second. But it doesn't show any stopping of spending :sick:even if paying down on individuals' families' debt was considered as a legal part of the solution.....

..so why bother to even think on it? Money better spent at the Food Pantries, at the Vet's Homes, to the USO, at your church's missions....
 
Last edited:
coolhand said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...31441797424.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
Click to expand...

OMG this is just spinning out of control.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...31441797424.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top