E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe nation's debt has reached a symbolic milestone. With gross domestic product of roughly $15 trillion and total debt of $15.23 trillion, our total debt is now bigger than our economy, as USA Today noted Monday.
What's more, the Obama administration's projections put our debt at more than $23 trillion by 2020, well in excess of the projected $22.5 trillion GDP. Analysts agree that the rising debt ratio is not good, but they can't agree on just how bad it is, and while there's at least some agreement among economists about how to fix the problem, lawmakers have no such common ground — which is one of the biggest hurdles to actually doing something about the debt dilemma.
First of all, take a deep breath. That $15 trillion doesn't have to be paid back all at once. Think of it in terms of a household budget: The average household income is a little under $50,000, while the average sales price for single-family homes is about $169,500. Many homeowners owe more than they make in a year, and that's not cause for alarm in and of itself.
That $15 trillion figure is also a little misleading, said Bill Gale, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution and co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, because it includes money owed by one government agency to another. A more important figure is net debt, which is the amount the U.S. owes investors and now hovers at around 70 percent of GDP, Gale said.
The other silver lining is that the interest on the country's debt currently is not a huge burden, said Eileen Appelbaum, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank. But the flip side is that if policymakers can't agree on solutions to rein in debt, servicing that debt will become more burdensome, especially if interest rates rise from their current rock-bottom levels.
"A higher debt burden means a higher chance we will get downgraded again, which eventually means higher interest rates," said Francisco Torralba, chief economist for Morningstar’s Investment Management division. Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade the United States in August has not led to substantially higher interest rates, although weak eurozone economies like Italy have to pay 7 percent or more to convince investors to buy their debt.
As the economy gains steam, tax revenues will rise and government expenses will fall for social services such as food stamps and unemployment insurance will drop. A thornier problem is the escalating costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, said Aaron Smith, senior economist for Moody’s Analytics.
CEPR's Appelbaum said policies that targeting the cost of health care — which is rising at a rate that far outstrips inflation — could help rein in the government's expenses.
Sweeping changes to these programs are politically unpalatable, while incremental changes are unlikely to be big enough to keep up with spiraling costs. The alternative is altering the tax code to bring in more revenue.
"If you get into the household side, then it starts to get a little political," Smith said. Instead, simplifying the corporate tax code and eliminating loopholes that let some companies pay little to no tax should be a priority, he said.
Lawmakers might not agree on how, but it's clear the U.S. needs to make some headway on chipping away at the debt.
"It's obviously an issue that needs to be tackled," said Smith. "We're on an unsustainable path and what needs to be done is we need to stabilize the debt and eventually start to bring it down as a share of the economy."
Raising the GDP is crucial, economists say. This increases tax receipts, which means more revenue flows to the government, and it decreases the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Growing the GDP in an economic slump is easier said than done, though.
"Two important things we can do here are alleviating the debt burden of homeowners… coming up with some sort of plan that reduces the mortgage burden homeowners have," Torralba said. The huge number of underwater mortgages in the country hamper spending and mobility.
"The other thing Washington can do is approve a fiscal stimulus plan that stimulates investment, job creation and consumption," he said, pointing out that infrastructure projects like road improvements give the private sector and job creation a boost. But the current deadlock in Congress when it comes to approving spending projects make it unlikely these kinds of initiatives will be launched anytime soon.
"The economy is more important than the budget," Brookings' Gale said. "The first priority has to be to get the economy moving, ... but it's not really clear what the plan is right now."
Leave a Comment:
As long as Americans foolishly continue to buy foreign over domestic instead of supporting what their country and they produce the collapse of this ONCE great country will continue unabated. Want jobs? Want a better economy? Want a brighter and more prosperous future? BUY AMERICAN!!! It is the ONLY way out of this mess. LEARN IT!!!
People need to understand a very simple concept.
Producer nations grow and prosper. Consumer nations wither and die.
America is very quickly becoming a consumer nation.
Others will say we have great export volume. And we do. On a dollar basis anyway.
I counter that with a simple question. How many more people would be employed making and exporting or even just AVOIDING importing jeans, or shirts, or socks, or furniture, or any of the other myriad CONSUMER goods we import to equal the dollar amount of one F-16, or Caterpillar bulldozer that gets exported?
Truth4uHereNow...Look at history and do some research, you will find that pretty much the opposite is true. I'm not saying don't buy American products...I'm saying the issue and solution is NOT as black&white as you make it.
T from PDX..
Ask Haiti and Greece how being consumer nations are faring for them.
Ask China, India and any number of other formerly agrarian countries now producer nations how it's working for them.
How many people can be greeters in WalMart or cashiers selling products made in other countries?
We need all three legs to the stool. Gubmint, CEO's and BOD's, and the consumers. The gubmint needs to stop the transfer of technology and capital to the profit of people outside the Us. CEO's and BOD's need to stop transferring technology outside the US. Consumers need to buy American - for the next job they transfer out might be your own. As consumers we can only control what we do as one of the three legs. We need to ban together and demand the other two start acting in the best interest of the US. It will be hard, but it used to be done and so it can be done again. ONly the weak minded say it's hard so don't try. Weak monded folks should not be allowed to control what we need to do .
Truth4UHereNow..how can you expect Americans to buy domestic when the cost differential is so vast that the low income earners wouldn't be able to afford clothes or anything else? China products are so cheap (in cost and quality) but until they are taxed fairly as imports it will not make a difference. Aside from that, there are very few American made products in this country to buy. We are a country of imports. You moron!
Uh....Haiti was always impoverished, and Greece is rife with corruption and full of citizens who don't pay taxes and a government that doesn't care, and keeps spending like no tomorrow.
Not exactly the best examples.
I am all for buying American, but will point out that it's hard to buy American when there are no instances of the products one wants to buy that are made here. Clothing is a great example, unless one is wealthy enough to buy the high-end clothes that are only sometimes still made here. Simply not buying foreign-made stuff sure won't send the right signal to the mainstream clothing manufacturers to bring production back here.
But what if more clothes were made here? Manufacturers decide to offshore because the wages are so much less (a mere fraction, really). So it's a given that the labor costs to make clothes here would be much higher - Americans need higher wages to live here. The manufacturers sure won't eat those increased labor costs, they will instead pass them on to the consumers. But unfortunately in this case most Americans still buy based on price, not on where an item was made. So those manufacturers that are still offshoring will win with their lower prices, and those that are making stuff here will lose and eventually shut down because they are losing money. And the American shoppers that were buying American were spending a greater percentage of their income on clothing, leaving less for other things like (e.g. domestic) travel or (e.g. American) cars. So contrary to what many believe, a rising tide may not lift all boats, only some of them. (I used clothing as but one example of the challenges of "buying American") And don't even suggest we start slapping tariffs on imported goods - that never works.
The cold fact that is hard for many Americans to accept is that we will never recover our traditional manufacturing base as it once was. It is economic evolution, and I am very pessimistic about what it means for our future. The profound inability of our politicians to come to any agreement on how to reduce the deficit means they sure as heck won't be able to agree on how to fix things for the longer term to ensure the continued prosperity of the USA.
When faced with an uncertain future, smart individuals hunker down by spending less and reducing debt. For completely irrational reasons, our government does the exact opposite while refusing to admit that future GDP growth may never reach the levels necessary to get us out of this deep, dark hole.
Again, if this issue was as black & white as you make it then we would have pulled ourselves out of the international economy a long time ago.
Also, even if you buy something that says "Made in USA"...that can likely mean the parts were made elsewhere then imported and the actual product was just assembled here.
This article is really wrong. The Gov't has 211 trillion in assets, and only 2.3 trillion in income. So if you look at income we have a debt of 7 times income, but only 7.5% of assets. It's like you are worth 1 million dollars have a debt load of 75K, and an income of 10K. It's likely you can't pay your debts, but your good for the loan. The media needs to start getting this right. www.usdebtclock.org
@Truth4UHereNow...
The article is not about trade deficits. It is about the federal deficit. Very different animals.
Quick....
Someone "re-direct" this article to Mr. Obama, his "elite" White House Economist "EXPERTS", and ALL the Progressive Liberals in the House and Senate.
Nah, that would put a damper on their Social programs and agenda.
Meanwhile, a back room, wheel dealing, tactic is being developed in the White House Conference Room to INCREASE our National Deficit.
With gross domestic product of roughly $15 trillion and total debt of $15.23 trillion, our total debt is now bigger than our economy.
Thanks GOP.
After inheriting a budget suprlus that would have allowed us to PAY OFF the national debt in its entirety, Republican politicians gave a whopping $1.3 MILLION, on average, to every rich family in America over the last 10 years, destroying the historic opportunity to pay off the national debt completely.
To show for it, we have an economy in shambles, and continuing huge deficits, courtesy of the refusal of the Republican Party to balance the budget.
President Obama put forth a plan to REDUCE the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, and the GOP refused!
GOP= party of fiscal irresponsibility, ever since 2001.
This ain't your grandpa's GOP!
nosense - That's because they wanted more cuts dimwit.
FYI. It also wasn't going to "REDUCE" the deficit at all, it would have simply INCREASED $4 trillion less.
Grow up, and learn to think.
Over 93 pct of the national debt was created during the last 30 years. If Supply Side economics actually worked - the economy would have grown faster than the debt. That is what Uncle Ronnie promised us ...
Don't worry the sky is not falling.
We had the biggest debt to GDP ration in 1946 and right after that we had the post WWII economic boom:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4bf7f0947f8b9ac23f940400-619-449/gross-federal-debt-as-a-percent-of-gdp.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_economic_expansion
two solid decades of rising wages and living standards, not just of the rich but for most people (black people didn't share in the boom, which is one of the reasons for the civil rights movement in the 1960's).
Of course Post WWII was when Keynesian demand-side economic policies were dominant among policy makers and the richest americans were taxed at a rate of 90%.
Now we have the opposite, supply-side economic philosophy in power in the U.S. and around the world (Free-market or as it's called by economists. Neo-liberal economics) so the chances of a repeat of the economic boom of the 1950's and '60's are remote.
The people in power after world war 2 believed in demand side economics, which meant putting money in as many people's hands as possible (Stimulating "demand", so they would go out and buy things!) by encouraging unionization, social programs, government spending, low interest rates etc.
Now we have cutting federal spending and helping corporations move their factories overseas to exploit slave wages in poor countries and "austerity packages": slashing federal/public spending.
In other words we're screwed until we can change the people in power or at least force the ones that are in power to do something for the economy that helps everyone, not just the rich.
Why don't you crap yourself a twin brother and re-direct this article to him for your mutual discussion. Frakkin' moron.
Pjam - Your blind loyalty to the GOP is obviously causing a convenient lapse in your historical memory. It was the GOP who cut taxes for millionaires during wartime. It was the GOP who put forward a prescription drug plan without paying for it. Iraq by itself nearly cost the country a trillion dollars (all based on the false assumption that Saddam had WMD's), and the Bush tax cuts didn't help matters - especially during wartime.
Of course I expect you to continue jumping on command to the GOP, as you have done so for the entire time you've been posting on Newsvine. Who knows, maybe they'll reward you with a little snack for all your loyalty? Good boy!
Evil Monkey...Which party controlled congress that sent Bush the prescription drug plan? Don't throw stones and put down the DNC newsletter. And if you want to go back in history, SS is from FDR medicare/medicaid LBJ and nationalised healthcare that is going to way underfunded, BHO. So please keep blaming Bush who signed a bill from Nancy and Harry for all your budget problems in the world.
We are at where Europe is at, and look at all the mess Europe is in today, and then we continue to bail them out and tanking our own economy in the process.
We need to fix America's problems, not other countries. It's time to end all foreign aid.
RON PAUL 2012
John - These programs wouldn't be underfunded if the Republicans had not given Bill Gates and Donald Trump handouts. YOU need to stop playing the typical GOP/Tea Party game of blaming Obama and the Democrats for everything. Bush is being blamed for the economy because HE WAS THE ONE WHO F***ED IT UP! I'm sure if you passed 3rd grade you'd know that. I also noticed you had no defense for Bush's Iraq war that was started in response to baseless claims of WMDs - a war that cost a trillion dollars. Republicans are very, very far from innocent for running up the debt.
Quit letting the GOP/TP do your thinking for you and do your own research before opening your mouth. Your messiahs have failed and will suffer the consequences come November.
Electing that nut case will do nothing to fix this country because he along with all the rest wanted the rich not to pay their fair share which along with imports is the cause of the problem.
Here in a nutshell is a list of our last Presidents and the percentages of borrowing they did while in office.
Truman NONE
Eisenhower 3%
Kennedy Johnson 6%
Nixon Ford 14%
Carter 13%
Reagan 25%
Bush I 28%
Clinton 6%
Bush II thru 2002 23%
Bush II FROM 2003 to end of term 32%
So who are the big spenders? Why its Republicans who offer meager tax cuts to the not so rich and famous while lavishing tax cuts on the wealthy which make them have to borrow in order to keep the government running. This is a shill game and we better wake up to it before it is too late.
Bush I BushII and Reagan are responsible for 70% of the Debt we owe now.
Thank God they were fiscal conservatives
If this were like a family budget (which it is not) you would compare income (around 3 Trillion give or take) and the debt of $15 Trillion. So in the family budget scenario, we are at a ratio of 5X debt to income.
Any way you slice it, the government has become to big as it compares to our revenue, and is doing a worse and worse job at their core responsibilities.
The answer is lower pay for government workers, trim the sails on retirement and benefits, and bring it back into line with the median American income. Government workers should not earn more than the average American.
As for corporations - its time to give them some standards to live up to. No more money in politics. A flat 10% tax on income, to benefit the cities / states in which the reside. Smaller federal govt, more responsible and better funded local government.
Big Government's interference in the form of price/wage control, excessive regulations, and heavy taxation in the free market has caused American business to be uncompetitive. Big Government is the product of the socialist politicians of America.
Rather than face the nasty facts about America's bloated government , disciples of both major political parties are orchestrating the blame game. Meanwhile, Big Government is on a course to destroy America.
I wish Obama had focused like a laser beam on the economy like... guess this is what happens when you elect someone who's only experience to be President was running a campaign and voting Present in the Senate for a few years.
So when are we going to start taxing those whose income exceeds one million a year the full amount those of us in the middle income arena pay? When are we closing all the loopholes? AND when are we going to start putting people to work on OUR infrastructure? Employing only documented American workers and using only American products?
When are the fat cats going to quit obstructing?
Practical Libertarian (typical libertarian is more like it)...
Just what government employees do you think should have their salaries and benefits cut...? There was a time when young people with advancement-minded parents were warned away from public sector work because the pay relative to the private sector was poor, with limited advancement potential, and no benefits like bonuses. Over the last 30 years or so, the private sector has been whittling away at all the advances that had been made in working conditions, living wage standards and benefits that gave security to families. Those advances had come through reform and unions. Things the rich never liked.
In the last 30 years, the private sector has taken away pensions and replaced them with fragile 401Ks. The insurance companies have demanded ever increasing premiums for ever decreasing benefits (with huge deductibles, that didnt even exists just a couple of decades ago). The private sector has evicerated this country's manufacturing sector and shipped it overseas. The private sector stopped training - they now expect candidates to hit the floor running, even though the remaining jobs have become increasingly specialized to the extent that colleges are not able to teach for every specific task. So the burden of training is now pawned off on schools, and young people are increasingly compelled to enter their adult lives already at a grave disadvantage, debt slaves to the tune of 30K or more. And last but surely not least, the private sector is now whittling away at even the modest salaries being paid to advanced degree holders for the few jobs they havent figured out how to export yet. Salaries have remained stagnant for the last several decades, and NOW are actually decreasing, relative to inflation. This has been by DESIGN.
NOW because of this attack on the American worker - on the middle class and the increasingly rare blue collar worker, government jobs that have maintained a Cost of Living adjustment and have maintained the same benefits, are preferable. Your answer isnt to step in and kick some @ss when it comes to the abuses of the few in charge in the private sector, essentially extracting the wealth of this country - no. YOUR answer is to now whittle away at the few jobs left that offer a living wage and good benefits. The jobs that were once considered inferior to private sector jobs. Government jobs have not been increasing wages and benefits other than cost of living allowances. What happened, is the private sector has been increasingly impoverishing the workforce of this country, leaving government jobs looking relatively well paid. Put your eyes on where the real problem lies. Abuses by a few monied interests that have been decimating the workforce - and stability of the people of this country. A solution is NOT to bring the few who manage to retain living wages down to the unstable and working poor, or aiming for the lowest common denominator of instability and impoverishment. The solution is to return to living wages, bring the manufacturing sector back, and regulate the heck out of these rapacious CEOs that are gutting this nation. A little isolationism is in order - tariffs are in order. Because if you havent looked around lately, this country is F#%KED!
commonsense..."After inheriting a budget suprlus.."
Are you referring to the mythical Clinton surplus? That has been debunked so many times, I can't believe anyone who wants to be taken seriously would dare make such a statement.
breadex...I thought Congress was responsible for passing or not passing budgets. What party controlled Congress during your lists of Presidents administrations?
I'm certain both parties are responsible for the mess we are in today.
rico-
Im afraid, not until we MAKE 'em. Remember - people died (killed by company goons) fighting in strikes for better wages and working conditions. In one incident, federal troops (National Guard) killed people fighting for better working conditions (look up the Ludlow Massacre). Our great grandparents worked hard to improve the conditions of the workers of this nation. The moneyed interests have never stopped working to degrade that, and they will NOT stop. It is up to the people of this nation to push back and demand real change. For starters, end the Fed, and impose tariffs and restrictions on multinational corps. Corps that are importing consumer goods need to be reigned in somehow. Multi-national corporations are very dangerous to the wellbeing of the citizenry - wherever these multis operate.
Ruken, uh...American politics is rife with corruption and full of citizens who don't pay taxes (remember, 47% of American households pay no fed income tax...remember, the whole democratic mantra under BHO is that the 10% who pays around 70% of the bill aren't paying "their fair share...")...and we do have a govt that doesn't care (about budgets, aka the Dems), and the Dems do want to keep spending like no tomorrow...they resist entitlement reform (because they count on the votes of those who receive entitlements) and just shoved Obama-care down our throats (yet another entitlement program). The Dems have spent as much in 3 yrs that Bush (with the help of BOTH Repubs and Dems) spent in 8 yrs. You say Greece is not a good example? I say that's where we are in 10 yrs if we don't change asap!
the partnership between Government and Business , has outsourced America; we were warned, remember the little guy from Texas that they made fun of, when he said about the treaty's being approved by Congress, "a great sucking of jobs out of the country", he was made fun of in the media ,colleges, and congress, since they all knew it would not happen; well it happened, so what are we going to do about it now.
The debt is not a Rep or Dem issue, it's Dem and Rep.
Obama won't do any better than Bush because he is controlled by the same people. Maybe brainwashed is a better word.
Cutting 100b/y is not enough the US needs 1000b/y to have a chance at saving the dollar and that may just delay the fall.
It never ceases to amaze me how many left-wingers conveniently forget that the "Bush tax cuts" cut taxes for everybody across the board and not just the "rich." But that doesn't fit in with their narrative so they must choose to simply ignore this fact (like many others).
I remember back in 2000 when Bush was proposing the tax cuts. Yes it was touted it would go to everyone. The argument back then as it is now was that it disproportionatly was going to the rich. I remember Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle holding a conference where they held up a car muffler and said that with the tax cuts that is about what a person could buy with it, then they pointed to a lexus and said that is what a rich person could buy with theirs. Of course the argument was it would trickle down and people would be hired to build all of those lexuses. They also warned in that same conference that the country would not be prepared if there was a national emergency. Of course a year later 9/11 happened, 2 wars, Katrina, Rita, Tonadoes, massive midwest flooding, mega fires, and an economic collapse.
Neither side of the aisle has it entirely right. We need to cut spending (big time), let the tax cuts expire (for everyone), reform the tax code (loopholes), and begin protecting our economy and jobs here at home. The sad thing is both parties are such complete idealogues they would rather see the whole house of cards crumble than admit maybe they have some good ideas and so does the other side. It's like watching a bunch of 3 year olds fight over a toy.
The initial poster here seems to be confusing the trade deficit with the federal budget deficit. They are not the same. This article addresses the federal budget deficit, with has little to do (at least not DIRECTLY) with buying American vs. foreign products, and everything to do with the amount the government takes in revenue vs. how much it spends.
Our federal debt is due to a trend of spending beyond what it brings in, in revenue.
Poster "common sense" says:
I'm not sure where he got those numbers, but a quick look at our nation's spending shows that the federal debt has increased more under the 3.5 years of Obama's presidency, during the entire 8 of Bush's presidency. In fact, under Obama, that debt has increased by over bout $5 trillion dollars (to roughly $15 trillion from $10 trillion when he took office). That represents a roughly 50% increase federal debt in just 3.5 years.
Point fingers all you want, those are the facts.
jwilson-
What Im trying to figure out is what you and people who think like you - plan to do about the millions in this country that are in trouble. All you seem to espouse is more and deeper cuts to social programs, and during a time of hardship the likes of which this country hasnt seen since the great Depression.
The jobs are gone, jwilson - there arent enough jobs to go around, and those that are left require very specific skills and years of experience. Those jobs are filled by the above average. These are not jobs that the unemployed can train for in a year or two and just walk into. And the definition of average is the majority of people. The average job for the average American is a rare thing now. All shipped off overseas. Yet we are told to adapt. How, exactly? Are we to adapt to eating pigeons? Are we to adapt to cardboard boxes??
The derogatory stereotype of the average welfare recipient being a single mother having children to ensure the aid comes in is the exception, and not the rule. I know a few of these single mothers - and lets not beat about the bush... They are not exactly the brightest bulbs. These are gals that are below average, and the ones that got them pregnant are also the below average. They went through high school and did as well as their limited intellect allowed them to do. The reality is, that the below average intelligence individuals in this country have very few options for work. The few jobs available to them guarantee them a life of hardship and working-poor grinding poverty, with children that dont have a mother at home to properly care for them. These children then become delinquent. Yet the conservatives want these single mothers to work, and then blame them when the children become problematic. You cant have it all ways. You cant be pro-life, pro working mother, and not expect the fallout of Lord-of-the-Flies wild children. Children need present parents, and that is much more critical when theres only one parent in the house.
Now that is the below average individual. And statistically, thats about half of the population. The average IQ is 100. Most positions today, require an IQ of about 110 or so, or above average. So the jobs that are left out there, are in essence closed to appx. 40% of the population, just based on genetic intellectual abilities. These people could earn living wages in manufacturing. You have a large sector of the population that has been made "obsolete" - yet, they exist, and desire to continue to exist, and desire to live with some level of dignity.
So, jwilson, what exactly IS your suggestion for these people who have been made essentially obsolete and who can no longer earn a living wage with the low quality service sector (think fast food) jobs available to them, and the fact that there arent even enough of these jobs to provide work to those people. The structure we have created leads to crime. People do what they must to survive. If you drive a large portion of the population into desperate situations, they will eventually resort to desperate measures - simply to survive. Is it a crime to steal bread if a man is starving?
And that is just the 50% of the population unlucky enough by genetics to find themselves on the low end of the Bell Scale for the average IQ of 100. Even the highly intelligent are scrambling for work, because so many of those jobs have been outsourced, or are being given to foreigners on work visas!
The economy is structurally dysfunctional, and millions in this country are on a downward slide into want and poverty not unlike that seen in 3rd World Countries. And what is your suggestion for how to deal with this? Training isnt the answer - because close to half the population simply dont possess the ability GENETICALLY to master the few jobs available.
And that is overlooked way too often. Half of society should not be automatically relegated to uselessness in a functional economy. We have a broken system when only the intellectually above average have any real shot of holding on to a living wage job now.
The BS they give us about being competitive in a changing world is just that. BS. Its just another way of saying in the world that we find ourselves in, where all of the jobs for the masses are being shipped to the country with the lowest bidder for labor, that we just need to "deal with it" because its OUR fault for not adapting. ADAPTING TO WHAT? To the absolute avarice that compels these multinationals to gut this country's economy? Adapting to lower living standards? This is what happens when a country that no longer serves its people, but is sold to the highest bidder.
It doesnt have to be this way. We once were a proud nation. We made our own clothes (and people didnt need a bunch of trendy outfits - a few well made and well cared for, classically made outfits were sufficient, once...), we made good toys to last and that didnt need batteries, we made our dishes out of porcelain and glass. We made good things to last. Just take a look at vintage items made in the USA and compare them to the garbage today. We can do this again, but we need drastic changes to stop corporations from impoverishing us, and devastating our communities. We CAN be proud, classy, and productive again. But we need to stop the multinationals.
My question to Romney and the TParty is what do you plan to put in place when you get rid of Obamacare? Are you going to take it back to the way it was? Where the poor went to the ER to get medical care for a cold? And who pays for that? What ....me? Through my taxes? Well looooookie there. Looks like one way or another our taxes pay. Now what pray tell, is so horrible about MAKING people become responsible and pay for their own care? I thought Republicans were all about responsibility?
AND people making one million dollars annually do NOT pay their fair share. They pay at 17% at the most while all of us middle class chumps are paying at 37%. And that's when they don't send their money overseas or hide it or delay paying. They also own the lions share of the wealth in America leaving the rest of us to fight over the scraps.
All your Republican talking points DO NOT HOLD WATER. We are smarter today with the access to the computer so knock off tell half truths and outright lies...we aren't buying it.
And if we are looking for a European country to copy why not Germany? Yes they use the Euro but they are actually doing quite well. Their auto workers make on an average $67. hour, they have government health care and their children go to college for free. Go figure....a country doesn't have to spiral to the bottom in this economy.
Tokamak, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
I wonder how much lower that debt would be if we had scrapped the massively over budget F-22 and hadn't unilaterally engaged in two wars. Hmmm, I bet those two combined would be something in the area of $10 trillion. I know that is chump change to most conservatives, unlike the $250 billion wasted stimulus moneys (best not bring up W.'s TARP money). But, like Cheney said: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter", I guess that is only true when there is an (R) in the WH.
To be fair, our side has done some bad things to run up debt as well. I agree though, Republicans love to cry about the debt, unless they are the ones running it up.
To be precise. The iraq war cost 500 billion. That is half a trillion. If you look at the cost in Afganistan it's about 250 billion. The f-22 issue inconsequential to the debt. You have to consider that if you took the cost of the wars away the gross receipts of the Federal Gov't would also shrink, so if you cut these expenditures out you would roughly end up with about 50% of their value. So take away 750 billion in military spending, actually if you take away all military spending we still run an annual deficit. The big drivers of the debt are 1) Social Security 2) Medicare. www.usdebtclock.org.. It's imperative that more people look at the debt carefully. We bring in 2.25 trillion a year in revenue and spend 3.5 trillion a year in expenses. Taxes have to go up by 50% or expenditures cut in half. No easy answers. Simple math.
Michael9......
Liberals and Progressives do not understand "simple math".
The cost of the Iraq war is closer to $3 trillion.
Micheal9 if you really believe social security is contributing to the US deficit you need to revise your thinking. From the time Social Security started Americans have been forced to pay into it. The only reason it may be running into the red is because of all the surplus funds that were in there and our fine policticians stole from it and now cannot pay it back. My father died at 64 and even though he paid into social security his entire work like he never collected anything from it. Through the years there are thousands in the same position and you know what Micheal...The government still keeps the money that was paid in rather than paying it to the estate. Now your other accusation ...Medicare..Do you really consider providing health care to our senior citizens of this contry as deficit spending? OMG! Just because you are able to summon up some chart on the internet does not make it so!
Marlo, SS was setup when people were barely living passed 60. People are now drawing sometimes 30 years of SS benefits and people stop paying into it after you hit a certain salary. If you want a real solution and give the poor, who suffer oh so much, a break then cut SS contributions for people earning under 75K and have employers and employees contribute after that with no ceiling. However, you will never see this plan even come to fruitation.
Deficit spending does not discriminate based on the qualifications or "need" of a program. Oh, you like Medicare? Well let's just not count it then! Maybe if I just pretend I haven't gashed open my leg, the wound will just go away, right?
I don't care if they're blasting water from the Fountain of Youth down everyone's throat. If the money to pay for it is less than the money it costs, that's called DEFICIT SPENDING.
Quit letting "compassion" cloud your mind. Is it compassionate to help a homeless man with blankets you stole from your neighbor? That's essentially what excessive deficit spending is.
ok you both need to view the post from Peter17..these are both branches of our government that the government had "stolen" from...get it? They stole from them because they had money...duh....Part of the deficit comes from oweing these entities money.
Just to say "Buy American" is easier said than done. This problem began several decades ago: Federal mandates and new laws on businesses that increased their costs of doing business; higher wages vs offshore labor costs; off the map executive salaries. Should our govt mandate only US-made products we would all scream about paying double or triple the cost of the product. This would not translate into more money for us to buy these products we just would either borrow the money or do without. The answer to this problem is above my pay grade. However, the US cannot continue to borrow the money to maintain the standard of living we have become accustomed to. This house of cards will fall if drastic action is not taken and I believe we all will not like the consequences.
Jester-814833, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Hypocrisy... I'm Independent so personally, I think the Democrats and Republicans alike are a bunch or thieving lying whores to powerful money interests.
But I do believe it was Republicans AND Democrats that engaged us in two wars. I also believe it was Republicans AND Democrats who authorized the F-22 Raptor, which I believe is now scrapped.
Oh and I DO seem to remember a certain President saying we need this money NOW and the unemployment rate won't raise above 8%.
So, do you still want to cast stones at only Reagan, Bush and Cheney? Be careful when you do, because you might hit Clinton, Gore and Obama.
The F-22 was not scrapped, it is operational in many operational flying units throughout the US Air Force and Air National Guard. The total number of aircraft to be purchased was reduced, but I think that current world events--particularly the rise of China--will cause military and Congressional leaders to rethink the wisdom of that.
wrong wording... new purchases scrapped... my bad
and it IS one awesome plane!!!
Hopefully, but not holding my breath.
XDm, how dare you compare politicians to whores! Whores work for a living and would be deeped offended by the comparison!
Hahahaha and they look a lot better to Bob.
Bob... you're right..
I profoundly apologize to ALL whores and prostitutes globally. Any one of you have more morality than the entire lot of dirtbags currently elected to national office in the USA. At least you ADMIT what you do.
Thank goodness, real national debt is only 70% of GDP. Whew, I thought we were in fiancial trouble. As for the F-22, US could shut down defense and still not balance the books. Democrat or Republican, we better wake up and smell the roses as a country. Either that or we are going to have a US replay of what is hapenning in Europe now.
Agreed - this is a huge problem that no one seems to want to address. We better stop saying its a democratic problem or a republican problem and figure out how to fix it. Both sides had a big role in getting us into this, and some agreement between both sides is the only way we are going to get out of it. I am a dyed in the wool conservative, but I know the reds had as much to do with getting us into this mess as the blues did, when you look at the big, long term picture. I'm sure this thread will degrade into a name calling tirade with each side blaming the other within a few minutes, but wanted to get my 2 cents worth in before that happens.
Rick, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Dem and I fully agree with you.
Regardless of who wins the WH, we need to start balancing the budget.
Only 1 candidate is considering a balanced budget but he predicted the problem 8-10 years before it happened so he won't get much love from anyone on the gov't teet.
Hypocrisy1776...I suspect you mean the F-35, not the F-22 which is basically out of production, or soon will be. The F-35 is the largest DoD procurement program of all time...but not anywhere near $10T....not even with the two wars you mention. But, I get it, you're a Dem and desperate to blame people for the mess we find ourselves in. Like lots of folks, it's easy to throw out a lot of wrong numbers and blame-game stuff...real challenge is what to do about it. What are your thoughts on the way forward? The left-wing Dems haven't had an original thought in 50 years...ergo nothing comes out of the Obama Admin or the Dem Congress (when was the last time Harry Reid said anything useful?). For their part...the GOP hasn't offered much either. So, it's just us, sport....put your thinking cap on and tell us your ideas....
GF... no, I think he was referencing the Raptor. The F-35 is the newest Joint Strike Fighter, which will form the basis of our and our partners air power. Although I believe they are scrapping the VTOL version the Marines wanted.
if i ran my budget the way our gov does, i would be homeless. This is why so many americans are homeless. Why do we (the taxpayer) have to pay other countries to like us. Taxpayer money is for the taxpayer. Taxation without representation. We once fought for this right, do we really have to fight for it again.
Jim... you're being taxed by the best bought and paid for corrupt politicians anywhere in the world. What more could you ask for? What, do you want to be kissed while getting $c@#$?
The "debt" number is a joke, because it does not include so-called trust fund obligations (aka social security and medicare entitlements), government pensions, etc. The real number is much much higher. We passed the size of the economy milepost years ago (long before Obama). The situation is only marginally worse of a disaster than it has been for years. The crazy part is that we are spending faster now than ever before. So, yes there is cause for immediate concern and a need to start doing something now.
Bend your cost curve around that.
According to the article, those entitlements are included in the dept, but an accounting friend of mine said that some department to department dept is not included, so I don't know who to believe.
"First of all, take a deep breath. That $15 trillion doesn't have to be paid back all at once."
-No, it does not. But, of the $10.4 trillion in marketable debt outstanding, $2.76 trillion matures in 2012, up from about $2.73 trillion in 2011, and roughly $6.4 trillion (and counting) matures in the next 4 years. Keep in mind that 2012 maturities are about $460 billion more than total Federal tax receipts in 2011 ($914 billion if you include interest). The US Government's ability to finance itself is contingent upon the Treasury being able to roll over greater and greater amounts of short-term debt, at lower and lower yields, in perpetuity.
"because it includes money owed by one government agency to another."
-See Social Security Trust.
"The other silver lining is that the interest on the country's debt currently is not a huge burden, said Eileen Appelbaum, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank."
-Total interest on the National Debt totaled $454 billion in 2011, a record. Keep in mind that interest rates are only low because the Fed has nationalized the yield curve, nearly quadrupling the total size of the monetary base since early 2008.
-Also, keep in mind that the last time the National Debt decreased was in 1960.
Here is an idea,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,spend LESS money.
Currently, the federal budget grows at 8% a year or more. Limiting it to inflation or even insisting we cap things at 2011 levels would shrink the budget deficit an amazing amount.
You can balance the budget in a few short years if you just stop increasing the amount you spend at a rate 7 times higher than inflation.
Another reason to VOTE Anyone but Obama in 2012.
Clean up wasteful spending.
All the politicians want to just cut the big sh*t down because it's easier. Take time and clean up the "little" expenses that are totally wasted and unnecessary.
Oh wait, that would mean actual work.
You think 8% is a lot, just wait until the Affordable Health Care Act(HR 3962) becomes law in 2014. Washington could default on the debt to Social Security and eliminate Medicare, but as long as we continue to operate in a "Faith Based" credit economy, neither would put us back on track. If interest rates rise, the debt burden increases. Why do you think Ben is keeping those rates artifically low. What we need in this country is the return to the gold standard, so our currency would have real value, and bring back our manufacturing base to provide those needed jobs. I also doubt that either is going to occur, because the Chinese now control the manufacturing, and I don't think anyone has been inside the gold repository at Fort Knox lately.
Awesome!!! Thanks a trillion Baby Boomers!!!!!
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_problem-gda
http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_problem-follow_the_money
Once again, MSNBC tries to minimize this tragedy, only because a Democrat is in the WH.
Today I was at the store, and I saw a nice young, healthy couple in front of me at the register. The were in their early twenties, and had a beautiful young son. The dad was dressed like someone who just left a "Hot Topic" store. The son had official NBA shirt, and expensive Nike shoes. The mom was dressed in a t-shirt and jeans. She had a iPhone/Android or something or other. This was at about 1:00PM.
Guess what? They paid for their groceries with a SNAP card!
They're getting money from taxpayers.
THAT IS A PROBLEM FOR ME! And it should be a problem for you too!!!
There's actually an article about food stamps if you want to go weigh in on that issue.
Steven...that is not necessarily bad. People DO have tough times now. And do you know their circumstances? He or she or possibly both might have just recently been laid off and whether you like it or not, people do need to eat. Now, if you said they had several filet migon and fresh Asparagus and a bag of Starbucks in the basket, yeah, I'd be P'd off too, but it's their budget and they still need to eat.
The other problem is what you can buy on Food stamps also. They want to tackle the obesity problem then they should not allow you to get soda, candy, doritos etc. But that would mean government would have to actually do something.
A lot of citizens cannot cook a meal unless it comes in a box with instruction and is simple to follow. The reason the baskets are full of Dorito's and pizza is the fact that it is cheaper to buy food bad for you than to buy food that is good for you. Look at the prices of fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, cheeses, and milk. I know my own grocery bill has grown to the point it almost cheaper for me and my wife to go out to eat. I will not begrudge a person a meal, but I do get offended what is in some of these baskets. I think there could be a better way of doing this by supplying the local food banks with the items to be distributed to those in need, and them packaging balanced nutritional items for meals and throw in some menu ideas. This would also save me time while shopping, as 40% less people would be in line with paying customers.
Steven, Don't pretend all people who get food stamps are like that.
John, Many people who receive food stamps can't buy food they have to prepare because they are homeless and therefore have no place to cook such food. I'll tell you what you can't buy--warm food, even during the winter. What sense does that make?
You guys apparently have no clue what you are talking about, thus you should just shut up.
This report is long overdue. People don't realize how serious this problem is. If you want to see how this all ends, look into the history of once mighty USSR. They had much bigger/better military, more natural resources, and much larger agricultural land. Yet everyone knows how it ended up.
@2% apr US is paying $300 billion as interest. Imagine that going to 7% (Italy is paying 7.2% with ECB intervention). Our interest payment will be $1 trillion/year. We collect only $2.2 tr in taxes. You do the math.
It is time to wake up. Vote for Ron Paul.
I hate to say it, but Dr. Paul will never win the support of the Republican Party. Even though his views have a great deal of merit, the reality of admitting the truth is too great for most Americans to ingest. The only viable option for Ron Paul is to run as an Independent candidate. There are many Americans who are very unhappy with the gridlock in Congress, whose approval is currently topping out at around 9%, and they aren't much happier with what is happening in the oval office, around 22%. IMHO, neither Romney nor Santorum have the potential to unseat Obama, because they both change their views to suit the moment, and their records cannot be compared to the consistency of Ron Paul. The problem is that people don't want to accept the reality that true change is what is needed, and the cost of that change is the price you pay for many years of incompetence and mismanagement. It would be painful but well worth the effort. Our debt bubble is no different than the housing bubble. One day it will burst, but very few people will see it coming or accept it when it does.
The math is all wrong.. Our national income is 2.2 trillion. GDP is not income, that is business activity. We owe 7 times our national income. Income is what the Government pulls in. The Gov't has 211 Trillion in assets. So the question is two sided: If one looks at income it's a huge debt load, if one looks at assets it's 7.5% of total assets. The answer will be to sell a State like Alaska, or raise taxes by 50%. That is the issue. When our media can't do basic math and spreads falsehoods like this article we are in trouble.
So what do you prefer...selling Alaska or raising taxes to 50%+ (not sure if 50% will be sufficient).
Also who will buy Alaska - Saudi Arabia, China or better yet Iran.
are you nuts? raise taxes by 50%, how about cut spending by 50%
I wonder if Canada would buy Alaska, and what we'd get for it?
We need to stop kicking the can down the road or our children have no future.
Banksters got 700 Billiion, That is the problem for everyone . , They create money from thin air and make a profit off it. When they lose it your pos politicains give them enogh to cover their loses. YOU cover billionare and million loses ! And your bitchin about a SNAP CARD ?
USA! USA! USA! USA!
Everyone over 50 should be jailed for treason. And forced to work this debt off
Professor1010.... and how old are you?
I'm in my 60's and have had my wages extorted for taxes a LONG time.
Look at the politicians. They're the ones buying votes with YOUR and MY tax money. It's easy to have others pay the bills until there are no "others" to tax to get the money to pay the bills. The problem is, it's been going on since before I was born. Who do I blame?
I'm sorry XD, but the Professor may have the title, but he didn't earn the degree. His knowledge must have been gained while watching the 6 o'clock news or playing video games. What you need to understand is that most of this younger generation feel that the elderly are a burden, which was also the case when the Third Reich came to power in Germany. The philosophical attitude seems to be that if you eliminate the cost of the elderly, Medicare and Social Security, you eliminate the economic problems, because they keep hearing it from all the politicians who keep saying that we must cut entitlement programs. What they fail to understand is that neither of those programs are "Entitlements". They were paid for by the recipients over many years and would both have values in the trillions of dollars, but the government took the funds and continues to spend that money and give them IOUs in return. If you want to eliminate those programs, then start phasing them out immediately. Don't pass a bill like HR 3962, and then call for a cut in entitlements. The Affordable Health Care Act increases entitlements to those who pay nothing, but it also gives the option to employers to shift the healthcare burden to the employee, much as the old GM did when the union agreed to assume the healthcare for their retirees. If the Professor wants to know how that is working out, just ask a GM retiree. It's a good thing that the U.S. Government insured GMs pension plan, which the taxpayer is now paying, because if not, they wouldn't be receiving much in their retirement checks either.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend." -Winston Churchill.
The debt has been run up since God, I mean R Reagan was made President...
It's time to make the people that have been gaming the system for their own personal gains, the 1% pay up..
I agree, Gorilla. I was in High School when Reagan became President, and I didn't understand how people could buy his economic policy and hale it as brilliant. To me, the writing on the wall was very clear. Of course, this was the 80's and Donald Trump was also someone some of my peers were looking up to.
What really gets me, is that we are still using it!
The key figure to compare that flat figure (as large as it is) of $15 trillion is not to a one-year time-frame number like GDP but to the national WEALTH figure or, if one prefers, a national ASSET figure. That's the way businesses and all accounting entities do it to calculate debt ratios and so forth. If a business has $5 billion in assets but $10 billion in debts, it's going to go bankrupt. (I.e., negative $5 billion equity)
The U.S. and its citizen, including corporations, has probably about $75 trillion in assets and $60 trillion in wealth, so $15 trillion isn't so bad. Not that it's great, however, since we have so little to show from the accumulated debt of the past decade. Little or no investment in public infrastructure, 2 wars (one still going) and big income disparities and the wealthy pocketed their tax cuts and used their power to gain even greater control of the economy. That's why I say that they should repay the national debt, since they gathered the wealth generated from it.
And people didn't see this coming? GMAFB! Just watch the debt ticker roll on at the speed of light. It's mind numbing.
SO again...what the hell are we (our useless politicians gonna do about it?)
You younger folks are in for one hell of a LONG life of misery when the chips get called in. You just don't get it do you? Good luck.
Ask a wingnut...Lower taxes...then that will create jobs...then we can pay our bills...Vote Wingnut!!!!
Dude, we couldn't tax enough to pay off our debt, the problem is not taxes, its spending.
In most cases Social Security is not an entitlement program people and employers pay into it.
Ok, here's a question. Our country, and it seems every country, are all in debt way over their heads. Who the hell is all of that debt owed to?????
Eachother.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696
http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock
Then why can't we just wipe eachothers debt, and call it even, or at least some of it??
Its not to each other, its to the central banks, the federal reserve, the IMF, other central banks, and these cats are not just going to hit the reset button and give it all back. The money doesn't even exist anymore, just a bunch of 1's and 0's on a computer, its about the power.
BS! This investors-only analysis excludes the worker-paid funds that the operating budget "borrows" from the Social Security system. To exclude those funds is to infer that they somehow are unimportant in a debt analysis, and can be ignored because their payers don't have a high enough payment priority. This is part and parcel of the stealing-from-our-children approach to social welfare we've been following for the past decades.
We own 100% of the debt...not 70%. Any respectable analysis uses 100% as the working figure.
Not true JWilly. there is no cash in the SS fund. Its all Treasury Bonds. All the Payroll Deductions go directly to SS retirees.
I believe excess SS Funds are required by law to be invested in U.S. Treasuries so that they get interest. Without that feature the system would likely have become insolvent already.
Peter, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are no "Excess" Social Security funds and haven't been for many years. The system when designed could have sustained itself indefinitely, but under the Johnson administration in 1968, those funds were made available to politicians to spend them at liberty, and they did just that. Other modifications were made under the Carter administration which allowed immigrants to receive payments, even though they had never paid into the system.