Is America Already Bankrupt?

And the "US" Chamber of Commerce promotes the idea of exporting jobs because it's "good for business". Unbelievable.

you are right on they sold us out.let the corperations pay the debt along with our politicians and there nice little retirement plans .let the ones that raped america pay it and then lock them up for treason.

I'd be happy if they gave me back the Social Security money they've been taking out of my paychecks since I was fourteen. I'll never see a dime of it. I won't even ask for interest.

Isn't it up to you, along with many others of us, whether we hold government accountable for giving us a return of our investment in social security, or not? There are yet many ways to stymie the hemorrhaging of public wealth, and recovery of misappropriated public wealth, which could go a long way to funding social security.

It is up to us. Unfortunately the only tools we have to hold them accountable currently are to vote out one set of crooks for another, or argue in front of federal judges the crooks appointed.

Granted, John, those remedies haven't resulted in a fix. Do you think that we will have to take to the streets in mass, Egypt and Britain style, to enforce government accountability?

COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD.COM

It's called an older picture.

Calm down moron.

I guess a screen shot of the current debt clock is just too hard to acquire.
Funny how you sheep just accept whatever is put in front of you.

I guess "Current" only applies when Al wants it to apply.

Why don't you go ahead and do it if that will help you? Do you only look at the pictures? Is that why you aren't grasping the content of the article?

Oh, I understand the article just fine.

We are broke and it's getting worse, Not better.

What I don't understand is how so many supposedly smart people can seriously still be supportive of this administrations spending.

Everyone want's less taxes, Free healthcare more government jobs more government spending but they also want to pay down the debt?

Do you want it both ways also?

Of course it's not getting better, we are in 2 wars. What spending from this administration are you talking about specifically?

Do you understand that the Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce the deficit by $143B in the next decade and $1.2T in the long haul (20 years)? Check the CBO estimates. It's long term planning. Not only that, but health care and insurance prices were going through the roof. Something had to happen to bring stability to the industry. This isn't a govt takeover... it is regulating an industry in the private sector.

We are going to give 30 million people free health care and it will reduce the deficit? Come on, even Obama doesn't believe that! Be for real. There is no way that is possible. None.

You don't understand the law... still. Research.

I am an accountant. I understand that you can't give 30 million people something for free and not expect someone else to pay for it. There is no way that is possible. If we give 30 million people free doctor visits, then those that are paying have to pay more. There is no other way to do it. The taxpayers will have to pay more, either in taxes or premiums, and the level of service will go down because there are more people to serve and the people servicing will be making less money. That's only common sense. My insurance at work has gone up 14% with less benefits. You can't do it any other way. To give everyone health care the ones that have it now either have to pay more or accept less service, and probably both. That is the only way you can make it work. There is no other way.

Please show me where the law says that 30M people will get free health care.

I like the way you think.

We're too big to get out of our own way. And too small to matter to the
universe at large whether we survive to the next century as a species.
Shades of Gilda Radner. I made a reference to her (and Chevy Chase)
Saturday Night Live skit as Emily LaTella. Can you guess what that was ?
Hint. Focus on the term species, and what rhymes with it.

LOL...

You've been getting tax breaks for years, maybe not at the state level, but certainly at the Federal level.

You wanna fight global wars and bail out banks and maintain a security state? That costs money.

And since apparently it makes Americans cry to tax corporations or rich people, where exactly do you expect this money to come from?

I'm tired of American bitching without American sacrifice. Buck up and do at least a little something for the country or stop fucking pretend like you give a shit about it.

What tax breaks am I getting, because I certainly can't tell from looking at my bank account and my wallet. I am against fighting global wars and I am against bailing out banks, I don't want to do it, they are bad ideas, ultimately bad for the country, but I have to pay for it anyway, along with all the other waste and stupid ideas the government comes up with. I do care about the country, I couldn't care less for it's government.

I am a CPA.

"What tax breaks am I getting, because I certainly can't tell from looking at my bank account and my wallet."

So you were either lying or you are not a very good CPA? Are you really going to argue that you haven't been getting tax breaks for several years?

WHO is that hero? Is there anyone able to undo Citizens United or the war machine? Don't think so!

Oh wait, there is; WE THE PEOPLE! But, whatever, my fave show has just come on and I have to watch it so I know which purse to buy next. See ya at the mall!!

Awesome.

Best picture, ever.

nice

That's cute and all, but that link doesn't explain how the person got the $200T number.

They got it from an unnamed source at the International Monetary Fund, (IMF). Believe it or don't. Either is okay by me.

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/246159/our-debt-more-all-money-world

Another estimate putting the debt at around $130T.

Forbes put it at $70T. (but that was 2008)

"The real liability facing our government is $70 trillion. This represents the present value difference between all the government's projected future spending obligations and all its projected future tax receipts. This fiscal gap takes into account Uncle Sam's need to service official debt--outstanding U.S. government bonds. But it also recognizes all our government's unofficial debts, including its obligation to the soon-to-be-retired baby boomers to pay their Social Security and Medicare benefits."

I can always bank on someone clicking the little red down arrow when I defend the Federal Reserve. Of course, no one has anything to actually say about it.

"The United States of America (US or USA) has the world’s largest economy. According to the CIA World Factbook, 2007 GDP is believed to be $13.84 trillion. This is three times the size of the next largest economy, Japan, which has a GDP of $4.4 trillion."

"The economy of the United States is the world's largest national economy. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be nearly $14.7 trillion in 2010,[1] approximately a quarter of nominal global GDP.[2][11] Its GDP at purchasing power parity was also the largest in the world, approximately a fifth of global GDP at purchasing power parity.[2] The U.S. economy also maintains a very high level of output per capita. In 2009, it was estimated to have a per capita GDP (PPP) of $46,381, the 6th highest in the world."

^Seems you're right , how can 14 trillion be 4 times the size of the economy of 14 trillion is the size of the economy .

All these numbers are all really fudged up and you can never trust finance to be accurate, but in general, I'd point out that your numbers are from 2007, before the crash.

If it makes you feel better, I voted you up. Although I would like for you to elaborate on your opinion of the Fed.

Surely I can see its use as a pragmatic institution, all central banks are like rocket fuel for the needs of large companies and financial institutions.

But what people are upset about, primarily, is the country's runaway inflation, the utter secrecy of the Federal Reserve (which in some cases hands out hundreds of billions of dollars without anyone even knowing) and of course, just the basic notion of fractional reserve loaning at all, which I think people rightfully see as being fucked up on a basic level, regardless of how good it is for the economy.

If you want to defend their existence, go ahead, I think most people have no concept of useful they are theoretically.

If you want to defend heir PRACTICES for the past three decades, well, you got your work cut out for you. Because they've been terrible and, at the very least, they need to be reined in as a Federal Institution.

They didn't do a very good job of showing their calculations, but there are several experts who are convinced that the debt is much higher than reported. Some say it is closer to $200T.

I agree with you that Bill Clinton had us on the right path, but you totally lost me when you said Obama isn't doing a bad job. I guess technically you're right though, he isn't doing a bad job, he's doing a HORRIBLE job.

Substantiate, substantiate.

Looking for an actual calculation...

Absolutely. I defend the existence of the Fed vehemently. You are also right that they misbehaved over the last few decades.

The Bush Admin and Alan Greenspan were definitely on the same page, and if you ask me, I don't think I've ever seen the office of the president and the Fed Chairman butt heads on anything, ever.

I would even go so far as to say that the Fed acts as an extension of executive powers, which is why an informed populace matters. I don't remember these anti-fed people being so inflamed before the bailouts happened when Bush was spending up the surplus and the national credit line on empire expansion.

Monetary and fiscal policy work in tandem. Am I for auditing the Fed? Sure. Am I for abolishment? Absolutely not.

As an aside... what runaway inflation are you talking about? In recent history inflation has been at very safe levels. We even had deflation in 2009 because the gov't didn't spend enough money.

I mean the longer trend of inflation since the 1970's, where the dollar's growth has become exponential over the past few decades. I'm sure you've seen the graph so I won't bother posting it.

The ultimate problem with the Fed is that fractional reserve loaning is unbelievably fucking volatile. And in a country with as many free market goons as the United States has, opening up big lines of bogus credit can be incredibly dangerous, which is why the recent financial collapse can be correctly characterized as a near death experience for Capitalism.

Also, I would imagine deflation in 2009 was caused by defaults in loans, because it wasn't as if the government wasn't spending a fuckton of money. And deflation, of course, is the real danger in a country like America where the national debt is so high.

Forget government debt for a minute, TOTAL debt is upwards of 50 trillion dollars, as much as five times all the actual money in existence in America.

If there were to be a large collapse, the economic shitstorm that would result as those promises came crashing down would make the Great Depression look like a slow quarter in the 90's.

That's why the Fed makes me nervous. It's playing an incredibly dangerous game with the economy just because the payoff is so high.

the first quote was from the 2007 cia factbook

the second quote was from 2011 wikipedia as it clearly states "its nominal GDP was estimated to be nearly $14.7 trillion in 2010"

i had a short amount of time to google and posted the cia source to support the wikipedia source as i did not wanna have wiki as the sole source.

That's fine, I don't expect you to be a scholar just for a quick current comment. We all have other things to do.

Did you post that 2010 figure just now or was I a moron and just didn't see it?

By decade the inflation rate was WAYYY higher in the 40's and 70's and quite flat, since then.

Not that dramatic. If you take a 5% inflation rate (very safe), the dollar loses half of it's value every 15 or so years. Say we start in 1913 when all of this federal reserve stuff started.

We can even be conservative and start at 1920.

That should be about 6 doublings or so, compared to today.

That would mean that one dollar today should buy the equivalent of 1.56 cents in 1920.

Example: Bacon

1 Pound of bacon in 1920: $0.52
Today, all things being equal it would cost $35
How much does it actually cost?
Turns out, it's about $3
If you use bacon as a measure we have GROSSLY underprinted money.

Another example: Butter

1920: 1 pound costs $0.70
With inflation today: $47!
Today actual: $2.50

You'd be hard pressed to find anything that was 2 cents in 1920 and $1.50 today.

Your dollar buys SO MUCH MORE than it used to. This fear of inflation is ridiculous. One only needs to be fearful of hyperinflation if the goods being produced are at a huge productivity deficit against the dollar's inflation rate.

That's not the case, not even close.

Productivity increases out-pace moderate inflation every year.

To respond to your point that they were responsible for the decline, the fed is just a tool. The policies were the problem. The fed is just a convenient target for conservatives who don't want to accept that their ideology is ridiculous.

It's not the Fed's fault for the decline any more than it's a gun's fault when someone shoots someone else.

Suck on that, Libertarians. ;-)

Prices don't rise in tandem. Not every item is going to hook to 5% inflation rate, as inflation is haphazard. You selected two of the least violate items as a bench mark.

Consider:

Gold was at $270 and ounce in 2000 its now at $1330 an ounce.

492.59 % increase in ONLY ten years! By your logic of a 5% mythical lock-step price inflation to a 5% increase in monetary supply ratio, it should be closer to $405 an ounce.

Secondly 5%inflation is very conservative estimate considering most economists say its around double that.

Right, and this is something I frequently criticize Libertarians for. They usually fail to take into account that the economy is a MATERIAL and not a MONETARY thing.

If tomorrow the money supply doubled, our wages doubled and prices doubled, nothing will have actually happened.

There's not some strict logical line between prices, inflation and the money supply. It's based mainly on bullshit speculation, profit margins and subjective value of the object.

Absolutely, which is why the gold standard is ridiculous.

There would have been dramatic deflation over the last decade and complete economic collapse had gold been the standard of our currency.

Also, what economist is claiming that inflation is or has been 10%? Why?

It depends on which inflation you are talking about, but when someone says "inflation" they mean CPI adjusted inflation, or the rise in the cost of goods over time.

Each commodity has it's own inflation rate, for sure.

Boy isn't that the truth. This is why economics isn't a simple subject, and why it is so easy to manipulate people with economic conspiracy theories.

When the federal reserve says "inflation" they mean "core inflation" which is not based on the C.P.I. I assumed that's what you were working off of.

The C.P.I. as an indicator of inflation is historically inaccurate due to politicians later changing the to C.P.I. Changes such as replacing hamburger for steak in 1990's the calculations reduced the "official" inflation rate

"There would have been dramatic deflation over the last decade and complete economic collapse had gold been the standard of our currency."

What's your working definition of "deflation" simply "a fall in prices" or decrease in the quantity of money or volume of spending in the economy? The distinction matters before I can respond more to your comment.

Sure, and I agree the CPI isn't that reliable as a measure of inflation. Changes in the CPI have to happen because they didn't have Iphones in 1920. So, I'd agree with you, and I'll have to go back and do my research using core inflation.

K, just need to think for a second:

Gold is the standard of currency.

The market starts to go south.

People hoard gold (just like they did this time)

The price of gold skyrockets.

Money that is gold-backed is worth a lot more (deflation)

We would have deflation during the last decade as the price of gold soared nearly 500%.

Does that clarify? All of your described outcomes would occur. The cost of goods would plummet because, people would be less able to make purchases, and those with plenty of money would be less wiling to. Fewer dollars in circulation, fewer transactions. Oh, yeah, and no Fed to save us.

Yes. In a strange way I don't disagree with you. If we returned to a gold (I prefer sliver but maybe another commodity) standard now, in 2011, the value of the dollar would increase, prices would appear to go down.

Why? only because we have had decades and decades of overnflation, and easy creditthat has so artificially lowered the value of the dollar in the first place. Once we delinked from commodity backed money, money credit could be created endlessly. Bubbling everything up in debt.

Everything since Regan has been built on credit. Massive Consumer, business and government debt have become the norm in our culture. And what enabled this borrow- until- you- are underwater -culture? easy credit through artificial interests rates.

if we switch back Prices would go down. . But Only because we had gross inflation over decades in the first place. Eventually it would balance out. Pennies would be meaningful again and worth minting in copper.. We have enough divisible monetary units to handle it. Falling prices in response to deflation are economically beneficial, in that they enable a reduced quantity of money and volume of spending to buy as much as the previously larger quantity of money and volume of spending bought.

We can switch now to commodity based money in a controlled fashion , or wait until the market collapses the dollar and spreads chaos.

The gold standard is laughable. Running a modern economy on the gold standard is like trying to run a modern video game on an abacus.

We could go over all the reasons why gold standard sucks, but lets stick to this one.

The gold standard causes wild fluctuation in the market. Period. No way around it.

Predictable, moderate to low inflation is the ideal which is what we've had for most of US history. it creates incentive for companies to keep moving, and provides for a STABLE economy. As long as monetary policy isn't abused.

The reason this recession happened is because monetary policy was abused. Period. THAT should be the problem.

The argument you are making is: sometimes computers get hacked so we need to go back to writing everything down on paper. All of this fed bullshit is a way for republicans to justify their ideology which proves over and over again to be an utter failure.

That's it, dude.

What's this gross inflation you are talking about?

Further, I'd suggest that the volatility of gold is far more dramatic than the dollar. It changed by a factor of 5 in the same time that dollars changed about.... what, 20% at most?

Talk about an unstable economy. Anyone in debt would be so overloaded that they wouldn't be able to pay. No one would ever take out loans in an environment where the deflation rate of the dollar could go hyper at any time. Please.

If you agree with me that deflation is devastating, what makes you think that a gold standard would somehow alleviate it?

Do you agree with the premise in the article that we need to cut spending AND increase taxes?

Agreed. Stop wars, raise taxes, and cut the defense budget - big time.

Absolutely. Another name for financial reform is regulation... and many don't like that word. They hear regulation and they immediately jump to the false conclusion that it is a socialistic govt takeover of private industry. You know who I'm talking about.

Just cut spending. We are taxed enough already.

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." ~Thomas Jefferson

Unfortunately our leaders have put wars on our credit card. We cannot pay our debt by simply spending less. There has to be an income of revenue to pay for our past... or we can just push it down to the next generation.

I agree but giving these corrupt bastards more money only encourages their reckless behavior. Plenty is going into the kitty. It just isn't being spent correctly.

There is enough revenue to keep us from going further into debt (if spent properly), but we have a big bill to pay that our past generations have left for us. If we are going to even think about reducing the debt (not just keeping it level) then we need to raise taxes for those who can afford it (and they are the same ones who often evade taxes).

Notice how the national debt took off right when Nixon took U.S. off the gold standard, escalated under Reagan and stopped rising thanks to Clnton?
Republicans are fiscally responsible (for this economic disaster)!