Bi-Partisan Problem

[2centsworth]

Video:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=751528470

Our country is $53 Trillion in the hole. The sum total of all of our wealth is $50 trillion. 100% government confiscation of all wealth would not pay off all the bills. the $53 trillion is growing by $2 trillion per year.


Read the nonpartisan website http://www.pgpf.org/ headed by former comptroller general (appointed by Clinton) David Walker.

My advide would be to understand the problem before offering solutions. Nevertheless, if we do not hold our elected officials accountable we are headed towards the tsunami of financial crisis.

[Anti.Hero]

http://www.concordcoalition.org/

[2centsworth]

http://www.concordcoalition.org/


The traveling economist tour is eye-opening. Both liberal and conservatives agree! For this problem we will all have to unite or we're doomed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16404375

[Nbadan]

I think we all know what the final solution will be....raise taxes on the rich to supply money for future obligations? don't bet on it........cut spending and reduce FED services? yeah, right...no the only solution politicians see is print more dollars....and when a billion future dollars buys what $10 dollars buys today you've solved your time value of money problem...

[2centsworth]

I think we all know what the final solution will be....raise taxes on the rich to supply money for future obligations? don't bet on it........cut spending and reduce FED services? yeah, right...no the only solution politicians see is print more dollars....and when a billion future dollars buys what $10 dollars buys today you've solved your time value of money problem...

the reason it's bi-partisan is because raising the "appropriate" taxes is part of the solution, but so are cuts and changes in benefits. A 100% tax on everyone is still not enough to cover the cost, so certainly a 100% tax on just the "rich" wouldn't cover it. I don't think hyperinflation is an answer. Hyperinlfation gave birth to Hitler in Germany.

[Extra Stout]

the reason it's bi-partisan is because raising the "appropriate" taxes is part of the solution, but so are cuts and changes in benefits. A 100% tax on everyone is still not enough to cover the cost, so certainly a 100% tax on just the "rich" wouldn't cover it. I don't think hyperinflation is an answer. Hyperinlfation gave birth to Hitler in Germany.
The most likely available solution is the conquest of Venezuela.

[2centsworth]

The most likely available solution is the conquest of Venezuela.

I'm sure there's some genius behind this statement, so please explain.

[Extra Stout]

I'm sure there's some genius behind this statement, so please explain.

Raising taxes to 60%: Unpopular
Cutting benefits by 60%: Unpopular
Liberating the oppressed Venezuelan people from their evil Marxist dictator and exploiting their trillion+ barrels of non-conventional oil reserves: Only unpopular among America-hating liberals.

[Extra Stout]

Another alternative would be to liberate the Albertan people from the oppressive socialist politically-correct "Human Rights Commission" star chambers of the Canuckistani government and make Alberta the 51st state. It's their just desserts for foisting Alan Thicke on us.

[2centsworth]

Raising taxes to 60%: Unpopular
Cutting benefits by 60%: Unpopular
Liberating the oppressed Venezuelan people from their evil Marxist dictator and exploiting their trillion+ barrels of non-conventional oil reserves: Only unpopular among America-hating liberals.

Here are some other solutions in no particular order:

1. Comprehensive HealthCare Reform but with a focus on transparency and cost reductions and not more welfare.

2. Increase the social security portion of the payroll tax on mid to large sized businesses.

3. Allow individual investment accounts as a supplement to the basic defined benefit program.

4. Means testing for seniors and Medicare.

5. BALANCED BUDGET!!

[Extra Stout]

I'm sure I can pay off this $100,000 credit card debt if I just cut out the run to Starbucks in the morning.

[2centsworth]

are you a fatalist?

[Extra Stout]

are you a fatalist?
Does the sand go up your nose when you stick your head in?

[2centsworth]

Does the sand go up your nose when you stick your head in?

are you Jesus Christ? Reading your post is like reading the new testament. What's your prediction?

[Extra Stout]

are you Jesus Christ? Reading your post is like reading the new testament. What's your prediction?
IF OBAMA WINS

1) 2010 - Government starts having difficulty servicing debt as foreign creditors begin to balk. Congress fails to pass tax increase or spending cuts.

2) Government left with no other option in short term but printing money. Inflation soars. Markets plummet.

3) International organizations step in to stabilize American financial system to prevent global collapse. Economy enters sharp retraction.

4) Pundits cry out for President Obama to step down. He defiantly refuses. Business leaders and financiers begin to organize a plan to force him out of office.

5) Congress pushes through emergency package of austerity measures.

6) Unemployment rises above 15%.

7) Economic hardship leads to widespread defaulting on consumer credit card debt, exacerbating existing credit crisis and causing large banks such as Chase and BofA to teeter towards insolvency. Depression deepens.

[Extra Stout]

IF McCAIN WINS

1) 2010 - U.S. deposes Chavez in Venezuela. American puppet put in place. Venezuelan oil offered as guaranty to U.S. creditors. Western oil companies swarm in to expand production.

2) Liberals and Latinos protest in streets in U.S.

3) Venezuelan-looking actors hired for fake parade in Caracas celebrating fall of Chavez.

[Wild Cobra]

You really think there is that much difference between the two in those regards?

[RandomGuy]

Both of which are amusing alternatives.

I think we will be mostly fine, either way. Not great, but not in the toilet.

[2centsworth]

Both of which are amusing alternatives.

I think we will be mostly fine, either way. Not great, but not in the toilet.

simply no basis in fact.

[whottt]

Why not just tell all our debtors to fuck off and not pay them?


Worked for Argentina....



Then we'll be 50 Trillion in the green again...



DSTSS

[2centsworth]

Why not just tell all our debtors to fuck off and not pay them?


Worked for Argentina....



Then we'll be 50 Trillion in the green again...



DSTSS

look what a few billion dollars of writeoffs did to the banking industry. What would a $50 trillion writeoff look like. also, 40 trillion is off the balance sheet debt (promises).

[bobbybob0]

Liberating the oppressed Venezuelan people from their evil Marxist dictator and exploiting their trillion+ barrels of non-conventional oil reserves: Only unpopular among America-hating liberals.

And the rest of the World.

[BradLohaus]

Maybe they'll bring back debtors prisons. But they will need a shiny new government term. How about... Patriot Labor Centers? That sounds good. Patriot labor is the best kind of labor.

[spurster]

The public debt is about $5 trillion and growing around $300-$400 billion per year, at least according to Wikipedia. If I estimate my spending plans to be $50K per year for the next 50 years, my "debt" is $2.5 million. Oh horrors. Maybe I will earn more and spend less. Getting out of Iraq would help a bit.

[2centsworth]

The public debt is about $5 trillion and growing around $300-$400 billion per year, at least according to Wikipedia. If I estimate my spending plans to be $50K per year for the next 50 years, my "debt" is $2.5 million. Oh horrors. Maybe I will earn more and spend less. Getting out of Iraq would help a bit.

wrong thread try again.

[whottt]

look what a few billion dollars of writeoffs did to the banking industry. What would a $50 trillion writeoff look like. also, 40 trillion is off the balance sheet debt (promises).


hmm...ok, so how about we nuke everyone we owe money too?

[2centsworth]

hmm...ok, so how about we nuke everyone we owe money too?

we would nuke ourselves.

[ElNono]

Well, let's just say your plan has no legs to stand on.
Venezuela is actually a democracy (pretty corrupt one, like the rest of South America), but still a democracy. They applied for membership to the Mercosur (which is pretty much the equal to the Euro Union, but less developed. At this time they're about to create a central bank for the region) and been already approved by Argentina and Uruguay (pending is the approval of Brazil and Paraguay). Obviously an attack to any member country is an automatic offense to the rest of the countries.
Further, they supply natural gas to a bunch of these countries, so taking away that would be a real serious problem. Not to mention that all these countries lost sympathy for the US long time ago (the exception being Chile and perhaps Colombia).
It would also be a huge international headache, because most of these countries have investments and their actual population descendant from Spain (from colonial times) and Italy (from WW1 and WW2). So 'coalition' support for an unilateral action like that would be at the very least very problematic.
Now this is not to say some countries wouldn't like to see Chavez go. However, not like that. It would actually reinforce Chavez's view that the US is an imperialist country.
Let's also not forget that South America is well versed in guerrilla wars, starting from the 70's during most of military governments in the region, until now, with the Colombian FARC.

So I see that move pretty much as a no go, unless Chavez does something terribly stupid (which could happen, but would be really rare, since he already has enough oil money to keep his people and neighbors happy).

To be honest with you, the real problem is with politicians from both ends of the spectrum spending like crazy and not thinking where that money is going to come from. We're going to need some fundamental changes in the way politicians think about spending money. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, so I think going through really bad times is unavoidable at this point.

[2centsworth]

Well, let's just say your plan has no legs to stand on.
Venezuela is actually a democracy (pretty corrupt one, like the rest of South America), but still a democracy. They applied for membership to the Mercosur (which is pretty much the equal to the Euro Union, but less developed. At this time they're about to create a central bank for the region) and been already approved by Argentina and Uruguay (pending is the approval of Brazil and Paraguay). Obviously an attack to any member country is an automatic offense to the rest of the countries.
Further, they supply natural gas to a bunch of these countries, so taking away that would be a real serious problem. Not to mention that all these countries lost sympathy for the US long time ago (the exception being Chile and perhaps Colombia).
It would also be a huge international headache, because most of these countries have investments and their actual population descendant from Spain (from colonial times) and Italy (from WW1 and WW2). So 'coalition' support for an unilateral action like that would be at the very least very problematic.
Now this is not to say some countries wouldn't like to see Chavez go. However, not like that. It would actually reinforce Chavez's view that the US is an imperialist country.
Let's also not forget that South America is well versed in guerrilla wars, starting from the 70's during most of military governments in the region, until now, with the Colombian FARC.

So I see that move pretty much as a no go, unless Chavez does something terribly stupid (which could happen, but would be really rare, since he already has enough oil money to keep his people and neighbors happy).

To be honest with you, the real problem is with politicians from both ends of the spectrum spending like crazy and not thinking where that money is going to come from. We're going to need some fundamental changes in the way politicians think about spending money. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, so I think going through really bad times is unavoidable at this point.
:toast