$130,000,000,000,000

[Phatscotty]

so you suggest during the crisis to lower governement spending, send governement workers home, and increase taxes?

great idea!

It's not a suggestion, or an idea. it's a demand of our creditors.

Why don't you get that? Total Debt = Total Slavery. You think the dummy who spent more than they make gets a choice?

IMF says, USA will do. and when that happens, we are going to blame people like you.

So you better pull your head out of your ass PRONTO!

[Phatscotty]

americans will max out their government spending untill there's no way back.

then when their country is bankrupt and there will be no more future in the promise land, they'll probably be scrambling, climbing over fences and digging tunnels to immigrate to mexico, where life will be good and they can enjoy margaritas and juanitas in peace and sunshine.

You really think, that the people who are on the hook for paying the debt (American workers) will be allowed to leave? ??

??????????????????????

The creditor will probably have a say in that area.....just a guess.

[Phatscotty]

Another somewhat less drastic case study could be Canada during the 90's the then liberal government went after the deficit and managed to slay it and then brought in modest surpluses for several years, right untill the conservatives took power. Fiscal responsibility has since gone out the window in an attempt to buy votes.

ARe you sure central bank interest rates and global markets dont have a little to do with the Canadian economy than which party controls gov't at temporary intervals?????

You gotta do something about the hatred man....

[Baron Von PWN]

americans will max out their government spending untill there's no way back.

then when their country is bankrupt and there will be no more future in the promise land, they'll probably be scrambling, climbing over fences and digging tunnels to immigrate to mexico, where life will be good and they can enjoy margaritas and juanitas in peace and sunshine.

You really think, that the people who are on the hook for paying the debt (American workers) will be allowed to leave? ??

??????????????????????

The creditor will probably have a say in that area.....just a guess.

You know ultimetly when a debtors is a whole country especialy a huge powerfull one like say the USA. They can just tell the creditor to just f*ck off, ruins their credit and reputation but it solves their short term problem and over time they can overcome the bad rep. Russia did it twice once in the 1920's and again in the 1990's. Obviously it would be prefferable to pay off your debts before it came to that point but if the USA realy had to they could just give the world the finger and not pay till they felt like it.

[Baron Von PWN]

Another somewhat less drastic case study could be Canada during the 90's the then liberal government went after the deficit and managed to slay it and then brought in modest surpluses for several years, right untill the conservatives took power. Fiscal responsibility has since gone out the window in an attempt to buy votes.

ARe you sure central bank interest rates and global markets dont have a little to do with the Canadian economy than which party controls gov't at temporary intervals?????

You gotta do something about the hatred man....

Stop what hate? you've said it before still doesen't make sense. Where am I being hateful?

You obviously don't know anything about the current Canadian government.they plan to spend over a billion dollars on the G8 and G20 budget on securtiy allone. They've also built a fake lake and media center that will be taken down and drained days after the conference another pile of cash, Gazzebos and parks were built in a minister's ridding supposedly for conference but the conference will never be going anywhere near there. They took a budget surplus and turned it into Canada's biggest ever defficit after the Prime minister hilariously promised there would be no deficit on national telivision and actualy claimed Canada would somehow not suffer a reccession.

So yeah I think the current political party might have something to do with why we are currently getting 50 billion dollar deficits.

Besides all that, the economy actualy had little to do with the liberals managing to kill the deficit.They killed the defficit and made the spending cuts durring a reccession. Sure the bad economic situation may be what caused the Liberals to take action with regards to killing the defficit but the economic situation didin't help them do so. Afterwards they made sure the government ran on a surplus, the conservatives would actualy criticise the government for having larger buget surpluses than forcasted! The liberals were in for 10 years and posted surpluses for 7 of them, they eventualy lost power because of a corruption scandal amounting to some million dollars or so and haven't realy recovered.

Since the conservatives have been in they posted two surpluses totaling about 20 billion and two deficits totaling about 52 billion. Fiscal responsibility indeed.

[thegreekdog]

Friendly neighborhood political ombudsman here...

Since the conservatives have been in they posted two surpluses totaling about 20 billion and two deficits totaling about 52 billion. Fiscal responsibility indeed.

The phrase "look what Bush did" or any related phrases, should no longer be permitted because (1) most fiscally responsible conservatives have the same gripes about President Bush as they do about President Obama and (2)(a) if you think fiscal responsibility doesn't matter, then you can't really criticize President Bush, and (2)(b) if you think fiscal responsibility does matter, you should accept and participate in the criticism of President Obama.

Is it unfair to blame the deficit on President Obama? Yes. But if you are against federal budget deficits, then you should not be supporting the current president either.

[TeeGee]

just sell Alaska

or sell Iraq.. don't u guys own that too now

[Army of GOD]

just sell Alaska

I like it.

Do you think the Russians will take it back?

[Phatscotty]

Friendly neighborhood political ombudsman here...

Since the conservatives have been in they posted two surpluses totaling about 20 billion and two deficits totaling about 52 billion. Fiscal responsibility indeed.

The phrase "look what Bush did" or any related phrases, should no longer be permitted because (1) most fiscally responsible conservatives have the same gripes about President Bush as they do about President Obama and (2)(a) if you think fiscal responsibility doesn't matter, then you can't really criticize President Bush, and (2)(b) if you think fiscal responsibility does matter, you should accept and participate in the criticism of President Obama.

Is it unfair to blame the deficit on President Obama? Yes. But if you are against federal budget deficits, then you should not be supporting the current president either.

It is also permissible to blame Bush and Obama for overspending, but Obama is the one ignoring the warning signs...

I don't care about who put the sign up, I care that it is there, and it is currently being ignored with a smile

[rockfist]

Barack Hussein Obama doubling down on stupid.

[Phatscotty]

BRAGGING about doubling down!

[rockfist]

He is getting great advice from his cabinet and VP "We have to spend more money so we don't go bankrupt." - Joseph Biden

[Baron Von PWN]

Friendly neighborhood political ombudsman here...

Since the conservatives have been in they posted two surpluses totaling about 20 billion and two deficits totaling about 52 billion. Fiscal responsibility indeed.

The phrase "look what Bush did" or any related phrases, should no longer be permitted because (1) most fiscally responsible conservatives have the same gripes about President Bush as they do about President Obama and (2)(a) if you think fiscal responsibility doesn't matter, then you can't really criticize President Bush, and (2)(b) if you think fiscal responsibility does matter, you should accept and participate in the criticism of President Obama.

Is it unfair to blame the deficit on President Obama? Yes. But if you are against federal budget deficits, then you should not be supporting the current president either.

There is much more to my dislike of the Conservative government in Canada than a budget deficit. Primarily its their absurd talking points all "fiscal responsibility" while posting a massive deficit, "Open and acountable government' while being the most secretive government canada has had in a long time, they persued moronic minimum scentencing laws which don't do anything except make prisons more expensive and haveing no effect on crime rates. They have basicly been actively stupid the whole time when in government a pursuing cheap gimicky policy.

IMO you can't say the same about Obama, he at least has had some vision tried to pursue some real policies and generaly not been quite so useless.

[tdans]

ROFL.. Obama has it all under control man.. Running out of money??/ well.. Print some more,,, VIoALA!!! Fixed

Great, then there will be mass inflation and then the US dollar will be worthless... Doesn't sound so good....

lol yea... i was jking m8.. lol

[thegreekdog]

Friendly neighborhood political ombudsman here...

Since the conservatives have been in they posted two surpluses totaling about 20 billion and two deficits totaling about 52 billion. Fiscal responsibility indeed.

The phrase "look what Bush did" or any related phrases, should no longer be permitted because (1) most fiscally responsible conservatives have the same gripes about President Bush as they do about President Obama and (2)(a) if you think fiscal responsibility doesn't matter, then you can't really criticize President Bush, and (2)(b) if you think fiscal responsibility does matter, you should accept and participate in the criticism of President Obama.

Is it unfair to blame the deficit on President Obama? Yes. But if you are against federal budget deficits, then you should not be supporting the current president either.

There is much more to my dislike of the Conservative government in Canada than a budget deficit. Primarily its their absurd talking points all "fiscal responsibility" while posting a massive deficit, "Open and acountable government' while being the most secretive government canada has had in a long time, they persued moronic minimum scentencing laws which don't do anything except make prisons more expensive and haveing no effect on crime rates. They have basicly been actively stupid the whole time when in government a pursuing cheap gimicky policy.

IMO you can't say the same about Obama, he at least has had some vision tried to pursue some real policies and generaly not been quite so useless.

Actually, I can say the same thing about President Obama. His bailout plans created more government jobs than private sector jobs, at a cost of approximately $250K per job created (and those employees aren't making anywhere close to $250K a year). His bailout plans also bailed out companies and unions that failed, which, in my opinion, will only exacerbate the issue in future years (by rewarding failure, essentially).

His healthcare bill has massive amounts of spending, and yet does not mandate the insurance of all Americans; in fact, I heard recently that over 29 million Americans will remain without health insurance.

In sum, while I think he has pursued "real policies" as opposed to "fake wars," it seems pretty apparent to me that his policies in action are a great waste of money that the United States doesn't have. I'm still trying to maintain some sort of reasonableness about his presidency, considering that he indicated in his State of the Union speech that he wants to engage in some federal belt tightening, which I would support. However, that belt tightening plan has not yet been put into effect, and I've heard nothing about it since the State of the Union.

[NightWolf]

130 trillion in liabilities? That kinda makes the bankers laugh, when they count the literally hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of fiat derivatives that they have created, which are likely worth more that all the worlds current assets combined. Then again, our liabilities are never going to be paid off anyways...what a sad realization. It never ceases to amaze me as to why we have not officially defaulted yet. We've pretty much been bankrupt for decades, and no wonder - The closest we ever were to eliminating our countries debt was under Andrew Jackson, leaving the deficit to around 33K (1835). That translates (2009) to be approximately 692K.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, I can say the same thing about President Obama. His bailout plans created more government jobs than private sector jobs, at a cost of approximately $250K per job created (and those employees aren't making anywhere close to $250K a year). His bailout plans also bailed out companies and unions that failed, which, in my opinion, will only exacerbate the issue in future years (by rewarding failure, essentially).

I agree with you here. However, I think the real problem goes far deeper than anyone is acknowledging. I know I harp on this, but the real bottom line is that we have not held companies or individuals responsible for their actions. That results in a system that rewards things that might not be considered "failures" in the immediate economic sense, but that wind up destroying future economic potential in many, many ways.

Whenever someone says that we "have to take people over the evironment", I want to scream. We are not seperate from the environment, we are a part of it. When we kill off a species, we kill off any and all potential for it forever. If we every look at that realistically, the idea that ANY gain for 20, 30, even 50, even 100 years is just not going to stack up against he damage caused by that loss. The fact that we cannot immediately see and recognize a problem from that loss simply means we know little. Failure to be able to prove something is of value should never be taken as justification for eliminating it.

Similarly, right now, companies are allowed to produce materials with only very minimal testing to prove they won't cause immediate harm. Sometimes not even that. The burden of proof is on the individual then to say "hey, you killed my child!". Again, the whole system is just backwards.

This whole system of doing damage and then, essentially "asking forgiveness" afterward assumes that none of the damage done is going to be truly irreversable. Yet, most damage is irreversable.

OR, try looking at the World Bank and how it operates, the entire US policy of "economic freedom". Haiti is actually a very good example of the problem. Haiti has never been wealthy, but was able to feed itself, though just barely, off rice. In came the World Bank. With its loans came requirements that Haiti "open up" its markets to US and other exports. Well, US rice farmers are highly industrialized and subsidized by our government. Haiti's farmers could not compete. So, rice production went down and millions migrated to the cities, where there was little food, etc, where they often wound up dependent. Of course, this is a simplification, but it is still true..a nd the same truth has happened over and over throughout the world.

Unless and until we create a system that really and truly accounts for damages, we will always and forever be borrowing from our great, great grandchildren. This bit about the debt is only that same ethic laid out in terms of money systems.

His healthcare bill has massive amounts of spending, and yet does not mandate the insurance of all Americans; in fact, I heard recently that over 29 million Americans will remain without health insurance.

This was congress. A congress stymied by Republicans who flat out refused to even try to compromise.

In sum, while I think he has pursued "real policies" as opposed to "fake wars," it seems pretty apparent to me that his policies in action are a great waste of money that the United States doesn't have. I'm still trying to maintain some sort of reasonableness about his presidency, considering that he indicated in his State of the Union speech that he wants to engage in some federal belt tightening, which I would support. However, that belt tightening plan has not yet been put into effect, and I've heard nothing about it since the State of the Union.

The problem is not the presidency. I am not sure any president can fix the problems here.

[rockfist]

I am a banker, albeit a Commercial Banker, which is NOT the same as a Wall Street Investment Banker...not even close. It doesn't make us laugh. I deal with cash flows, risk mitigation, and short term investments and I understand most accounting well. Government accounting I have never understood because they don't recognize future liabilities, whereas at least companies will try (Pension and Post Retirement Obligation Accounting is Byzantine). When the US government's debt exceeds the current value of all the assets of its citizens AND the net present value of all future cash flows generated by the citizens, it is in fact completely bankrupt and NO amount of taxation can fix that.

It worries me that I understand more than 99.9% of the people about finance and I haven't the slightest clue how we can possibly pay our "entitlements" and keep a functional society. What also worries me is that these are extremely complex budgetary issues and if enough village idiots team together to scream loudly enough at the government their chewing tobacco subsidies will remain, even if it tanks the whole solution.

If someone understands it, could you please explain it to me?

[thegreekdog]

This was congress. A congress stymied by Republicans who flat out refused to even try to compromise.

The healthcare plan that was passed was the same healthcare plan that was proposed, substantially. Any changes that were made were made to placate Democrats, not Republicans. You have no one to blame for this law but the people who voted for the law and the president than signed it.

The problem is not the presidency. I am not sure any president can fix the problems here.

We were actually pretty okay when President Clinton was in office. President Bush hurt a lot; President Obama is exacerbating the problems.

[Phatscotty]

How about we just focus on STEP 1 rather than concentrating on the difficulties of fixing/escaping the situation.

Step #1

Acknowledge officially that we have a problem, and define what that problem is. Even if it is only 1 piece of the puzzle, it's a start. We can do this by electing the right kind of people. I do not know what the right kid of person is, but I do know what the right kind of person IS NOT...

- A lawyer
- Went to an elite school
- has been a politician previously (a few exceptions)
- Is filthy rich and lives in a 5+ bedroom home
- has been taking money from shadowy donors
- Uses double speak
- makes promises people know they cannot keep

[Phatscotty]

americans will max out their government spending untill there's no way back.

then when their country is bankrupt and there will be no more future in the promise land, they'll probably be scrambling, climbing over fences and digging tunnels to immigrate to mexico, where life will be good and they can enjoy margaritas and juanitas in peace and sunshine.

You really think, that the people who are on the hook for paying the debt (American workers) will be allowed to leave? ??

??????????????????????

The creditor will probably have a say in that area.....just a guess.

You know ultimetly when a debtors is a whole country especialy a huge powerfull one like say the USA. They can just tell the creditor to just f*ck off, ruins their credit and reputation but it solves their short term problem and over time they can overcome the bad rep. Russia did it twice once in the 1920's and again in the 1990's. Obviously it would be prefferable to pay off your debts before it came to that point but if the USA realy had to they could just give the world the finger and not pay till they felt like it.

And no worry about the creditors military presence???

[PLAYER57832]

I am a banker, albeit a Commercial Banker, which is NOT the same as a Wall Street Investment Banker...not even close. It doesn't make us laugh. I deal with cash flows, risk mitigation, and short term investments and I understand most accounting well.

Except, as intelligent as you no doubt are, you don't really understand risk OR impact. You only understand those you are forced to acknowledge. That is the big difference.

Any fisherman could have, without much education, given a halfway decent assessment of the risk this well might pose, just given the rough estimates of outflow. BUT, they were not consulted, their position was not truly considered because they are not really and truly part of the "risk assessments" made. When you get into even more tangential issues like losses of marshlands and species that were not identified when this plan was approved and that are perhaps not even identified yet (yep, they no doubt exists in the deeper Gulf regions), then it is a total fail.

So, to claim you "understand accounting" and "understand risk" is a very gross understatement. And that someone as involved in finance as you seem to be would think otherwise.. THAT is a big part of the real problem.

It worries me that I understand more than 99.9% of the people about finance and I haven't the slightest clue how we can possibly pay our "entitlements" and keep a functional society. What also worries me is that these are extremely complex budgetary issues and if enough village idiots team together to scream loudly enough at the government their chewing tobacco subsidies will remain, even if it tanks the whole solution.

I would agree with this, in principal. However, based on other conversations, I would say you discount some of the worst entitlements. The worst entitlements, the most costly overall are not those paid to individual taxpayers, they are the many discounts, tax breaks and mandates to consider "fair market" products (even when not are all truly created with equal impacts, even when some only seem cheap because of , well, "accounting tricks") given to large corporations.

Even beyond that, the very worst "entitlement" is this idea that any natural product, whether underground, in the ocean or only land, is basically just there for the taking, and has no value unless and until it is removed and sold.

[Baron Von PWN]

americans will max out their government spending untill there's no way back.

then when their country is bankrupt and there will be no more future in the promise land, they'll probably be scrambling, climbing over fences and digging tunnels to immigrate to mexico, where life will be good and they can enjoy margaritas and juanitas in peace and sunshine.

You really think, that the people who are on the hook for paying the debt (American workers) will be allowed to leave? ??

??????????????????????

The creditor will probably have a say in that area.....just a guess.

You know ultimetly when a debtors is a whole country especialy a huge powerfull one like say the USA. They can just tell the creditor to just f*ck off, ruins their credit and reputation but it solves their short term problem and over time they can overcome the bad rep. Russia did it twice once in the 1920's and again in the 1990's. Obviously it would be prefferable to pay off your debts before it came to that point but if the USA realy had to they could just give the world the finger and not pay till they felt like it.

And no worry about the creditors military presence???

Who the f*ck is going to mess with the US militarily? If Russia could do it in the 90's the USA could definetly do it. Even a reltively small country could probably get away with it invading would likely cost more than the debt itself and even then there isin't realy much you can do to make the invaded country pay. Sure you can seize their assets but it won't be worth the debt if it was the country would just pay off the debt (think the french occupation of the Rhineland in the interwar years). I of course I mean this only a last resort scenario and I'm only sugessting it if the US finds itself in a as seriously fucked situation as russia was in the 90's.

[Phatscotty]

hmm, can we back up one second, and take a gander as to just how strong Americas military would be at that point, ya know....

[Baron Von PWN]

hmm, can we back up one second, and take a gander as to just how strong Americas military would be at that point, ya know....

Wouldn't be any worse than Russia's in the 90's and no mater the spending cuts the USA already has the best hardware in the world and the trained troops to use it, even if they didin't there's the neuclear deterent.