PDA

View Full Version : Let’s Finally Debate the Greatest Threat to America: Our $18.9 Trillion in Debt




Brian4Liberty
01-20-2016, 07:08 PM
Let’s Finally Debate the Greatest Threat to America: Our $18.9 Trillion in Debt (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/01/14/Let-s-Finally-Debate-Greatest-Threat-America-Our-189-Trillion-Debt)
By Mark Sanford - January 14, 2016


There have been debates, bluster, TV coverage, and more, but you know what’s been lacking in this Presidential race…a serious discussion of the debt, deficit, and government spending. It’s been skipped, and the degree to which this issue is not in vogue these days fits with what I have seen since I came back to the US Congress two and a half years ago.

Unlike the issues of guns, abortion, trade, ISIS, refugees, education, and more, this one issue falls into the category of near radio silence. Yet what the next President and Congress do to affect the sustainability of the way in which your money is spent in Washington will have more to do with the value of our currency, your savings, and even your way of life than any of today’s hot-button issues.
...
In just ten years, there will only be enough money coming into the federal government to pay for interest and entitlements…and nothing else. This is not in our grandkid’s time, it’s in the next President’s time that the consequences of this financial reality begin to really come home. It will mean dire things for interest rates, inflation, and the value of the dollar…and by extension the value of all you possess and plan to retire on.

The growth in the federal government debt is becoming geometric. This makes sense, as Einstein was once asked what the most powerful force in the universe was, and his reply was compound interest. Debt can work for you, or against you in very powerful ways…and America is on the verge of experiencing very negative forces on this front. Think about the growth this way: it took two hundred years for our nation to accumulate $5 trillion in debt, yet during just the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency, it doubled and moved from $5 to $10 trillion. Now in the Obama presidency, it is doubling again, moving from $10 to $20 trillion. A freight train is coming at us, and we are not discussing it.

Most frightening is that it’s all scheduled to get much worse over the next ten and twenty years. Because our federal government has operated on what’s called a unified budget since the time of the Vietnam War, the real cost of government’s operations has been masked. Every dollar that came into Washington was spent. Dollars that came in to programs like Social Security masked the true cost of government because their surpluses were used in current operations of government. In Lowcountry terms, this represented the tides coming in. But now the tides are going out because the baby boomers are retiring and these trust funds are running deficits. This phenomenon will grow as the numbers of retirees grow over the years ahead.

Finally, you can’t go much below zero in setting interest rates. The Fed has aided and abetted spending in Washington as it has kept interest rates artificially low. When rates return to historical norms, hundreds of billions will be added each year in interest cost at the federal governmental level. The Federal Reserve has actually done much more than this as its balance sheet swelled over the last few years from $850 billion in 2008 to $4.4 trillion today. Without the Fed buying Treasury paper as it’s done, there is no way the federal government could have run the deficits it has without inflation or taxation that would have caught the interest of Congress, voters…and maybe even Presidential candidates.
...
More: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/01/14/Let-s-Finally-Debate-Greatest-Threat-America-Our-189-Trillion-Debt

Zippyjuan
01-20-2016, 08:00 PM
How does he suggest we deal with it? To even start to reduce the debt you need to collect more in taxes than you spend. To get rid of it in 20 years, you need to collect over $1 trillion more in taxes every year for the next 20 years.

Cut $1.5 trillion from this:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/with_explainer,_total_spending_pie_large.png

Actually this is the part which can be cut- Discretionary Spending. Need $1.5 trillion from this (or raise taxes to compensate for what isn't reduced). Ron Paul said he would not reduce Social Security or Medicaid to "honor the country's commitments". Any politician suggesting to do so would be voted out of office.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/2016-budget-chart-discretionary_large.png

farreri
01-20-2016, 08:17 PM
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/with_explainer,_total_spending_pie_large.png

Aren't most of these programs/departments unconstitutional?

DamianTV
01-20-2016, 08:27 PM
Its a major problem, not sure if it is the biggest however. Total Derivatives worldwide is something absolutely retardedly high, and I have mixed data so not sure which one to go with, but I've heard that total derivatives are more than $49 Trillion, which pretty much exceeds the value of the entire country, not just the GDP, but I've also heard other variants where total derivatives exceed $1 Quadrillion Dollars! A quadrillion is 1000 Trillion. Pretty much exceeds the monetary value of planet earth itself.

*the song "The man who sold the world" suddenly popped into my mind*

pcosmar
01-20-2016, 08:41 PM
Print more
increase welfare

expect an increase in prison industries

DamianTV
01-20-2016, 08:56 PM
Print more
increase welfare

expect an increase in prison industries

Oh yeah, give the power to print money to Banks and the Elite while making Poverty a Crime.

I remember a phrase which seems to ring true with this statement: STIFF THE FED.

oyarde
01-20-2016, 11:45 PM
How does he suggest we deal with it? To even start to reduce the debt you need to collect more in taxes than you spend. To get rid of it in 20 years, you need to collect over $1 trillion more in taxes every year for the next 20 years.

Cut $1.5 trillion from this:
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/with_explainer,_total_spending_pie_large.png

Actually this is the part which can be cut- Discretionary Spending. Need $1.5 trillion from this (or raise taxes to compensate for what isn't reduced). Ron Paul said he would not reduce Social Security or Medicaid to "honor the country's commitments". Any politician suggesting to do so would be voted out of office.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/2016-budget-chart-discretionary_large.png
Well , for starters , the 22 percent on the left side of the first pie graph can be eliminated tomorrow .

TheTexan
01-20-2016, 11:52 PM
How does he suggest we deal with it? To even start to reduce the debt you need to collect more in taxes than you spend. To get rid of it in 20 years, you need to collect over $1 trillion more in taxes every year for the next 20 years.

Right, but we don't have to address this problem now. Let's re-visit it in about 20 years.

For now lets just keep doing what we've been doing, for like, 100 years.

Ronin Truth
01-21-2016, 06:23 AM
More like, way over $200+ TRILLIONS.:mad:

Default and repudiate!

Carry on. :)

CaptUSA
01-21-2016, 07:03 AM
How does he suggest we deal with it?

Any penny cut from your pie charts is a penny that is not removed from the private sector or borrowed from the future private sector. By returning those pennies to their rightful home, they can have a multiplying effect in that each person who trades that penny will receive more value than what they gave up.

That doesn't happen when government spends it.

It would be more instructive to have a chart showing the trillions of dollars that are lost from future industries and people's lives by spending the money here instead. So, how do we deal with it? By cutting everywhere. Slowly in some places and more rapidly in others. THAT is your real "economic stimulus". And it will have the effect of increasing tax revenues in the short run until we can cut them again. All it takes is political will and a reframing of the debate.

We shouldn't be discussing whether cutting government spending is good or not, we should be discussing where and how much to cut to get the most benefit.

ChristianAnarchist
01-21-2016, 07:09 AM
Aren't most of these programs/departments unconstitutional?

Oh no, not the CONSTITUTION again??

Ronin Truth
01-21-2016, 07:15 AM
Aren't most of these programs/departments unconstitutional?

Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the Constitution" and added, "to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ... is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-x-to-the-u-s-constitution

jbauer
01-21-2016, 07:35 AM
Who said we were paying it back?

ghengis86
01-21-2016, 07:41 AM
Who said we were paying it back?

Correct. In its current form as debt-based money, it can never be paid back because of the interest. It is necessary that the debt grow exponentially for their to be 'economic growth'. A return to sound money is the only answer.

Default directly or through debasement. That's the future. My money is on debasement.