Forgot your password?

Close
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck

nizo's Journal: Well this doesn't sound good 24

Journal by nizo

To most observers, it's becoming increasingly obvious that, within the next 10 years, the U.S. government will simply not be able to borrow money fast enough to keep up with its exploding expenses. That has huge implications for everything Americans do, from funding the military to protecting the environment. The Economic Policy Institute recently projected that under the current tax regime, by 2014 all government revenue would be consumed by four areas of spending: health care for the elderly and the poor, Social Security for retirees, national defence and interest on the debt. There will be no money left for such fundamental initiatives as education, transportation or justice, which means the government would be forced into ever-escalating borrowing to pay for basic programs. Walker's department projects that, under the current tax rates, interest costs on the skyrocketing national debt would be about half of all government tax revenues by 2031. Ten years later, the cost of servicing the debt will exceed all government revenues.

From this article.

Anyone able to make this article look less scary?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Well this doesn't sound good More

Well this doesn't sound good

Comments Filter:
  • just need to work there a few years and watch the US sink like most former empires do.

    We could turn things around fairly quick:

    1. convert to non-petroleum fuel (pretty easy if we go gangbusters starting now, and export the technology);

    2. stop exporting US jobs (by making such actions non-deductible on taxes for one thing, and by eliminating deductibility for CEO/CFO/SrExec bonuses and pay during years when such actions are taken by a firm);

    3. invest in education, especially higher education, for all citizen
    • I have a vastly superior option that not only would fix the financial woes of our government, but restore freedom and liberty to the people.

      Kill off all unconstitutional government spending.

      That means education, health care, social security, department of labor, and too many others to list.

      You can even get rid of the dreaded income tax, replace it with NOTHING, and still run a surplus at that point. Talk about restoring freedom and liberty!
      • sigh. it's dreamers like you ...

        look, I'm not saying that there aren't private versions that could be more efficient, but the reality is that human nature means that such private versions aren't more efficient, they're less efficient.

        Just ask Brazil and Argentina what happened when they tried it. Economic basket cases now.

        It's like trying to do basic scientific research inside corporations - the profit motive ends up distorting the research 99 times out of 100.
    • "If we did that (aka kicking out the GOP), that would work."

      I think it would take more than just kicking out the GOP. If it were only that easy! :)
      • I'm basing this on the track records of the two parties. The GOP talks a good game, but are lousy at running government and always rack up major debts. The Dems don't talk up such a game, but they're good at running government efficiently and pay off major debts.

        Basically, GOP is short-term burn the barn approach, Dems are long-term build the nation approach.

        Once you get beyond the rhetoric to the actual practice, that is.

        Oh, and the Greens are at best a spoiler for any national seat.
  • I have in my book collection a really NIFTY book, if only for its cover (I've never actually read it, because even then I was laughing too hard). It was put out about six years ago, i.e., midway through 2000, and it was entitled something like "Prosperity: The Coming 20-Year Boom and What It Means To You".

    Back before 2000, the U.S. had a budget _SURPLUS_. Back in the 80s, it was running a horrible deficit. Now it's running an even worse deficit. And I expect it'll swing around again.

    Anyway, I always thi
    • Back before 2000, the U.S. had a budget _SURPLUS_. Back in the 80s, it was running a horrible deficit. Now it's running an even worse deficit. And I expect it'll swing around again

      Back before 2000, we didn't have radical extremist neocons who don't understand how to efficiently run government in power in the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court ...

      I wonder if there's a causal linkage there ...
      • Huh. Well, I think our government is having the exact same problem as current mega-corporations-- that is, their own shortsightedness is coming back to bite them on the keister. And it's no coincidence-- ours is currently the best government corporate interests can buy!

        [IMHO, Adam Smith never understood that the invisible hand will inevitably go for the wallet, the cheese, the larder, anything that isn't nailed down.]

        Anyway, I don't think *anybody* has ever had a profoundly great understanding of how to
    • What budget surplus? It was all accounting sleight of hand to make it _look_ like a surplus.
      • What budget surplus? It was all accounting sleight of hand to make it _look_ like a surplus.

        Let's say you're right, and certainly there's something to that, given Enron and such. But are you telling me that Bush's announced $300 billion deficit is better? At best, they're not using the right "sleight of hand" (very unlikely), while at worst, even with all the accounting tricks, we're still in the hole, and worst so than any administration (even dollar-adjusted) in the entire history of the U.S. And tha
        • Remember that all of that surplus occurred through the height of the dot-com boom and a huge growth period for the economy. The world's a different place, and comparisons between budgets of today and budgets past are the proverbial comparison of apples to oranges. Part of it is the result choices made by Bush (war footing), but part of it is also just the state of the global economy. Europe's getting their collective shit together. China continues to grow like a weed. Ditto India. All different (or di
          • Oh, so now there was an actual surplus, but "it doesn't count"? I'm not buying that. Government is a black hole that will happily nibble away at _any_ prosperity and still tell us there's reasons for us all to pull our belts in a little tighter. Remember that huge deficit from Reaganomics? It took a lot more than just the dot-com boom to take us out of the red there.

            The current deficit isn't about the state of the economy-- world or local-- or even the current "war" efforts as much as it's about a lack
            • Excuse me for omitting the quotes around surplus in my reply. My position is unchanged.

              I suggest a more in-depth examination of US history is you think this even approaches the most egregious corruption in US history. And, in those cases, the facts, rather than personal suppositions support the evidence.

              Also remember that macroeconomic changes are not anywhere near instantaneous. The benefits or lack thereof or more often the result of the immediately preceeding administration than the current one (for a
  • government projections!

    Seriously, the budget deficits are a huge problem, but much of the doomspeak in that article is way off the mark. You have to remember that US government debt is unique in the world for one reason - it is widely regarded as the safest investment out there, "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government." As such, it provides the foundation for risk-based portfolio theory, which says that the price of a given asset should be driven by its expected return, with a reductio
    • You have to remember that US government debt is unique in the world for one reason - it is widely regarded as the safest investment out there, "backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government."

      The same could have been said for:

      a. the Netherlands (Dutch) Guilder, backed by the full strength of the Dutch trading empire, the richest of all nations at the time (remember tulips?);

      b. the French franc, backed by the full strength of Napolean's Armies and French Law, at the time the most powerful nation

      • Are you suggesting that if we keep down this path, we might end up like the EU? Well then, I say "stay the course!"

        (I know that's not what you're saying, but remember that Nizo was asking for good news.)

        • No, I'm not suggesting we will end up like the EU, rather I'm suggesting that our day in the sun will pass.

          Personally, it's not that bad to live in a country that used to be powerful, and that still is notable enough that most people know where it is, so that's not such a bad thing, per se.

          But the EU is a confederation of a lot of sovereign nations, so we won't end up like the EU.

Q: What is the difference between a duck? A: One leg is both the same.

Close