On this forum we often have threads which proudly exclaim why the US is Super:

1) We have the greatest military might on the planet (and it is this that makes some of us suggest that we should 'nuke Iran', 'topple Chavez', 'say screw it to the rest of the world' etc, etc.)

2) We allow ourselves the right to embark on pre-emptive wars for similar reasons

3) We love living in our country because it has so many good points

4) We are the best at so many things

BUT, rarely do we ask ourselves - AT WHAT COST do these wondrous bounties come.
Do we believe that we have them because our land particularly graced with natural resources? Nope - we import a very large percentage of our copper, chromium, platinum, nickel, manganese, etc. and especially our oil.

Do we believe that we have these bounties because we are such a hard-working nation? Nope, most Asian countries would make us look like overpaid slaggards.

Is it because we are super efficient? Good grief, no. Per person we produce 5 times as much waste as a citizen of Europe and our energy consumption per capita is legendary. We drive ridiculously large personal vehicles because "It is my right to". We heat the air in our buildings to summer temperatures in winter and then chill it to winter temperatures in summer, and then open the doors so the frigid air can pour out onto the streets. Don't believe me? Go for a walk down 5th Avenue tomorrow at 3pm.

One of the main factors for our achievements is that WE BORROW the capital to allow us to achieve many of these milestones. And we are not repaying it. The US public debt as of yesterday was $ 9 520 353 319 152 - people, that is 9.5 TRILLION dollars!!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np
And our population is 304 673 314 http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

That means that you - yes, you, the one shaking your head - like me YOU also owe $31 247.

But all of this will come right in the long run, won't it? No, it won't!! Let us look at the track record of our debt. Check out the graph below (click it). See that lovely flat trend between 1945 and 1980. Those were the golden years of the US. That was when the empire was truly great. And then the greatness started to show serious cracks.

Because then along came Ronald who wanted to stop various countries from choosing their own futures. To do this he needed a BIG military and he wanted subversion and wars. And our debt climbed like a cat with a mastiff on its butt. Check what happened after Ronnie came into power in 1981.

Then along came Clinton. At first he was as free with my money as Ronnie was, but then sense prevailed and he even managed to reverse the trend. In fact he was doing an excellent job.

And then George the Younger arrived. And he was not happy with just seeking the perpetrators of 911 in Afghanistan. Nooo. In fact he left a half-done job there so as to find something FAR more important that the Al Qaeda leaders - he wanted to find Sadam's WMDs. He wanted REAL wars, and still does - I can hear his sabre rattling right now. And it has cost me an arm and a leg. Take a look at the graph - a good look. See that hockey-stick leap in 2001. That was Dubya.

But don't worry, the economy was great!! Was it? I know his regime said it was, but were these just more lies? The dollar fell out of bed compared to the Euro. "So what?" - I hear, "consumer spending was pulling us through." Sure, and where did this mountain of money come from that the consumers were spending to drive our economic engine? Were we all getting dramatically increased salaries? Nope, we were getting cheap mortgages and inflated house prices, and many of us were able to cash in on the rise in realty value through additional mortgaging. But that has to end, right, and it won't cost too much, will it?

No freakin' way - it is going to cost a BUCKET!!

US housing rescue ‘could cost $25bn’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e4d3806c-5...nclick_check=1

"The plan has faced criticism on Capitol Hill for exposing taxpayers to potentially huge losses, but is seen by most lawmakers and administration officials as necessary to prevent mortgage rates from climbing even higher."

But wait a minute. I thought that interest rates had to go up when inflation was threatening, like it is, otherwise terrible things happen, and these guys are talking about keeping things as they are!!

So why is inflation a threat? Well when oil prices double, it has a massive knock-on. The price of oil reflects on everything from transport, to fetilizer, to corn flakes. And why has the oil price leapt? Instability in the Middle East. And why is there instability in the Middle East? Because of the invasions and threatened invasions by our current regime, Dummy.

Whoa, Dubya - cut it out - you are messing badly with my retirement and my kids chances of finding a job. STOP IT!!

Attached Images

US debt.jpg (12.1 KB, 5 views)

Your right it has to stop. I pretty much agree with all of your points, although maybe not the adjectives used for describing each president. I feel Clinton had it easy, in that many of the problems were there during his presidency, but they were not apparent until later. The housing prices started sky rocketing in the 90's. Overall a lot of these programs are ridiculous, and the war was probably too costly for any gain we may get in security or oil. What I don't understand is how people like McCain and Obama can have so much support given how many government programs they want to put in given our debt.

Danik - you stole my line!! You pre-empted my next comment!!

And of course you are perfectly correct - Are the two candidates going to maintain the rate of increase of our borrowings and debt?

Just like the yuppy who borrows money from the bank, from the lenders, from his friends, from the pawnshop, to fund his excess ego and the extravagances it leads him into, someday he could be called to pay it back. But we forget another reality - in the meantime he has to pay INTEREST on his burgeoning debt.

So what is predicted for the future? Many say - it doesn't matter - we just owe this money to ourselves. WRONG!!. In 1983 only 13% of our debt was held by foreigner governments. The most recent estimates are that 50% of the debt in public hands is held by non-Americans. And as that debt grows, so will the cost of servicing it - the interest.

The graph below shows a truly frightening prediction, made not by some leftist Lithuanian economist, but by the GOA itself. The graph shows that in about 20 years time mandatory spending (primarily Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt) will exceed tax revenue. Yes, these items will gobble up ALL of the government's income. Which means that all discretionary spending (e.g., defense, homeland security, law enforcement, education, etc.) will require borrowing and related deficit spending. Yep, Uncle Sam will need to borrow funds like some pauper to pay for your granddaughter's education. Government agencies have used language such as "unsustainable" and "trainwreck" to describe such a future (Wikipedia comment)

Yes, the baby boomers are going to cause a significant portion of this mandatory expenditure, but look at the big culprit, the red bit on the graph. That is the interest due on the national debt.

So before you wish for Bush to sally forth into Iran before November, think of the future economic well-being of your children or grandchildren. You may just be screwing them royally if your wishes come true. And when you vote in November, ask yourselves what is the greatest risk, another country having more non-existent WMDs, or our currency and economy being at the mercy of those who hold our promissory notes, our IOUs?

There is a current thread about how Russia is a 'has been'. Did you know that Russia holds 62 billion dollars of our red line? If they called it in tomorrow, the dollar of today would be but a distant memory, and YOU will need to be prepared to barge your way to the front of the line to try to withdraw your funds from your local bank. You will probably be too late.

As a country-risk analyst friend of mine calls it - "the paper H-bomb; far more subtle than WMDs but far more deadly".

Attached Images

Entitlement spending risks.jpg (15.1 KB, 2 views)

What can stop the debt rocket? Two things can. First, if lenders stop lending us more money, we will have to stop borrowing. Second, if we ourselves decide to stop borrowing, the debt rocket will have to stop. The problem is going to be this: it would be politically unpopular to tell the people that they have to pay for their pet government programs out of taxes only rather than by borrowing. After all, it is much more fun to spend the money now and send the bill to future generations rather than pay your own way for your wastefulness.

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

The only thing that will stop it is the election of a third party that wants to abolish the Federal Reserve.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

So, if we kill off the Federal Reserve, what's next?

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

You people are baffoons. "Public debt" is created by the public, not G.W. Bush.

OK, I consider myself a libertarian (small "l') but abolishing the Federal Reserve is idiotic.

This is from a private message exchange I had with another poster:

Me: The problems that the Federal Reserve exists to correct for are permanent realities of the market. There won't be a time where people won't think that they can use run away speculation to succeed even though the risks and repercussions from those actions pose direct threats to the very foundations of the economy and there will always be banks who would try to get an advantage in the banking market by not properly backing up their deposits. The Fed is here to stay, so long as we value a healthy and stable economy.

In this case, the Federal Reserve did not do the job that it was given. The result would have been the same if not worse had the Fed not existed.

In this case, the Fed is doing what it is supposed to do, keep the supply of money in the country relatively stable. The real problem is that they have to continue to print money to keep that supply stable because the US is losing so much of its currency to foreign holders through an imbalance of trade and other imbalances in the flow of currency. If the Fed did not keep the domestic supply stable, then currency transactions would dramatically decrease which would be a death blow to the economy and we would enter a massive depression, as currency transactions are the very fundamental foundation of everything in the entire economy.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises

I sure hope so, since we are responsible for 46% of global military spending.

I think it is an area that can be trimmed.

And to directly address the topic of this thread:

We could possibly STOP SPENDING SO MUCH MONEY!

The best thing that people could do is make sure that Obama won't get elected and then to elect Congressmen who are dedicated to reducing spending.

__________________
.

"It is extremely difficult for our contemporaries to conceive of the conditions of free banking because they take government interference with banking for granted and as necessary"

-- Ludwig von Mises