erich37
Well-known member
US debt is currently at 600% of GDP.
The Demise of the United States is Inevitable
- Thread starter Fred Sherman
- Start date
- Status
US debt is currently at 600% of GDP.
MGSteve
Well-known member
Got any figures to back that statement up, all the figures I've seen are nearing 100%. If it was 600%, things would definitely be a damn sight worse for the US than they already are.
erich37
Well-known member
USD 60 trillion.
it's also mentioned couple times by Marc Faber and Jim Rogers.
Check YouTube for those 2 people.
jasetaro
Well-known member
If you add in federal government's $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations for social security, medicare, etc. that aren't normally counted as part of the debt, that 600% percent of GDP figure is certainly plausible.
A few other related links:
MGSteve
Well-known member
Obligations are usually funded somehow though and not treated as debt, hence not being counted as debt. It leaves them free however to be counted as debt by anyone who feels that way inclined
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
Is the Department of Department Departmentalization listed there.
If it's not, it should be. Every other Dept of... is there.
John
Well-known member
Currently the Dow is down over 300 points today. I am hemorrhaging money from my 401A account. Anyone who thinks the US economy isn't teetering on the brink needs to remove their head from the sand and take a long hard look around. Individually, we all need to be storing food stocks and seed and buying whatever amounts of precious metals we can afford.
el canadiano
Active member
Where the hell did you get that number? I would like to know. Close to 100% by the end of the year is more realistic, and even then...
100% of GDP isn't actually that high of a number. Historically, the United States was closer to 120% back in World War II, when they (along with most other countries) issued bonds, borrowed, etc. to fund the war. At the same time, countries like the United Kingdom and Japan have Over time, the United States actually pared down that number, until Ronald Reagan came in. I'm sorry, but if you're going to massively tax cut, do it wisely (forget ideology for a bit). Likewise, you should only spend if you get more than a bang for a buck. Consider this graph.
As for the balanced budget claim, absolutely stupid. Consider a scenario where your budget is in fact more or less balanced and then another Katrina comes into play, or another terrorist attack comes in and the next big war comes in (World War II). I suppose the idea is good, but that's not the way you should tackle it. Also, the term, "Balanced Budget" is purely rhetoric. If you really cared about paring down the debt, you work yourself into a surplus. That's what Canada did from '93-'08, where we just had surplus after surplus, and eventually, a lot of the programs that were cut beforehand by either party ended up getting restored/reinstated. Canada started investing in infrastrucutre, fixing buildings, purchasing parts of GM, etc., in order to combat the loss of aggregate demand in the global economy, which was what got them into deficit. Canada has been growing decently since, and the stimulus money has been going down, with another projected surplus in 2015.
The difference between Canada and the United States is that it doesn't matter if you're the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party in Canada. The fiscal goal is the same. Surplus when you can, but don't be afraid to deficit. I will rant at the first post and Jaxel's first post at a later time. Either way, welcome to the Global economy. All the United States really needs to do is adjust and stop acting "cute" by saying they're the best all the time.
Edrondol
Well-known member
The only thing I disagree with is the hoarding of precious metals. Personally, I can see why you'd say that, but it's not that which would be inherently valuable if a collapse happens. Weapons, cured food, survival items - these will be the things of real value.
whynot
Well-known member
John
Well-known member
Down 512 now...
jasetaro
Well-known member
Yup, officially a "correction"... It's ugly the broader markets are just as bad the DJIA, NASDAQ, S&P 500 & NYSE Composite all ended the day down roughly 5%.Down 512 now...
Carlos
Well-known member
Geez, this chart is vastly different than the one I saw in the economics class.
But I'm seeing a scary trend here. Both Bush'es seem to have raised GDP, and Clinton seems to have solved pretty much it's problems - but by the time Bush II took president, he undos everything that Mr. Clinton has done. O_O
Under Obama, we seem to be seeing a sharp rise - but its not really his fault, however, the point stops at where Truman was president. I think a new equilibrium is going to happen and soon.
John
Well-known member
Take a closer look at the short period of time Obama has been in office and the drastic rise...that is not by coincidence nor is it "not really his fault". He is spending more and faster than any president in this country's history. Clinton's time reducing the debt coincides with the first Republican Congress in 40 years that put the breaks on spending during those years...if only they would have remained true to the task and held George W in check.
jasetaro
Well-known member
A couple interesting little factoids: during his 8 year tenure as Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert added roughly $3.1 trillion to the debt. By contrast Nancy Pelosi added roughly $5 trillion to the debt during her 4 year tenure as speaker.
Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pe
Second "It took from 1776, when the United States became an independent country, until 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell signaling victory in the Cold War, for the federal government to accumulate a total of $3 trillion in debt, according to the Treasury Department. It only took from Jan. 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama was inaugurated, until Oct. 15, 2010, for the Obama administration to add $3 trillion to the federal debt."
Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/it-s-official-obama-has-now-borrowed-3-t
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
You may be accurate, but here is how I interrupt this: 1776 - 1990, $3 trillion in debt; Republicans - 8 years to add another $3 trillion; Democrats, 4 years to add more than $3 trillion; Obama - 18 months to add $3 trillion...
In other words, BOTH parties spend like drunken sailors. Bush adds an unpaid prescription drug benefit; Obama adds Obamacare. THIS ISN'T PARTISAN.
No party is going to fix this because each has their own sacred cow, but is more than willing to gore the other party's ox. Until someone has the courage to sit the American people down life small children and explain that we need to cut EVERYTHING without exception, 50% across the board, we're all just living a lie.
Yes, thats Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Defense - everything.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
When Obama took office he didn't really have a choice but to spend more.
Cheney would have spent lots of money as well.
At the time, "common wisdom" said that spending should increase during a recession, as reduced spending could "hurt" the economy. Even our Conservative government in Canada spent lots of money (mostly by the opposition saying they had to). Time has basically shown that "Stimulus" money did nothing.
Why did Obama spend lots of money:
Spend money. Economy is still bad . You could say you tried. [win]
Spend money. Economy is good . You are a genius. [win]
Don't Spend money. Economy is still bad . You should have spent money [fail]
Don't Spend money. Economy is good . No one cares. [--]
The only risk was to not spend money. Politicians don't like Risk.
Cheney would have spent lots of money as well.
At the time, "common wisdom" said that spending should increase during a recession, as reduced spending could "hurt" the economy. Even our Conservative government in Canada spent lots of money (mostly by the opposition saying they had to). Time has basically shown that "Stimulus" money did nothing.
Why did Obama spend lots of money:
Spend money. Economy is still bad . You could say you tried. [win]
Spend money. Economy is good . You are a genius. [win]
Don't Spend money. Economy is still bad . You should have spent money [fail]
Don't Spend money. Economy is good . No one cares. [--]
The only risk was to not spend money. Politicians don't like Risk.
- Status