“The federal government’s fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000,” Walker said. “This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household.”
Which is why I’ve thrown my vote in with the kooks. The country needs someone with a “drastic” plan of action. This has to stop.
USA Today’s figures put it at $59 trillion.
But this has nothing to do with Bush. It is the actual numbers if you include Social Security. Bush tried to fix this, and was roundly attacked. (They said not to tear down the house to fix it. Unfortunately they never pointed out there was no house in the first place.)
An this is why we should do something about Social Security instead of just pushing it off until later.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
USA Today’s figures put it at $59 trillion.
But this has nothing to do with Bush. It is the actual numbers if you include Social Security. Bush tried to fix this, and was roundly attacked. (They said not to tear down the house to fix it. Unfortunately they never pointed out there was no house in the first place.)
An this is why we should do something about Social Security instead of just pushing it off until later.[/quote]
Which candidate running has your confidence in doing so?
This is why I don’t like the same party in charge of Congress and the Oval Office.
He should have used his veto far more often.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The Mage wrote:
USA Today’s figures put it at $59 trillion.
But this has nothing to do with Bush. It is the actual numbers if you include Social Security. Bush tried to fix this, and was roundly attacked. (They said not to tear down the house to fix it. Unfortunately they never pointed out there was no house in the first place.)
An this is why we should do something about Social Security instead of just pushing it off until later.
Which candidate running has your confidence in doing so?[/quote]
Thompson is the only one that has laid out a detailed plan that would fix it.
I knew chicks were expensive. Now that is an expensive bush!
(This is only in response to the title)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which candidate running has your confidence in doing so?[/quote]
Lets see. Democrats will not touch it, so that only leaves Republicans. But I am not sure any of them could touch it unless it becomes a real issue. If they actually gave the real numbers instead of the BS SS off the books for liabilities, but on the books for assets, then the country might get it.
Until they actually go for it, I won’t believe any of them will do anything about it.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
“The federal government’s fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000,” Walker said. “This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household.”
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_72998.shtml
[/quote]
This is nothing to be worried about. All they need to do is simply print more money – problem solved!
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Which candidate running has your confidence in doing so?
Lets see. Democrats will not touch it, so that only leaves Republicans. [/quote]
Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, came into Virginia and cleaned up a serious deficit left by his Republican predecessors. He was quite popular when he left office, though I’m sure you could find some people and interest groups who hate him. Unfortunately he’s not running for president this time around.
My point is, there are fiscally conservative Democrats out there who know how to get the job done, but I don’t see any in this race.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
My point is, there are fiscally conservative Democrats out there who know how to get the job done, but I don’t see any in this race.[/quote]
Sorry, I was referring to the ones in this race. Yes there are more moderate and conservative democrats out there, just as there are liberal Republicans. (Bush.)
I have a friend who is a staunch democrat who’s only problem with the party is the Social Security issue. (He’s a big supporter of John Edwards.) And still he wants Social Security privatized, believing that is the only way it will be there for him when he retires.
If I find a democrat that is the best candidate I would vote for him.
This thread should get a lot more play than it has. My guess is that the numbers are just so mind boggling that its hard for us to conceive.
There is no doubt that America will change radically in the next 50 years. $59 trillion is simply impossible — it might be the worth of the whole world, or close.
China got new governments every few hundred years, when the old one would lose the ‘Mandate of Heaven’. Guess we’re due. The new one will have to repudiate all the debt of the old, if we are to have any government at all. I can’t imagine even a world government assuming such a monstrous debt.
You know, since SS is hiding the true debt, that means most of the debt our government owes is to its own people. $44 to $50 trillion. That is the only benefit of this situation. That means we can deal with 83% of our national debt simply by correcting Socialism Security.
There is a big reason companies have been dropping pension plans for 401K plans. Many of these companies went out of business simply because of pensions. American car companies add over $1,000 to the cost of new cars just to cover the cost of pensions.
Seriously it makes so much sense. Pensions are the property of a company, and if a company goes under, most likely so will that pension. But a 401K is the property of the person, so regardless of what happens to the company, of even the investment company that manages that 401k, your money should still be there. (Barring illegal activity.)
Same if you privatize Socialism Security. No more growing SS debt the government has to pay, private accounts that cannot be reduced by the government.
One of the big differences between pensions and 401K’s is that suddenly a lot of people are retiring wealthy that otherwise would not have.
Many people have found out that they have actually deferred their taxes into a higher tax bracket, because their required distribution is greater then their working income ever was.
I know a guy who made $40K a year, yet had half a million in his 401K. (Might include other investing.) He’s somewhere around 45 years, so has plenty of years before he will be taking out that money.
Is this really a bad plan? The worst problem is that there will be so many wealthy people in America that nobody will be there to do the low pay jobs. Then again no healthy person would have an excuse not to work. (As if there is one now.)
One simple change and a whole host of problems go away.
No government that makes all these promises to so many can survive if they don’t try to fulfill them, esp a democratically elected one. The scary thing is that the government WILL try to fulfill them.
Currency debasement and a terrible business environment will follow, then destitution, and finally an authoritarian government (hopefully more like Huxley’s disutopia and not Orwell’s).
Man that’s a shit load of money - just think what you could of had - peace, cure for aids, universal health care for all free at the point of delivery. never mind! There is always next year!!
[quote]symze wrote:
Man that’s a shit load of money - just think what you could of had - peace, cure for aids, universal health care for all free at the point of delivery. never mind! There is always next year!![/quote]
Really? You can cure Aids just by throwing money at it?
It’s ideas like this that has created this debt in the first place.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
symze wrote:
Man that’s a shit load of money - just think what you could of had - peace, cure for aids, universal health care for all free at the point of delivery. never mind! There is always next year!![/quote]
The problem with throwing money at aids or anything that matter is is the more you throw at it the farther the solution seems to be.
Asshat™.