Good one Jackson. I am not sure how many people are as dense as Obama but it appears that there are a few on this forum who are neck and neck with Obama in the stupidity category.
Printable View
Good one Jackson. I am not sure how many people are as dense as Obama but it appears that there are a few on this forum who are neck and neck with Obama in the stupidity category.
[QUOTE=Jackson;427933][size=3][b]- - $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen[/b][/size]
[/QUOTE]
Each citizen owes $280, 000 if you count unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and pensions to federal employees.
Romney and especially Ryan are the only ones that seem to be concerned about that.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;427935]Each citizen owes $280, 000 if you count unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and pensions to federal employees.[/QUOTE]Using what discount rate? Using what mortality assumptions? Using what assumed rate of increase in medical costs? But that is great to hear because as one of my law professors pointed out,"He who dies with the most unsecured debt, wins."
Unless you are.
A complete.
Moron.
You would figure out after.
Ten years not.
To hit the.
Carriage return all the.
Fucking time.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427937]Using what discount rate? Using what mortality assumptions? Using what assumed rate of increase in medical costs? But that is great to hear because as one of my law professors pointed out,"He who dies with the most unsecured debt, wins."[/QUOTE]Hell if I know, and I suspect it's undiscounted: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/[/url]
From memory I saw a reputable discounted estimate going out to around 2050 or 2060 of about $50 trillion, or around $160, 000 per person. In any event entitlement spending is not sustainable unless something changes, big time.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427939]Hell if I know, and I suspect it's undiscounted:
[url]http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/[/url]
From memory I saw a reputable discounted estimate going out to around 2050 or 2060 of about $50 trillion, or around $160, 000 per person. In any event entitlement spending is not sustainable unless something changes, big time.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the link. Nice to see something non-partisan. Corporate accounting would be discounting those liabilities at a AA bond rate (and estimating the mortality and expense growth ratios) but I don't know what governmental accounting does for that. Probably something silly. But if you think about that, it's pretty funny. When the US issues more debt, all interest rates go up. And when interest rates go UP, the value of discounted liabilities would appear to go DOWN, sorta hiding things. In fact any discount rate you would use would probably be artificially depressed right now, though.
So what do we do? If we try fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy, we are emulating Hoover in 1929 onward and also Díaz in 1900-1910. We could try to reduce our trade deficit with protectionism but that could be inflationary. So do you try to increase government revenues? Tariffs are unlikely to do this to any significant degree so you are looking at the T-word. Or, we could try to increase the savings rates. How do we do that? IRA-like tax incentives might work, but of course decrease tax revenues, add complexity (unless you just increased the IRA deduction and retirement credit that are already in place, and I advocate that) and would probably be slow to take effect. We could hope to decrease our trade deficit through productivity gains, which would be good, but that would probably require more investment in training and / or education. So a lot of what might reduce the deficit in the long run will definitely increase it in the short run.
Those numbers in the article are pretty scary but here is what is scarier: over 60% of all US dollars in circulation are circulating outside the US. Now THAT is a big IOU! We have already received foreign currency and / or imports in return for those dollars. The good news is it's an interest-free loan, but it is still a loan. Nobody ever talks about that.
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427940]So what do we do? ....or, we could try to increase the savings rates.[/QUOTE]If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30%. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25,000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427941]If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25, 000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.[/quote]Tiny12,
Freedom works better than government control when it comes to healthcare and retirement. Get back on track!
Government run Social Security and Medicare are BUSTED, big time.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 427933]Hey asshole,
Stop the fucking bullshit.
You know god damn well that he was referring to binders full of women's [u]resumes[/u].
Gentlemen, this election is [u]NOT[/u] About Mitt Romney having made a statement in which any sane person would have readily understood that the word "resumes" was implied.
Please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:
- 8. 3% unemployment.
- $3. 80 per gallon gas.
- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.
- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.
- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]The last 2 figures you quote are the direct result of the major parties working TOGETHER to bankrupt the USA. Time for a new direction, Gary Johnson, Libertarian. At least he knows how to balance a budget as Governor and as a Businessman.
[url]www.garyjohnson2012.com[/url]
It's time to stop voting for the same parties over and over again that created the same problem they claim to fix.
[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427941]If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25, 000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.[/QUOTE]That sounds reasonable to me. I'd argue, though, that Social Security, at least the OASDI part of it, IS an enforced method of making people save. I mean, you take 4. 2% or 6. 2% of my pay for 40 or 50 years and then promise to pay me a certain sum of money. Sounds like forced savings to me. The other problem, of course, is that once people do manage to save they will be totally ignorant about investing since we don't teach them shit in high school. I think even libertarians are going to be disappointed in the results if we go to Bush-like self-directed retirement accounts to the exclusion of all else. I mean, I know a lot of well educated people who invest like ninnies, so what will the general public's result be like?
This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 427964]This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.[/QUOTE]The person that wrote that article has no clue about the Tea Party.
[QUOTE=Dccpa;427965]The person that wrote that article has no clue about the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]The guy who posted it has no clue either.
I'm a liberal, voted for Obama in 2008 and not a big fan of the Tea Party.
That said, that jpg you posted was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever read. It's no wonder the conservatives on this board think liberals are nuts. And if YOU agree with one single sentence of that, you need to take off your tinfoil hat and seek medical attention immediately.
It's so discouraging that there are people in my party who might actually agree with you... <sigh>
And thanks to people like you, the democratic party is fucked.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;427964]This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.[/QUOTE]