Is United States Broke? - Politics Discussion

[–] Keelai (31802) 4 years ago

The U.S. has been bankrupt for years. The government has a deficit it will never pay. I don't combine the people's assets with the government's though.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I don't combine the people's assets with the government's though.

I don't either - why should we ?

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

Why don't you all move to Venezuela? How's their economy? Nationalized energy industry. Nationalized healthcare. Strict gun control laws. Of course, breadlines! That's good thing, per Bernie. It's Michael Moore and Sean Penn endorsed and they are both part of the 1%!

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 4 years ago

What worries me is that our country hasn't been out of debt since the 1960s, and spent the last 50 years borrowing money from everyone else. Last time I checked, you can't borrow forever, and eventually you have to pay the piper. That, and you can't spend your way out of debt, particularly if you're using someone else's money.

Two of the more puzzling aspects of this entire national debt thing is; who exactly are we indebted to, and why hasn't there been any effort to try and pay back those debts? It's not like we don't have products to sell to other countries.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

"our country hasn't been out of debt since the 1960s."

The USA has been in debt since Paul Revere got on his horse.

What you may be referring to are the "budget surpluses" of the late 1960's. But there were also budget surpluses in the late 1990's (without looking it up I want to say 1999 and 2000, but it may include 1998 and 2001... and I don't think those were genuine "surpluses" just sucking in future tax collections today for lesser tax collections tomorrow Roth IRA conversions, etc.)

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Clinton delivered a budget surplus and a great economy to Bush 43 in 2001. It took no time at all for Bush 43 to piss away the surplus and bring our economy to its knees - which is what Obama had to clean up in his first term in Office.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Alan Greenspan's testimony in support of the 2001 tax cuts, the "problem" of surpluses...

"The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011, including an on-budget surplus of $500 billion. The CBO reportedly will be showing even larger surpluses. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010125/

"But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets. At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. This development should factor materially into the policies you and the Administration choose to pursue."

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 4 years ago

Even though the $5 trillion Clinton surplus was a hypothetical surplus estimated to arrive by 2010, it is what Bush used to institute his tax cuts for the rich and also his missile defense system which never came to be due to 9/11.

Bush's view was that the $5 tril estimated surplus by 2010 was caused by the wealthy, and so they should get a refund before it came to fruition. I'm guessing his tax cuts lowered the $5 trillion 2010 hypothetical to about $800 billion. Then we engaged in two wars, bringing the 2010 hypothetical into debt, and then we had the 2007 crisis and subsequent bailouts bringing it further into debt.

So the reality is we've been in debt ever since Bush's war on terror, though his tax cuts alone brought us kinda close.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

A picture's worth a thousand words:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

I don't know why it doesn't reflect October 1, 2019. That data should be settled by now.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 4 years ago

It's something my brother told me. I'm didn't learn the details. I'm guessing it was something he learned in college, because frankly, the F-ing public school system sure as hell isn't gonna teach you real history, or the details behind it. You'd have to look it up on your own.

Another concept that puzzles me is, America is supposed to be one of the riches countries on earth, if not the richest. Why the hell are we always borrowing money if we're so rich?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Here's a table that the conservative organization TaxFoundation.org publishes to show how much of our economy goes to paying all taxes, Federal Income Taxes, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes, etc.

https://taxfoundation.org/tax-freedom-day-2014-data-tables/

You can see for 1969 that Tax Freedom Day (taxes paid) was 4/23, and Tax Freedom Day counting the deficit was 4/19. A surplus. Then 30 years of deficits until 1999 when Tax Freedom Day (taxes paid) was 4/29, and Tax Freedom Day counting the deficit was 4/25.

The important takeaway from this chart is that Tax Freedom Day counting the deficit was April 22 in 1979 AND HAS COME LATER EVER SINCE, i.e. the Federal Government consumes more of our production today than it did in 1979.

Which is why the conservative organization TaxFoundation.org does not publish the above table after 2014.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 4 years ago

That makes sense, that the Federal government is eating up a lot of our money. I did read a while back that FDR getting rid of the Gold Standard and creating the Federal Reserve (the people who print our money) is the reason why we've had inflation issues for the past 90-some years, as well as re-occuring "boom-and-bust" cycles.

They basically just print as much money as we need, not thinking of the consequences of what will happen. It's like, they learned nothing from Post-WWI Germany or Venezuela, where if you have runaway inflation, the money becomes completely useless and widespread poverty and starvation ensues.

We're not quite there yet, but it's ridiculous how expensive things have gotten compared to even 30 years ago.

reply

[–] BreakbeatSavant (413) 4 years ago

Still getting your history from Rush Limbaugh eh?

I told you once before and I'll say it again, FDR didn't take us off the gold standard. Nixon did. Look it up.

It's strange how you keep repeating this bogus canard about such an easily verifiable historical fact.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

This is an interesting short history with stuff I didn't know about

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-history-of-the-gold-standard-3306136

I found this quip particularly puzzling:

"As the U.S. economy prospered [during the 1960's], Americans bought more imported goods, paying in dollars."

I'm thinking the U.S. economy prospered LESS in the 1960's RELATIVE to the 1950's, and going back to 1945 when the entire rest of the world was smoldering in ruin.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Also, FDR did not create the Federal Reserve. 1913, Woodrow Wilson.

How do you know more about Weimar Germany than the United States?

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12253) 4 years ago

It was one of the few useful things my Social Studies teachers taught me while in school. And ok, I got mixed up with Woodrow Wilson and FDR. I'm not a big fan of studying the first 3/4 of the 20th century because much of it bored me or made me depressed. That, and you can blame our public school system for being so shitty when teaching US history. If being terrible at teaching was a crime, I'd personally execute those specific teachers by firing squad myself.

I had the exact same crap history taught to me 10 years in a row, and almost none of it was useful or got my attention. The more fun stuff I had to learn on my own, or sneak-read the parts of my textbooks the teachers ignored in the lesson plan. Again, modern history is boring to me. It wasn't until I finally got a chance at world history, that things got more interesting.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

"The nation’s eight banking titans have enough excess capital"

I'm a stickler for language - words have meanings. Banks do not have capital. Banks have inventory.

General Motors has capital: physical equipment in place to produce "things."

All the capital a bank has is perhaps the building and some desks and computers. On day one of its existence a bank has NEGATIVE capital. I give the bank a dollar, the bank promises to give me ten dollars in 30 years... my dollar is a LIABILITY for the bank.

The bank will take my dollar (or 80 cents or 90 cents) and lend it out, and then they will collect the interest from those loans. Those loans are the bank's ASSETS. But that's not CAPITAL.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Excellent information!

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

What's a foreclosure? Who owns a foreclosed property? The BANK. What's a capital asset? A HOME. So if banks own foreclosed homes, then they own CAPITAL ASSETS. I mean, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

You're not too smart, are you chilidogdump? Then again, what else is new?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Ask sister Ivanka to explain this to you, Shitman. She went to College (another new word in your vocabulary - do you know what it means?) .

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

Boy, don't you look like a retard after humping chilidogdump's leg, yes? Perhaps if you had any brains, other than the empty space I live in, as well as others, rent free, then maybe you'd act less like a crash test dummy, yes? What else is new? Still nada. 🤪🤪🤪

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What village do you live in ? I'm only asking because it's time we informed the village that their missing idiot has been found.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

It's a good thing for you to stick to you indoctrinated scripted insults. When you start freestylin', it only shows just how much of a mongoloid you really are. 🤪🤪🤪

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

What's a foreclosure, you ask? A foreclosure is a bank FAILURE, a mortgage made that's not being paid back, a revenue stream (the ASSET, the INVENTORY), extinguished.

Banks aren't in business to sell homes.

Tell your mom to buy you more Highlights magazines to get you through the lockdown.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

A foreclosure is a bank failure? What did the bank fail to do, pray tell?

This is the idiotic chepooka that pisses me off. You bitch and whine on both sides. You bitch that banks don't lend to people and now you're bitching that banks lend to people that they shouldn't have. Well, pick one you retard! You can't have both.

It's the borrower DEFAULTING on the mortgage. That's what a foreclosure is and the bank repos the property. The bank owns the CAPITAL ASSET. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

You FAILED to realize that a home is a CAPITAL ASSET. Thus, a bank has capital. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

Your idiotic explanation doesn't save you, but rather just makes you look more stupid than you already are. Now go back into the corner and put your dunce cap back on. Remember it's not to remind others that you're stupid, it's to remind YOU.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Let me put it to you in a way you'll understand:

You're in the business of selling Robert E. Lee ashtrays. You've got 10,000 in your garage. You buy them wholesale from China. That is your INVENTORY. You have no CAPITAL.

You sell $1,000 worth of these ashtrays to Jimmy Joe Billy Bob, and he doesn't pay you back. You've got a bullet proof written contract, you go to small claims court and get a judgement against him. That judgement is NOT CAPITAL. Odds are Jimmy Joe sold the ashtrays and used the money to buy Sudafed. You're not getting your money back.

Foreclosure is the same situation, just the bank will get SOME money back. They would prefer to have assessed risk more properly in the first place. But at the end of the day they'll be made whole by my unborn great-grandkids, cuz bainx be speshul majicul.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

How many times have I told you that the more you talk, the dumber you show yourself to be?

Again, it seem like you are choosing to be willfully Ignorant even after I told you that a home is a Capital Asset. Why is that so hard to understand?

How is a home, which people are in demand for always, have anything to do with an ashtray, pray tell?

I mean, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhbh....

Seriously, how stupid are you, chilidogdump?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Dude, why are you going to war over this? This isn't even an argument about whether Trump's a dry turd a wet turd. Nothing here is going to get you invited to your local GOP weekly "leap-frog" party.

Go to your local pawn shop and ask the owner to show you what "capital" he has. Make sure you're wearing your kevlar vest in case he fumbles it.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

This isn't about Trump. You want to make it about him so bad, when you are the stupid one that didn't know what the definition of a CAPITAL ASSET was. Just nod your head and say, d'oh and be done with it, but you're desperate in trying to save your fragile ego when it only makes you look even dumber and more pathetic.

Seriously, how stupid are you chilidogdump?

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

What do you do when you spend more than you bring in? What's the solution to the problem? Maybe spend less? So the question is where to cut, right?

Well, the majority of budget is spent on entitlement programs. You dems don't want to cut entitlements, but rather EXPAND entitlement programs. So where are you going to cut? Oh, that's right. You're not going to cut anything. You're going to TAX AND SPEND. That's what your plan is and when that doesn't work you'll just PRINT MORE MONEY.

You see, you bitch about one thing, but completely FAIL to address it in any meaningful way. Did you really believe the idiotic GREEN NEW DEAL was feasible in any sense? Seriously, how stupid are you dems?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Where's the vote to raise Social Security eligibility to age 69?

Where's the vote to raise Medicare eligibility to age 66?

GOP won't do it cuz you rednecks don't want to pay for your mom's medications.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

See. Proof you don't want to cut entitlements. GOP has been trying for years and dems have blocked every bill.

It's not fair to raise the eligibility age as people have mandatory been required to pay for it. That means they had NO CHOICE, but to pay into the system. However, you can change the system for the people that haven't joined the workforce yet and move it to a 401K type system. This would be feasible in the long run while not short changing the people already in the system. This way, even idiots like you and dogdump would be invested in the stock market. Yes. Idiots like you and dogdump would have your savings in the stock market.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

"However, you can change the system for the people that haven't joined the workforce yet "

Well, a lot of people "join the workforce" when their parents "pay them" a chunk of money for their image as babies on newsletters and such.

But I see your point. I think I've asked this before: Where's the vote that says anyone born tomorrow will never receive Social Security?

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

What the hell are you babbling about???

No. You didn’t ask me that question. Would vote for it, yes or no?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

Where's the vote? GOP voted to repeal Obamacare once a week when they had the majority in the House. Senate Republicans can vote to abolish Social Security, Medicare, hell, everything. They can even do it to tar Red State Dems like that dude from East Kentucky and the one from North Wyoming.

So what gives?

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

Again, what the hell are you babbling about?

Why can't you answer my simple yes or no questions? Koward much?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

"However, you can change the system for the people that haven't joined the workforce yet and move it to a 401K type system."

Here's a thought: provide for your own support in your old age. This seemed to work for thousands of years.

But that's too conservative a notion.

reply

[–] Sandman27 (3043) 4 years ago

Yes. That’s fair isn’t it?

reply

[–] Gd5150 (10991) 4 years ago

Debt is fine if you’re using the money as an investment. It’s how we expand our economy.

If someone borrows money to build a house, or business, and the value goes up over time, eventually the debt is paid off and now you have a house or business that creates jobs and more wealth.

When you use debt to buy garbage that will lose its value then you have a problem.

It all comes down to how much interest you’re paying and are you generating more wealth or more debt in the end.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16140) 4 years ago

Been broke. Thanks, 1%.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16364) 4 years ago

Broke is just a nomenclature of non-existent. As long as USD is still the world currency they can continue printing cash out of thin air and rack up the debt to a certain degree. If USD was taken off the throne, they couldn't do the shit they can today with its low interests and strong reliance.

reply