This story is archived
The United States is Insolvent »
Posted by: Neophile 2 years, 6 months agoThe US is insolvent. There is simply no way for national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Federal deficits alone now total more than 400% of GDP.
Read Full Story at financialsense.com »
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 243
-
vagredajr
Dec. 18, 2006, 12:51 p.m.Heh, and that's right now. Wait until Social Sec. pummels my generation for about a decade. That'll do us in.
400% of the GDP? We really are a nation of slackers, eh?
-
EdInABQ
Dec. 18, 2006, 11:22 p.m.I don't know if you are joking or completely ignorant of SS accounting. My generation has been thriftfully building a surplus in Social Security since 1983. Social Security is completely solvent until about 2042 or 2052 depending on whose figures you use. So it is not going to pummel anybody's generation.
-
Bkumm
Dec. 19, 2006, 11:16 a.m.The national sales tax is unfair to the poor and less than fair to the extremely wealthy.
-
-
-
-
Locky12
Dec. 18, 2006, 4:05 p.m.It's politicians, not just Bush. All of them won election and would sell their first-born to hold on to their seats! NO politician would ever fix this problem.
And stop saying impeach Bush for every problem...you sound like a schmmuck.
-
geographer47
Dec. 18, 2006, 8:15 p.m.The more Congressional votes I look at the more I wonder why so many of them are supported by large numbers of Democrats as well as almost all of the Republicans. One spending bill after another gets rubberstamped.
And in case the debt seems manageable, four year's GDP would be impossible to raise if the debtors quit rolling over our bonds.
-
-
EdInABQ
Dec. 18, 2006, 11:30 p.m.Actually debt is built into the system. The mechanism by which new money is created by the Fed is simply a flawed design. The fact that all new money is created through borrowing means that non-monetized debt is created automatically as the money supply grows. That means that the total debt can never be paid off. Unless we undo what was done in 1913, these arguments are essentially moot.
-
-
hamy
Dec. 18, 2006, 2:43 p.m.Thanks for bankrupting our future George W. Bush administration!
Our ancestors will still be paying his bills.
-
vor
Dec. 18, 2006, 2:57 p.m.On top of that the SSI surplus is gone, stolen to pay for off-budget items (mainly military) over decades.
We will just keep borrowing from the Chinese.
Is the real scandal that we will drop nearly a trillion bucks in Iraq (off-budget, of course) or that we pay over 400 Billion annually in interest on our debt?
-
topperjax
Dec. 18, 2006, 3:30 p.m.The sad thing is that Clinton (marital issues notwithstanding) had us in the black before Bush came on the scene. This is a warning! We need to stop thinking that we have money in the bank because we still have checks in the checkbook.
Financially, America has been up $hit creek without a paddle for a few years, and unless some radical changes are made (soon!!!) we'll just be digging this hole deeper.
Good story Neophile.
-
Locky12
Dec. 18, 2006, 4:06 p.m.Clinton sure did have us in the black by decimating our military. W has been trying to rebuild it after 9/11. Clinton showed us we can make alot of money when we ignore the world around us!
-
s1d3ways
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:27 p.m.This leaves quite a few details unmentioned. Reps Gingrey and Kasich (republicans) crafted the balanced budget amendment that was signed into law by Clinton, after a knockdown-dragout fight that he lost. Subsequent years of budget battles, punctuated by government shutdowns at Clinton's hands, resulted in his being *forced* to sign balanced budgets. He managed to balance the budget by gutting defense spending and continuing to allow entitlement spending to spiral out of control.
Clinton claimed credit for balanced budgets in his SOTU addresses, but he and other dems fought spending cuts tooth and nail when it came time to make the difficult decisions.
Certainly, current republicans are no better than free-spending dems of the 1990s, but credit for the once-balanced budget belongs to the republican-led congress that was ushered in by the 1994 midterm elections, not the Clinton administration. Does the "Contract with America" ring a bell?
-
Athena82487
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:52 p.m.Here's a fun little story for you. My sneaky state legislature decided they would vote on a pay raise for themselves, but not one of them mentioned it during elections. My state certainly cannot afford to keep paying more money to people who do next to nothing. Financial crisis in both the state and the nation, and all they can think about is themselves. Would it hurt so much if we cut government employee salaries by, oh, a lot? I apologize to anyone who isn't an overpaid legislator/upper end bureaucrat. It isn't much, but it would certainly be a start!
-
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 18, 2006, 4:35 p.m.So what are we going to do about todays problem, the fact that the U.S. is insolvent. Actually the country is in much worse financial trouble than Air America. Guess those republicans have no clue as how to manage money.
-
Hamlet
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:09 p.m.Having poured the future of several generations, the retirements of ourselves, and gazillions into sending troops into battle without basics like guns and armour (even Romans had armour) doesn;t seem to have improved anything. I think I'd rather have Clinton's fiancial good sense along with his cigar, as it gives us a little more room to make decisions at all. How can we lead the world (or even control our own country) if our government is owned by the Chinese, our real estate by the Japanese and Dutch, our health system by the pharmaceutical-chemical giants (mostly Germans - remember them?), and our energy reserves by everybody else??
How come every time we get a republican gov't we end up going into monstrous debt? This time we really can't get out.
Interesting that the GAO didn't have the courage to tell it like it is until the Dems took the congress. It wasn't that much better last year - I mean whats the diff btw 300 and 400% GDP?
-
dreamaker
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:22 p.m.If America is insolvent..... then I sure wish I was insolvent too.... Actual U idiots who believe this crap, got to be dumber than a pencil eraser!
Bulletin...... AMERICA IS INSURGENT so please dont come here to live and start a new life.... go to Africa, or China or Russia or Europe or anywhere..... Why do U all still want to come here and why o why went or NY Stock Exchange burps the rest of the World goes into a minor depression.... Tell me all U genius's who is not in debt......
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:25 p.m.Well see timing is everything. By releasing it now they can hammer the Democrats to do something about it, without raising taxes and make it the issue for 2008. Of course if the Dems try to raise taxes in an attempt to stop the hemoraging then that will be the big issue in 2008. Timing is everything.
-
Lurch
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:15 p.m.I`m in a conservative region. My property taxes just went up over 7%.
The whole tax issue is a bunch of right-wing BS. At best they give the middle class a $30/month cut in exchange for raising our balance by $25,000. Would you take this offer if a credit card company offered it to you? Of course not, but somehow this makes sense in con math.
Besides, the reality is the cons have only blown up the debt and shirked the tax burden onto future generations of the middle class. So much for `Republican responsibility`.
Then there`s the local taxes which have gone up drastically since the Bush tax breaks for the rich.
-
s1d3ways
Dec. 19, 2006, 12:31 a.m.Oh, please. We've been insolvent for decades. We've finally reach a point where our creditors no longer believe we're able to pay. We've had 4 decades of democratic congresses, followed by 1.25 decades of republican congresses. While the repubs have done an impressive job of deepening the hole over the past 5 years, dems dug it wide and deep, by refusing to address runaway entitlement programs for decades. If you recall, the debt (not the deficit) was at $5T when Bush took office.
We'll fix this when we come to accept that promises former generations [of voters] made to themselves aren't valid. Sure, that implies that some lose. but who promised these folks we'd pay for their SSI, medicare, etc? They did, that's who.
-
-
holyshiiite
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:32 p.m.translation...were ******...stock up on firearms and become associated with your friendly neighborhood militia and prepare for pre anarchic wave.
-
Hamlet
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:33 p.m.Have a friend working in the GAO. They are a pretty straight bunch of pencil pushers and don't really care a lot who is in office, their job is just to account for what goes in and out and make sure it matches. My friend said that if you took the financial irresponsibility of Enron and multiplied it several million times you could not equal the "lost" money in Iraq, last seen in the hands of Halliburton and similar and never signed for. Very little was spent on the military (we knew that already, they didn't get guns just cause Cheney likes shooting HIS friends!) Since the GAO doesn't do creative accounting like Anderson & buddies, you just get the straight-up goods. Read last year's report and the numbers are already horrifying, but without the warning attached. They are careful conservative non-alarmist pencil pushers. But don't let that fool you into thinking they have nothing to say.
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:53 p.m.There will still be those who claim they are a bunch of Bush bashing libs. That is their response to anyone who tells them something they don't like.
-
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 18, 2006, 5:57 p.m.We could start off by stopping ALL foreign aid. To be giving money away that you don't have is totally stupid. We could put Congress on minimum wage. We could cut out the loopholes for the oil companies. We could make it possible for medicare to negotiate drug prices. There's a start. We don't need to build bridges to nowhere. None of the politicians I know about is immune to this crapola. They keep lining their pockets every time you turn around. If they spent the money they use for their campaigns on reducing the debt, we might be getting somewhere. I would be in favor of real debates about real issues and outlawing all these campaign ads that are nothing but attacks and shmarmy BS anyway. Better than that, you could join my Hat Party. Will continue...
-
combatinfantry91
Dec. 19, 2006, 8:28 a.m.Stopping all foriegn aide would be a good start, also stopping needless social programs that have ran their course is another. Ofcourse having the right to say whether congress can vote themselves a pay raise really helps too.
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:01 p.m.Cont.
According to the rules of the Hat Party, every two years we pull names out of the hat. Anyone can put their name in the hat after they pass basic math and English literacy tests and prove that they are not convicted felons. Once your name has been pulled for any office, your name can never by pulled again. Sure, we'll get some crazies. But what the heck have we got now? Senators who chase pages around? Sheesh. Give me a break. The country is bankrupt. It's been going that way a long time. The current Great Decider has no doubt accelerated the process. But as a people, we all need to take the responsibility of writing to our representatives and DEMANDING accountability.
Impeachment now. Vigilence Forever!!!!!!!!!!
-
-
Sandokan
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:49 p.m.Oh I'm sure the military would love hearing that after serving their country - hazardous duty, etc...that they would then either have their retirement pay cut off or have to still work once their TOS was done.
NOt that I can believe that a 40 year old made LTC in that short of time ...however, even if he did... I am sure he earned every cent of his retirement check.
-
-
uncleT
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:27 p.m.I read that the Chinese were cutting back on buying dollars, starting with 2% less this year.
-
fotoman1133406
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:45 p.m.The reason for us being SOOO BAAAD, that's easy...the rich are'nt paying anything. Us poor are having to "foot" the bill, yet again.
No wonder my back-side aches and hurts from the "big shaft" of the rich.
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 18, 2006, 6:49 p.m.Well the American people elected a man who's only real accomplishment was to start a company with money given to him and drive it into bankruptcy did they think he was going to do something different if we gave him more money?
-
Lurch
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:18 p.m.Unfortunately, `I/we told you so` doesn`t change the fact that he hasn`t changed his mgt style since the first company he drove into bankrupcty.
-
-
-
B737Tech
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:12 p.m.Locky12,
Bush is the one who believes that the solution to every problem is tax cuts for the corporate world & the ultra wealthy. His rubber stamp Congress (Repubs) went along with him 4 times now. And, the deficit grows worse daily!
So, who should we blame??
-
Sandokan
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:55 p.m.B737 ... 12 years of GOP complete control of both houses.
" What really jumps out is that the US financial position has deteriorated by over $22 trillion in only 4 years and $4.5 trillion in the last 12 months (see table below, from page 10 of the report). The problem did not 'get better' as a result of the excellent economic growth over the past 3 years but rather got worse and is apparently accelerating to the downside."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....Nope ...been looking ...no Democrats to blame.... Control was in the GOP and this Admins hands. They and no one else killed or tried to kill the Golden Goose. You remember that story right?
-
-
B737Tech
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:15 p.m.Locky12,
Clinton didn't cancel the military. It was Clinton's military that took down Saddam. Clinton did reduce it because the Soviet Union collasped. That meat that the threat from them was gone & a BIG military wasn't necessary.
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:21 p.m.Clinton allow the cuts that were put in place by Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, under George H.W. Bush to take affect.
-
-
B737Tech
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:20 p.m.Locky12,
More right wing garbage. Those satements have been disproven...Clinton never had a chance to Bag OBL. What Clintoin did do was spend more on anti-terrorism that Regan & Bush 1 & had fewer Americans killed by terrorists that either of those prior presidents. Clinton even had Richard Clark draw up plans to go after OBL & al Queda. Check this link.
Bush dropped that ball!!
-
walden3
Dec. 18, 2006, 7:42 p.m.clinton =
secretary of labor = robert reich
secretary of tressury = robert rubin
fed chairman = alan greenspan
W =
secretary of labor = elaine chao
secretary of treasury = o'neill and snow
fed chairman = ben bernanke
i mean come on it's like comparing a high school JV team to a team in the NFL. it's no wonder.
it matters who someone surrounds themselves with. we saw how bush's hiring of cronies blew it in new orleans, blew it in iraq and blew it with the economy.
-
Sandokan
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:57 p.m.Right Froggy ... We should have all presidential candidates show their "team" off first, before we vote.
-
-
packmule
Dec. 18, 2006, 8:04 p.m.This nation has heen irretrievably in debt since 1913. Our currency is loaned to US by a private institution (The FED),with interest....It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you are a country with $100, loaned to you at 1% interest, WHERE are you going to get that 101st dollar to pay the interest? Only by borrowing more currency (at interest) can you pay on your debt....Voila! perpetual debt.......
-
-
Lurch
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:20 p.m.Very smart of them. Our govt is powerless to stem the trade imbalance because the Chinese have us by the nards.
-
-
-
10BEARZ
Dec. 18, 2006, 9:27 p.m.multi trillion dollar us dept... so what is money anyway its root backed by gold or the value of the paper its printed on...100 years from today they'd say those fools valued paper & metal over people/life....just print
as much paper as the trees will last....said the blind mass
-
-
Sandokan
Dec. 18, 2006, 10:59 p.m.See!! What kind of logic is that? Shows how they were just into the American pocket. First they take money out, then they say you can pay less from the rest left in your pocket. End effect ...you pay more.
-
The first 133 comments are shown. Show all 243 comments »
Submit a Story
