[Cody Dawg]

Today I saw a link to a USAToday article that made me take notice:

Here's the link: PLEASE READ AS IT IS IMPORTANT

First of all, it specifically states that neither George Bush or John Kerry are addressing this issue, so please attempt to put partisan politics away.

The article discusses the national deficit, but more importantly, it portrays a chain of events that is connected to our economy and it made me sit up and take notice.

A USA TODAY analysis found that the nation's hidden debt � Americans' obligation today as taxpayers � is more than five times the $9.5 trillion they owe on mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other personaldebt.

This hidden debt equals $473,456 per household, dwarfing the $84,454 each household owes in personal debt.

The $53 trillion is what federal, state and local governments need immediately � stashed away, earning interest, beyond the $3 trillion in taxes collected last year � to repay debts and honor future benefits promised under Medicare, Social Security and government pensions. And like an unpaid credit card balance accumulating interest, the problem grows by more than $1 trillion every year that action to pay down the debt is delayed.

�As a nation, we may have already made promises to coming generations of retirees that we will be unable to fulfill,� Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told the House Budget Committee last month.

Greenspan and economists from both political parties warn that the nation's economy is at risk from these fast-approaching costs. If action isn't taken soon � when baby boomers are still working and contributing payroll taxes� the consequences may be catastrophic, some economists say.

The worst-case scenario is a sudden crisis � perhaps a major terrorist attack or a shutoff of oil from the Middle East � that triggers a loss of confidence by investors in the U.S. economy. Foreign investors refuse to lend more money to the government to finance its deficits; drastic tax increases and benefit cuts occur suddenly; the dollar's value plummets, which raises the cost of imported goods; and a severe recession or depression results from falling incomes.

A softer landing: The USA acts swiftly and becomes more like Europe. Taxes are higher, retirement benefits are less generous but widely distributed; health care costs are controlled; and the economy is sound but less productive.

Big payments on the debt start coming due in 2008, when the first of 78 million baby boomers � the generation born from 1946 to 1964 � qualify at age 62 for early retirement benefits from Social Security. The costs start mushrooming in 2011, when the first boomers turn 65 and qualify for taxpayer-funded Medicare.

But Americans needn't wait until 2008 or 2011 to see firsthand the escalating costs of these benefit programs. Medicare last month announced the largest premium increase in the program's 39-year history. In 2004 alone, federal spending on Medicare and Social Security will increase $45 billion, to $789 billion. That one-year increase is more than the $28 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Security.

Many economists say a failure to confront the nation's debt promptly will only delay the inevitable.

�The baby boomers and the Greatest Generation are delivering an economic disaster to their children,� says Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist and co-author of The Coming Generational Storm, a book about the national debt. �We should be ashamed of ourselves.�

Notice:

�The baby boomers and the Greatest Generation are delivering an economic disaster to their children,� says Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist and co-author of The Coming Generational Storm, a book about the national debt. �We should be ashamed of ourselves.�

Honestly, I'm not sure what the solution is except to start CARING. I have to say that if John Kerry is about trying to fix this problem, I would be inclined to vote for him.

Opinions?

[lil'babykitten]

The fall of America lies in its economic collapse.

[BRussell]

Although Bush has obviously been a disaster in this respect, I see no evidence that Kerry will do any better. His rollback of the top 5%'s tax cuts is going to fix homeland security, give us almost-universal health care, improve social security, provide even more tax cuts to the middle class, pay for all of us to get college educations, and countless other programs. Sorry, but it ain't gonna happen. I just hope that if he gets elected he breaks his campaign promises.

[UNTeMac]

I'd say John Kerry is on part of the right track by rolling back the Bush tax-cuts. The sunset provisions in those bills allowed Bush to play down the actual cost of the cuts if they become permanent. Bush would push Congress to renew them whereas Kerry would be a check on them given his veto power even if the Republicans manage to keep the legislature. Cut taxes and spend is not a good way to run government and the WOT is not cheap.

[Scientist]

Uh oh. I wonder if this will impact my plans of becoming a billionaire. Perhaps I should move to Europe.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
I'd say John Kerry is on part of the right track by rolling back the Bush tax-cuts.

I would agree, if he had any plans to earmark them for paying down the debt. However, that's not his plan; he has even more junk that he wants to pay for. Cut-taxes-and-spend is no way to run a government, but neither is the tax-and-spend that Kerry is trying to pull.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Cut-taxes-and-spend is no way to run a government, but neither is the tax-and-spend that Kerry is trying to pull.

Tax and spend, or tax and pay for the sh*t we already bought (with others' money).

Big difference.

[Dakar]

Well should Kerry get elected, he will most likely face a Republican Congress, which will mean compromise, most likely leading to some capped spending on both sides.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Posted this in another topic but it applies here:

Here's what Bush and his tax cuts have done for the budget:

Oct. 29, 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1626932.stm

Jan. 23, 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1775698.stm

This, after two consecutive years of record budget surplus. It only took him less than 3 months to go from a surplus to a deficit. It's now a deficit of $440 billion for fiscal year 2004.

Bush supporters, I'll save you the time: "But, we are fighting a WAR! And there was a recession in 2001!" Yeah, and there was Bush's irresponsible tax cuts too.

[Cody Dawg]

Thanks, Millenium, for that information.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Thanks, Millenium, for that information.

What info?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Thanks, Millenium, for that information.

Huh? Honest question; I don't understand what information you're talking about.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Bush supporters, I'll save you the time: "But, we are fighting a WAR! And there was a recession in 2001!" Yeah, and there was Bush's irresponsible tax cuts too.

And Kennedy's "irresponsible" tax cuts to spur a dogging economy. Reagan's, too?

The US has grown out of every deficit it's ever had. What makes this one so special?

[constrictor]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The US has grown out of every deficit it's ever had. What makes this one so special?

Not special. It's just that the current guy is making it worse as we write. We need a new guy to "grow us out" of it, since current guy seems intent on making the deficit larger.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by constrictor:
Not special. It's just that the current guy is making it worse as we write. We need a new guy to "grow us out" of it, since current guy seems intent on making the deficit larger.

It takes a time to grow out of it.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It takes a time to grow out of it.

Sounds good. I'm fine with a new president overseeing that, then.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It takes a time to grow out of it.

Not just time. Over time it could get worse, say, if we keep spending like we are now and cutting taxes like we are now. We only got out of the Reagan-Bush deficits after spending restraints, tax increases, and then the longest economic expansion in history.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It takes a time to grow out of it.

Typical GOP response. "It's not OUR fault!" See the links I posted above. Bush inherited a >$200 billion SURPLUS and in 3 short months led us to a >$300 billion deficit. It was HIS tax cuts that started this downturn and brought back the deficit. You CANNOT cut taxes and increase spending and that's what he and the GOP congress have done.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Typical GOP response. "It's not OUR fault!" See the links I posted above. Bush inherited a >$200 billion SURPLUS and in 3 short months led us to a >$300 billion deficit. It was HIS tax cuts that started this downturn and brought back the deficit. You CANNOT cut taxes and increase spending and that's what he and the GOP congress have done.

But it's HARD WORK! HARD WORK!

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by constrictor:
But it's HARD WORK! HARD WORK!

Yeah, it must be really hard to know you can't spend more than you have. But hey, those rich people needed their tax cuts! I would rather pay more taxes if needed now than have my children's children paying for the deficits created by my generation's "leaders." It's funny how Bush touted being fiscally responsible and has done so bad in that area.

[undotwa]

deficits and debts are really cool. They help the economy

[JohnnyAppleseed]

It's hard to love the women when you're working hard.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Thanks, Millenium, for that information.

That's, no, problem, Cody, Dawg.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Huh? Honest question; I don't understand what information you're talking about.

I think she meant Mrjinglesusa. He posted links above her post. His username begins with M....or maybe she's just lost it.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think she meant Mrjinglesusa. He posted links above her post. His username begins with M....or maybe she's just lost it.

well... ahem.

[Luca Rescigno]

I just liked this image:



"Managing the economy just got harder."

And spacefreak, you're hiding your head in the sand. It's a pretty simple fact that Bush's policies somehow caused a huge budget surplus to go away... how can you possibly just say it takes time to get out of it? How do you even know Bush is working on it? So far he hasn't done anything about it so I don't see why he'd start now.

I'm not saying Kerry necessarily has a great plan... it's ridiculous to think that increasing taxes for the top 1% of Americans is actually going to make a huge difference. But at least he's trying. Bush clearly isn't trying.

[Cody Dawg]

Thanks, LBK. You're right. I'm too busy trying to take care of business on this end and remain amused at this thread by popping in and out and sometimes I don't pay attention to who posted what.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
I just liked this image:



"Managing the economy just got harder."

And spacefreak, you're hiding your head in the sand. It's a pretty simple fact that Bush's policies somehow caused a huge budget surplus to go away... how can you possibly just say it takes time to get out of it? How do you even know Bush is working on it? So far he hasn't done anything about it so I don't see why he'd start now.

I'm not saying Kerry necessarily has a great plan... it's ridiculous to think that increasing taxes for the top 1% of Americans is actually going to make a huge difference. But at least he's trying. Bush clearly isn't trying.

Gonna take a wee bit longer to "grow out of" now that Shrubbie just signed another tax cut yesterday. Who knew that mindless vegetation could be so irresponsible?

[Spliffdaddy]

omg, now maybe the government will have to take a closer look at where all their money is going. Might have to cut some spending and/or increase efficiency.

Sounds like the sort of stuff *I* have to do on a daily basis.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
omg, now maybe the government will have to take a closer look at where all their money is going. Might have to cut some spending and/or increase efficiency.

Sounds like the sort of stuff *I* have to do on a daily basis.

So why isn't your boy doing that then?

[Spliffdaddy]

My boy?

Newt Gingrich, you mean?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
omg, now maybe the government will have to take a closer look at where all their money is going. Might have to cut some spending and/or increase efficiency.

Sounds like the sort of stuff *I* have to do on a daily basis.

Hasn't done it in 4 years, won't do it in the next 4 in elected.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
My boy?

Newt Gingrich, you mean?

You mean the fat-ass I saw walking with his similarly fat-ass wife on 57th and Lex, who I heard talking about "these black kids" two days after the RNC ended? No, not him, but it says a lot that you love him so much.

[blythe]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
I would rather pay more taxes if needed now than have my children's children paying for the deficits created by my generation's "leaders."

Go right ahead. I thank you for your service to the country.

1. Make check payable to the "Bureau of the Public Debt"
2. In the memo section of the check, make sure you write "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public"
3. Mail check to -

ATTN DEPT G
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
PO BOX 2188
PARKERSBURG, WV 26106-2188

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq42

Wouldn't it be nice if we could cut taxes AND spending? Now's there's a novel idea...

[Secret__Police]

Just wait for the day when OPEC decides to only accept the Uero for their Oil.

The first article I found on Google.

Dollar-euro-oil equation
By Rahim Panjwani


The euro is finally taking its place alongside the US dollar as a new global reserve currency. This has been further enhanced by the euro's recent gains against the dollar. But what would happen to the US economy if Opec decides to use euro, instead of dollar, to price oil?

In the best-laid human plans, events rarely unfold as predicted - even by the experts. Mostly, these surprises are the result of "blind spots", or because experts use different models or specialized approaches and languages - making communication difficult.

One such surprise scenario is rooted in the close relationship between oil, dollars, gold and Europe's euro currency. Remember back in 1973, Opec countries quadrupled the price of their oil and tied it to the US dollar. Over the years, this flooded the world with the "petro-dollar", which were recycled through banks as loans. The US dollar reigned supreme as the world's de facto reserve currency. Everyone wanted to own dollars, which were considered as good as gold.

Gold no longer backs the dollar - or any other currency. All currencies since 1973 are called "fiat" currencies - backed only by faith markets have in a country's government and its economic fundamentals. Central banks that used to keep gold bars in their vaults have sold much of their precious metal. Now, they try to "manage" their currencies by raising or lowering interest rates, buying and selling them in the open market and other techniques.

Gold is still popular for jewellery and as a safe haven. It trades actively on world's commodity and futures exchanges, along with platinum, oil, hogs, coffee, sugar - and fiat currencies themselves. These currencies, oil and gold markets are very volatile - dependent on the expectations about the future of millions of their investors and speculators.

These markets reflect a collective speculation on the future of such items as Iraq, the US foreign policy, the Middle East, oil supplies, alternative energy sources and technologies, the rise of China, the expansion of the EU - and the weather. They all drive today's global financial markets, including the $1.5 trillion of daily currency trading.

In the past 12 months, the US dollar has lost some 30 per cent of its value against the European euro. The Bush Administration has played up the bright side. The cheaper dollar makes it easier for the US exporters to sell abroad.

The United States needs to increase its exports because it has a whopping trade deficit (currently reading 5.2 per cent of their GDP). Global investors and currency speculators take it seriously - along with the bursting of the US stock market bubble, accounting scandals and heavily indebted corporations and consumers.

The list goes on, and includes the US savings rate at almost 0 per cent, the increasing budget deficits due to President Bush's tax cuts and his build-up of military spending, the Iraq war and the new Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks on any country that might threaten the US future national security. In the light of all that, global investors started unloading dollars and the US assets. No surprises here.

But as countries that formerly held mostly the US dollars in their currency reserves begin to diversify into euros, the currency has taken its place alongside the dollar, as the world's other global reserve currency. While current data are hard to come by, the euro now accounts for as much as 35 per cent of global trade and reserve holdings. This new reality makes for a more stable world - and takes the unsustainable burden of the sole reserve currency status off the US dollar.

Clearly, with its enormous, open-ended commitments in the global war on terrorism, the US economy cannot at the same time, continue to absorb most of the world's exports - and remain the locomotive of the world's economic growth. This new situation seems a surprise to the Bush Administration. It is still keen on expanding its overseas commitments, re-building Iraq and offering aid packages to Turkey, Pakistan and other countries whose support is sought. In the meantime, it has passed a $350 billion tax cut package in late May, 2003.

While Bush tells Americans to continue shopping, travelling and enjoy the American way of life, federal deficits grow, domestic programmes are cut and half of all the US states are engulfed in budget crises. What happens if global investors continue pulling out of the United States and the dollar keeps falling? Many market players expect it to fall by another 20 per cent. Other countries that have lost money in the dollar's fall may continue buying more euros.

The other shoe may drop, too. Opec may decide to officially re-denominate their oil in euros (since most of the organization's customers are in Europe anyway). Opec economists have been considering this "no-brainer" scenario for sound financial reasons - even though they feared the US wrath and retaliation.

Indeed, many believe that a deeper reason for the US attack on Iraq was its decision in 1999 to require payments for its oil for food programme in euros. The United States - heavily dependent on imported oil - benefits price-wise and in influencing markets through Opec's US dollar pricing. Iraq's dinar will also be replaced by dollar if the United States has its way.

Thwarting President Bush's global dollar diplomacy and its designs on breaking Opec's oil pricing power provide additional reasons for Opec to switch to payments in euro. This would mean that the United States would have to buy euro with dollar before it could buy Opec oil. The dollar would fall further and the euro would rise. The US economy would eventually have to adjust to $5-a-gallon gasoline (the average world price).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
The fall of America lies in its economic collapse.

Bring it on. We will probably take down the entire world economy but after the collapse maybe people will start to learn to live within their means.

[mitchell_pgh]

I guess if you look at debt as ONLY being a bad thing... then the USA today article would make you think that the sky is falling.

But when you realize that most of that 80K is in homes, cars, personal businesses, etc... then it's not as bad as USA today makes it out to be.

ALSO: A governmental surplus is JUST as bad (if not worse) then a deficit. A governmental surplus means that they were over taxing us. The budget should be balanced.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Posted this in another topic but it applies here:

Here's what Bush and his tax cuts have done for the budget:

Oct. 29, 2001:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1626932.stm

Jan. 23, 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1775698.stm

This, after two consecutive years of record budget surplus. It only took him less than 3 months to go from a surplus to a deficit. It's now a deficit of $440 billion for fiscal year 2004.

Bush supporters, I'll save you the time: "But, we are fighting a WAR! And there was a recession in 2001!" Yeah, and there was Bush's irresponsible tax cuts too.

People have a very narrow view of economics. They lose their job, and point the finger at whoever is in the white house. The same goes for many things.

My brothers company just closed two factories in the US. He had to deal with people and their "F@#$ BUSH!!!" protesting.

The thing is, they started building the replacement foreign factory in the mid 1990's (because of tax incentives).

It's also easy to call the tax cuts irresponsible, but consider the stimulation they had on our economy at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20.