Welcome to PatsFans.com

Is America going to end up bankrupt?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by cupofjoe1962, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,726
    Likes Received:
    54
    Ratings:
    +155 / 20 / -17

    About a week ago, I kept seeing the NewAmerica20 video on a TV add
    from some guy who claims to have predicted the Freddie & Fannie problems, ect.

    I was waiting for the kids to get off the bus, so I pulled the video up
    on my iphone.

    He talked about how other countries are movnig away from the America
    dollar and predicted chaos in the street with the collapse of the America
    dollar.

    A google search shows that world banks are moving away from the
    U.S. dollar
    World Banks Moving Away from U.S. Dollar - Finance - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

    7 Countries Considering Abandoning the US Dollar (and What It Means) – Currency Trading.net

    The US Dollar use to be the primary world anchor currency.
    The fact that we continue to print money, with no gold reserve to
    match may be a short term solution, but a long term problem.

    Our debt just keeps growing and without a balanced budget amendment, I
    do not see how we are gonig to fix this problems.

    The worse thing we can do is continue to raise the debt ceiling.

    We are now 15.3 trillion in debt and I do not see a solution in-site.
    U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

    Is America headed for bankruptcy?

    12 Scary Debt facts for 2012
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57376464/12-scary-debt-facts-for-2012/


    I am sure there are a lot of people in this forum who know a lot more
    about this issue than I do.

    I am sure it will be easy for the left to point the finger at the right and vice versa,
    They are both at fault. The lefts refusal to cut, and the rights refusal to raise
    taxes on the rich.

    How do we fix this problem? Do we get a balanced budget ammedment?
    I hear Scott Brown promoting the issue, but then again it is election time,

    I would love to hear your feelings on this issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  2. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,427
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +784 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    You answered your own question, didn't you? We cut spending and we raise taxes. Until we tackle the problem from both ends there isn't going to be a solution which works.
     
  3. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Well obvious we need to give away more money to those who don't contribute...

    We need more entitlements, we need more government, we can just print more money...

    Nothing will happen, let's just keep giving away more, more to our people, more to foreign countries, more to defense contractors, more to industry, more to religious organization, more, more more more...


    Only Ron Paul has the answer for the Debt problem... ONLY Paul.
     
  4. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,649
    Likes Received:
    754
    Ratings:
    +1,999 / 41 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    Technically we already are bankrupts ... but we can print more money to offset it.
     
  5. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,427
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +784 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    So in one thread you acknowledge that we became a World Power because our system of enterprise and capitialism gave us the ability to create a large military and to send other countries huge sums of money.

    But now, in this thread, you want to quit doing those very things.

    Which is it?

    Oh, and just where do we, as a country, give money to religious organizations unless it is a grant to a charitable foundation which is separate from the church or religion itself?
     
  6. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    How bout a difference of 50 years... It took 150 years of free American enterprise to lead us to world power, and the last 50 years to sow the seeds of collapse.

    As mentioned in the other thread very clearly... this thread is about today, in the other thread I said decades ago...

    Yet another invented "Gotcha".. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  7. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -1

    Did I mention growth was over? ... All industrial nations face the same predicament.

    It could be mitigated. But we are doomed, because we buy into a monetary paradigm of debt, fiat currency, fractional reserve banking, gluttonous consumption and corruption.

    Until you change the way money works, you change nothing.
     
  8. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    TP For the Win!
     
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    We are too big to fail

    -Nero
     
  10. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I enjoy speaking to people who feel the USA will always be the best of the best, the top power, the ultimate country... It's as if history has no bearing on their opinion, or as if we have unlocked and figured out some magic that no other country in the 8000 years of Human history has been able to figure out.

    Were destined to contract, destined to be humbled.

    It all depends on how bad to you want the pain to be when it happens.
     
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    483
    Ratings:
    +1,053 / 15 / -9

    What's the "technical" point we're missing? I know we're in debt, but by what definition are we bankrupt?
     
  12. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,621
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +431 / 8 / -4

    I don't think you answered in the other thread -- so were things in the America great until the 1930s, with the decline beginning around 1960, and America at its peak from the 30s through the 50s?
     
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    For most people, especially those who weren't white, Protestand males, life in America sucked until after WWII.
     
  14. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,649
    Likes Received:
    754
    Ratings:
    +1,999 / 41 / -31

    #24 Jersey


    The difference between technical bankruptcy and actual bankruptcy is a formal filing. Technical bankruptcy basically means we do not have enough cash flow to pay our bills in the form of income. We borrow money and worse yet we print money to pay our bills which aids in hyper inflation.

    To get out of technical bankruptcy we would have to double tax income to somewhere around 30% of GDP which would bring in enough cash to pay our bills and our debt. Now we all know there would be other problems if we did that so it's not going to happen ... so that brings us back to technical bankruptcy ... we don't generate enough income to pay our expenses.

    Now PF ... i know you know this but you are trying to further the thread ...
    so I oblige in the furthering of further discussion of not enough further money to sustain our further bills.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2012
  15. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    It's really hard for me to answer. I feel that my generation will not achieve a standard of living that the previous generation was able to live. So I would say that is a good indicator of the fall.

    The government has been paying out funds for things forever, but only recently has it exploded and when we can least afford it, we are doubling down on spending for benefits and entitlements.

    I would say that even though your team looks at the 40s as a racist biggotted nation that was unjust and cruel... You can also see a country who rose to become the world power, and it was the years before that through the domination of the industrial era where American effort made us the worlds prominent economic power. We continued to ride that wave, and it's slowing down now, we are on the back end of the bell curve, not the rise, but the fall.

    Every era has bad things about it, I foresee this, and the next generations being worse and worse off until due to our foreign, and monetary policy.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2012
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,384
    Likes Received:
    483
    Ratings:
    +1,053 / 15 / -9

    Okay first of all, if you're arguing "actual" meaning "really bankrupt," whatever "really" means, wouldn't the "technical" part be the filing?

    Scratch that, it's somewhat unimportant. By your definition any entity that owes more than it has on hand right now is "technically bankrupt," and the last time we weren't "technically bankrupt" would be the last time the debt was zero. I think this condition pertained for about 20 minutes while Andrew Jackson was president. The rest of the time the U.S. has been "technically bankrupt."

    However, this is not in fact the definition of bankruptcy. If it were, precious few businesses would remain outside of bankruptcy protection. Banks would go out of business, by the way, and capitalism would crumble. Banks make money by lending you money you do not yet have, and businesses are almost always started on the basis of a loan.

    "Bankruptcy" means something -- it is the point at which you beg a court to let you extinguish debts even though you do not pay them. I don't see any meaning to saying "technically we're bankrupt even though we're not bankrupt."

    There is another slightly different measure that we're also not even approaching (except when tea-baggers push the country toward it on purpose), called "insolvency."

    When you're insolvent you can't pay the bill that's due today no matter what form of credit you use. As people (primarily the country's own people) continue to support the country's sovereign debt (i.e., people still show up at the treasury auctions,) whether you like it or not, we are still quite solvent.

    So we're "aiding" in a phenomenon that we don't have? We have barely got back to the point where we have normal inflation, never mind "hyper." While it's true that runaway currency devaluation is, by definition, a feature of a hyperinflationary scenario, it does not logically follow that any time your debt is high, your inflation has approached that of Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe.

    You are the only guy who thinks there's this thing called "technical bankruptcy" (see above.)

    So what you're really saying is, "to have zero national debt, which we've never had before, we have to double tax income etc...."

    I also have no idea what you mean by "double tax income to somewhere around 30% of GDP," and you mention no time-frame.

    Since you're talking about paying down our debt, your math is, as stated above, incorrect. If your goal is to pay the entirety of what we have accumulated in 235 years in a single year, and since the debt itself is getting close to 100% of GDP, everything would have to go to taxes for one year.

    However, to establish a manageable debt-load, you could go with something like Simpson-Bowles, which shoots for something like 40% of GDP after 30 or 40 years of comparative austerity.

    Words mean something dude. What they hell is this random insertion of the word "double" along with "tax"? Were we "double-taxing" income under Reagan or Kennedy? Rates were higher, after all. Just drop the "double" talk, and we can have a discussion where the terms have some meaning.

    Once again, we're talking about (a) having a national debt, and (b) also having deficit budgets. I agree with you that this cannot be the norm ultimately.

    Done deal.

    So we're not "bankrupt" in any fashion, thread furtherance number 1.

    We're not insolvent.

    What we are is a country in debt, using some short-term spending to combat a situation of very low growth. This is what nations have done for about a century now. Although it is bound to make us nervous -- because it depends on future growth to vindicate present spending -- it seems to be what works. (See the massive government spending program otherwise known as World War II -- a gigantic jobs program where any able-bodied male had a job; a gigantic stimulus program for our industrial base; etc.) Also, in response to the Depression, you can look at the comparatively miniscule programs of the New Deal, and look at the success they had, and how that success nosedived after "budget hawks" prevailed on FDR to put on the brakes in 37.

    This is why just prior to '10 the GOP started trying to re-focus the country on debt. The only tools for the Administration to succeed are keynesian measures. The GOP wanted its own keynesian approach -- give more tax breaks to the rich. That's spending money to "create jobs," in their parlance, but it has not economic justification, especially in a low-demand environment, and especially when much of the spending was already designed to free up liquidity that benefitted "the job creators" in the first place.

    Oddly, the Administration's approach has been overwhelmingly successful since the trough of this recession (now we're trying to cut out public sector jobs, so that darned unemployment number doesn't keep falling...)

    But we are left now not only with the debt generated by the failed GOP administrations, to the tune of about 12T, but also with the trillions in additional debt added specifically to clean up their mess.

    If you're serious about debt (with "you" here meaning "we") -

    1) That Ryan graph on the other thread? It's mainly projected health expenditures (not retirement expenditures.) Stop bleating on about death panels next time rational health care is an available option. That doesn't mean "unplug granny." It does mean a whole range of smart options -- for example, pay for granny to discuss a living will with a counselor (the provision the whole "death panel" thing was about.)

    2) We have a revenue problem. We're now collecting something south of 15% of GDP. And this after the long-standing blather about how we only ever collect 19% of GDP, no matter what we do. This is, by the way, also a silly talking-point. We've also always been in debt. So if you're serious about debt, you're serious about taxes.

    3) Maybe drop the commitment to spend as much on the military as the next 15 countries combined, and just spend twice as much as the next most powerful nation. I know I know, it's Munich all over again... ;)

    4) Most importantly: the entire discussion is meaningless in a vacuum. If growth is zero or very low, we're fu(ked. If growth is normal, we're okay. If people are excited about fast, "robust" growth, I'd say watch out. It's a symptom of more bubbles. I would expect some period of this sort of growth in the '12-'15 timeframe, but not for the whole period, as businesses and individuals take the plunge again -- people taking advantage of low prices and rates and diving back into real estate, businesses hiring again, etc. But thereafter I really really would love to see, just for once in my life, that the country hums along at 3-4% for a protracted period without some idiot trying to figure out how to spend a "surplus" the moment our budget is in the black.

    Sorry to go so heavy on the "semantics" here, Icy, but it does nobody any good to talk about new coinages of words that just don't exist elsewhere in reasoned debate. What we have is what we've always had, but the degree of the phenomenon is different. What we have right now is a BUNCH of debt, and high deficits. We haven't crossed over some random like of being "technically bankrupt." We're not bankrupt, we're not insolvent, we're in debt.

    That's not a good thing, but we can only think about it if we're not trying like hell to emote about it, and coming up with these scary phrases doesn't really advance the discussion.

    PFnV
     
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    No one's claiming that the US wasn't a rising industrial power after the Civil War, but even through that process, we experienced some hellacious recessions and depressions, not to mention brutal wars and imperial expansions. Everyone knows that you take the good with the bad, but the point of a civilized society is to mitigate the bad for its citizens as much as possible. Otherwise, what's the point?

    Seeing the country only as a rising industrial power without recognizing the obvious suffering and social injustices that existed at the same time is blatantly myopic and demonstrates once again your black-and-white sensibilities regarding a complex situation.

    And not to be confrontational, but what the fu(% do you mean by "your team"?
     
  18. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    the Left, your team of ideas, etc...


    The reason why I don't focus on the social injustices is because every country faces it, every country implemented some form of slavery, so there is no point, pointing to these bad things that everyone dealt with in their own ways, it's good we dealt with it.

    So when having a discussion about world powers, and their rise, you don't focus on the items in which every country also has to deal with in their rise or fall.

    Our policies of freedom, and private enterprise is was drove America into the economic power that it is. It overcame some issues, like everyone else, but in the end, it was the free market which propoelled America into the spotlight, not central planning, not government.

    Our governmetn created an environment which let the talents of America thrive, and that it did.

    Now our government picks winners and loosers, and we keep losing...
     
  19. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    16,427
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +784 / 14 / -6

    #24 Jersey

    Our government also taxed the hell out of the rich back there in your "golden era."
     
  20. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Once again, you demonstrate the narrow POV you ride consistently (I'll give you that). You think I'm a "leftist"? Really? Then you know nothing about me. I had a Ron Paul sign on my tree during the last election. Before that I sported a Nader bumper sticker during the '00 election. Where does that land me in your pidgeon-hole taxonomy?

    Policies of freedom in America never included those who were excluded from the Game. They had to fight for their rights and wait and wait for people to evolve into joining the rest of the civilized world who were consistently ahead of us in granting those rights. They fought and waited despite the resistance from your sacrosanct, mythological set of Constitutional "freedoms".
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>