Jerome Powell Fed Chairman in his testimony last week called our present economic path (with a debt of 22 Trillion $ and rising) "unsustainable". With President Obama having almost accumulated as much debt in his presidency as all of the previous presidents combined (the debt went from 10 to 20 Trillion $ approximately) and with President Trump following in his footsteps with addition Trillions to be added annually for the foreseeable future we find ourselves in a situation where the Dept/GDP ratio is now well above the 100% market which is normally considered by economists to be the tipping point for countries as they careen towards destruction of their economies and their currency.
Now let's add to the above 'unsustainable' situation, Medicare for All, guaranteed annual income, reparations all of which will cost tens of trillions of dollars and it is a formula for financial disaster. Now let's add Open Borders in a Welfare State and it's huge social costs to the mix and it doesn't take a Harvard MBA to figure out that there is little hope long term our Country as we know it. Third World here we come.
Let's continue to focus on Political Correctness, LGBT rights, phony racism complaints and Global Warming destroying us in 12 years to distract us from the real issue that will destroy US. Bankruptcy. This isn't Left or Right it's just plain Mathematics.
politician suicide.
Said many times, the only way to address debt issue is adding constitution amendment, i.e. making it a constitution issue.
TERM LIMITS
(no message)
He says that the major drag on economic progress is the rising % (over 60) of our national budget going to retirement benefits. It's sucking out the capital needed to expand and increase productivity. This is true at every level of our government.
Oh! We could increase taxes... but then that would also decrease the amount of $ available for investment.
So it's my generation's social security checks and Medicare payments that are bankrupting the nation's future.
AND ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE OF OUR "LEADERS" even dares to open the discussion on possible fixes.
Would you say that a household that could pay off all of its debt in 13 months is in trouble? Of course not.
Another way to look at it is this: 16.2% of 2018's GDP was tax revenue. Thus, we could pay off the national debt in 6 years if we focused all of our tax revenue on it. Does that indicate a huge problem? Again, no.
Did you know that the Federal Reserve keeps track of how much the entire United States is worth? $128 trillion as of 2017, which does not include assets held by the Federal Reserve or the US Government. If you were worth $128t and had debt of $22t would you feel nervous? Please.
While we absolutely need to get a better grip on spending and long-term liabilities (as so much of it is plain wasteful), the problem is overestimated. It is a cudgel used by Democrats to raise taxes.
are Wages and salary of people and 10+% are companies' after-tax profits. That nearly accounts for 60% of GDP. We can't pay debts without letting people have wage and salary while they work. We also can't allow company make no profits. Without profit motivation, there is no need to run business and therefore no tax revenue. So, that means you have deduct nearly 60% of annual GDP. Only 40% of GDP can be used in your math to pay debts.
In 2013, IER estimated it at $150 trillion. Then add in Federal gold reserves, maybe federal land and buildings, and all other geological assets, such as unmined gold. Think we're talking about $250t at this point.
US Debt is $22t.
(no message)
and reeks of handouts and inefficiency.
Spending is way too high and wasteful. However, the *amount* of the national debt is not an actual crisis now, and won't be for the foreseeable future.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It's almost like you are a mindless partisan hack.
(no message)
few politicians that I consider to be a hero. However, the sky-is-falling crap is nonsense.
(no message)
(no message)
D activists. Their distress and antagonism toward fiscally responsible social liberals was palpable.
(Heck, at a charity event one evening I was called an anachronism.)
(no message)
starter.
The last US President who sincerely tried to reform entitlements was George W. Bush who wanted to reform social security but failed.
(no message)
meaning that overhauling the politically popular program would take 60 votes in the Senate."
Link: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-could-be-first-up-to-tackle-entitlement-reform
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
unless they are going to use”tough people” to do violence which doesn’t seem their style.
(no message)
Although there is a pretty solid consensus among economists that spending during recessions is wise, and not during times of expansion.
But you and yours seemed all up-in-arms a decade ago. The Tea Party hicks took to the streets.
But now it is all just paranoia. I see.
Trump than Hillary, but I'd rather someone other than Trump.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Ignore what Trump says.
Only pay attention to what he does.
Easier that way, in so many ways.
(no message)
(no message)
To be specific, he reduced what tax revenues would have been had he left the tax rates well enough alone.
But its pretty simple. And I've not heard anyone deny it.
(no message)
Are you for real?
(no message)
Hence, the controversy about the vote on the National Emergency. Remember that McConnell would not let the resolution that would have ended the shutdown get voted on in the Senate? Simply because he knew Trump didn't like it?
Ned is picking a technical nit here. It's not literally inaccurate, but it is departure on how we have apportioned responsibility for legislative initiatives of the president in the past.
Obama didn't pass the ACA, and yet it is called Obamacare.
(no message)
(no message)
without his approval during the first two years.
Interestingly enough, the ONLY reason 12 got to vote their conscience on the fake NE is because McConnell by law had to bring it to a vote. Otherwise that would have died as well.
(no message)
(no message)
Trump owns all this.
(no message)
You know this but post that nonsense anyways.
Just because he decides it is not politically expedient to use his veto power doesn't mean the budget it his. Maybe you think he should shut down the government until the GOP does what he wants? You'd be criticizing him for that, I'm sure.
A spending bill did not get out of Congress those two years without his approval.
(no message)
Again, pick yer nits.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You say it is not left/right, but then you cite the pie-in-the-sky ideas of Democrats while ignoring one of the main sources of our debt problem - the military budget. We spend far more on the military than any other country by an order of magnitude. That said, the biggest suckhole is mandatory spending (SS and Medicare). Not sure what you can do about that.
Of the stuff you worry about, which again - don't. I doubt that the net loss to the budget (if any) due to preventable illegal immigration is more than a rounding error*. Obviously, "medicare for all" would carry an additional tax, the same way different taxes were introduced to help underwrite Obamacare programs. I have not heard anyone propose guaranteed income without taxes to fund it.
Those proposals may or may not be goofy, but they should not be the source of your deficit fears. Instead blaming the Dem pet projects (that haven't even occured yet), why not blame the current state of affairs. We are in the middle of an economic expansion and are rapidly increasing the deficit, just so a short-term con artist can brag about bringing 2.9% growth one year. Does it take a HarvardMBA to figure out that lowering taxes and increasing spending will only exacerbate the debt issue?
*Right-leaning estimates are at $116 billion per year. However, you used the term "open borders". Since I don't know what that means, I'll assume you are talking about the absence of Trump's new wall. Since most illegal immigration does not come from people crossing the unwalled border, the cost of such entrants is likely in the tens of billions, at the most.
(no message)