What is Digg?141 Comments
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+32Unfunded liabilities have tripled since Bush was in office (only 20 trillion in 2000)
- Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -3/+30This is what you get with big government that gives out big subsidies.
- laserjobs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23That is what fiat currency and over promising politicians with access to the slush fund produce.
$500,000 per family is correct - wiremonkeymommy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18no matter how you do the numbers, the U.S. is broke, and further, the Baby Boomers are going to suck every last penny out of the social programs
- dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20The good news is by the time we have to pay those liabilities, minimum wage will be $200/hr. The bad news is a bunch of bananas will cost $1200. Hooray inflation!
- jimbecile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17ron paul is a leftist? who are you, grand wizard of the tire shop?
- blitzman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+23Wait until 'free' universal health care liabilities are tacked on.
- Sketchcast, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15The liberal party of Canada is a socially progressive, fiscally centrist party that had eliminated deficit spending for since 1993, this is in a nation with considerably better social programs, better access to education, a stronger middle class, and the highest standard of living in North America. If an economic second stringer like Canada can maintain a balanced budget for a decade, than a powerhouse like the USA can damned well do it too.
- Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11You know, if you do like "great leaders like Chavez" you can move to Venezuela.
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11"...fully tax funded, free universal health care." Tax funded, by definition, means it's not free, except to those people who contribute nothing.
- Libberkey, on 10/11/2007, -19/+29Live Free (Ron Paul) OR Hillary-Obama-McCain-Ghouliani-Mitt et al.
- nixfu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11
If you complain one bit about this..... then its simple.
End the national Socialism Medicare Handouts and redistribution of welath
End the national Socialism Retirement handouts and redistribution of wealth
End the national Socialism Welfare handouts and redistribution of wealth - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11You mean, when you refuse to fight terrorism for 4 years and pretend it's an Iraqi problem...
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9that was random, it was talking about bases in FOREIGN COUNTRIES that are perfectly capable of defending themselves such as Germany, UK, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Phillipines, Japan, Israel (foreign aid), etc..
- MadSquirrel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9And to think they want to add 20,000,000 plus more handouts to the roles. My Great Great Grandchildren are now 2 million in debt each, and they haven't been born yet!
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9military expenditures have only increased are liabilities by 1 trillion or so. Bush has tacked on another 39 TRILLION in liabilities via his expansive government programs and fiscal irresponsibility. For a GOP, he sure seems to like Keynesian Economics.
- zephc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, because everyone in Venezuela *loves* what Chavez is doing.
Oh, wait, they don't: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-07-09-voa37.cfm - rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17We need another war and a new round of tax cuts for the wealthy. That will spur enough economic growth to pay for our debt.
Republican Economics 101. - Deived, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6More accurately, thats what an attempt to control society via coercion produces.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The article says politicians are clueless. They are not. In fact, they know exactly how much debt they're generating. When the party fears losing its place in the office, it tries to borrow as much as possible in order to screw the next administration and force it to loose popularity in the next 4 years again, by carrying the burden of debt. I think republicans are setting up insurance in case of democratic victory in 2008 to get another chance in 2012.
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I would agree with you. While I'm not "socially progressive" there is no reason why the US couldn't balance it's budget.
Part of the USA's problem is that we spend as much on defense as the next 20 countries on the list. We do this so that we can stay ahead of all of the other industrialized nations. In turn, we supply "security" for nations like Japan, Germany, and so on, so we can "exploit" their manufacturing and R&D base. Another problem is how we do implement our social programs - as in, when they fail, and they do, we say "They didn't have enough money to succeed", so we throw more money at them instead of restructuring them or rethinking them. - 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Since, I don't know, the beginning of time. The fake rightists (neoconservatives) who came over from the left and have been ruining the country for the last seven years, on the other hand...
- bdhughes, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8if any one thinks that there is a political solution for this crisis just 'over the horizon' isn't really paying attention. politics and partisanism created this heinous crime and will perpetuate it before solving it. what happens when china decides to call in our note? we will be bankrupted! but at least we will go out with a flourish!!
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Yeah, you know, he has a following, and it's fairly simple to tell which stories are going to involve Ron Paul. Usually they involve over-sized, corrupt, bloated government in the headline. It's fairly simple to avoid "Ron Paul Spam". But then again, you probably know precisely which stories are going to include Paul, and then you come and bitch about it. Then, when they do digg you down, you can say "See, I told you!"
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6wow, that guy is retarded. Federal Debt accompanied by a government that prints money is a redistribution of income from the poor and middle class to Wall Street. Of course it is profitable for Wall Street when the government takes on debt, that is why it is called expansive fiscal policy. The problem arises when debt is fueling a Ponzi scheme such as social security.
Government does not get a return on debt. Debt is not an asset to government unless it owns it and not OWE. The return on assets then works AGAINST the government. For the private sector debt can be profitable in that you can leverage your assets, but what will the U.S. leverage? Our military, our education system? What will we give foreign government if we can't pay it back.
This is beyond ridiculous to claim anything but a debt of zero is profit maximizing for a government. It's removing investment from capital to making mere interest payments plus public investment is crowding out private investment causing a slowing down of American productivity.
This guy needs to relearn the basic optimal growth models and reread Diamond's "National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model" - CCB0x45, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I think we should give everyone a $300 tax refund... that will help them pay these debts they have(put the 300 in the bank, use the interest to slowly pay the debt.)
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9ummmm... our debt is coming from medicare and social security NOT war. All of Iraq has cost 500 Billion over 4.3 years whereas Welfare programs are costing us 1.6 trillion PER YEAR and that doesn't even include the growing unfunded liabilities in that area
- martin987, on 10/11/2007, -18/+23Awesome! Another ron paul advertisement brought to you by the good people of ron paul for president!
Watch how they dig me down! - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5way to leave out the unfunded liabilities. You know, what we OWE under the current laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_debt_levels#United_States
Government:
Federal government: $9 trillion
State and local governments: $1.6 trillion
Unfunded Medicare liability: $34 trillion
Unfunded Social Security liability: $12 trillion
Total: 54.6 TRILLION - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, please tell me that was a joke?
the interest on debt is more than on a bank savings account, they would be losing more and more money over time - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think you've confused "neo-con" with "extreme anti-government conservatives". On the contrary, I see neoconservatism as deviating from classical conservatism by making government a machine to enrich corporate interests. Traditional conservatives would "bleed the beast" by cutting funding and programs.
- nixfu, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8>This works out to over $500,000 per American family
JUST WAIT UNTIL THE SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE KICKS IN...... - Albionshores, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Nuts from a squirrel is a rare honour indeed. Thankyou.
- physphd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Loose, that doesn't even make sense. Read the 911 report for starters, which contradicts you on this point. It is public record how much funding Clinton got to fight terrorism and how more much was denied by Republicans. Those you honor for fighting "terror" (Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Rice, Armitage, and Bush during '98, '99, and '00) are literally the same exact people who repeatedly stated publicly that it was a waste of time and money during the 90s. Bush didn't hold a single cabinet level briefing on terrorism in the first 9 months of Bush's administration (until 911) despite having access to the same intelligence that made Clinton so proactive and despite Richard Clark's on the record pleadings to do so. In Clinton's own words (paraphrased) "I failed. But at lease I tried. They [Bush republicans] not only didn't try, they mocked us for even trying."
It's a matter of public record. Read it in Fox New's own reporting if you like:
http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview
We can certainly debate the merits of the response to 911, but there is no credible way to even insinuate that Clinton did any less than leave Bush dire warnings and ample covert action programs already in progress. Read the 911 report (unlike Giuliani), read Dick Clark's book, read Powell's book, read Bob Baer's books, even watch the factual content of FOX news, but for God's sake stop making up scenarios in your head with no basis in reality. - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4what? nowhere close. How is taking on 1.3 trillion dollars in healthcare costs per year going to lessen government debt? We would have to more than double the current income tax to pay for it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4All the net neutrality act does is give the government the belief that it has any say in the Internet. Out government is run by special interest. What We The People, need and demand are of no consequence to the heathens and thieves in Washington. Do you really want this government to have any sort of belief that it actually has a say in the Internet? Before the ink even dries on that bill, Lobbyists for communications companies are going to go to work trying to get it repealed. Then, slowly but surely, the net neutrality bill will be "altered" or "adjusted" for what ever ***** reason that decide. Next thing you know, the Internet is fully regulated by big brother.
- Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You mean the Baby Boomers that have paid into the system their entire lives? Look, I bet you are for Universal Healthcare. I am actually pretty positive you are. Well, let me help youout. That is going to drain our recources more than the baby Boomers. Please, I don't want your medical. I don't even want you to have it. Why should I, who have paid into these social services my whole life now want to pay for YOUR free ride on medical? You greedy little bastard!
- solidhubris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Na, Bush and his cronies are die-hard neocons. It's called "bleeding the beast." Basically, by bankrupting the nation, they will force the republican ideal of smaller government in a way that is irreversible.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6Contrary to popular belief, Jim Jones gave his people Flavoraide, Not Koolaid.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3For those of who don't believe this is a real crisis or think the US Government should take on debt like a corporation (which is crazy because the government does not generate revenue other than taxes on the people), please David Walker's speech and tour across the US titled "Fiscal Wake-up"
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/wakeuptour.html
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061084cg.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/newcomers.vid.html
David Walker is the US Controller General of the US, not some crazy blogger or whack economist. - g00dETH3R, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4The rest of the industrialized world that has universal health care manages just fine, why?
Because the US health care system is setup to make profit and not heal people, check the stats yourself and you'll see in the US it costs 3 times as much (or more) for the same level of health care as any other country. - g00dETH3R, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thanks to globalization most of the USA's assets don't belong to the USA anymore, they are global. Companies will continue to avoid taxes and unfavorable monetary conditions by moving to different countries. As soon as ***** hits the fan and the dept starts get called in they'll flee the sinking ship (eg. Halliburton) and the people will be left with the burden.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I really doubt you have a job since you can't even speak a entire sentence without a mistake.
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I disagree. Everyone deserves decent health care. But, I believe in charity, I believe in people helping each other. I don't believe in using the force of government to do it. Honestly, I would much rather see a decent, nonprofit which acts independently of government to help poor people, working off of charity and freedom instead of force and government bureaucracy.
- 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The problem isn't the health care system, it's the insurance industry and the fact that we give tax incentives to employers to buy insurance rather than giving tax incentives to employees to buy health care. You take the competition out of the market and this is what you get.
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3we will...it is inevitable b/c it is unaffordable
- jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3it takes into account revenue minus expenditure. They estimate government receipts and government expenditures for the time period and the difference is our debt meaning we will owe 60 trillion after the revenue is taken into account.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Last time I looked, Congress held the purse strings of the nation.
- MadSquirrel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Wow, You did it, you made me do it, damn I do agree with that statement and only wish I could plus it up twice.
Here have a nut. - jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3wow, that guy is retarded. Federal Debt accompanied by a government that prints money is a redistribution of income from the poor and middle class to Wall Street. Of course it is profitable for Wall Street when the government takes on debt, that is why it is called expansive fiscal policy. The problem arises when debt is fueling a Ponzi scheme such as social security.
Government does not get a return on debt. Debt is not an asset to government unless it owns it and not OWE. The return on assets then works AGAINST the government. For the private sector debt can be profitable in that you can leverage your assets, but what will the U.S. leverage? Ourt military, our education system? What will we give foreign government if we can't pay it back.
This is beyond ridiculous to claim anything but a debt of zero os profit maximizing for a government. It's removing investment from capital to making mere inerest payments plus public investment is crowding out private investment causing a slowing down of American productivity.
This guy needs to relearn the basic optimal growth models and reread Diamond's "National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model" -
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is