The new budget offer from the White House is unbelievable!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I remember reading somewhere that we pay so much interest on the national debt that there hardely is any maneuvering to do. It is called mandatory spending and provisional spending. Even if all provisional spending was ended like destroying the military by 100%, destroying all social services by 100%, etc....STILL we don't have enough tax money to cover mandatory spending.

That means we don't have enough money to pay our debt obligations. I can't imagine why we still have a AA credit rating other than the ptb are waiting for the perfect storm to downgrade america into C status and force the IMF here pronto, with its debt deals and austerity belt tightening measures. Then sell-off all the assets inorder to avoid bankruptcy.

The game is rigged dude. Wake up!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That's crazy! Luckily, I don't live in the US, but Jesus Christ almighty! What are they using it for? Area 51? NASA? Research? Maybe preparing for World War III? Hmm... Sounds suspicious to me... And bloody mad...

Ok, I stand corrected... It was brought to my attention that the President HAS, in fact, advocated a plan for cuts as outlined In THIS Office & Management Budget from GPO.

Actually, as I have just spent the past 2 hours reading through it, it is a complete and total joke! The total savings offered by this president amount to a total of $102Billion dollars - over the next 10 years - amounting to a paltry $10.2Billion dollar annual savings versus an annual Deficit of $1.1Trillion dollars! That is a 1% of the deficit and only .3% of the total budget!!!

Now for the actual proposed cuts... if you take the time to look at the programs being proposed for cuts or eliminations, you will quickly recognize that 90% of these should have never been undertaken to begin with!

So, let us assume that we implement the President's plan in full, along with his proposed tax hikes. That would eliminate a total of only $170Billion in deficit spending versus the $1.1+ Trillion in deficit spending STILL leaving the United States with over $900 Billion dollars a year in deficit spending! This does NOT take into account the spending programs that have yet to be enacted, like Obamacare, which will certainly take us well over the $1T in deficit spending once again.

What hasn't even been discussed are the unfunded liabilities which is rapidly approaching the $100 TRILLION mark. This includes Social Security, Medicare, Pensions and a whole host of other promises made, money collected and blown when it was supposed to be reserved in trusts. In fact, Social Security Trust Fund has virtually no money in it! It is filled with Congressional IOUs. Keeping in mind that we cannot even fund our current government, how in the hell are we expecting to meet these future liabilities???

The deeper I get into the data, the more pissed off I am becoming! My generation has paid into Social Security and Medicare but it appears that the money that we were told we were investing in ourselves for OUR future has already been squandered leaving nothing! There will be no money for the government to fulfill its obligation to us!

I'd like to extend a "Thank you" to Wrabbit for bringing this GPO publication to my attention and allowing me to correct my previous assertion that no cuts have been proposed by this administration - I was wrong. That said, I wasn't very far off as what is being proposed doesn't even amount .3% of the budget - WHAT A JOKE!!!

This is all fairly meaningless, just like the "debt."

If Dumbledore waved a magic wand that reduced every debt on the planet by 4/5, nothing would turn over in the real world, but -- it would be magically "ok" to spend again.

That fact alone tells me everything I need to know about "the debt": it's a scam.

We are already past the point of new return. The only option is to hit the reset button and start over again. And even that doesn't have to be violent. Frankly -- one can imagine a scenario by which a new "bank" creates and issues a "new currency" for exactly THAT purpose, funnels the money into the hands of the people at the bottom, where it can ONLY be used to pay outstanding debts. Once the "level of debt" reaches 40% or so of GDP, they could stop issuing it. and let it trickle back up to the national and international bank level, where it would be "paid" back to the issuing "bank" and destroyed to prevent inflation. Than the new "bank" would be dissolved.

And just like that, the debt is now 40% of GDP, instead of 140% of GDP, and we can "spend" again. That should buy us enough time to figure this whole "food, fuel, air" thing, right?

reply to post by kozmo

You're quite welcome and I'm happy I had the links around to share. It isn't much to brag about on his part, which is probably why we don't hear the White House making much mention of it themselves. lol....

For the record, this is how the numbers generated by the United States itself, through the 2013 proposed budget and projections into the future, rank the top most expensive items to the U.S. Budget, by absolute dollar spent.

I warn everyone, this is a HUGE graphic. It's why I had it thumbnail. So expect it to pop up big when you click on it. As you'll see though, there is no real way to make this "small" and readable. Frankly, I'm surprised the ATS content screen let it through for dimensions...but I'm glad they did. Seeing is believing and this is from the Excel Spreadsheet version of the GAO/White House's 2013 budget package.



and those numbers and projections are, as one may imagine, the better that they would put into writing. That is evident by this:



Also from the 2013 fy budget package and the numbers used for economic conditions to generate the above projections into the future. As some of those numbers are already worse than expected, it doesn't bode well for how the rest turn out over time now. Anyway, this might put the financial condition and how it relates to debt a little better for context. The second highest item in the U.S. for dollars spent by 2017 IS the national debt,

......and NEITHER side is talking much to solve this while again, far from talking about reducing deficits, the talk from none other than Treasury is to remove the limit cap entirely?

Some days I think we're sooo doomed it's just a wait and see game now.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


I think that misses a very critical thing here. We can't just wave away this debt. It can't be done without totally destroying the economy and 10's of millions of real people.

The debt isn't just imaginary numbers in computer memory. Perhaps that is how much of it works on the International side of debt, but that is by far not the majority the U.S. has out. It's majority held by the public. That debt is in physical form by way of Bonds, Certificates of Deposit, T-Bills and the like. Retirement, Pension and Charity organizations to name just a few, hold fair % of assets in that debt.

The M-#'s show some is accounted for in literal 'Federal Reserve Notes' (I.E. Cash) but that % of the "debt", (as it is counted that way), is very small to the total.

So in terms of reality, sure....anything can be done I suppose. They can seize IRA's and 401k's too. The gain would be many trillions of dollars in a keystroke......and the destruction of the entire middle class of America at once.

It's just so critical to remember, the public debt really is held by human beings somewhere or within a group that serves real people. As it builds, so does the 'too big to fail' idea of saving the system by whatever means are necessary for fear of the alternative of collapse, IMO. More debt is terminal at this point...as I think of it.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

More debt is terminal at this point...as I think of it.

More like 'more terminal'. But that is like being a little pregnant.

I think we are beyond hope now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You realize that the 100 trillion number that is thrown around exceeds the combined GDP of the entire planet (about 66 trillion) by more than 40 trillion dollars, right?

It's all BS. Remove 4/5 of it's value and value of the underlying assets doesn't change. It simply changes the nature of the interest on a super-inflated BS number.

Frankly -- the mere existence of the interest on the debt threatens to savings of "real people" (via inflation) more than anything I can come up with.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Even I dislike libertarianism, but offered it as a choice to seperate the zionists from the non-zionists

How is support for a Jewish state so big an issue as to warrant such a radical reworking of the political spectrum?

The democrats are left - not right.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


I'm not sure what you mean by 100 trillion. I'm aware of the total, absolute fantasy land figuring of some areas of the global economy, of course.

1/4 of a Quadrillion in Bank Derivative Exposure

^^ You have to see the graphics they produce there to believe it, but broken down? It's what it is and the whole global economy is a near joke at this point.

In strictly the economy within the United States and how it effects those inside the US or dealing in and out of US things though, it's over 16 trillion for the number I'm concerned with. A majority % of that is what Ma and Pa Kettle have in retirement and pension funds or in the safe deposit box....foolishly thinking there is money to make good if everyone cashed it all in at once.

In that more narrow sense and with the actual numbers within the US system, it is a matter of real people being badly hurt by the wrong decisions being made here and into the mid term future. This Treasury Secretary scares me in those terms.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

You realize that the 100 trillion number that is thrown around exceeds the combined GDP of the entire planet (about 66 trillion) by more than 40 trillion dollars, right?

It's all BS. Remove 4/5 of it's value and value of the underlying assets doesn't change. It simply changes the nature of the interest on a super-inflated BS number.

Frankly -- the mere existence of the interest on the debt threatens to savings of "real people" (via inflation) more than anything I can come up with.

you're not looking at this correctly. Think of it like this... You earn $30,000 a year. You have a mortgage for a home of $100,000 and revolving credit worth $40,000 that is fully used up. You now have obligations of $140,000 but your GDP (income and worth) is only $30,000. You are still on the hook to pay back $140,000 - which would be your unfunded liabilities at this point.

So, you see, the debt is real. The $100,000 mortgage is held by the bank but funded by Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) which are in investment funds held by depositors and investors - they count on that investment to fund retirement etc... The $40,000 in revolving credit is also held by banks who sell those as investment instruments to individuals.

In short, the global GDP is not a factor in debt. All that GDP represents is the total of goods and services produced globally in a year. Clearly my previous example demonstrates how one can have debt beyond income. THAT is what makes this so egregious and the discussion regarding the fiscal cliff so ridiculous. We ALREADY went over the fiscal cliff decades ago! We've just been using credit cads to make interest payments on other credit cards and have kited checks to continue funding programs that were supposed to be self-funded (Medicare and Social Security) because we already spent the money on everything except for what it was intended.

Make more sense now?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The almost $100 Trillion number - which is actually closer to $88Trillion - is our UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. It is spending that we have committed to, but have no revenue or savings in trust to make good on the promises.

Social Security, Medicare and Federal Pensions make up the King's ransom of this number. The government, when creating these programs, specified that they were going to collect these revenues and invest them in various trusts to pay out the benefits promised. They have instead used this money as part of their general fund for decades, depleting the whole of the trusts - there's nothing there except IOUs. As a result, the government is forced to deficit spend to make up for the trust fund's shortfall.

As a result we now PAY interest on debt to keep these programs solvent instead of earning interest on savings to grow these programs. THEN, to add insult to injury, the government uses the threat of losing these programs as a justification to increase taxes and debt when it was THEIR malfeasance that caused them to be bankrupt to begin with. In short, the government has breached their contract with its citizens on how these taxes were to be layed, collected and used. And then we allow them to hold us hostage for their failure.

reply to post by kozmo


I don't have a problem with your rationalization. I am just pointing out that servicing the interest in that debt is:

1) Impossible. You can cut all discretionary spending and not have enough left over to pay the interest, and

2) Destructive. No combination of cuts or new taxes will free us from the onerous obligations of these numbers. Frankly -- there aren't enough resources on the planet earth to service a continuous revolving debt at this level.

My Dumbledore example is an approximation based on an oversimplification, but I believe it stands. I am not talking about NOT paying into pensions for example. I am talking about reducing the interest on the debt to a more manageable level so that we can continue to do something productive with it. What we have here is a system designed to drain the energy off human productivity to such a degree that there is no longer anything left to "live on," and even that will never be enough.

reply to post by kozmo


And Bingo was his name-o.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Even I dislike libertarianism, but offered it as a choice to seperate the zionists from the non-zionists

How is support for a Jewish state so big an issue as to warrant such a radical reworking of the political spectrum?

The democrats are left - not right.

Are you kidding me? How come gary johnson a financial conservative wants all our troops out of the middle east and to let israel defend itself for a change? Maybe make it realise it has to sit down with the moderate arabs and arrange some peace deal. Supporting jews in the middle east should be conditional and by no means an excuse to invade one muslim country after another. Ron Paul a borderline libertarian said the same thing, closer to republican.

The democrats are center right. A leftist party does not loan $4 trillion in tax payer guaranteed bailouts for starters and second they do not support corporate imperalism via wall street. THEY ARE RIGHT!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

How come gary johnson a financial conservative wants all our troops out of the middle east and to let israel defend itself for a change?

War in Iraq has nothing to do with Israel. Your assumption that is does is based on your fanatical bias against Israel (or Zionism).

A leftist party does not loan $4 trillion in tax payer guaranteed bailouts for starters and second they do not support corporate imperalism via wall street

You have a very scant understanding of politics. Government bailouts of corporate monopolies leads to nationalization of industry - a socialist prerogative. For all you know, Obama's bailouts may be a prelude to the nationalization of other sectors of society.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by 0zzymand0s

 

I think that misses a very critical thing here. We can't just wave away this debt. It can't be done without totally destroying the economy and 10's of millions of real people.

The debt isn't just imaginary numbers in computer memory. Perhaps that is how much of it works on the International side of debt, but that is by far not the majority the U.S. has out. It's majority held by the public. That debt is in physical form by way of Bonds, Certificates of Deposit, T-Bills and the like. Retirement, Pension and Charity organizations to name just a few, hold fair % of assets in that debt.

Treasury bills and government bonds mean the same thing. Individual investors hold them, mutual funds, foreign national treasuries(like china and uae), pension plans, etc. The people at the top do not need more money, obviously they have plenty...so what is their motive for gross negligence?

So in terms of reality, sure....anything can be done I suppose. They can seize IRA's and 401k's too. The gain would be many trillions of dollars in a keystroke......and the destruction of the entire middle class of America at once.

It's just so critical to remember, the public debt really is held by human beings somewhere or within a group that serves real people. As it builds, so does the 'too big to fail' idea of saving the system by whatever means are necessary for fear of the alternative of collapse, IMO. More debt is terminal at this point...as I think of it.

Maybe they should just revoke the charter of the federal reserve after 2012 which is the 100 year annivesary of this corrupt private central bank. Then nationalise it to have more control over fiscal policies. Alternatively just keep raising the ceiling to infinity.

Originally posted by dontreally

War in Iraq has nothing to do with Israel. Your assumption that is does is based on your fanatical bias against Israel (or Zionism).

It certainly had nothing to do with wmd found in iraq; they only found trace amounts of chemical weapons. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and neither did afghanistan. Iraq and iran have always hated israel and have made it known. But just because they hate israel does not mean they would attack unless provoked.

A leftist party does not loan $4 trillion in tax payer guaranteed bailouts for starters and second they do not support corporate imperalism via wall street

You have a very scant understanding of politics. Government bailouts of corporate monopolies leads to nationalization of industry - a socialist prerogative. For all you know, Obama's bailouts may be a prelude to the nationalization of other sectors of society.

edit on 1-12-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

What has been nationalised so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?

$4 trillion loaned out(or given out, depending how one looks at it) and the federal reserve says "none of your business".

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

What has been nationalised so far? Can you cite some credible examples or are you full of #?

A government bailout means the government buys stocks of the beleaguered company, thereby transferring ownership from the private sector to the federal government.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


The government should not have to pay interest to any debt, unless in debt to other countries. The government should be collecting interest from the commercial banks via the prime rate. The fact the government issues bonds should tell any reasonable person someone is above the government; ie the capitalist class!

Federal reserve loans money to commercial member banks and charges prime rate, then commercial bank loans money to private individuals and companies at an agreed interest rate that obviously should be higher than the prime rate so that the commercial bank makes money.

Up to this point government has no money yet. So it needs to tax corporations and individuals to raise money to run the nation. If it does not raise enough tax money, it needs to issue government bonds(tbills) to raise money via borrowing. When you borrow money you agree to pay capital plus interest over the agreed length, called the maturity period.

100 years of private central banking means the government has felt the need to borrow much more than the need to collect taxes, because it is wasteful and because rich people never pay their fair share due to various loopholes in their favor.

It is a rigged system! Bankers are the symptom of capitalism and capitalism is the disease. No one on the right will ever admit it though. They carry too much false pride! And many people on the left are ignorant of the details.