This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The CBO Issues Most Dire Warning On US Budget Yet, Warns US Debt Will "Swiftly Be Pushed To Unsustainable Levels"

Tyler Durden's picture





 

In its just released Long-Term Budget Outlook, the CBO has come out with the most dire warnings on the US projected debt  to date. In summary, the healthcare spending and the Social
Security will consume an increasing portion of the budget and will push the national debt up sharply unless lawmakers act,
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned. "CBO projects, the aging of the population and the rising cost of health care will cause spending on the major mandatory health care programs and Social Security to grow from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now if current laws are not changed." While this does not sound too dramatic, the way it is attained is with the following ludicrous assumptions (which Paul Krugman would certainly call perfectly normal): "government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II." Good luck with that. In the more realistic, alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO observes, that "with significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035." The CBO's conclusion is a nightmare to each and every hard-core Keynesian fundamentalist (you know who you are): "the sooner that long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt. Earlier action would require more sacrifices by earlier generations to benefit future generations, but it would also permit smaller or more gradual changes and would give people more time to adjust to them."

The summary critical presentation from the Congressional Budget Office (the full one with a lot of useless charts can be found here). This is very apropos as the US will likely never againhave a budget again so long as the current administration is in place.

The Long-Term Budget Outlook

Recently, the federal government has been recording the largest budget deficits, as a share of the economy, since the end of World War II. As a result of those deficits, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged. At the end of 2008, that debt equaled 40 percent of the nation’s annual economic output (as measured by gross domestic product, or GDP), a little above the 40 year average of 36 percent. Since then, large budget deficits have caused debt held by the public to shoot upward; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. The sharp rise in debt stems partly from lower tax revenues and higher federal spending related to the recent severe recession and turmoil in financial markets. However, the growing debt also reflects an imbalance between spending and revenues that predated those economic developments.

As the economy recovers and the policies adopted to counteract the recession and the financial turmoil phase out, budget deficits will probably decline markedly in the next few years. But over the long term, the budget outlook is daunting. The retirement of the baby boom generation portends a significant and sustained increase in the share of the population receiving benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Moreover, per capita spending for health care is likely to continue rising faster than spending per person on other goods and services for many years (although the magnitude of that gap is very uncertain). Without significant changes in government policy, those factors will boost federal outlays sharply relative to GDP in coming decades under any plausible assumptions about future trends in the economy, demographics, and health care costs.

The Outlook for Major Health Care Programs and Social Security

CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter. Those projections include all of the effects of the recently enacted health care legislation, which is expected to increase federal spending in the next 10 years and for most of the following decade. By 2030, however, that legislation will slightly reduce federal spending for health care if all of its provisions are fully implemented, CBO projects. That reduction in the level of spending in 2030 yields lower projections of health care spending in the longer term—even though, owing to the great uncertainties involved in projecting such spending many decades in the future, enactment of the legislation did not cause CBO to change its estimates of longer term growth rates for spending on the government’s health care programs.

Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, albeit much less dramatically. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2030 and then stabilize at roughly that level.

All told, CBO projects, the aging of the population and the rising cost of health care will cause spending on the major mandatory health care programs and Social Security to grow from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now if current laws are not changed. (By comparison, spending on all of the federal government’s programs and activities, excluding interest payments on debt, has averaged 18.5 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.)

To put U.S. fiscal policy on a sustainable path, lawmakers would have to substantially reduce the growth in outlays for those programs relative to the amounts that CBO is projecting—or else match that growth with equivalent declines in other federal spending, corresponding increases in federal revenues, or some combination of the two.

Alternative Long-Term Scenarios

In this report, CBO presents the long-term budget picture under two scenarios that embody different assumptions about future policies governing federal revenues and spending. Budget projections grow increasingly uncertain as they extend farther into the future, so this report focuses largely on the next 25 years. However, because considerable interest exists in the longer-term outlook, figures showing projections through 2080 and associated data are available in Appendix A of the report, and associated data are available on CBO’s Web site (www.cbo.gov).

The first long-term budget scenario used in this analysis, the extended baseline scenario, adheres closely to current law. It incorporates CBO’s current estimate of the impact of the recently enacted health care legislation on revenues and mandatory spending. (That estimate is unchanged from the one that CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation published in March, when the legislation was being considered.) Under this scenario, the expiration of most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax, and the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth would result in steadily higher average tax rates.

Those rising rates, combined with the tax provisions of the recent health care legislation, would push total revenues to 23 percent of GDP by 2035—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and to larger percentages thereafter. At the same time, government spending on everything other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative importance of other spending would offset much—though not all—of the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security. As a result, debt would increase from its already high levels relative to GDP, as would the required interest payments on that debt.

Federal debt held by the public would grow from an estimated 62 percent of GDP this year to about 80 percent by 2035. Interest payments, which absorb federal resources that could otherwise be used to pay for government services, currently amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; under this scenario, they would rise to 4 percent of GDP (or one-sixth of federal revenues) by 2035.

The budget outlook is much bleaker under the alternative fiscal scenario, which incorporates several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a long period. In this scenario, CBO assumed that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians would gradually increase (which would not happen under current law) and that several policies enacted in the recent health care legislation that would restrain growth in health care spending would not continue in effect after 2020. In addition, under the alternative scenario, spending on activities other than the major mandatory health care programs, Social Security, and interest would fall below the average level of the past 40 years relative to GDP, though not as low as under the extended baseline scenario. More important, CBO assumed for this scenario that most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended, that the reach of the alternative minimum tax would be kept close to its historical extent, and that over the longer run, tax law would evolve further so that revenues would remain at about 19 percent of GDP, near their historical average.

Under that combination of policy assumptions, federal debt would grow much more rapidly than under the extended-baseline scenario. With significantly lower revenues and higher outlays, debt would reach 87 percent of GDP by 2020, CBO projects. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and noninterest spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to unsustainable levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by  2025 and would reach 185 percent in 2035.

Neither of those scenarios represents a prediction by CBO of what policies will be in effect during the next several decades. The policies adopted in coming years will surely differ from those assumed for the scenarios. (And even if the assumed policies were adopted, their economic and budgetary consequences would certainly differ from those projected in this report.) Nevertheless, these projections, encompassing two very different sets of policy assumptions, provide a clear indication of the serious nature of the fiscal challenge facing the nation.

The Impact of Growing Deficits and Debt

In fact, CBO’s projections understate the severity of the long-term budget problem because they do not incorporate the significant negative effects that accumulating substantial amounts of additional federal debt would have on the economy:

  • Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower income growth in the United States.
  • Growing debt would also reduce lawmakers’ ability to respond to economic downturns and other challenges.
  • Over time, higher debt would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis in which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would be forced to pay much more to borrow money.

Keeping deficits and debt from growing to unsustainable levels would require raising revenues as a percentage of GDP significantly above past levels, reducing outlays sharply relative to CBO’s projections, or some combination of those approaches. Making such changes while economic activity and employment remain well below their potential levels would probably slow the economic recovery. However, the sooner that long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on, and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from growing federal debt. Earlier action would require more sacrifices by earlier generations to benefit future generations, but it would also permit smaller or more gradual changes and would give people more time to adjust to them.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:10 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

I don't exactly know what you're saying, here, but I don't think I like it.  Junk.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:07 | Link to Comment perchprism
perchprism's picture

I had the pleasure of junking him out of existence with junk #20.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:18 | Link to Comment Votewithabullet
Votewithabullet's picture

...great, and anyone who shows up at 19:08 has no idea what you pussies are crying aboot.(canadian)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:00 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

Actually, it was 21:57 for me!~

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment Clayton Bigsby
Clayton Bigsby's picture

Timmay?  Bernokio?  Is That You?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:46 | Link to Comment Paladin en passant
Paladin en passant's picture

Looks like a psychotic break to me...

Put some haloperidol on that and it'll be better in the morning.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:35 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Every empire lasts about a hundred years. For America that sums it all up.

First Europe, then America and now the fire of glory will go to Asia.

But it's not like it's over. Even in Europe, there are more millionaires on average then there are in America. So it's doesn't mean it will all be bad.

If you're rich, you'll probably be rich still.

And if you're poor... you'll still be fucked

:)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:37 | Link to Comment zevulon
zevulon's picture

amen. except by asian you mean china. not india.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:44 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

The world need poor people, and it needs rich people. Communists tried to fix that one but we all know how that turned out :)

Why the insults? There's no need for it.

The poor, the less fortunate: They all should take the bull by the horns and do something about their situation.

Oké, some lack the brains, but even the biggest retard can become president!

99% of the poor people are poor because they are more concerned about being poor then to do something about it.

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:51 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Amen, i know some dumb as shit back water east Louisiana trash that work on the rigs and can clear over a 100K a year.  Why? Because they got off their asses worked 12h days and learned a useful skill.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:13 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Not to worry, they have been found out and the drilling ban will take care of that mistake in the world's most perfect system.

- Ned

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:47 | Link to Comment ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

"99% of the poor people are poor because they are more concerned about being poor then to do something about it"

Maybe in America, or another "free" country, but to say all poor people have the choice to be otherwise is asinine.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:03 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

ANY fricking idiot not afraid to bang on doors can become a Realtor at 18 and drive a Mercedes.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:11 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

What in the hell is wrong with this troll?  Where did he come from?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:24 | Link to Comment Takingbets
Takingbets's picture

I think he's one of those buy and hold investors. They come out swinging when they see red.

You know, just like a Bull. :-)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

America isn't an empire by any stretch of the imagination even if everyone says so. Look at what past empires actually did - governors, taxes, tribute  - what do you suppose our return on investment in Iraq is so far?  And every empire does not last "about 100 years" either.

in Europe, there are more millionaires on average then there are in America.

Where do you get this crap?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:09 | Link to Comment Suisse
Suisse's picture

Take a look at how many military bases the U.S. has overseas. Of course it's an empire, it's just not so direct. Who needs to levy taxes when you require access to their markets?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:27 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Military bases?  As Empire??  How about as welfare (indirect) payments.  Germany was about $2B/year of free money injected into the economy.  The PI?  Was almost a fight until Clarke Field got buried, then US got kicked out/left and the citizens went crazy to get G.I. to come back.  Same as RoK, Rummie agreed to remove U.S. forces, crying and weeping among the people and eventually the pols.

Powell shut down this argument with "all we asked for is a 3x6 plot to bury our dead."

- Ned

P.S. Interesting story about Jim Jones assignment when Rummy was breaking down the "Old Europe" mess.  Worth a look.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:25 | Link to Comment Quintus
Quintus's picture

Taxes? Tribute?  What do you think the 'Exorbitant Privilege' that allows the US to ship endless quantities of paper dollars overseas in return for real goods is?  Fortunately this legacy of Bretton Woods is in its last days now.  Soon, the US is going to have to work (i.e. export real products) for its living.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:21 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Fact.

I'm from Belgium. Here about 10% is dollar millionair.

And the average capital in the bank is 330.000 euro.

http://netto.tijd.be/budget_en_vrije_tijd/luxe/Belgie-_land_van_miljonairs.8286398-2215.art

(translation should be Dutch to English)

Almost everybody I know is rich, and when we end college or university most of us get about 100.000 euro to start with from our parents. That's the average.

But starting when we are young, we learn the value of money and how to make it and save it.

We do have poor regions, every country has that. Bummer for them.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

Belgium isn't a very big country and is not representative of Europe as a whole. Liechtenstein probably has a lot of per-capita millionaires too. No one in Scandanavia says "everybody I know is rich."

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:06 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

Uh, y'all better get some gold.

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 02:08 | Link to Comment awells
awells's picture

With GP per capita $36K (CIA Factbook), that is some achievement. perhaps they all inherited their millions, but come to think of it, history does not support that either.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:37 | Link to Comment barkingbill
barkingbill's picture

so we have all the disadvantages of an empire, but with out it's benefits....does that sound good to you?

 

fact is. defense spending is out of control. it too must be cut. 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:44 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

Yes and

Maybe, or at least the pieces could certainly stand to be rearranged on the board. But Obama won't cut back on the military without guaranteeing those soldiers government jobs [and then what have you saved?] since it will just add fuel to the unemployment fire.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:02 | Link to Comment baserunr
baserunr's picture

Yes, defense spending is higher than it needs to be. We need to reduce the number of bases and personnel overseas without a doubt.  But at least spending on defense is something clearly laid out in the Constitution.  Most of the rest of the stuff that money is spent on has no constitutional basis at all.

 

Of course, the Constitution also provides that Congress can borrow and regulate the value of money.  And look where that has taken us.....

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

I'm all for cutting off the free ride to Europe (while keeping an appropriately strong domestic defense), but that's mainly what it would be:  cutting off welfare to Europe.

Don't pretend for a minute it would put a dent in how bankrupt we are.  Completely scrapping the military in its entirety would still leave us bankrupted by the pyramid scheme dependency programs.

Military spending increases linearly, and those increases can be halted at any time.  The Entitlements increase logarithmically, and by definition those increases are automatic.

 

The anti-military types avoid this by talking about the "discretionary" budget, but the non-discretionary stuff is already 2/3 of the budget, making it the far larger problem.  In a few years when Entitlements make up 90% of the budget, you could eliminate EVERY function of government, legitimate or not, and still be broke.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:48 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

Right.  Look at it this way, you can only blow money on a war once but government programs are forever...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:10 | Link to Comment Paladin en passant
Paladin en passant's picture

You might want to increase your sample size.  Try including Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, a few of the Chinese dynasties, some Mesoamerican empires and so forth.  Hell, America's just getting started.  We've got at least another 900 years to go. In ten years this'll all seem like some bad dream. Nanotech, genetics and the Singularity are going to make your grandchildren think you lived in the stone age.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:14 | Link to Comment DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

For some reason I think the future will look upon us as the giants of history...the industrial revovolutionaries who built the world before things slowed down and became more agrarian again.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:56 | Link to Comment Paladin en passant
Paladin en passant's picture

Could be.  The thrust of ten-thousand years of history is toward increasing incomes,increasing knowlege and increasing freedom.

The ultimate disintermediation might be losing governments and living agrarian, urban or suburban, whatever you choose, because everything you need is available at such infinitesimal cost to everyone that "work" becomes something only the best and brightest strive to achieve.  If nanotech could give me total physical protection from anything but a nuclear weapon, what do I need government for?

Of course, we'll need to survive the oncoming worldwide depression first, but once we're on the other side of the next five to ten years, things are going to look much different.  And, personally, I expect that "different" to be something positive, not some Morlock-Eloy dystopia.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:09 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

I'm thinking nanotech, genetics, Singularity and gubmint will have the grandkids living in the Stone Age.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:30 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

That's all spiffy, but high orders of bloodshed will accompany this reality.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:08 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

Sudden, I like getting fucked! Maybe I'm missing something?

-sarcasm-

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:37 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

 "Social Security to grow from roughly 10 percent of GDP today to about 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now if current laws are not changed."

25yrs?.............What the hell are they smoking in the Beltway. THis country won't LAST another 5yrs, at the rate O is taking it.

Unless the programs he's instituted with the rest of the MINIONS from hell, are stopped.

Wait till he's a Lame Duck,(after Nov) Battle Royale...........

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:31 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

http://reason.com/blog/2008/10/24/saving-social-security-episode

My Daughter (24 this year) already KNOWS that Social Security is not gonna be there when she retires.  I believe a lot of younger folks know it too!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:48 | Link to Comment hutrader
hutrader's picture

I'm 28 and I've known it for YEARS now...I look at my taxes as a service to my country...period. I love my grandparents and all of those from that generation so I don't mind paying the taxes for them to live. Hell they deserve a shit load more than just 1,000 bucks a month (and that's if they're lucky)....they kept the USA together when the whole world could have fallen apart AND they made us a truly great nation, which was latter destroyed by those that followed b/c they didn't know how to save, how to think, how to wait, and how to work for what they want. This all comes down to trying to keep up with the Jones' even on an international scale...the USA is just a spoiled little piece of shit and their rich daddy is dying as we speak and can't front the bill anymore. You mean we have to DO SOMETHING to get what we want?!?!?! Wake up America!!! (I am referring to the politicians and government NOT the people...that's what makes this whole mess even worse). Give me some whiskey now

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment adissidentishere
adissidentishere's picture

You are an old soul.  I mean that, no sarcasm at all.  I'm glad to know there are people under 30 who think like you do.  Keep educating and for god sake watch the alcohol!  Starting out life with eyes wide open in this day and age is enough to drive anyone to despair.  Then again, you can't quit before the fight has even begun.  Because it hasn't begun yet. All we're doing right now is the smack-talk as prelude to the real event. 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:34 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

You Sir, are a credit to your Parents. I salute you.

Careful with that Bottle. You are perhaps in need of a slight nip after considering such a future in this Nation... but it is not worth destroying your life.

As young as you are, you are going to be a Giant among men someday.

 

That is why the other Poster referred you as an Old Soul. It is a compliment given to young folks who see as clearly as we do and have the youth and strength to try to do something about it in that clarity.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:06 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'll add mine to the growing chorus as well...old soul means, to me, prudence. Maybe there is hope.

Freedom is a beautiful thing, enjoy it lustily, with an eye toward moderation ;-)

Regards.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:27 | Link to Comment Village Idiot
Village Idiot's picture

"My Daughter (24 this year) already KNOWS that Social Security is not gonna be there when she retires.  I believe a lot of younger folks know it too!"

 

A lot of older folks do too.  As far as "agrarian" fallback is concerned, I like it.

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 00:18 | Link to Comment marc_hanes
marc_hanes's picture

I'm 43 years old and the last thing I expect in life is social [sic] security when I "retire"...

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 01:53 | Link to Comment Island_Dweller
Island_Dweller's picture

I'm 43 years old and the last thing I expect in life is social [sic] security when I "retire"...

 

ditto @ 45. 

 

I, however, don't feel so great about paying for the "greatest generation" like an earlier poster.  In my book, they are the luckiest generation as they got to be the top of the ponzi pyramid.  I'm sick of their stupid asses.  They've done pretty well considering how lame of a legacy they've left us.  And to top it off, I have to listen to them all the time complaining how there's something wrong with youth today.  Yeah, cause baby boomers and the greatest generation left them a shit world.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:23 | Link to Comment sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Of course, that red herring Social Security (contrary to everyone's super hero/swine, Peter G. Peterson, and the Peterson Institute, and Blackstone Group, etc.) has essentially nothing to do with it (good 'til 2044 as it's a pay-ahead tax), it's about the public monetization of private debt (i.e., the American economy cannot possibly SUSTAIN all those debt-financed billionaires, trillionaires, and multi-millionaires), as well as perpetual wars which make up the bulk of deficit spending.

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:06 | Link to Comment Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

Social Security wasn't supposed to go broke til 2038.  Then 2025.  Then 2018.  A black swan here and there, and it turns out 2009 it went into the red.

We also have the smallest percentage of the population working ever (and this was the trend before unemployment notched up--I'm talking about the career nonworkers), and an ever-increasing population living on other people's confiscated earnings.

There's no math that makes this pyramid scheme work.  Bump up retirement a year at a time, steal even more of our earnings that we'll see a negative return on, etc; that's just fiddling with the details.

There's no system of rewarding those riding in the cart and punishing those pulling it that will not multiply the former and decimate the latter.  Look at all the ailments Britons have invented to get on the dole.

There's a reason real jobs don't have pensions:  they last as long as they can throw someone else's money away before consuming everything and blowing up.  You cannot promise people a check forever, completely divorced from what they input.  It does make a hell of a dependency program to keep the omnipotent-government types in office.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:21 | Link to Comment RaymondKHessel
RaymondKHessel's picture

It better last another 5 years I have to wait till 1/1/2015 to withdraw my Roth IRA conversion $$$$ without penalty !

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 01:44 | Link to Comment Island_Dweller
Island_Dweller's picture

Good Luck!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:38 | Link to Comment Shameful
Shameful's picture

What a load!  No way will we hit those rosy predictions.  87% debt to GDP in 2020?!? 109% in 2025?!?   Only if a hoard of magic leprechauns sneak into the country with pots of gold, and pay their taxes.  When when the CBO tries to look tough they look unbelievably Pollyannish.  And spending will not decrease, it can't.  I've said before that if you put the American Ponzi into austerity it's game over.  Anything to spook the dollar (like public announcing "We're screwed!") will send dollars back to the US which will trigger further selling.  The train is at full speed and is locked on the tracks.  It's infinite stimulus or bust!

Also  the link to full report is the same as to the summary.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:47 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

The CBO can only deal with what it is given, no? So, lies in = lies out.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:53 | Link to Comment Shameful
Shameful's picture

Ok you got me there.  I would just be ashamed to put my name on that.  Well unless I was marketing it as a fiction work.  Maybe it's the accountant in me...I feel repulsed by the very idea of signing off on something I KNOW to be a fraud.

But if they are going to cook the numbers, why not just go nuts?  Assume 20% year to year growth.  Since it's a lie why not lie big?

"Bt 2025 the government will provide free luxury cars and McMansions to all citizens.  People will retire at 22 with 2000% of their income as pension.  The Cardinals will win the Super Bowl"

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

The CBO tried to make a stink about adding FNM and FRE to the budget, but was quickly brushed aside.  I think they raised as many flags as they could given their charge. 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:21 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I don't care. The CBO lost any chance of credibility with me during the health care debate. Unforgivable.

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:38 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Of course, every informed person understands why the CBO calculation is an honest measure of a dishonest bill. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan at the health care summit, former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in last Sunday's New York Times, and hundreds of commentators have all laid out the lamentable, indisputable and undisputed fact that the CBO methodology has been gamed by the congressional
Democrats to turn what will be more than a trillion dollars in further public deficit and debt into a fantasy savings of $140 billion.

 

How could you possibly expect the CBO to do a good job when Congress manipulates the numbers that the CBO uses to predict the future and "promises"

to change law(s) to validate these "projections?"

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:55 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

Then they should have the balls to say these numbers are absolute crap and no one should pay any attention to them.

And maybe they should consider rebelling and put out their own truthful numbers or quit their jobs.

A lot of people believed what the dems were saying and were for the bill based on those numbers. If your boss told you to ruin America would you? There are a lot of things you couldn't pay me to do.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:12 | Link to Comment The 22nd Prime
The 22nd Prime's picture

+1

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:12 | Link to Comment The 22nd Prime
The 22nd Prime's picture

No. +1000

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:03 | Link to Comment puckles
puckles's picture

The CBO is part of the Legislative branch of government, created by Congress in 1974.The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly appoint the CBO Director, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees. 

In other words, the fox is in charge of the henhouse here. There is no mandate to be impartial--how on earth could there be?  They do as Pelosi et al say.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:23 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I get it. CBO = Government Waste

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment AEGeneral
AEGeneral's picture

I'll either be too senile to drive by then, or will have been rubbed out by geriatric easing.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:30 | Link to Comment grunion
grunion's picture

"...We just get rid of everybody over thirty..."

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Welcome to "Logan's Run!"

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:12 | Link to Comment Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

And everybody making

a million

250,000

125,000

75,000

any money earned for actual work instead of redistributed

 

That's the Chitcago (Detroit, Newark, DC, Philly, Baltimore, New Orleans) way.  Keep trashing those evil "rich", while everyone defines rich as someone with more stuff than them.

Keep ratcheting that definition down as more people become dependent on stolen freebies and fewer people can (or will) pay for the deadbeats.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:07 | Link to Comment Mactheknife
Mactheknife's picture

"Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." Ten Years After

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money." Margaret Thatcher

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:09 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Rags,

The CBO can only deal with what it is given, no?

Of course, yes, that is how the manipulation happens.

First SanFranNan, next Dodd: "We have to pass the bill to see what is inside."

So they can't even score things.  And "post the bill for 5 days on the internet"???

- Ned

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment VK
VK's picture

1) Why don't they include gross debt in their calculations. The US is already over the 90% gross public debt to GDP threshold that stymies GDP growth by on average 4%, according to Professor Ken Rogoff after studying 200 years of financial history from 44 countries.

2) They don't include the implicitly backed Freddie and Fannie.

If we were to count local debt, state debt, F&F and Federal debt, the public debt burden would be much, much higher at 130-150% of GDP!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:05 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

3) why don't they include the FED balance sheet? 

4) Perhaps, because if all CB's acknowledged their true debt obligations against governments the people would burn their houses down?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:16 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

"They don't include the implicitly backed Freddie and Fannie."

 

Big f-ing BINGO.

WTF?

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!!!"

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:50 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

It's all explicit now.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:07 | Link to Comment puckles
puckles's picture

NO so-called "off balance sheet" (good one there, as if there were a real balance sheet) entities are ever figured into these calculations.  This includes, of course, Obamacare...A real balance sheet would easily include liabilities double what is reported.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:17 | Link to Comment TuesdayBen
TuesdayBen's picture

Bawney's Fannie & Freddie are now said likely to cost us $1T.  What's that, around $13,000 for a family of four?

Nice work, Bawney, you stumbling doofus.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

Whew, what a relief. Debt / GDP won't hit 185% until 2035. By that time I'll be dead or too senile to give a shit. 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:47 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Senile people have all the fun! :)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:20 | Link to Comment Anonymouse
Anonymouse's picture

I love the post 2035 charts in the appendix.  They don't even bother trying to show the debt once it hits over 200% (shortly after 2035).  Brings a whole new meaning to the word asymptotic

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:41 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The CBO needs to start factoring in the growing competition amongst sovereign funds for bond funding and the cost of increasing interest rates on debt to GDP figures. 

This is best case and pollyanna forecasting. You will never convince people to change their spending habits without hard, reality projections...oops, sorry, forgot I'm in America. Yeah, we're good.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:57 | Link to Comment Mako
Mako's picture

"You will never convince people to change their spending habits without hard, reality projections."

HuhI assure you Americans are not spending.  Credit creation is on a nearly -$800B annuallized rate, which was at a $4.7T positive rate in 2007. 

Americans and the American government can stop spending, that is really what is going on... until able expand at the rate needed happened in 2008, growth rate went negative in 2009.  

It's called a collapse or death spiral.

The US government goes back to pre-2008 spending levels... system instantly folds into a heap of a mess.   Of course, it's going to happen anyway, just this way you are being slowly cooked like a frog in a pot.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:46 | Link to Comment unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

 

ya know....at some point, some of these numbskulls in charge are going to connect a few dots and realize if THEY HADN'T GIVEN AWAY A FEW TRILLION TO THEIR BANKING BUDDIES, they wouldn't be facing crowds with pitchforks....

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:52 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

pitchforks? those have now been replaced by Iphones and Ipads.

And the biggest rage they will risk would be if the population would all twitter about them and decide to send them a angry E-mail.

Welcome to the ME era!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:57 | Link to Comment Shameful
Shameful's picture

This!

I look at my generation and don't think they have the backbone to stand up to the chains being fastened to them.  So I look at the older folks and I don't have much hope.  But at least I think the Boomers will get pissed and stand up when they lose SS and their bennies.  My gen will put up with anything if they slap some style on it and keep us with cell phones, ipads, and constant idiot media.

A lot of my fellow students are totally hypnotized by the Green agenda anyway, so they will accept it.  I had an argument in class where the prof and many students advocated getting rid of running watter for us serfs!  They will take anything.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:13 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

It's not only your generation you know. The hippies didn't know either why they where protesting. It was just a excuse so they didn't had to wash themselves, use drugs all day and fuck without having to call back the next day.

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Rainman
Rainman's picture

hahaha....I couldn't junk you cause I'm laughing too damn hard !!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:27 | Link to Comment DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

Yeah, they wanted to die in Viet Nam but just didn't want to have to shower first. This generation will put up with anything because it's not happening to them (yet) the way the war affected the 60's generation.  If there was a draft, there'd be a Lakers riot in every city.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:51 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Interesting post. I agree that when it starts to affect the boomers, they will make noise. I think it is because they are the one generation still alive and working who grew up feeling secure of their place in the world and they still feel entitled.

I have been reading up a bit on this whole field in generational dynamics, fourth turning, etc. and am finding it interesting. Of course, being gen-x means I'm a little suspicious and cynical but that whole theory does explain some differences in world view (and taste in music!) that I have been having with my boomer boyfriend lately ;)

From what I've witnessed the boomers want and expect everything to stay the same (sorry not going to happen). Gen x is waiting for the apocalypse (and might do well as they are adaptable.) The Millenniums - I work with a lot of them and I don't know. I love them and I think they are well-intentioned but they seem to be lacking any historical context - maybe bad education? 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:11 | Link to Comment Shameful
Shameful's picture

I've read up on the 4th turning stuff and it kept reminding me of astrology.  Some interesting observations are made, and I agree that gens impact each other but there are too many generalities.

I think they are right that my gen (the Millennials) are more "communitarian".  But they do not look under the hood.  This is not a drive out of community or goodness or whatnot.  It is driven by an inability to accept social pressure and social rejection.  Look at the people you work with, I bet they conform to the group and their peers don’t they?  There is an incredible amount of narcissism, and a real need to be accepted by others.  I know people are stunned that I will go against the grain and willing to stand up to the group think publicly and take the slings and arrows with a laugh.

Now you tell me do we really want a gen of narcissistic people who desire to conform into crowd for social acceptance?  When a real dictatorship takes hold this gen will rally behind it.  Much study has been done into culture creation and manipulation.  I can assure you that this culture industry will be employed on the youth to keep them passive, or if not passive willing (if not able) soldiers for the US.

The system is going to demand massive sacrifices, and I expect the drive to conform to keep people in line.  The Millenuals will be eaten up by he war machine or sucked dry by scams and enslaved.  We are badly educated.  Short attention spans, poor reading habits, bad schools, and a life time of being told that we are smart and special.  Also do me a favor, ask them what their goal in life is.  I started doing that and I got 2 answers "Be happy" and "I don't know".

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:19 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

I'm a boomer, Ark. Our response (in true boomer ill-defined style) is the tea party.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:21 | Link to Comment puckles
puckles's picture

Your comment displays your disconnectedness to the rest of the country, as well as the world.  The US version of "poverty," replete with color TVs and massively overweight, chronically unemployed social misfits, is an anomaly in most of the world.  Think of making a choice between saving your child with antibiotics, which you cannot afford, and saving the rest of your family with your daily wage.  That is reality elsewhere.  They have no IPODs, even if factories in their countries make parts for them.

Just wait a bit longer.  As you may have noticed, the Congresscritters just junked an extension to the unemployment provision.  Things may well get much nastier very shortly, and I rather doubt pitchforks, however apt, will be involved.  You can buy a very cheap tazer without a permit...Think of all those housing areas, especially in the Southwest, that have lost 40% or more of their neighbors.  What has happened in Detroit is waiting in the bushes for these suburban areas.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 22:34 | Link to Comment Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

Tell me, do you think extending unemployment into multiple years along with all the other money pit dependency programs and taxes and whatnot are a way to fight or encourage what's happened in Detroit (Chicago, Newark, etc)?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:35 | Link to Comment Village Idiot
Village Idiot's picture

"Welcome to the ME era!"

 

Another "me" generation of parents to fuck up their children?  Please, not that again. I think I just had my "future generational struggle" moment.  Jesus.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:15 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

+1 Sudden. A condensed synopsis of a huge issue.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:57 | Link to Comment carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

The security at Pelosi's party in April out numbered the guests for a reason...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:49 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Dats a fact.

The fraud is being slowly revealed to all and the beer bellied anarchists are STILL perpetually pissed, so what better way to show ones pissed-offedness?....why you take your young nephew who fancies himself a pantomime on a shopping spree in Toronto!

And all he got was this stupid shirt...LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXIE2uOdnkQ

 

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:25 | Link to Comment sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

"..of these numbskulls in charge .."

Sorry, dood, but those in charge are the banksters!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:47 | Link to Comment minsky4ever
minsky4ever's picture

Since when is Social Security an on-budget item?

I thought Saint Ronnie and the Maestro set up FICA as separate taxes to pay for the eventuality that the boomers would all try to collect their retirement money, the taxes of which they already paid, at one time.

Nice to see the CBO coming out with a report just in time to stoke the flames of debt reduction. Where's their recommendation to let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 21:28 | Link to Comment sgt_doom
sgt_doom's picture

Whomever junked you, minsky4ever, surely falls in the 'tard zone.

Indeed, it is a pay-ahead tax, doubled by Reagan, ostensibly for the far future, but in actuality so he could give all those tax cuts to the super-rich back then.  (SS good until 2044, so let's talk about the real stuff - this remark not directed at you, sir)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:53 | Link to Comment unemployed
unemployed's picture

 

 Kabuki,

  The CBO, the FRB, the IMF,  they all talk about public debt,  not about gross debt including the 4.3 Trillion inter governmental debt.  Now go figure why the ex president of the NY FRB,  Peter G Petersen,  has spent 400 Million trying to wash that inter governmental debt into the vanishing point.

Yah they spent that 4.3 Trillion already so go figure 2 things.

 1.)  Where did they spend that 4.3 Trillion plus the rest of the debt increase?

 2) Where did the gross deficit come from?   Which group did not pay their taxes?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:55 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

 1.)  Where did they spend that 4.3 Trillion plus the rest of the debt increase?

SEX, DRUGS AND TECHNO MUSIC!

 2) Where did the gross deficit come from?   Which group did not pay their taxes?

I'll let my accountant explain that one to you ;)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:51 | Link to Comment unemployed
unemployed's picture

 

 What does a Belgian accountant know about US tax rates?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:55 | Link to Comment Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

The government should spend absolutely no money if there is a sincere threat of the country falling into a depression. That's why Obama is such an idiot (probably because he's from Kenya.)

The best time to worry about debts and deficits is right before a possible depression.

We need the Republicans to remind this country to spend during surpluses, and reign in costs during massive recessions.

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Buddy, this isn't a democrat/republican blog.  Perhaps the Huff post, Daily Kos, Townhall and Big Gov't are more up your ally.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Actually, I believe this article is entirely about politics. 

I'm simply trying to point out that Obama (because he's a democrat from Kenya) is not as capable of managing the economy as a Republican from Texas.   

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:13 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Obama, Bush, Clinton. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, all the way back to Wilson have been playing for another team. If you want an American for America- you will not find that person in one of the two identical parties.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:16 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Wilson--bingo. - Ned

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:08 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

The CBO is charged with scoring whatever is put in front of them by a democrat or a republican.  Right now it's a democrat who's racking up the largest deficits/debt in all of history, even more than the Red Neck Repugnicant from Texas.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:23 | Link to Comment Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Trust me, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I listen to Rush, Beck and Hannity nearly every day.

The best time for a government to worry about spending is right before the country falls off a cliff.

During times of growth, the government should ignore debts/deficits, like Bush correctly did.    

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:50 | Link to Comment still kicking
still kicking's picture

Man are you kidding?  I hate obama as much as the next guy on here and will even say the liberals piss me off more than the conservatives, but you have got to be kidding about taking everything those 3 morons say as truth.  They are in the same business as the MSM, they are trying to make a buck.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:18 | Link to Comment The 22nd Prime
The 22nd Prime's picture

I haven't quite figured you out yet but I love Texas.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20100624/bs_prweb/prweb4145084

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:06 | Link to Comment RichardP
RichardP's picture

Can you say "laughing up his sleeve"?

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:12 | Link to Comment baserunr
baserunr's picture

Dude, you're a troll.  Take the political football and play somewhere else.  Governments cannot "run" the economy, and shouldn't even try.  Bush did a crappy job of running the government; Obama has managed to take that crappy job and put it on steroids.  The more governments try to "fix" things, the worse they will get.  Except for those that get exceptions carved out for themselves.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:27 | Link to Comment fuu
fuu's picture

You should try waking up from your Hegelian dream.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 23:23 | Link to Comment WeeWilly
WeeWilly's picture

Thanks Rag, for maintaining the integrity of this blog. Not.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment VK
VK's picture

That's fucking bullshit. I'm Kenyan and I can guarantee you Obama is an American idiot, don't blame your crap on us, 60 million Americans voted for him and over here we've got a freer press then you have in the USA, atleast the MSM here spills the beans on any shady goings on, unlike over there where you're lied to constantly by the corporatocracy.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:08 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Kenya... land of milk and honey right? :)

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:26 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

King Leopold liked Africa so much, he brought most of it back to Belgium.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:13 | Link to Comment Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

You're a Kenyan...?  Right...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:53 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

We're ALL Kenyan's now...LOL.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:55 | Link to Comment AEGeneral
AEGeneral's picture

Kenya doesn't even have Happy Meals yet. Another 20 years & you should be able to log on.

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 10:56 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

We need a huge "Don't Feed the Troll" sign around here, just like the ones they have at the zoos...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:56 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

Thank you zerohedge!!  Supreme tormentors of rat bastards by exposition of the truth!!  Certain paper ponzi collapses as our founding Fathers found true freedom during their version of treason season!! I have no doubt with my personal lineage going back to a teamster who was with Washington's army; the tree of liberty will be taken back from miscreant rat bastards running our country!!  It's complete financial collapse or we restore the constitution!!! 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

a teamster who was with Washington's army

Did you learn history by flipping channels on the discovery network?

You mixed up about 200 years :)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:14 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

My dead head fed goon sheep skin was history!! Those who drove wagons in Washingtons army were called teamsters!! Nough said sudden !!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:25 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

Just kidding Buz. My English is limited, teamsters brings out the image of truckers for me.

Cool you know so much of you Family's history man!

 

 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:33 | Link to Comment Scout Itout
Scout Itout's picture

Teamsters surely existed during the revolutionary war. Who do you think delivered the wagon loads of supplies?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:54 | Link to Comment AEGeneral
AEGeneral's picture

Henry Knox.

 

What did I win?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 20:19 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

A room in this big white house in Thomaston, ME, just up Route 1 from where the prison used to be. - Ned

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Don't always agree with everything she writes but I do agree with most of this:

http://www.thenation.com/article/36771/sticking-public-bill-bankers-crisis?rel=emailNation

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 17:58 | Link to Comment John McCloy
John McCloy's picture

Story on Glenn Beck regarding an Economics student now a professor in the U.S.S.R who was permitted to read "The Road to Serfdom" under lock and key only as part of his studies.

vhttp://video.foxnews.com/v/4231704/the-road-to-serfdom

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

TYLER, If the world goes back into a depression.

Do you think there would be a new ban on Alcohol/prohibition?

If so... the world as we know it will indeed end in 2012... 

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

The depression was actually quite pivotal in REPEALING prohibition. 

FEDGOD wanted the tax money back.  (It was repealed on 12/5/1933)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:56 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Empty stainless steel beer kegs for cookers bitches!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:30 | Link to Comment Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

HAHA. If the world goes into a depression, howwill all the depressed pay for their prozac and other happy pills? Mass Suicide? Most of my generation and younger have never heard the word NO.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

So, this means I won't be getting the $232,000 in my Social Security "Lock Box"?  I'm 37 and have years left to pay into the system.  I was told it was safe and secure.

Signed,

John Dumbfuck Public

P.S. Sadly, the balance is actually mine as sent to me by the SSA last week...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

You'll surely get that 232,000$ when you retire at the normal age of 99 years.

Don't worry!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:10 | Link to Comment MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

Just wait until he wakes up and realizes all that money he was forced to pay for Medicare is gone. The USA government is about to steal everyone's medicare money and then force them to pay for medical care. So you paid in for many years and due to being too young you received nothing. He'll be glad he is only in his 30's and not 50, thus saving two decades of being ripped off.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:16 | Link to Comment Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

Who said they would stop collecting?  I was only assuming they would stop paying out.  I don't feel lucky at all.  Looking at 30 more years (minimum) of paying in and most likely at accelerating rates.

Have you ever seen a toll road go away?  Same with this shit...(or VAT for the eurotards).

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:25 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

"* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits."

 

You forgot to read that part.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:32 | Link to Comment Boilermaker
Boilermaker's picture

Yep, I noticed that little disclaimer popped up a few years ago.  Good to know they are trying to limit their legal liabilities for what amounts a massive fucking ponzi-fraud scheme.

Now, how many people do you think noticed that or, god willing, acutally understood it and digested it?

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:06 | Link to Comment MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

"It took 169 long years and seven major wars -- from 1776 to 1945 -- to rack up a cumulative deficit that matches the gaping budget hole of just 28 short days in February 2010." -- Marty Weiss

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:09 | Link to Comment Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

BECAUSE WE CAN!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:16 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

Sudden debt?  Lay down the crack pipe or my 5th great G father will rise from his wagon driving days in Washingtons army; they called wagon drover teamsters then chowder head!!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:20 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

Sudden debt?  Lay down the crack pipe or my 4th great G father will rise from his wagon driving days in Washington's army; they called wagon drovers teamsters then chowder head and renege your US citizenship!!  Geeze another smoke house rant from pigmen section!!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:25 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

sudden slept!!  I have a copy of my lineagers pension from revolutionary war!!  He's listed as a teamster!  You want me to sent you a copy or are you just a loud mouth on line??  Think I may have roped a doper!!???

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:32 | Link to Comment buzlightening
buzlightening's picture

Sudden debt!  I now get off my high horse and recall my porkin smokehouse pigman rant!!  No forgiveness for being human! Hate it when I do that; become human!  Serenity now!!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:12 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Of course, during most of those 169 years we had REAL money. :)

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:09 | Link to Comment MarketTruth
MarketTruth's picture

Gold for the WIN!

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:09 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

The CBO, what a bunch of wacky optimists. Love those guys, always make me smile.

The end of oil is going to completely rock their world.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:13 | Link to Comment Suisse
Suisse's picture

I wonder how much oil the CBO thinks will be available for export in 2035. Oh well, the world is going to crap as it is.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:10 | Link to Comment saulysw
saulysw's picture

It's a black swan to them. At least, they will act surprised.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:10 | Link to Comment papaswamp
papaswamp's picture

Why is it things such as SS obligations aren't included in the budget, yet the treasury/congress is allowed to take money from that fund to 'temporairly' make budget? I'm sorry but keeping 2 sets of books is what the mob does....is this the mob? Yea I know the answer from many. But I'm tired of seeing economists say SS, medicare and medicaid are off book expenses when...the revenue can be accessed to make budget.

 

We are 94% debt to GDP not including pending obligations and Fannie/Freddie/FHA/FDIC risks.

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:31 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

"is this the mob"

No. 

I have much more respect for the mob.  When they come and point a gun at you, they do so with the full knowledge that they are taking THEIR OWN lives in their hands as you are just as likely to ventilate THEM.

 

Politicians have no such worries.

 

"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."  -- Lysander Spooner

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 18:46 | Link to Comment Clayton Bigsby
Clayton Bigsby's picture

wow, that is a great fucking quote - thanks for sharing - I will pass along...

Wed, 06/30/2010 - 19:57 | Link to Comment Rusty_Shackleford
Rusty_Shackleford's picture

Natch.

 

Lysander Spooner bitchez.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!