This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
You Are Here
For every man, woman, and child in America, the country's debt load amounts to over $50,000 each. As Bloomberg BusinessWeek notes, the national debt has not always been the hot-button issue it is today. In the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter administrations, inflation-adjusted debt per capita dropped. Let's revisit this chart afer 3 more years of hope-and-change, when total US debt is over $20 trillion.
and while this is surging (and clearly unsustainable), compared to much of Europe, it remains low...
Edited from Bloomberg
»
- 25054 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Legacy, is this the real Legacy we want to leave our children?
Crash is optimistic, this isn't going to end well...
DaddyO
Suck my left and right testicles, Senator Nelson W. Aldrich. You stupid cunt.
"Love your enemies." Any help on this one folks?
Floating interest rates and voodoo economics FTW
the solution is as obvious as it is simple:
infinite debt
when you have infinite debt, you can borrow more while keeping the debt infinite
that is, no change in the total debt from year to year
think this through:
let's say you owe an infinite amount of interest on an infinite debt
fine
borrow the money
infinitely much
pay off the interest
problem solved
jack lew are you listening?
open your mind.
free yourself to consider the new possibilities
I'd forgotten it was mushroom season.
Watch where you graze,graze.
I hear *that*
friday night.
gotta chill, chill.
sitting in the cow pasture, watching infinity
Well, the only historic option is tax increases.
We've never tried the "spending less" route.
There is another solution.Lets fuck and beget more children. That should decrease the per capita debt load.
Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain...United States...,
I bet the people in the first four countries fuck as well (Italians are supposedly breeders, Portugal and Spain are predominatly Catholic, and Greece...well, you know where the expression 'Greek' came from).
YIPPIE! We beat SPAIN!
Hey Joe, good call that works on paper
The chart is wrong.
National debt increased every year under Clinton.
Public debt did not - but that excludes transfer debt, which doesn't matter as long as you've come to term swith your social security and medicare systems being 100% empty with no chance of every being paid back (when the Ponzi finally cracks, that is).
And here I was thinking the solution was one good size asteroid hitting NYC and DC!
"Let's revisit this chart afer 3 more years of hope-and-change, when total US debt is over $20 trillion."
It won't take 3 years. I'll bet we're there by the end of FY2015.
I think if you work out the numbers for Japan, they are the winners with $1M/person.
Yeah, but as we all know, Asians are more creditworthy than white people.
Pay close attention - this is the supra-national banking cartel's sleight of hand that has deceived nearly every economist and everyone else in the entire world...
They claim that debt doesn't matter in Japan because "they owe it to themselves."
Did you catch it? They are using your inate tribalism to hide their highway robbery... "Japan" doesn't really even exist - just a lot of individuals that live on an island.
The debt is owed to other people - and it doesn't matter if that other person is Japanese in many respects.
For example, take North Korea. Say their balance sheet balanced out - an "eCONNEDomist would say "that's just dandy, no problem in North Korea because they owe all the debt to themselves."
The fact that all the monetary wealth is owned and controlled by Kim Jung Un can clan and everyone else is impoverished with inextinguishable debt (when money is debt, debt must exist for money to exist and inextinguishable debt must exist for monetary wealth to exist) and the average eCONNEDomist was duped into not seeing the problem.
I'm not saying North Korea had debt money forced upon it by its tyrants like the US, but I use them as an example because they are not alright even if the sociopathic Rockefeller financed eCONomic models and operant conditioning say all is well.
Factoid Alert:
The "A." in Nelson A. Rockefeller stands for Aldrich.
The families married together - I'm not sure, but I think that snake Aldrich's daughter married into the Rockefellers.
I wonder if the "Nelson" in Nelson A. Rockefeller is a tribute to the Nelson Aldrich.
It is interesting how small the world gets when you xit the Matrix and start connecting the dots...
The Brain...
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/links/brain/
Intermarriage among the elite probably splains a lot of their decisions
That Carter was -8% is something I never knew
Of course, we had very little debt in those days, but I think a lot of it was due to reducing the speed limit to 55mph
Right.... so we should just drop the speed limit to 45MPH and problems solved?
Well, an alien invasion would be a big help, too.
FORWARD ASS NAPKIN SOVIET!
Only hope is to slap it in reverse is my guess
Re: That Carter was -8% is something I never knew
Carter vs Reagan. How the "Conservatives" loved Reagan's economics.
Disclaimer: I did when I was a "Conservative".
Yes, the Carter years were GREAT! Debt was low because interest rates were incredibly high. Nobody could afford to borrow money. I gought a used car from a Chrysler dealer in 79 and paid 19%. Yes, many fond memories!
Re: Nobody could afford to borrow money
Well, that's a good thing right? I mean, if this site stands for ANYTHING it's that debt is bad. And debt used for consumption is the worse thing EVER.
You should repent to an image of Carter that you EVER considered buying a car with debt. Shame on you.
Verre vos misses (or whatever the names of the guy these semi-austistic child-like libertarians keep quoting) would be ashamed of you.
REPENT!!!
Had to borrow to eat in those days. Prices were going up over 10% a year with wages stagnant. Yeah, Ctrl=P was full on, to trash the currency and save the Fed. Ludwig had a sayin' 'bout that.
AND the higher pay kicked you into a higher income tax bracket because they weren't adjusted for inflation! Somehow, Congress just couldn't straighten that out-until Reagan.
You guys are too funny, every other thread on zh it's "dem liberalz be runnin' up deh debt and destroyin' 'merica!!!" but on here.. Fuck Jimmy Carters minus 8, those days sucked! Go Reagan +92%!!
textbook cognitive dissonance........
That election was a hilarious contrast.
Carter: America I have bad news, you need to start living within your means.
Reagan: Whoa whoa, who is dr. Buzzkill over here?? Amirite? Fuck that noise America, no limit credit bitchez, party in the U-S-A!
'Conservative' America: Carter you're fired and we hate you forever. Reagan, we love you already.
Cold war is expensive, doesn't matter if you're a lefty or righty. If Obama gets to dodge responsibility for the bailouts because "It's all Bush's fault because Clinton was perfect" then so does Reagan.
Before completely making your mind up about Jimmuh, check out this Carter resume:
#1 Inflation:
Carter inherited inflation of 4.9% on election night and 5.2% on inauguration day. Not great, but not terrible, no?
Continuous rises during Carter's presidency brought it to peak at 14.8% in March 1980, and drop a bit to 11.8% when he left office. Did you get that? Inflation rose all during his presidency. No end in sight.
In 1982-less than 2 years into Reagan's presidency and the first year of Reagan's budget (FY 10/81-10/82) inflation was below 6.5%. Now, that was done in concert w/Volker at the Fed and the price was high unemployment for a year or two.
#2 Unemployment:
Average for his 4 years: 7.6%. Not really that bad, but it started high, dropped for 2 years and then came roaring back in the last year. Again, no end in sight.
#3 Budget:
Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. Those numbers seem small now (how far we've come!), but they show he was printing and spending, but things were getting worse with no end in sight! This is part of the reason that the inflation figures were so bad. Aside: the Feds know how to fake them thesedays.
#4 Foreign Relations:
This category is the worst part of his record.
November 1975 - Cubans beging to show up in force in Angola. Eventually, 350,000 Cuban soldiers in Angola will be helping "revolutionary forces". Peak occurs when Jimmuh was president.
In 1977 - Soviet backed Somalia & 20,000 Cuban troops invade Ethiopia. Jimmuh was president.
In 1977 - The US agrees to GIVE the Panama Canal to the Panamanian tyrant Manuel Noriega-for no compensation!? Jimmuh was president. BTW-the Chinese now have major trans-shipping operations at the ports on both ends.
In 1978 - Camp David accords signed. This was actually a good thing. Jimmuh was president.
In 1979 - Soviets invade Afganistan. Soviet Union no longer believes it must use the fig leaf of Cuban troops. Jimmuh was president.
In 1979 - Shah leaves Iran. Iran becomes the first Islamic theocracy in modern times. Jimmuh was president.
In 1979 - Peoples Revolutionary Government establishes itself in Grenada. Second openly Communist government established in western hemisphere. Immediately begins building ruways long enough to service Soviet strategic bombers. Jimmuy was president.
In 1979 - Sandinista National Liberation Front siezes power in Nigaragua. First Communist dictatorship on continental Americas. Jimmuh was president.
But the worst thing for Carter: Was the November 1979 siezure of the US embassy in Iran and the capture of its personnel. The siezure of a country's embassy is an outright act of war. Jimmuh and his generals micromanaged a failed rescue attempt which made him look even weaker. Hostages are release on the EXACT DAY Reagan is sworn in. The joke of the time: "What's flat and glows in the dark on January 21, 1980? Tehran."
Is this honestly the picture of human rights on the march? HECK NO!
It's the picture of an incompetent chump dropping his books and lunch while all the bullies in the school yard take turns bitch-slapping him. Some say he's a kind soul, and he may be (probably is).
But, the record is pretty clear: Jimmuh was an incompetent President.
Disclaimer: I'm working from memory here, so I may have skipped some key events.
yeah,
you skipped some pretty important stuff
but naming them will not help because your 'position' is from a world that I don't want to live
in---
all the same, there is space for every individual of each species on this planet
some will be of a different opinion---
nothing to do about that
You are aware the Reagan's team negotiated that Iran keep the hostages until Carter was out of office, right? In exchange for supplying weapons and unfreezing Iran's bank accounts?
Carter was likely the last honest president we've had. I don't lean in his direction but he was handed a shit sandwich and had people in both parties actively conspiring to undermine and weaken his presidency. Most of the outcomes were due to TPTB trying to make sure he wouldn't see a second term, and how he's been treated since makes it pretty obvious he was never a part of TPTB team.
It was Carter that appointed Volcker as Fed chief in '79 with full knowledge the pain rate increases would cause...don't give the credit for this to Reagan. Carter did this in August ahead of the election...pretty big ballz.
I too wonder if Carter, flawed as he was, was the last honest president???
"...the last honest president?"
Almost certainly, as underscored by his behavior after leaving office, vis-a-vis the rest of the criminals.
Prof--------
Most people still have to borrow to eat in these united states of america
Borrowing is when you pay it back.
How about a compromise at say 5-8% rather than zero or 20? This kind of reveals your liberal underpinnings. Liberals demand that a conservatives only legitimate action is suicide. As we rail against the rules that we see imposed upon us, if we dare drive at the speed limit, avoid prison time by paying our taxes, or even borrow the money to buy a used car to keep our job, we are a hypocrite sellout. For the liberal, there is no litmus test. They can feel free to do as they wish for they live in a liberal world that easily enables everything they believe. There is not even a reconciliation between their stated goals and results, as if they were to ever admit a failing they claim its failure is due to conservative handicapping or better yet, even if proven completely misguided, it was always done with the best of intentions. Its about the children.
Re; we are a hypocrite sellout.
I've got nothing against REAL conservatives who don't live off Big-Gov scams and don't want Big-Gov imposing the will of their imaginary-friend on the rest of society.
You're either a conservative or a fake "conservative", who is no better than than a "liberal" or "Progressive" or a socialist or fascist (which is what "Conservatives" actually are).
There's very few REAL Libertarians. Big-Gov is way too much fun to run and way to much fun to live off of.
Maybe you could make a score card where we could all be judged as to our degree of hypocrisy as few of us could claim purity. As our latest government shut down has proven, none of us can survive more than a few weeks without suckling on a Big-Gov scam.
speak for yourself
Some sarcasm intended.
Bad debt is bad, and good debt is good!
Bad Debt: Borrowing money to buy things that go down in value: cars, boats, clothes, TVs, spinning rims, etc.
Good Debt: Borrowing money to buy things that go up in value or have a positive cash flow: MD degree, airline pilot training, farmland, SOME small businesses, paying off high interest debt with lower interest debt, etc.
You forgot about mislabelled debt: debt to buy things we THINK provide a return on investment but do not in reality, such as a degree from almost any government run educational institution, or starting a business that you are told you didn't build, thus making it not stealing when the government inevitably takes it away from you incrementally so as to bolster their balance sheet to continue to rack up moar bad/mislabelled debt.
Yes, my friend. As in all things, caveat emptor!
Buyingstock on margin is good debt. Even better debt is trading option on margin like I do.
That '79 Chrysler should've come with a life insurance policy. Americans made some shitty ass cars in the '70's. Carter was at the very least a decent man. Unlike the rest of these scoundrels who have inhabited the White House the past 33 years.
And Hugo just loved him!
And that should tell you something right there!
Carter on Hugo:"...we have never doubted Hugo Chavez’s commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen,” the statement,carried on the website of the Carter Center, intoned. Carter then praised the “positive legacies” of a man famous for embracing genocidal dictators like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe"
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/20/jimmy-carter-gives-seal-of-approval-to-venezuela-election/
Hey Jimmuh! How did the family of Hugo "Improving-The-Lives-Of-Millions" Chavez end up with $2,000,000,000? Maybe you meant to say "Hugo Chavez's commitment to improving his life by billions from his fellow countrymen"?
Jimmuh Carter - always willing to play kissy-face with a tyrant who opposes the US.
Until Barry, the most unsuccessful president-ever. Unless, of course, you count Jefferson Davis.
Well, it was worse than that, it was a used Volare' wagon with a slant six. It was a genuine piece of crap. As far a Carter is concerned, we will just have to disagree. He, with most of the assholes, was to some degree a victim of his predessor, but he did little to fix it and has never shut up since he left office. There used to be some decorum about that but most democrats don't seem to abide. Clinton and Gore have never ceased their criticisms of their replacements, but of course it could just be that the republicans have held their tongues because their replacements were jsut so damned good.
The decorum was that you don't dump on your successor-after all, you undoubtably left some messes that he's trying to clean up.
Clintion and Carter both did trashed their successors a bit, but aGore eally crossed the line more than anyone I ever saw-probably as he was trying to stay relevant for his Global Warming scam. Bush II has had COMPLETE class about NOT slamming Barry.
But the days of when Americans appreciated and respected class seem to disappearing quickly in the rear-view mirror from what I see. Now we're becoming a collection of feral tribes manipulated by politicians to hate other tribes so that we can extract something for our tribe from the other tribe.
God help us.
"The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat, 1848
So decent that he threw the Shah and our embassy people under the bus to "appear" nice!
How many innocent people have died due to the Iran of militant Islam?
I'm sure that Neda's family has something other than "Thanks" to say to Jimmuh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbdEf0QRsLM
"How many innocent people have died due to the Iran of militant Islam?"
Far fewer than have been murdered by the vicious zionist neocon filth.
Oldwood,
You are the only person I have ever known who bought a car on credit in those years.
Why?
Cash deals were discounted by up to twent-five per cent-----and the prices were all under $5000 for any car a man would want.
Cash was KING in those days!
FYI... Paul Volcker was appointed (by Carter) to be chairman of the Fed Reserve in 1979. His term began in August of that year.
Although the higher interest rates were painful, they did eventually kill the inflation demon for a while.
.
Fucken A! Everyone loved Reagan's economics. Given the choice between a "tax and spend" liberal and a "cut taxes to increase spending" conservative, the groundswell to conservatism was as predictable as the sunrise.
It was morning in America, and America had a wallet full of new credit cards.
Now we have the same old cards, but we get a new credit limit every 6 months. Good times. Good times.
The graph is inflation adjusted. The debt issued prior to 1976 was effectively inflated away for the most part under Carter. Likewise the debt that was issued in 1982 and a bit later continued to pay those 16% coupons till they died. Carter and Reagan are somewhat distorted due to this fact.
Jimmuh Carter - Facilitator of the first militant Islamic government, surrender of the Panama Canal, originator of the Misery Index (Inflation + Unemployment) and holder of its high water mark-21.98(!). Banksters paid you 5.25% on your savings-limited by law, and charged you 15% to buy something! Brought human rights into foreign policy-be very strict on Nicaragua but grant most favored nation trading status to the Soviet Union(?).
Just another stupid American leftist making kissy-face to traditional enemies and wondering why they keep kicking him in the groin.
Don't forget Nixon brought us national Daylight Savings Time. I think that had a lot to do with it too.
Just think of the surpluses we could generate if we changed all the clocks in the US twice a day instead of twice a year. That and a 20 mph speed limit would certainly take us straight to the big rock candy mountain.
Wait, so debt per person is somehow worse than ridiculously high confiscatory tax rates.
well ok then.
Not even close to reality.
Johnson did immense damage to this country with the expansion of welfare, and making doctors rich and the rest of us poor with Medicare and Medicaid. Nixon took us off the silver standard, meaning there really is no standard.
Government accounting is a set of lies agreed upon.
Well said. And now King Barry will help out those poor insurers.
The greatest chef in the world,
can't make roast pheasant from a shit sandwich.
But if they're an intellectual or a liberal they'll never stop trying. "Hmm, maybe if I add MORE shit."
Unfortunately to them, they'll never realize it's the shit in the sandwhich.
Liberalism is a mental disease with a dose of Stockholm Syndrome and a dolop of hubris.
How do you teach a collectivist? Seriously.
Re; Liberalism
I think you'll find that "Liberals" and "Conservatives" both love authoritarian Big-Gov. There's not much difference between those who genuflect to Big-Gov and those who genuflect to Big-Corp.
The "Liberals" (aka socialists) and "Conservatives" (aka fascists) are both climbing to the top of Mt Authority, but taking two different paths (left and right).
Everybody loves anoying those they don't like with an intrusive government and giving government loot their buddies. It's not just "liberals" that love Big-Ag, Big-MIC, Big-Road, Big-Water, Big-Airport, Big-Energy, Big-Ed, Big-House, Big-Fin, Big-OldFart, Big-OldFartHealthcare, Big-AntiDrug, & Big-PoliceState.
Most people want a boss. They don't like the responsibility of going it alone. They enjoy what many here like, bitching and moaning, exercizing their vast yet untested intellect, while still clinging to their life line JOB. There is a reason why 90% of people are not self employed. They want to go to work everyday, do as little as possible while still retaining their job and bitch about how stupid their boss is and how they are being robbed by the SOB because he is driving that new mercedes.
Re: They don't like the responsibility of going it alone.
Yeah, exactly right. Something else the Libertarians can't comprehend is that 50% of the population is below average.
And 50% of the population is 150 million people. A society has to find something for these 150 million people to do and not allow them to get eaten-alive by the sociopaths. But the below average people aren't going to go away OR become knowledge-workers. They are just dumbasses that need a job, to get through life, so they can reproduce their DNA, and die. The Libertarian fantasy just can't deal with this group of people.
As 50% are allways below average, how about we try to bring up that average? I would submit that nature has always had a way of dealing with this. Elimination. Not directly but by maintaining an environment that puts pressure on th ebottom 50%. When a society seeks to preserve and protect that lower half, are we not ensuring that it prevails. Or do you not believe in genetics and the pressure of necessity tha brings out the best in people?
Re: Or do you not believe in genetics and the pressure of necessity tha brings out the best in people?
I do, that's what we're doing now in the USofA.
The REALLY smart-n-savvy people are screwing the bottom 80% (roughly). Survival of the fittest doesn't always work out the way we fantasize it will. Sometimes those who don't realize they are the dumbasses, are the biggest supporters of survival-of-the-fittests.
But, that's how life works out in a survival of the fittest society. The smart-n-savvy win, and win BIG, and their DNA bling wins even more.
So what do you want to do with the bottom 80%? Build them a nice and comfy crib? You refer to people like a liberal refers to money. There is twelve bucks and if I got eight you will only have four four the rest of your life unless I steal it from you. That 80% is not genetically stupid. A lot of them can do more, a lot more and be more. Its one thing to spend money to educate and liberals and conservative alike support that. Conservative do not believe that education is a holy grail that can never be reviewed and results measured and the system held accountable however. But when we pay people to do nothing and tell them its not their fault, it societies fault (or rich white fuckers), and they are "entitled" to it, we are not only broken but breaking even more. Rewarding failure perpetuates failure. This is not a conservative belief, this is provable science.
So what do you want to do with the bottom 80%? Build them a nice and comfy crib?
It's either that or deal with them via more sinister means.
That 80% is not genetically stupid. A lot of them can do more, a lot more and be more. Its one thing to spend money to educate and liberals and conservative alike support that.
True enough.
Rewarding failure perpetuates failure. This is not a conservative belief, this is provable science.
Whatever you're referring to here is rather abstract, you'd need to more specifically define it.
Providing people homes, healthcare and food, as well as spending money, does not motivate them to find a job. It has been shown that extending unemployment benefits typically leads to higher unemployment.
Providing people homes, healthcare and food, as well as spending money, does not motivate them to find a job. It has been shown that extending unemployment benefits typically leads to higher unemployment.
Sure, but seems a very simplistic way of looking at it. Short of going soylent green on these folks, the alternatives have costs.
What is the cost of having a large segment of the population unemployed & completely broke? Because of course, there IS a cost...plenty of examples currently and historically.
It's something all societies will have to grapple with in a much bigger way soon.
Ain't no dialectic on the street.
Choose wisely. It is truly sad that so many do not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRVOOwFNp5U
"does not motivate them to find a job"
Sure, but that implies there are jobs to be found, or capital available to be borrowed (at interest) for new business formation, or markets for new businesses to fill. Those implications are false and have been false roughly since the 1970s, if you discount government funded bullshit like the MIC which includes Silicon Valley by implication.
It has to do with debt saturation, stagnant or falling ROI, limits to economies of scale, and declining EROEI. We are not in Kansas anymore. The hypersimplistic economic models and hypotheses - which function/apply acceptably well in a period of prolonged massive growth (and increasing or flat but still high EROEI) - are now about as useful as ice skates on Mars.
Re: So what do you want to do with the bottom 80%?
I could care less, I'm not in the bottom 80%. Let them die for all I care. As long as they don't do it near me and stink up my neighborhood.
The problem is, some sociopath is going to come along and "organize" them. Well, history repeats itself.
Well, off to the healthclub. See ya next week.
Get hit by an indigent drunk driver on the way to health club, be paralyzed from the waist down, then come back & talk to us after a few years of adjustment to your new circumstances.
50% are always below median, not average.
Sure we can.
We let you in here.
"Government accounting is a set of lies agreed upon"
then they should just outlaw exponents come January...
yer welkum amerika....
That's the kind of thinking that led some legislators in the USA to enact a law declaring the value of pi to be 3.2
Re: Medicare and Medicaid
Git yer hands off my Medicare you pinko libertarian, I'm ENTITLED to that hip-replacment surgury and motorscooter!
The problem with socialism is that once those who don't have it, see how well the leaches are living, everybody wants in on the scam.
I'm not giving up my Big-Gov scams until I see everybody else get there's cut, and everybody else is doing exactly the same thing.
Most conservatives believe in hard work and just rewards for same. They resent the thought they paid into this corrupt system and are now discovering they have been robbed, but robbed we have been. Us old conservative farts are having some difficulty accepting this but there is no choice. It will be hard. But I will wager you this, the conservatives will peacefully surrender their claims to any entitlements long before and with substantially less violence and destruction than the liberal takers that have put nothing into this fucked up scam.
Re: But I will wager you this, the conservatives will peacefully surrender their claims to any entitlements long before and with substantially less violence and destruction than the liberal takers that have put nothing into this fucked up scam.
Oh yeah, well - in just a few years - I'm going to be in on this Big-OldFartMedicare scam that I've paying into, to pay for YOUR hip-replacement surgeries and that motorscooter, and I can tell you this: I am NOT going to give up one damn thing for anybody. I'M entitled to all the socialism the previous generations happily leached off.
And as I think it is safe to say, you are not a self described conservative and therefore have proven my point.
It's OK, NOTaREAL. Even Ayn Rand, after all that spouting, caved and went on Medicare. The hyyypocriiiit. And even her disciple new easy money was a scam to be avoided....right up until he had a chance to play it himself for the big bucks. It actually is simply true that once the game gets big enough, it about nothing but getting your share, and that's when the big guys win the biggest. Their earnings are offshore, except only technically, since these are actually managed in NYC, CT, Reno, etc. The corporations can walk. If the gov tries to stop them, they can break the nations economy, losing only 50% themselves at worst. It's the 'German' banking game all over again: Internationalize the King's debt so he can't avoid paying it. With the profits, acquire the King's nations productivity, and threaten to collapse it if he starts screwing around with his debt or the bankers. Simple. Been done before.
I wouldn't worry about having to cover hip replacements. There were 285,000 of them at an average cost of $10K for a total expenditure of 2.85B$. The medicare budget for 2012 was $485B. So, obviously hip replacements for seniors (the 285,000 is all hip replacements for all age groups) isn't the problem. I'm glad people who were active can get replacement hips and knees so they can stay active and not get a stroke, heart disease or diabetes which each costs over $20K/year to treat the symptoms (only lifestyle can eliminate the underlying cause) Its obesity and its chronic disease components of heart, cancer and diabetics which are bankrupting us. And these are lifestyle diseases for the most part. Work out everyday and you'll be seeing your doc about once a decade, if that.
"We are not going to solve this problem. Now of course you want to invest anyways. Thank you. Have a nice day." At least paradoxical reasoning is still a form of reasoning. Quzical, Quixotic, Quaint....sorry but I need interpreter and a stiff drink. Beefeater sounds good this time around.
Bama will blow past W. Bush in 2014 and will be challenging Reagan for top spot in 2015
The obvious solution is to throw open our borders and let in another 100 million people. Sure, the overall debt will accelerate, but on a per capita basis I bet we could knock it down to $40,000 per capita if we let enough immigrants in.
Re; we let enough immigrants in
100 million rich chinese might do the trick. Let them buy a citizenship.
0% down, Easy financing available.
Notareal, its done all the time. The Elysium trade.
"we let enough immigrants in..."
“?????”??“kemosabe?”"¿Qué quiere decir" nosotros "Kemosabe?""nh?ng gì có ngh?a là" chúng tôi "kemosabe?""yog dab tsi tsis tau txhais hais tias" peb "kemosabe?"??? "kemosabe??", "??? ?????""???? ????" ??? "kemosabe?""Ce înseamn?" noi "kemosabe?"
You might even pay less to have your lawn mowed.
What's a lawn?
It's that little patch of grass where all the pit bulls in the trailer park take a shit.
YOU GOT A TRAILER?! YOU'RE RICH DUDE!!
Ittttttttttttt's commmming!!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_monetary_union
C'mon....it's Bush's fault....
Carter's fault.
Wilsons fault.
Lucifer's fault.
Darwins fault.
Lol,
It would be less complicated if we stuck to jabbing pointy sticks at each other.
Adam's [and Eve's] fault.
I spot a redunancy. Wilson=Lucifer if I'm not mistaken!
The chart comparing european debt to US debt seems like BS to me. The debt load for various european countries apparently includes corporate debt since the notes to the right talk about google and debt held by banks etc.
The $50,000 per capita in the US debt is strictly Federal Gov debt. So the bottom chart is comparing two completely different things and making the US look good in a faulty comparison. How insanely high would the US debt per capita be if it included city, county, state and corporate debt?
Roughly 200 trillion, divided by 310 million = $645,161.29
Unless it's treated as a joint and several liability. Then, the last one standing is on the hook for the entire $200 trillion.
Binko is right. These numbers are BS extraordinaire.
Is the graph purporting to show bank liabilities? Or external bank liabilities? Or private sector debt?
You cannot just randomly add up numbers. If I owe myself 100 or we owe each other 100, we can net to zero. Well-to-do societies will have a lot of debts and assets: it's not the total that matters, but the distribution (equal or unequal) and character (invested in infrastructure and productive capital, plant, and human resources or in consumption and bullshit?).
Is the USA the cleanest shirt? That depends on what statistics you marshall.
A brief look at the numbers does in fact support the notion that the media has over-hyped the story of debt overburdened sclerotic "socialist" European sovereigns:
[USA$ 2010]
02160 revenue
01296 deficit (60% of revenue)
01653 increase in debt position (77% of revenue)
13500 USA Fed Debt (626% of revenue)
14900 USA GDP
16500 public sector (local+state+fed) debt (110.7% of GDP)
[EU27€ 2010]
05404 revenue
00784 deficit (14,5% of revenue)
01061 increase in debt position (19,6% of revenue)
09828 Gov Debt (182% of revenue)
12281 GDP
09828 public sector debt (80% of GDP)
Note that even in terms of the (often cited but also misleading) GDP ratios, USA public sector debt (adding in state and local government debt to be comparable to the reported consolidated general government sector debt positions of EU members) is 16.5/14.9 $tr = 110.7% of GDP (2010), not including about 5.5 tr$ off-balance sheet GSE liabilities (Fannie, Freddy, etc.).
For the EU[27] this ratio is 80%.
[USA$ 2012]
02449 revenue
01089 deficit (44% of revenue)
01276 increase in debt position (52% of revenue) [16066-14790]
16066 USA Fed Debt (656% of revenue)
15650 USA GDP
19026 public sector (local+state+fed) debt (121.6% of GDP)
[EU27€ 2012]
05858 revenue
00514 deficit (8,8% of revenue)
00576 increase in deb position (9,8% of revenue)
11012 Gov Debt (188% of revenue)
12902 EU27 GDP
11012 public sector debt (85,3% of GDP)
The ratio of public sector (federal, state, and local) debts and deficits to revenue in the USA are far higher than in the EU. For instance, in the US federal debt grew by 77% of revenue in 2010, reaching 626%. Comparable EU numbers are 20% and 182%. GDP/debt ratios are bogus, because they do not take into account the relative size of the public sector. Ratios to revenue are far more revealing, since expenditures come from revenue income, not from GDP.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics... without even getting that sophisticated the European chart is nominal (vs PPP dollars) and doesn't take into account either the net worth or the earning capacity of the local debt serfs - how is the Obama-phone lady ever going to produce a net USD 50k to repay her "fair share", much less Jamie Dimon's corporate share too? The median household NET WORTH in the US is lower than median NET INCOME (annually) in a lot of European countries. The PPP thing, on the other hand, helps the US (for now...)
Aha! We in Europe top you guys! Aha!
We're going to catch up now that we have a lame duck Kenyan and a fresh princess Keynesian running the show over here.
Using Europe as an indicator is like comparing the meth addicted dealer, to the meth addicted whore.
We all know that the Fed. is propping up the southern European bond markets. Draghi is already talking about a second LTRO. That bung hole is among the biggest blow hards I've ever had the displeasure of listening to.
Has the First LTRO even come close to being payed back? That was an 36 month operation. Is the ECB going to just roll the balance into the new LTRO ala "U.S. treasury style"?
If none of it is real, why are talking about numbers? It seems obvious that while we are freaking out at these seemingly impossible figures, those running this charade must believe it can go on forever. Can it? if its all really fake afterall? It seems that an economy and society survives on perception, so the greatest risk to it is a challenge to that perception?
@ Oldwood <> Society survives on fairly valued sustenance. I live on "Main Street" where numbers matter. I'm not disputing your questions. Matter of factly, I enjoy your intuitive posts.
Back to your one mans reality, is another mans fantasy questions... I guess your right until you're starving.
I, along with just about everyone else here, sees the reality and believes it will end badly. I'm am anchored by that reality to the point I feel it is pulling me under. I just wonder about this because we have been predicting calamity for years now, so obviously the illusion has legs. But on the other hand we mostly agree that reality is what brings it down...so if we keep pushing this reality, demanding that the sheeple wake up, are we not pushing for that very calamity. As I have watched my personal economy dwindling over the past five years I sometimes feel that it would be better to end sooner than later, but in my gut I feel that this reality reconcilliation will be far more dire for all of us than anything we can imagine. I'm not feeling suicidal....yet.
@ Oldwood Large ships sink slowly. Even the Titanic tortured her victims for 10's of hours.
~2hrs and 40 mins
I stand corrected Element. Thanks for the history lesson. :-)
Moar citizrns lowers debt per capita. Get moar ppl!
Chart kinda looks like the Eiffel Tower, cool.
Congress once passe a change to Social Security, eliminating resident aliens from filing for and collecting supp security income. That lasted about three years. Now they can collect. And you can be sure legalized but formerly illegal aliens are going to follow that gravy train as soon as they are legal. It really does seem that the only game in town is "how much we (corporates, illegals, defense contractors, big medicine) get in cash (the taxpayers' debt) before we have to leave the country, the broke country. And the politicians? They just say fine, as long as their donors and voters accept what they're getting at the trough. It's entirely despicable. I look at the G W Bush increase and just gasp. I look at the Obama increase and think "yep, tryin' hard to get theirs, and they've caught up, 36% on a larger base. What a time bomb. Thanks a lot, pols.
Oh don't owe anything, the majority steals it from me, the minority.
And I intend to get it all back, plus interest & penalties.
Be a tiger!
I think the new term is terrist or anarchist or hostage taker because I dislike & resist being stolen from.
They used to say that I was just being "greedy"...which quickly died down once explained to my antagonists that it was they who were being greedy by expecting what they do not earn and hiring others to take it from me by force.
Making them all no more than weak petty pickpockets really, relying on the gang of Don.gov as enforcers ;-)
Good grief,look at Portugal! What??? 47000 per capita? I am doomed here.
Perhaps that is why they decriminalized recreational drugs. Keep the serfs stoned and oblivious.
TV isn't sufficient?
If you are referring to canabis you are way off.
It doesn't make you oblivious - that's what booze is for.
One inhibits you and destroys your short term memory, the other dis-inhibits you, atrophies your brain and damages organs, both seriously impair. Both generally lead to strong denial of observable and measurable impairments.
Pot destroys short term memory....while you are stoned, but when it wears off after a while you are just fine again. No hangover, either.
What serious impairments from pot are you talking about? Other than for children, that is. ALL drugs, from caffine on, are bad for developing brains, beginning with the feteus.
In my reality being unable to string coherent thoughts together and having a mashed and faulty memory and a spaced wandering perception, aches in your body, upper respiratory issues, a dry mouth and red eyes, excessive impulses to binge-eat, and impaired capacity to function in complex (and also dangerous) everyday tasks, is a serious impairment.
And anyone who's honest with themselves knows that up to 36 hours after getting properly bent on hooter your mind and memory are still not what they normally are. People who smoke often, daily, probably don't notice this hangover, because it's always there, but there's indeed a significant 'hangover' involved. There's a reason why it earned the nickname of 'dope', and employers do not want you in that recovering hungover state, because you're very error-prone, and unable to properly listen to directions, or focus on tasks. The result is inefficency and disorganisation, etc.
So add serious employment, financial and social impairment. Be straight with yourself about it all, as there is a very real downside, particularly for regular partakers.
I appreciate your feedback and won't take the time to argue any of the points you make. Dealing in facts, however, a very large number of people are medicated on a fairly regular basis. A lot of them are legally medicated, too, with their perscriptions and pill bottles.
Others get caught up in religion, or politics, or business, with ego driven satisfation as their drug of choice. Most have weaknesses, and a weakness is, by definition, an impairment
...but if you are perfect, well, we don't have much in common, anyway. best.
Calli got the jump on easing gettin' the proles sloshed...
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23949587/beer-lovers-rejoice-grow...
Good thing incomes are going up to match that rise in debt.....Oh wait.
As long as I get my stash out of this cuntry in time I'll be fine.
I'm in the process of getting my passport to Israel so I will be in Jubilee district when things are melting stateside.
Want to join me?
http://jewalaskaaliyah.blogspot.com
Let's do this!
I couldn't even contemplate visiting the place, so the concept of moving there just doesn't compute.
The place needs paint.
Good then! You 2 Goy stay here, we don't want you anyway!
Will do.
thanks bing. the truth comes out. but, you do want our sorry uncircumsized arses to bail you out by getting dismembered in neighboring areas. i will be sure to put my foreskin on the list of organ donations with you listed first.
How about we stop sending you any US $'s? How safe & secure will your wealth be then? Or your ass, for that matter?
It's called ODIOUS DEBT.
"In international law, odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is a legal theory that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion."
Wikipedia
Not that there's any such thing as 'International Law' of course.
$17,000,000,000,000 / 310,000,000 = $50K / person. OK - got it.
What about the Fed debt? Where's that $3T+? What about the SSN / Medicare "obligations"? Those weren't significant or there during the Kennedy years, but they're significant now. Why not count them unless you don't intend to pay them, or the author doesn't want to show the true scale of the problem.
PS - I know that homeless guy under the bridge isn't good for $50K. Who's picking up his tab? What about my sister & her kid on "disability"? Who's picking up their tab?
Hint: only 50,000,000 paid significant (94.6%) of the Fed income taxes last year. So, if you have a job that pays more than $37K/yr, your share is now $300K - still not counting Fed & SSN / Medicare.
Last Point: What about state, local and student debt (now that that is federalized)? I don't think Portugal is on the hook for $1T of student loan debt.
Conclusion: The real dollar amount of what the Federal government has obligated its actual taxpaying citizens-not "population"-to repay is much, much worse than $50K/person.
Seems the simple solution is to legalize the immigrants. That way we can be under Grease real quick....