1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Black Monday in stock exchanges in Europe and Asia

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by poindexter, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    based on the US financial markets. Imagine, worldwide financial pros were less than enthusiastic for the "stimulus" plan that America's best and brightest presented on Friday.


    The american economy runs on debt. Take into account the obligations the goverment has promised retirees and America is on the hook for $52 trillion. 52 trillion dollars. I'm not even sure how many zeros that is.

    A 60 minutes report on the debt:

    So what is our president's suggestion, to a country addicted to consumption? Give them $800 more. Just more treasuries the country has to sell to China. Just put it on the Diner's Club card, as always. Our grandkids can worry about it.

    Message board posters here love to debate presidential politics, like they are rooting for their favorite sports team. Yet all these presidential candidates are complete utter frauds. Any talk about how we are going to pay for 52 trillion dollars? No, because that would take leadership, and involve sacrifice.

    Enjoy rooting for favorite presidential candidate - while we drown in debt - and hand the keys to our economy to China and Dubai.
  2. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    So poin, when are you announcing your candidacy?
  3. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    The administration we had before the present one saw the U.S. debt shrink and the annual budget turn surpluses.

    I'd run on that.
  4. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    buh buh buh he was bad because he got a blow job.
  5. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Two out of 8 years, if I am not mistaken, there was a surplus. That means 6 of 8 ran at a deficit. And those budget numbers don't include to liabilities associated with all the entitlement promises down the road.

    It's a start, and compared to the past 40 years of presidencies, it's Grade A work.

    But America has $52 trillion in debts. The number is staggering.
  6. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Stupid comment, IMO. Just more of the partisan bullshit.
  7. wickedwritah

    wickedwritah Guest

    Poin, was it you that mentioned the debit card that will be linked to loan against your 401(k)?

    I am a free spender -- too much so at times -- but even I realize that's stupid bullshit.
  8. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    End well, this will not.
  9. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Debt at the government level is not something that can be eliminated over the course of one or two years. That it was accomplished over 6-years is something special.

    The current debt level is not something I see as solvable in the next 6-years, regardless of the president or the president’s policies. It is because of this, that I don’t see any ability for the debt level to be eliminated. It is hard to run every four years on a platform of reducing the debt when it will take the first four years to level it off.

    At least I have the ability to move to China…
  10. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    W deserves his share of the blame, but our fine representatives in Washington just keep spending and spending with no regard to the eventual consequences. Everyone who goes to the polls in November ought to do so with one philosophy: Vote for no incumbent. Let's start over, maybe with some people who really would like to fix some of the problems.

    $800 per taxpayer? God, where do they come UP with these ideas?

    Ben Bernanke? Hello? Are you out there?
  11. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    This thread? Or our country?
  12. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Read. And Weep.

    MR. CLARK: Let's talk a little bit about fiscal affairs. That's been a major theme of yours for some years, and you've been having this terrific fiscal wakeup tour, which I'd like you to tell us about, but first, Rob Portman, the current OMB director, has said recently that the budget can be balanced by 2012. True or false?

    MR. WALKER: It is possible to balance the budget by 2012, but that's not the problem. The problem is that, irrespective of what we do dealing with short-term deficits, we face large and growing structural imbalances over the longer term, due primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. And let me give you some numbers that will put this in perspective. This is why I come back to myopia and tunnel vision. The last two years the deficit has come down somewhat. It's still imprudently high - no doubt about it. There is no way you can defend, with a straight face, the size of operating deficits that we've been running in recent years because we haven't been in a recession since November of 2001. We've had among the strongest GDP growth rates of any industrialized nation on Earth, and most of the deficit doesn't relate to Iraq and Afghanistan. But if it did, you could understand it, but it doesn't, all right?

    So you can't defend what's there. Obviously lower deficits were better than higher deficits, but while the deficits have been coming down in the short term, in the last six years the nation has gone from total liabilities and unfunded commitments in discounted present value dollar terms, just for Social Security and Medicare as well as public debt, civil and military pensions and retiree health care, et cetera - for just those items, basically - from 20 trillion to 50 trillion in six years, and it's going up 2 (trillion) to 4 trillion a year on autopilot. Now, what's $50 trillion? Ninety-five percent of the entire net worth of every American. We're going to pass 100 on our current path within two years.

    You know, 95 percent of the net worth of every American. It's about $440,000 per household. The average of the median household income in America is about $47,000. So that means that American families, American households, have an implicit debt of nine times their annual income based on current policies and programs in our current path - nine times. Guess what? That's like having a house - pardon me; backwards - that's like having a mortgage and no house. And the only thing that Americans have, to be able to service that debt, which will have to be serviced over a number of years after dramatic reforms - and it's really going to be their kids and grandkids - is their citizenship. That's all they have.

    Now, I would respectfully suggest that being a citizen of the United States gives one unparalleled opportunity to reach their maximum potential to earn. And they're going to need it - (laughter) - on the path we're on.

    So my point is is that whether he's right or wrong is really kind of irrelevant. That's not what the problem is. You know, we're headed for a cliff. Let me give you an analogy - the Grand Canyon. I've been there. I've stood on the edge. It is amazing - absolutely amazing. We're headed towards the Grand Canyon in a car at 100 miles an hour. And I would respectfully suggest cutting it down to 50 by the time we get to the edge won't get the job done. (Laughter.) And by the way - by the way, when he's talking about eliminate the deficit, he's talking about the unified deficit - not the operating deficit. The operating deficit is much higher than the unified deficit. You know, last year, for example, the operating deficit was $434 billion, the unified deficit was $248 billion, and the accrual-based deficit was $450 billion. And the only reason it was $450 billion is because we had a significant actuarial gain associated with certain VA programs during the year. Who knows; next year it could be a loss, I don't know.

    But, you know, we don't have the right metrics. We don't have the right milestones. Yeah, we want to bring the deficit down, but we've got to deal with the large and growing structural imbalance. And so I'm happy to get into that if you want.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page