"We have a $100 trillion dollar problem..."

[DJofSD]

Says Bill Gross. And, to think we can alleviate it with a $15 trillion dollar GDP in a short period of time, it ain't goin' happen, to paraphrase Bill.

And, oh ya, one more thing: when is the Democratically controlled Congress going to meet their sworn obligation to actually pass a budget and not just extend the current "arrangement"?

[thaskalos]

What "$100 trillion dollar problem"?

I heard we were defaulting on our debt...

[DJofSD]

Can we still live in the country during foreclosure?

[Greyfox]

Defaulting on the debt will trigger a lower credit rating.
The lower credit rating will likely mean higher interest payments on the debt outstanding, or for certain on new loans. The BBC World TV reported awhile ago that the U.S. currently pays 44 cents on every dollar of revenue towards the debt. (Their source, I don't know.) Obviously that will go up if payments are missed even for a few days.

Another wag on the radio this morning said that if something isn't done soon,
the U.S. in a few years will make today's Greece look like Shangri la.....

[thaskalos]

Another wag on the radio this morning said that if something isn't done soon,
the U.S. in a few years will make today's Greece look like Shangri la.....
No problem for me...

I still have a home back in Greece...:)

[Greyfox]

Here is a link from Drudge that reviews Gross' comments.

US is in even worse shape than Greece financially
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973

[thaskalos]

Can we still live in the country during foreclosure?
By current foreclosure laws...we can still live in the country for up to 4 years before eviction...provided we acquire competent legal representation.

[mostpost]

And, oh ya, one more thing: when is the Democratically controlled Congress going to meet their sworn obligation to actually pass a budget and not just extend the current "arrangement"?
When I read that my first thought was that this was an old thread; maybe from 2009. Imagine my surprise when I saw you had posted this today.

Here is a hint. We don't have a Democratically controlled Congress. Republicans have a forty vote majority in the House. Democrats have a small majority in the Senate, but every one knows that if you don't control Sixty votes you are not going to get anything done. If you read your Constitution you will find that all appropriations must originate in the House. So not only are you factually wrong, but your understanding of US Government is lacking.

[DJofSD]

Sorry! You are right, the republicans inherited the lack of a budget.

The fact remains: the sitting members of Congress are in violation of their oaths and the law.

[Greyfox]

When I read that my first thought was that this was an old thread; maybe from 2009. Imagine my surprise when I saw you had posted this today.

Not 2009....today.
Chickens are going to come home to roost.
A leader with a gift for rhetoric won't be able to talk himself out of the "facts on the ground." Someone with a vision for turning the economy around is needed. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that someone surface yet, on either side of the aisle and certainly not in the White House.

[Greyfox]

DJofSD you've raised, in my opinion, one of the most important topics on this board, but the replies to it have been few. I'm starting to think that one of Parkinson's Laws or a version of it is in operation.

With respect to Committees, Parkinson said:
The Time Spent On Any Item Of The Agenda of A Finance Committee Will Be In Inverse Proportion To The Sum Involved.

Might the same rule a apply to forums?
The amount of time spent on a political topic will be in inverse proportion to its true importance?
eg. Hundreds weigh their opinions in on Weiner.
A handful few check in on the Gross forecast for trillions in the hole.

[DJofSD]

Parkinson's Law is new to me. I'll read more about it.

As far as Weiner v. the debt ceilling/national debt, I don't know if it is fault of the MSM or the population as a whole that the one is getting more attention than the other.

[mostpost]

DJofSD you've raised, in my opinion, one of the most important topics on this board, but the replies to it have been few. I'm starting to think that one of Parkinson's Laws or a version of it is in operation.

With respect to Committees, Parkinson said:
The Time Spent On Any Item Of The Agenda of A Finance Committee Will Be In Inverse Proportion To The Sum Involved.

Might the same rule a apply to forums?
The amount of time spent on a political topic will be in inverse proportion to its true importance?
eg. Hundreds weigh their opinions in on Weiner.
A handful few check in on the Gross forecast for trillions in the hole.

One is easy, the other is hard. With the Weiner story you need to determine if he did it or not. Once that is established, as it was-he did it-it is just a matter of expressing your opinion and defending it.

The Bill Gross story is a whole different ballgame. First of all there was no link provided, so we don't know exactly what was said. Second, finance is a lot more complicated than photography. It is possible to agree with part's of Gross' statement and disagree with others. It is also possible or likely to disagree on a solution. Whatever you think, if you come on here you better have evidence to back up your opinion.

[DJofSD]

It's all over the net. The original was an interview posted on CNBC's web site. Here's one link that'll get you there: http://dailybail.com/home/pimcos-bill-gross-the-us-national-debt-is-100-trillion-we-ar.html

Be patient, first there's the typical ad then the specific part which prompted this thread is most of the way through, ~ at the 5 minute mark.

[mostpost]

It's all over the net. The original was an interview posted on CNBC's web site. Here's one link that'll get you there: http://dailybail.com/home/pimcos-bill-gross-the-us-national-debt-is-100-trillion-we-ar.html

Be patient, first there's the typical ad then the specific part which prompted this thread is most of the way through, ~ at the 5 minute mark.

Thank you for providing that. I did find some things, but was not sure I had the whole story.

[riskman]

The Presidentis required to submit a budget to Congress each year between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.Congressional consideration of the federal budget begins at that time, I believe. Did the President submit a budget?

[TJDave]

Did the President submit a budget?

Don't keep us hanging. You sound as if you know the answer.

Did he?

[Ocala Mike]

Here's the bloody thing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget


What's your point, other than that you (and countless others) don't like it?


Ocala Mike

[Tom]

Point is they were elected to do a SPECIFIC job, spelled out in the constitution, and it is not getting done.

Politics aside, the GD Congress is supposed to do its GD job and there is NO EXCUSE foe not doing so.

Do YOU have the option of doing your job?
I sure as hell don't.

Maybe a few less peter-tweeters and few more hours in the office are in order here.

[mostpost]

I noticed that the title of the thread was "We have a $100 trillion problem."
Most people here are taking that to mean we have $100T debt. I am sure that is what Bill Gross wanted you to think.

There are several questions here.

Question number one. Where did he get that $100T figure.

$14T National debt. No argument there.
$50T in Medicare, medicaid and Social Security Obligations. What does that mean?
Approximately $36 Trillion in other debts. ???? What other debts.

Looking at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, how many years into the future did Gross go to come up with that $50T figure. I am thinking it is at least fifty years and likely longer. Is he saying that is our total obligation or the shortfall. In other words, how much of that $50T do we have budgeted to pay for.

Saying that we are in financial trouble because we don't have money today to pay for Social Security in 2067 is like saying I am in financial trouble because I don't have money today to pay for groceries I am going to need in December.

This is not to say we can go blithely along ignoring the problems we have in these areas. We need to remove the cap on Social Security contributions. We need to prosecute Medicare and Medicaid fraud more diligently. We need to control the Medical and Insurance industries.


Second, the article mentions debt related to the financial crisis and seems to imply that this makes up the rest of the $100T. Here is what I found for the major costs of alleviating the Recession.
$700 Billion for Tarp. All but $25B has been repaid.
$80B for the auto companies Bail out. All but $14B has been repaid.
$The American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009
$550B in spending.
$275B in tax cuts. Also known as "make some Americans rich" cuts.

If you ignore the money that has been repaid and add all those figures, you come up with one trillion six hundred and five billion dollars. A far cry from the $36T needed to reach $100T. So where is the rest of the money or lack thereof.

[Tom]

No we have a huge problem.

[bigmack]

If you ignore the money that has been repaid and add all those figures, you come up with one trillion six hundred and five billion dollars. A far cry from the $36T needed to reach $100T. So where is the rest of the money or lack thereof.
Ain't it a hoot your team has NOTHING in the way of a solution to these problems with the exception of increased taxation and LYING about the Ryan plan?

Your brain dead companions referred to "The Party of No." They are clearly "The Party of No Clue."

[DJofSD]

Listen to the video snippet. He tells you where those numbers come from.

[mostpost]

Listen to the video snippet. He tells you where those numbers come from.
The video snippet says nothing that wasn't in the story and answers none of the questions I asked. Most of the video is Gross talking about why PIMCO is not going to buy US Treasuries. Because they don't like the low yield.

[mostpost]

There are three answers to that question.
Republicans, Republicans, Republicans.
Ninety one percent of the increase in the National debt between January 1981 and December 2008 took place during Republican Administrations.

In January 2009 when Barack Obama moved into the nation's economic house, he found the paint peeling, the furnace broken, the windows missing, the floors rotted, the plumbing unusable and the insurance lapsed. It is no wonder he had to spend money he did not have just to start to get the place livable.

[bigmack]

There are three answers to that question.
Republicans, Republicans, Republicans.
Ninety one percent of the increase in the National debt between January 1981 and December 2008 took place during Republican Administrations.

In January 2009 when Barack Obama moved into the nation's economic house, he found the paint peeling, the furnace broken, the windows missing, the floors rotted, the plumbing unusable and the insurance lapsed. It is no wonder he had to spend money he did not have just to start to get the place livable.
You lie ad nauseum.

While I choose not to play kindergarten games at this point, who controlled Congress during those years?

Meanwhile, where are the solutions to the problem from your camp? Nonexistent.

[DJofSD]

OK. The figure of $100 trillion is composed of the current debt and all future obligations - medicare, social security, etc., etc., etc.

[mostpost]

Ain't it a hoot your team has NOTHING in the way of a solution to these problems with the exception of increased taxation and LYING about the Ryan plan?

Your brain dead companions referred to "The Party of No." They are clearly "The Party of No Clue."

We have plenty of solutions and here is one of them. Yes, it does include increased taxation, but that is brought about because the artificially low tax rates of the Republicans now need to be paid for.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/files/The_CPC_FY2012_Budget.pdf

I agree with pretty much everything in this proposal.

[mostpost]

You lie ad nauseum.

While I choose not to play kindergarten games at this point, who controlled Congress during those years?

Meanwhile, where are the solutions to the problem from your camp? Nonexistent.

During the twenty years of Republican rule, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for six years; Republicans controlled both houses for six years; and in eight years control of Congress was split. In any case credit or blame for an administrations fiscal policy rests with that administration, not Congress.

I answered your second question above.

[bigmack]

During the twenty years of Republican rule, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for six years; Republicans controlled both houses for six years; and in eight years control of Congress was split. In any case credit or blame for an administrations fiscal policy rests with that administration, not Congress.
How 'bout you have one post of complete honesty and declare your little "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans" complete BS.

Yeah, "The Peoples Budget" sure does throw in taxes. A heapin' helpin'. :eek:

[mostpost]

How 'bout you have one post of complete honesty and declare your little "Republicans, Republicans, Republicans" complete BS.

Yeah, "The Peoples Budget" sure does throw in taxes. A heapin' helpin'. :eek:
If you think that is complete BS, point out where I misstated a fact. Show me that 91% of the increase in debt between 1980 and 2008 did not occur during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W. Bush.

Then show me how new spending initiated by the Democrats increased the deficit and explain why those Republican Presidents did not veto that spending. Remember the budget is a guideline. They still have to pass the bills that authorize the spending. Those bills can be vetoed.

Yes the Democrats in Congress did do something to increase the National debt during the years of Republican Presidents. They helped to pass the tax cuts. They failed to curb defense spending. They acquiesced to an unnecessary and costly war. But those were all things that Republicans favor.

[bigmack]

If you think that is complete BS, point out where I misstated a fact. Show me that 91% of the increase in debt between 1980 and 2008 did not occur during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W. Bush.

Then show me how new spending initiated by the Democrats increased the deficit and explain why those Republican Presidents did not veto that spending. Remember the budget is a guideline. They still have to pass the bills that authorize the spending. Those bills can be vetoed.

Yes the Democrats in Congress did do something to increase the National debt during the years of Republican Presidents. They helped to pass the tax cuts. They failed to curb defense spending. They acquiesced to an unnecessary and costly war. But those were all things that Republicans favor.
:lol: :lol:

You're hopeless.

[mostpost]

Yeah, "The Peoples Budget" sure does throw in taxes. A heapin' helpin'.

Yes, I am in favor of higher taxes. Higher taxes help the country. I have proof.
In the 28 years ending in 1980, that is 1953 through 1980 the top tax rate was 91 down to 70 percent. During those years average annual unemployment was 5%. GDP grew at a rate of 3.3% annually. The national debt grew by $655.5B In other words it doubled plus a little more.

Between 1981 qnd 2008 the top tax rate was 50% down to 35%. During those years the average annual rate was 8.6 % That is worse. The average rate of GDP growth was 2.875%. That is worse. The Natiopnal Debt increased by $9.739T. More than 10 times what it was in 1980. That is not just worse, it is disgustingly, obscenely, criminally worse.

I did not look at such things as jobs created, rise in income and number of people under the poverty level, but I am certain those numbers were better before 1980 than after. One thing I did look at was income distribution. In 1968 the top 20% earned 7.69 times what the bottom 15% earned. In 2010 that had increased to 14.5 times.

Of course the prosperity of the 53 to 80 period can't be entirely credited to higher taxes. Strong unions played a key role also.

[Greyfox]

If you think that is complete BS, point out where I misstated a fact. Show me that 91% of the increase in debt between 1980 and 2008 did not occur during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W. Bush.

.

You're digging too deep.
G.W. Bush and B.H.Obama have been disasters.
A strong house does not have to be hit by a tornado, if termites are rotting the insides. Bush was a lame duck in the end, and Obama took over and multiplied his mistakes assuring a pretty bleak future economically for the nation. Fact.

[bigmack]

Yes, I am in favor of higher taxes. Higher taxes help the country. I have proof.
In the 28 years ending in 1980, that is 1953 through 1980 the top tax rate was 91 down to 70 percent. During those years average annual unemployment was 5%. GDP grew at a rate of 3.3% annually. The national debt grew by $655.5B In other words it doubled plus a little more.

Between 1981 qnd 2008 the top tax rate was 50% down to 35%.
You have any idea the level of tax cheats in the 50+% years? :lol:

For most it was far less. If any.

You and your comrades NEVER quite mention that. Yet I've seen this same point made continually.

mosty, I'm nuts about ya, but sometimes I feel like I'm Buddusky and you're Meadows.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/2144.jpg

[HUSKER55]

Have you ever seen a democrat that didn't think they knew how to spend other peoples money better than anyone else?

[Tom]

Only one president and one congress can do anything about it right now.
And they both are ignorant clowns who want to spend more.

Spin that, mostie.

[Ocala Mike]

mosty, I usually support you in these pissing contests, but I gotta admit that bigmack's got you with that reference to "The Last Detail," one of my favorite flicks.


Ocala Mike

[mostpost]

My challenge to Bigmack:

If you think that is complete BS, point out where I misstated a fact. Show me that 91% of the increase in debt between 1980 and 2008 did not occur during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush and George W. Bush.

Then show me how new spending initiated by the Democrats increased the deficit and explain why those Republican Presidents did not veto that spending. Remember the budget is a guideline. They still have to pass the bills that authorize the spending. Those bills can be vetoed.

Bigmack's response:
You're hopeless.

How can I compete with that?

[bigmack]

My challenge to Bigmack:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/debtpres.png

As mentioned, I'm not interested in playing kindergarten games with you.

On track for a 6.5 trillion increase. :eek: That seems low.