US debt in perspective: If the US were a person that made 55 K a year.

Since some people do not seem to understand the gravity of our destitution.

After debt ceiling deal:

Yearly income: $55,000
Total spending this year: $96,000+
Current Debt: $423,000+

Debt 10 years from now: At least $550,000 and only if the economy grows at a good rate (if we get a nice raise in other words).

Our solution is to "double down" on more borrowing and hope for a miracle? That's failed everywhere in the world.

 

...guaranteed to get worse unless the US takes control of its own money supply, something the Congress very easily has the power to do!

http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/

 

"If the US were a person that made 55 K a year"...How about if the US were a rich person who makes millions per year?

The US is a corpulent rich guy, has 70% body fat, won't pay his taxes, and complains that he needs more food. He should reduce his fat by living off it for a long time. So where is this fat?

70% of the nation's assets are owned by the top 2%. That's where to easily find any additional wealth we need. Reducing the fat from 70% to 68% would boost the economy for a decade. From 70% to 50%, a century. You overpaid rich aren't earning your keep as an efficient management class.

 

Yeah but you live in a fantasy land where you chop off a privatized limb, for a less efficient government limb. Think of a prosthetic arm in other words.

There's no such thing as federal tax revenue.

 

I dunno, jlprk, the average american income is about $40K per year. If he's using a stat of $55 per year he seems to be erring on the side of the rich. I also think his stats are pretty impressive and put the gravity of the situation in an interesting perspective. So the real questions is- what are we going to do about it?

 

I think you're comparing apples to oranges, Denny. It's one thing for myself to buy a house (make my own decision to buy, qualify for a loan, have insurance, care for the place, make payments...) and another for a person (in this case the US government) to build up debt on my behalf I neither want or can pay back or benefit from (for the most part)- and yet I'm stuck with the consequences of it all.

 

Gee, I like steak & lobster dinners. (I hope you caught my barfoism)

 

The analogy isn't very applicable... as Denny points out. With the exception of houses, most people have a hard time time carrying too much debt (they just wouldn't get approved for it) What the government brings in varys wildly based on the economy.

I bought a 300K house when my income was about 55K... so at that time I had debt of 310K or thereabouts with car payment etc... I had almost no assets. So with 310K in debt... it appeared at that point I was sunk forever right? Better for me to live in a apt and not carry that debt right?

Wrong. Only a decade later I have two houses... one completely paid off and assets that exceed my debt by at least 500k. If I would have have sold the house, cut my spending and debt and lived in an apt... my assets right now would have been *much* less.

 

Welcome to today's world Mr 55k. You have children to take care of, your school need money, your parents are getting older, need assistance and have no savings, other relatives you feel an obligation to needs assitance finacially and physically with some being unable to pay for their medication, all your assets have lost money, home need repairs, and your business needs an influx of cash with the down economy.


Go ahead Mr 55k, fix all this and reduce your debt all at one time. It's easy, just ask the people on this board . . . oh and getting more money from anyone else is out of the question.

 

Because declaring bankruptcy isn't an option, then the cuts are going to be painful. Promises are going to have to be broken and real people are going to suffer.

BTW, what you're describing is Greece. So far, it's only been one side of the aisle trying to stop us from getting to that point.

 

There was no pain in Clinton's 2nd term, when the problem was all solved. Then came Bush. Simply reverse the new Bush expenses. A couple of things can't be reversed, but most can.

 

That's the least bat shit crazy thing you've written on this forum. Bush was no fiscal conservative, and neither were his acolytes in Congress. I'm glad they were booted.

 

HAHA what a funny article. A reserve ratio of 100%, banks would have to hold every dollar deposited in their vaults. They wouldn’t be able to use money to give out profitable loans. What would even be the point of having any bank? If people think the recession was bad because banks weren’t loaning out TARP funds just imagine a world where banks are prohibited from loaning anything!

 

If this individual is spending $41,000 more than they make this year I would expect their debt to increase by much more that $127,000 in 10 years.

 

I said the same thing in less words: "Debt 10 years from now".

Our debt is growing, and exponentially.

 

Wrong, only a decade later our debt-to-GDP is even worse and we didn't buy a valuable asset like a home.

We spent it on government cars, less efficient healthcare, etc.

You are correct, but I was using the optimistic CBO projections of only 22 trillion dollars of debt a decade from now.

And we "cut" 2.5 trillion off that debt, I even gave us credit for that.

 

It should be pretty obvious that the government has not made smart, appreciating investments with our money, like some individuals have done with real estate. Otherwise we wouldn't be $14 trillion in debt. How far down that path do we need to go before people stop trying to convince themselves that the government makes smart investments for the future with our money?