• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California economist says real US debt $70 trillion

Strange my credit report says otherwise and apparently we have Zero federal debt by your definition. Happy Days are here again :2party:

This is true, bad wording on my part. But my point is, your current debt on your house hasn't taken into consideration future payments on that house. That was my point.
 
Basically it went from over a trillion to 500 billion.

Of course

Was that chart designed by you?

So the good news is that instead of the budget growing by a $trillion a year it will only grow by $500 billion a year? Thats leftist progress, is it?
 
Oth sides understand that. And both use tricky rhetoric to keep the base happy, but not really do anything. The problem is us. We're on the whole not interested in making tough decisions. And like it our not, you can't balance this beast over night. So, we need a plan, and one that doesn't throw the least of us under the bus. I'm more than willing to listen to the right plan, but lack faith any politician will actually follow through with one. At least not until we as voters act like adults.

Of course you need a plan, which is why you elected a man with no financial, administrative, economic, private sector, or real world experience. That's what 'adults' do all right. And you will likely do it again with the election to be decided on dog on a car stories, or a teenager cutting someones hair or a 'war on women'..

The leaders of the Democratic Party certainly didn't overestimate the intelligence of their followers.
 
Of course you need a plan, which is why you elected a man with no financial, administrative, economic, private sector, or real world experience. That's what 'adults' do all right. And you will likely do it again with the election to be decided on dog on a car stories, or a teenager cutting someones hair or a 'war on women'..

The leaders of the Democratic Party certainly didn't overestimate the intelligence of their followers.

Well, this isn't Walmart, so those skills only have limited attraction. This is a country. It doesn't take a CEO. It takes a reasonable person who can identify issues and lead. We really don't have an application process with defined skills needed. Never have had. It's a mistaken view to think we need a financial skills. The plan really needs to come out of congress, and the president needs to lead them to make one.

As I said, it can't be one that throws the least of us under the bus.

As republicans tend to talk down to their audience. We can go that route of discussion, but I don't see it being fruitful. Do you?
 
Already a thread about this and some of his numbers are... odd and take a hell of a lot assumptions into account.... like all American banks going bankrupt.
 
Was that chart designed by you?

Yes, derived from the data which was sourced.

So the good news is that instead of the budget growing by a $trillion a year it will only grow by $500 billion a year? Thats leftist progress, is it?

That's called actual progress.
 
The country will be wiped out as well because the currency will be useless.

There are no stats available but, like Detroit, many who better understand economics are leaving and there is talk of secession from other States. This economic bungling, corruption and huge debt cannot end well for this generation of Americans.

This is what I suspect will be the ultimate result. States operating within their means will secede in some form, either together, or separately. They will devise their own currency exchange.

Or, there is always the One World Order theory.
 
Well, in all fairness "unfunded liabilities" really just means future expenses that we don't have money for right now. $70T sounds like a big number, but not if the time frame is something like 50-100 years. I agree that spending is a huge problem, but calling future liabilities debt is a huge stretch.

But it does show a very dangerous trend that has the potential to eventually cause economic collapse. If today we have managed to promise 70T for programs but have yet allocated funding what might it be like in that 50-100 years? If you look at the history of our unfunded liabilities im sure you will see it has grown per GDP. We could end up like Japan and find our self painted into a corner with unfunded liabilities.
 
But it does show a very dangerous trend that has the potential to eventually cause economic collapse. If today we have managed to promise 70T for programs but have yet allocated funding what might it be like in that 50-100 years? If you look at the history of our unfunded liabilities im sure you will see it has grown per GDP. We could end up like Japan and find our self painted into a corner with unfunded liabilities.

I'm not doubting it. I was just saying, you can't exactly call unfunded liabilities debt when it comes to the government because the government's liabilities don't have a limited time frame like say a car loan or a mortgage.
 
I would not want to be a newborn baby in this country today. The future is bleak.

My 20-month old was unavailable for comment due to his taking a nap.

However, Hamilton's information is not new and it is not undisclosed. If one wants details concerning the federal government's finances far beyond the headline figures routinely reported in the media, one can access the government's financial statements (2012: http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12frusg/12frusg.pdf). One finds a lot of information e.g., present value net expenditures for the nation's major social insurance programs (pp.46-48 of the document/pp.60-62 of the .pdf). Also, contingent liabilities are discussed pp.112-116/126-130 .pdf.
 
Was that chart designed by you?

So the good news is that instead of the budget growing by a $trillion a year it will only grow by $500 billion a year? Thats leftist progress, is it?

No Republican in the last four decades has cut a deficit in half in one year...

edit: Although admittedly this had an anomalously high starting point. Still, it's progress, and hardly this exponential explosion of unlimited spending that the right has been predicting.
 
No Republican in the last four decades has cut a deficit in half in one year...

edit: Although admittedly this had an anomalously high starting point. Still, it's progress, and hardly this exponential explosion of unlimited spending that the right has been predicting.

With this sort of 'progress', and the continued printing of money, how long do you think it might before the system collapses?
 
Back
Top Bottom