-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The United States could become bankrupt within our lifetimes
- Thread starter Unknown Soldier
- Start date
- Status
SimpleDesign
Member
The people chosen to run government serve the top 1%, long term suffering of the average person is irrelevant to them.nubbe said:
LaserBuddha
Member
What are you foreigners plotting in here while us Americans are asleep?
If our shit is fucked up then I will have to shoot/slice you.
If our shit is fucked up then I will have to shoot/slice you.
lightless_shado
Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
The problem isn't republicans
its these republicans. They don't want to co-operate.
SimpleDesign
Member
Raise taxes to pre-Satan (Reagan) levels
End the war on drugs
Remove all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq
Cut defense spending and no bid contracts
Universal health care
Invade Cuba for their sugar and cigars
End the war on drugs
Remove all troops from Afghanistan and Iraq
Cut defense spending and no bid contracts
Universal health care
Invade Cuba for their sugar and cigars
cartoon_soldier said:
I wouldn't consider it that cut-and-dry. CBO analysis don't apply dynamic scoring in it's simulations, the models are just linear/additive and don't account for the effects a change in tax rate have on GDP. See Romer, 2007 (former head of Obama's Council of Econ. Advisers) for a nice paper suggesting 1% GDP hit per 1% of GDP tax increase IIRC. Last week in House hearings, CBO chief Doug Elmendorf admitted:
There is no reason spending should be inclining out to 2035, but that's just IMHO.
lightless_shado
Banned
SimpleDesign said:
Too much money in private medicine. Lots of jobs will be lost.
Also removing soldiers from the middle east would be a bad idea because there's a chance that the US could lose a hold on their oil resources.
Also Cuba should just merge with Florida.
Totally agree with war on drugs though. Legalizing marijuana would be very useful in fighting drug gangs.
Cereal KiIIer
Member
lightless_shado said:
Cuba would lose too much.
lightless_shado
Banned
Cereal KiIIer said:
Nah man. They'd completely change the political climate of the state and the demographics for the better.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Cereal KiIIer said:
Sorry, you are correct here. As you say, China is the largest foreign holder, but if you think it's okay for this country to have 32% of it's debt owned by a single foreign power, especially one that is neither considered an ally nor considering us their ally, then I don't know what I can tell you.
cartoon_soldier said:
When the Democrats controlled the House and the Presidency at the start of Obama's term, fuck-all happened. People need to blame both parties for being more interested in fighting each other and jockeying for power rather than governing this country.
70% of the current deficit is due to:
- Bush tax cuts (which I explicitly mentioned in the OP)
- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- the recession
Obama has done fuck-all to get rid of Bush's tax cuts. Obama has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan even as he was drawing them down in Iraq. The recession is mainly because of our suicidal plan to bail out all the banks even though they caused their own collapses, and the blame lies with both parties there.
I'm not seeing why Obama doesn't need a good smack in the face, quite frankly.
LuCkymoON said:
authorized by law
The Congress authorizes the raising of the debt ceiling. The debt itself is unquestionable, but it can't be allowed to increase with the authorization of Congress.
Which countries? I think you'll find all of Europe deeply concerned with its own debt crises, Japan concerned with recovery from the tsunami, the developing countries concerned with, well, developing and drops in demand from the West etc. etc. Nobody's laughing, you're imagining things.LQX said:
lightless_shado
Banned
Unknown Soldier said:
It's not really up to him though. He's not stupid, he realizes what would need to be done, but the problem is congress, his own party, and various corporations. If he was some sort of dictator that could say shit and have it done without anyone getting in his way, then things would be completely different.
Unknown Soldier
Member
lightless_shado said:
Then what's the point of having a President? We might as well dissolve the Presidency and let Congress run amuck without any adult supervision.
SimpleDesign
Member
It's all a nice little show that gets put on so people can feel like they have a say, there's nothing he can do about it.Unknown Soldier said:
perfectchaos007
Member
kevm3 said:
didn't Liberia used to be known as little america or something? yeah its a messed up civilization now
LaserBuddha
Member
- The EU creates the euro to overthrow the dollar as the world's currency.
- America says "Naw man, I got this" and overthrows the dollar itself.
- America says "Naw man, I got this" and overthrows the dollar itself.
American hegemony is over, just like British hegemony was before it. I don't think your average American realises it though, which is understandable as there are few living Americans who have experienced otherwise. It's basically too late to really do anything about it now, the electorate simply won't accept the austerity measures required and even if they did, it's still too little too late.
If you think times are hard now, the bad news is they're going to get a lot harder over the next 30 years.
If you think times are hard now, the bad news is they're going to get a lot harder over the next 30 years.
lightless_shado
Banned
Polari said:
But on the bright side, the third world is developing pretty nicely. Who knows? maybe the US may look to stable African, latin american and asian countries for cheap goods/try to set up more shops there.
SimpleDesign said:
There is nothing he can do? Wtf is this shit? There is a lot Obama could do. For a start he could be talking about this, he could start calling people out on how they are being bought up by corporations. He could tell congress they should come up with a way to balance the budget and if they can't then he could pull some drastic stunts that make heads turn. Pull out of Iraq for example, cut foreign aid, raise taxes. And whenever Congress shoots him down point fingers and ask "okay, what's your plan then? Why are you voting against this measurement? Is it because you've been paid by corporation so and so this much money?".
Would he get reelected? Maybe not. Or maybe he would, I like to think Americans would support true leadership when they see it.
However that's not going to happen and the US debt is going to continue to rise. Now does this mean the US will enter some post-apocalyptic future where children fight each other for rat meat in the ruined streets of Manhattan like the OP hints at? No, it's not. Nor will the global economy collapse. There will be several more hits like the economic crash we just had. Eventually the US spending will be brought into reign because China and other emerging economies will force them to once they are powerful enough.
In the end the standard of living will decrease in the US from what it is today and the gap between the rich and the poor will increase as the middle class is eroded. The US will settle into a long recession from which it cannot escape because a corrupt and inefficient government keeps a stranglehold on the country.
Diprosalic
Banned
you had a good run guys. I, for one, welcome our new chinese overlords
LaserBuddha
Member
Africa is in a perpetual state of Mad Max.GCX said:
There needs to be a substantial increase in taxation. It needs to hit those who can afford to pay. It needs to be accompanied by social programs that, in themselves, are capable of justifying this substantial increase in taxation. Pseudo-universal healthcare does not count.
Also, please stop starting wars.
Also, please stop starting wars.
If I owe you a pound, I have a problem; but if I owe you a million, the problem is yours.
- John Maynard Keynes
The belt tightening will be severe to address the issue, and Americans simply won't go for an increase in taxes or a reduction of entitlements, both of which are absolutely necessary.
- John Maynard Keynes
The belt tightening will be severe to address the issue, and Americans simply won't go for an increase in taxes or a reduction of entitlements, both of which are absolutely necessary.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Is that article a stealth brag by the British about how they take their debt Very Seriously and impose austerity while those Americans can't even get their financial house in order?
Which isn't to say that we don't have a spending problem. Taxes aren't going to go much beyond 20% of GDP, which isn't enough to fill the gap. But there are also other things that we can do here, such as health care delivery reform.
I've heard that statistic before, but I think that it brings up a lot of questions. Did they control for the timing of the tax cuts (for example, whether it was a "recession" or a "boom")? Did they consider whether revenue went to pay for something that was a benefit to economic growth? My experience over the past few decades tells me that tax revenue isn't that big of a factor. Furthermore, how much would the cessation of the Bush tax cuts really affect the revenue as a percentage of GDP? From what I understand the Romers are only talking about exogenous tax changes here: for example, those changes related to government spending and outside the influence of economic forces. Tax revenue as a whole has traditionally hovered somewhere between 17% and 20% of GDP since the end of World War II. If tax revenue mostly falls within a 3% range, and part of that is caused by economic influences, then an exogenous tax increase by 1% of GDP seems like a lot.BigSicily said:
Which isn't to say that we don't have a spending problem. Taxes aren't going to go much beyond 20% of GDP, which isn't enough to fill the gap. But there are also other things that we can do here, such as health care delivery reform.
I'm pretty sure that the recession was caused by a large housing bubble exacerbated by over-leveraged financial institutions and sophisticated instruments that merely hid risk; in other words, smart money chasing after dumb money. I don't see how you can say that the bailouts cause the recession and that the collapse of the financial sector wouldn't have caused even more havoc throughout the economy.Unknown Soldier said:
fabricated backlash
Member
LaserBuddha said:
And as a reaction we kill the Euro as well... sigh
lightless_shado
Banned
bodyboarder
Member
archnemesis said:
Thats pretty neat. Very detailed.
- Status