Thread: better read and understand this

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Dougherty/jan222010.html

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Know where you are headed

jj

This isn't Kooksville. People are waking up and this is becoming common knowledge. The question is: Will it be too late?

Keith

That's a lot of reading

Thanks for the buzz kill.

SF-

Boy, this is one to read it and weep.

This is the kind of stuff I have been saying all along. But I'm not intelligent enough to say it in a way that doesn't come across as being...well stupid. Ha ha

The American people wouldn't stand for being separated like that though. "We the People" of this country would fight to balance it out once again. We already are in that situation for the most part. They just haven't push us enough yet and really pissed us off. They are idiots if they think they can keep it up and us continuing to lay down forever. They need to quit being so stingy...greedy..selfish!

Any set of comparisons based on a fixed, current, and actual private net worth vs. inflated, hypthetical, and future obligations of debt is BS, pure and simple. People with an agenda wishing to show that the end is near play crazy games with numbers.

We really have far more to fear from the real current 1000 trillion dollar pay of value of credit default swaps. Of course the authors of this article had nothing to say about that one million billion pound gorilla in the room, I would guess because their master class wouldn't like that.

Okay then Bugeye, since this dissertation is all BS, we can safely ignore it?

Originally Posted by Silver Fox

Thanks for the buzz kill.

SF-

You think that is a buzz kill?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Once again, Bug has proven the age old saying, " beware of trolls". He never will give quarter to reason and logic.
Just think, when the locusts begin to overwhelm you and you are out of locust poison, what will you do? The same logic follows the national debt. When the ability to repay is overwhemed by the amount of debt, what will we do?
Time to reign in the fuzzy thinkers with rational discussion and reason. Hopefully sanity will prevail. Greydog.

Originally Posted by greydog111

Once again, Bug has proven the age old saying, " beware of trolls". He never will give quarter to reason and logic.
Just think, when the locusts begin to overwhelm you and you are out of locust poison, what will you do? The same logic follows the national debt. When the ability to repay is overwhemed by the amount of debt, what will we do?
Time to reign in the fuzzy thinkers with rational discussion and reason. Hopefully sanity will prevail. Greydog.

The fellow who posted the cite is the troller, I'm the trollee.

I simply stated the true, and obvious, that comparing real money with future obligations is not fair. If they want to compare the real national debt with real wealth than that is fair. If they want to do a hypothetical of future wealth in relation to future debt than that would be abstract, but could still be fair. They didn't do either of these, instead they presented this end of the world cite based on the most purposely flawed means of comparison.

For example, if you had a new baby, then by the reason of this cite we would call that a future obligation of $250K dollars and your household, also by the definition used in this cite, just might be considered bankrupt. What we aren't taking into consideration is that this baby will probably contribute financially and create wealth far above the cost of production. There are even more fallacies in the approach in the cite, but I'll stop here.

Originally Posted by Riot

You think that is a buzz kill?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Thanks, that's cool, very well done, and it looks accurate.
See the real numbers are horrible enough without crazy enhancement.

Originally Posted by Just Jim

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Dougherty/jan222010.html

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Know where you are headed

jj

http://eclipptv.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=329#p363

unless you can store a lifetime food supply ???

Originally Posted by greydog111

Once again, Bug has proven the age old saying, " beware of trolls". He never will give quarter to reason and logic.
Just think, when the locusts begin to overwhelm you and you are out of locust poison, what will you do? The same logic follows the national debt. When the ability to repay is overwhemed by the amount of debt, what will we do?
Time to reign in the fuzzy thinkers with rational discussion and reason. Hopefully sanity will prevail. Greydog.

Originally Posted by bugeye

The fellow who posted the cite is the troller, I'm the trollee.

I simply stated the true, and obvious, that comparing real money with future obligations is not fair. If they want to compare the real national debt with real wealth than that is fair. If they want to do a hypothetical of future wealth in relation to future debt than that would be abstract, but could still be fair. They didn't do either of these, instead they presented this end of the world cite based on the most purposely flawed means of comparison.

For example, if you had a new baby, then by the reason of this cite we would call that a future obligation of $250K dollars and your household, also by the definition used in this cite, just might be considered bankrupt. What we aren't taking into consideration is that this baby will probably contribute financially and create wealth far above the cost of production. There are even more fallacies in the approach in the cite, but I'll stop here.

How is the child going to do that when the USA is headed to 3rd world status in short order? Both parties seem h@!! bent to destroy our manufacturing base and our economy and way of life. But then anyone who thinks Barry Soweto is a great president is not someone who is qualified to discuss economics, anyway

Originally Posted by bugeye

Originally Posted by Riot View Post
You think that is a buzz kill?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Thanks, that's cool, very well done, and it looks accurate.
See the real numbers are horrible enough without crazy enhancement.

Actually the OP's article and the "debtclock" aren't that far apart. Note on the right of the last line at the very bottom, it shows citizen's assets and citizen's liabilities. As in "EVERY CITIZEN"

You need to look quick though, because it's getting worse by the hour.

If the dotgov took ALL the assets of EVERY citizen and applied them to the unfunded liabilities, that will leave EVERY CITIZEN over $116,000 in debt and dead broke. With no way to pay it except with the fruits of their (our) future labor.
Let's see now, 116,000x300 million people,...
Looks like 34.8 TRILLION to me. Yup 34.8 trillion of debt remaining after they take every dime you have and every thing you can call an asset. From EVERYBODY!

Yup! We're screwed. We're broke for the rest of forever,... And as they continue to monetize the debt, and devalue the money, your assets will be worth more, but your labor(s) will be worth less! So it will take even longer to pay down,... Generations longer.

But that's okay guys, bugeye agrees at least. He just doesn't know it yet!

There are those that believe the environmental movement is locking up forests and mining and drilling for the sake of the environment.

Then there are those that believe the government is allowing these national assets, known as "natural resources" to be locked up because they constitute the collateral we are using to borrow against.

What do you think?

Well at least those who have read this know what is going to happen and who is doing it to them.

jj

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5

There are those that believe the environmental movement is locking up forests and mining and drilling for the sake of the environment.

Then there are those that believe the government is allowing these national assets, known as "natural resources" to be locked up because they constitute the collateral we are using to borrow against.

What do you think?

I think:
NGOs (those that call the shots in the "environmental movement") are in reality extremely profitable businesses that fleece their contributors and "volunteers" under the guise of "saving the environment."

I think:
Our elected officials do not think farther ahead than the next election. They believe they will receive more votes by demonizing and destroying resource-based companies than by supporting them.

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5

Actually the OP's article and the "debtclock" aren't that far apart. Note on the right of the last line at the very bottom, it shows citizen's assets and citizen's liabilities. As in "EVERY CITIZEN"

You need to look quick though, because it's getting worse by the hour.

If the dotgov took ALL the assets of EVERY citizen and applied them to the unfunded liabilities, that will leave EVERY CITIZEN over $116,000 in debt and dead broke. With no way to pay it except with the fruits of their (our) future labor.
Let's see now, 116,000x300 million people,...
Looks like 34.8 TRILLION to me. Yup 34.8 trillion of debt remaining after they take every dime you have and every thing you can call an asset. From EVERYBODY!

Yup! We're screwed. We're broke for the rest of forever,... And as they continue to monetize the debt, and devalue the money, your assets will be worth more, but your labor(s) will be worth less! So it will take even longer to pay down,... Generations longer.

But that's okay guys, bugeye agrees at least. He just doesn't know it yet!

No place on the debt clock will you find a future debt of 120 trillion dollars, and that was the baseline figure used in the original cite. The debt clock correctly shows a debt of about 12 trillion bucks, this is about one tenth the amount used in the cite.

Without going back to the clock as I don't have time now, the 116,000 thousand figure is per taxpayer not per citizen, so that would not be multiplied by the population, but only by the population that pays taxes. Based on the figure I would guess they used people that really pay taxes and not just people that file returns, and that would be fair.

Our debt is terrible, and as I've said there is no need to inflate it to make a point. I voted for Perot once because he made that an issue.

Every election cycle the federal government seems to do lip service to cutting the debt, but every admin has grown faster than the last. That true conservative goal of smaller government has been stomped flat. A bunch of stuff has got to go, but here is also the domain of the sacred cow. Still one wonders if we couldn't get 80% of the services at 20% of the costs? Without a united voice we the people will be powerless to change anything at all, and we can't have a united voice when so many are so far off the edges.