U.S. Federal debt obligations exceed world GDP. World GDP.

[Doc Flabby]

not really - the mortgage is backed by collateral which is worth $400,000. what is the u.s. "worth"? considering most of the money in the debt was "thrown away" (consumed, not invested), i don't think the u.s. has the collateral nor the GDP to sustain its current pace of taking on debt... and what empirical evidence indicates the u.s. will stop increasing its debt anytime soon?

The total assets/collateral of the USA easilly exceed its debts. If you take into account ALL the infrastructure your country has. All thoses roads/powerlines everything is worth money and has value, all thoses goverment owned stuff like the pentagon...thats a prime real estate location :P

As for paying back the debt its simple...You just start the printing presses running... Thats what will be done.

[Pandagirl!]

Yea, because it's not like printing money will have any effect on the economy whatsoever. It definitely won't cause hyperinflation in the US and make the dollar worth less on an international scale. I mean, no other country that faced a large debt (possibly after losing the first world war) has ever decided to print off large amounts of money, causing the purchasing power of their currency to fall and the unemployment rate to skyrocket.

Oh wait, that did happen.

[Tone]

But Barack Jesus Christ Obama is gonna fix it all and bring us Hope and Change

[Izor]

ROFL tone

[kthx]

Stupid people breed faster than smart people, hence Obama is president.

[Epinephrine]

not really - the mortgage is backed by collateral which is worth $400,000. what is the u.s. "worth"? considering most of the money in the debt was "thrown away" (consumed, not invested), i don't think the u.s. has the collateral nor the GDP to sustain its current pace of taking on debt... and what empirical evidence indicates the u.s. will stop increasing its debt anytime soon?

Fine. Then look at it another way.

It's like saying, you're hiring someone for a company for $50,000. You expect him to work at your company for 30 years, with a total projected liability of... $1,500,000... but... your company only makes $500,000/year in revenue. HOW CAN YOU PAY HIS SALARY WITH SO LITTLE REVENUE? OH NO!! THAT'S CRAZY!

Yes the government eventually has an obligation to pay back trillions in the next 75 years, but it's not like no taxes will be collected in the meantime. $1 trillion/year for 75 years = $75 trillion! OH MY. (note the US government collects over $2 trillion a year currently in taxes)

It's all scaremongering.

[royCE]

Fine. Then look at it another way.

It's like saying, you're hiring someone for a company for $50,000. You expect him to work at your company for 30 years, with a total projected liability of... $1,500,000... but... your company only makes $500,000/year in revenue. HOW CAN YOU PAY HIS SALARY WITH SO LITTLE REVENUE? OH NO!! THAT'S CRAZY!

Yes the government eventually has an obligation to pay back trillions in the next 75 years, but it's not like no taxes will be collected in the meantime. $1 trillion/year for 75 years = $75 trillion! OH MY. (note the US government collects over $2 trillion a year currently in taxes)

It's all scaremongering.

well what you just said would mean that this whole debt thing is just a scare for people or something...to blame something for all the jobs lost...like a scapegoat

if its so easy and relatively short to pay back all this money, isnt the whole thing made just so that all the big companies can maintain the money without current year losses?

im starting to think the whole monetary system is build on here and now and not there and later...
greed is holding back the money becoming obsolete and irrelevant...

[Epinephrine]

well what you just said would mean that this whole debt thing is just a scare for people or something...to blame something for all the jobs lost...like a scapegoat

if its so easy and relatively short to pay back all this money, isnt the whole thing made just so that all the big companies can maintain the money without current year losses?

im starting to think the whole monetary system is build on here and now and not there and later...
greed is holding back the money becoming obsolete and irrelevant...

I have no idea what you're talking about, so I'm going to assume you're missing the point.

Jerome is arguing that because social security, medicare and other programs have long-term obligations in the future that total a certain number, that the entire system doesn't work. His is a commonly quoted statistic that some people like to quote as a way to basically dismantle medicare and social security in the United States, because the numbers seem so large, that they can't possibly be paid back.

My point is, the numbers themselves are a bit fudged, and unless you take a big picture look at them, you might be distracted by the pure size of the numbers when in fact it's actually not that big a deal. Sure eventually the amount of taxes collected may not equal the amount of money necessary to keep the system afloat, but these numbers usually extend to a 75-year time horizon so that even a very small change in the percentages of taxes collected and money given out will change everything. It is not a reason to cancel the entire system as many conservatives would have people believe.

[Jerome Scuggs]

tax revenue will not exactly be phenomenal for the next few years, and the longest-maturing government security is 30 years - but that's bonds. now, usually these things are merely gambles - dump money to fix the economy before you go bankrupt.

the problem is, all things must come to an end. yes, we can go into debt, and it's ok so long as, say, china doesn't call for us to repay debt owed. but this appears to be a highly unusual recession - the U.S. has already shattered all previous traditions in its current policies and hijinks. iceland went bankrupt, two u.s. states are insolvent, and 44 more are close to it. and like i said earlier, taxes aren't going to be too good, unless you raise them dramatically. raising taxes dramatically siphons off capital dramatically, which then impacts production and consumption negatively. while all this is happening, there would be a massive influx of demand for money, but who would buy our debt? how would they, with what money?

your metaphor would work better like this: there is a company that makes $500,000 in profits. said company then hires 20 people for a salary of $50,000 each. yeah that's dumb, but those extra 19 people needed a good job and a stable income. luckily, the company knows a cranky chinese dude who fronts the extra half-mil a year, and in exchange, everyone in the company buys all of their basic products from the chinese dude's supermarket. the moment that, for whatever reason, the company's net profits begin to fall... then the employees can no longer afford to buy the chinese dude's goods, and so he refuses to loan the company money.

[Ara]

Well it is obvious that obama is a large part of it.

Obama just moved in to the White House, I would be blaming Bush, unrealistic
corporate expectations, and war on Iraq (oil). You propably blame your dentist
for your tooth decay.

[Zerzera]

Obama just moved in to the White House, I would be blaming Bush, unrealistic
corporate expectations, and war on Iraq (oil). You propably blame your dentist
for your tooth decay.

That post is useless, Izor can't even read tables. And this one has numbers and abbreviated jargon.

[DoTheFandango]

That post is useless, Izor can't even read tables. And this one has numbers and abbreviated jargon.

Besides, to him everything is just useless propaganda brought up by the Omega President, HAIL BARACK

[Epinephrine]

tax revenue will not exactly be phenomenal for the next few years, and the longest-maturing government security is 30 years - but that's bonds. now, usually these things are merely gambles - dump money to fix the economy before you go bankrupt.

the problem is, all things must come to an end. yes, we can go into debt, and it's ok so long as, say, china doesn't call for us to repay debt owed. but this appears to be a highly unusual recession - the U.S. has already shattered all previous traditions in its current policies and hijinks. iceland went bankrupt, two u.s. states are insolvent, and 44 more are close to it. and like i said earlier, taxes aren't going to be too good, unless you raise them dramatically. raising taxes dramatically siphons off capital dramatically, which then impacts production and consumption negatively. while all this is happening, there would be a massive influx of demand for money, but who would buy our debt? how would they, with what money?

your metaphor would work better like this: there is a company that makes $500,000 in profits. said company then hires 20 people for a salary of $50,000 each. yeah that's dumb, but those extra 19 people needed a good job and a stable income. luckily, the company knows a cranky chinese dude who fronts the extra half-mil a year, and in exchange, everyone in the company buys all of their basic products from the chinese dude's supermarket. the moment that, for whatever reason, the company's net profits begin to fall... then the employees can no longer afford to buy the chinese dude's goods, and so he refuses to loan the company money.

I like how you realized that your tables were actually completely sham and just ignored that. But I'm glad you realized.

[D1st0rt]

Obama just moved in to the White House, I would be blaming Bush, unrealistic corporate expectations, and war on Iraq (oil). You propably blame your dentist for your tooth decay.

The war in Iraq has cost, what, like $500 billion over 6 years? Somebody check the numbers on that. Congress dropped $700 billion like it was nothing on TARP in a span of less than a week, and is now poised for another trillion? Yeah man, it was totally all Bush's fault.

[Veloce]

short sighted, you don't realize that all this debt that we must continue to fund helps the world economy (!!! CHINA !!!) as a whole. Someone's gotta run the deficit, we're it for awhile...