September 10, 2007
U.S. Passes $9 Trillion National Debt
Responsible economic policy, should safeguard the financial status of Americans today, and their children tomorrow. If it meant only today, the Treasury could print money and hand out a million to every man, woman, and child. And for a day, everyone would be well off. Of course, in the ensuing days, America would plunge into a depression and inflation spiral worse than in the 1930’s.
There are many portals through which one can view the economy, and depending on which portal, the economy may look robust or failing. If one looks at the number of hours of work it takes achieve middle class status, there is no question that our parents generation were much better off than we are today. In the 1960's one parent could work, the other stay home and raise kids, keep house, and entertain and network with neighbors. Today, it takes two parents working and nearly double the work hours to achieve middle class quality living for most American families.
On the other hand, if one looks at the net asset wealth of Americans today as in homeownership, the economy looks like a windfall for Americans compared to the 1960's when homeownership was beyond the means of a much larger percentage of workers. Or, if one looks at the percentage of workers in the upper middle class and beyond today as compared to the 1960's, or the percentage of poverty, again it would appear America has grown wealthier, on average.
But, as pointed out in the introductory paragraph, a responsible economy provides for its citizens in the present and future, insuring an ability to withstand market shocks, calamities, and emergencies while keeping the nation's workers and family providers employed, solvent, and able to continue providing for their families, overall.
The past is no guarantor of the future.
America learned this in the most painful and suffering kind of way in 1929, as capitalists tied up so much of the nation's money into so few hands, investing and speculating on the next great profit venture, that the worker - consumers who had supported the rise of the industrial barons of industry, were left out of the wealth distribution loop, and when the stock market crashed, the consumers living from paycheck to paycheck, could not continue purchasing and consuming, and suppliers collapsed, laying off workers, cutting production, and closing retail shops.
By the time the worst had arrived in 1932, the Dow Jones Industrial market lost 89%, before bottoming out. Investors in mid-1929 who held onto their stocks, would not see their stocks recover the losses until 1954. Most would have been in their retirement years by then, only to have broken even on their stock investments in 1929.
Just months before the 1929 crash, few would have said America's economy was not in great shape. But, it wasn't, regardless of popular opinion on Oct. 28, 1929, the day before Black Thursday. The 'roaring twenties' was a decade of celebration of technological innovation and production, from radio, to autos, to aviation, telephone, and expanding electrical power grids. Finding work was so easy, that a mass migration from rural farm communities was underway, ballooning once small towns and cities into major metropolitan areas like Chicago, Detroit and Dallas. And within 5 days, the celebration was over. The economy failed to insure its 'tomorrows', mesmerized by its gains 'today'. The past was no guarantor of the future.
The Present
Today, America has tools to fight what happened in 1929 and prevent it from happening again. The greatest of these tools are statistical forecasting and economic measurements. Trained and objective people armed with these weapons can peer into the future of our children and forecast their economic fate, and issue warnings when the statistics and measures begin painting dark clouds on the economic horizon. But, what if no one heeds the warnings?
This is what is occurring today. The warnings have been issued repeatedly by economic forecasters for more than a decade, now. In fact, it is almost becoming a case similar to crying wolf, in the sense that politicians have begun to turn a deaf ear. In 1995, the Labor Department said it is worried that the retirement prospects for the huge baby boomer cohort could be grim. "Boomers are now between the ages of 30 and 50, and there are 60 million of them. They aren't saving enough for retirement and won't be able to rely on Social Security or traditional pension plans to bail them out", it said. That 60 million number is now 77 million.
These warnings continued, coming from then Federal Reserve Chief, Alan Greenspan in the 1990's and early in this decade. But, the politicians turned a deaf ear. Greenspan's successor, Ben Bernanke continues the warning in Oct. of 2006:
Unless Social Security and Medicare are revamped, the massive burden from retiring baby boomers will place major strains on the nation's budget and the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday.
"Reform of our unsustainable entitlement programs" should be a priority, he said in prepared remarks to the Economics Club of Washington. "The imperative to undertake reform earlier rather than later is great," Bernanke added.
The Future
Take a moment and think about what it is they are warning. The vast majority of now 77 million Americans falling into poverty and bankruptcy, largely from enormous medical expenses incurred at the most expensive time of life for needed medical care. These 10's of millions will be the parents and grandparents of perhaps 100 million, or more, working Americans. What will happen if their children and grandchildren refuse, or are unable to bail them out of their medical debts?
If the government attempts to float the debt needed to save them from poverty and bankruptcy, and loss of homes, our current $9 trillion dollar national debt, already a concern, will have to grow to 20 trillion, and then even higher to $40 trillion. That is of course, if investors would even consider buying American treasury bonds given the near certainty of economic collapse such debt would cause.
And what happens if the children and grandchildren of these retirees bail them out with their own earnings? Well, that clearly leads to a contraction in consumption and sales of all goods and services in our economy, except medical care and medical insurance. How large a contraction are we talking about?
In 2000 Medicare cost 196.3 billion dollars or 2% of GDP.
In 2030, the amount will grow to $1 trillion 244 billion, or 7% of GDP. (assuming 2% GDP growth)
Needless to say, the economy would collapse long before the government incurred a near 1.25 trillion dollar a year annual deficit. But, so too, will the economy collapse if our children working in 2030 are diverting nearly 1.5 trillion dollars a year from other purchases of goods and services to their parent's and grandparent's health care debts. But this is not the worst of it.
By 2080 the end of the boomers generation, again assuming 2% GDP growth, Medicare will spend 6.8 trillion dollars, or 14% of GDP. Now, of course, our economy collapses long, long before Medicare spending reaches anything close to these levels. The same is true if workers are diverting 14% of all their purchasing dollars to alleviating the debts of their parents, especially if real wages continue to fall, as they have since the 1960's, as it now takes 2 parents working near full time to stay in the middle class.
Also, the above scenarios assume either Medicare spending growth, or, consumers diverting purchase dollars to medical care. In reality, both will occur, consumers will purchase less and less on other consumption to help parents with medical care debt, and Medicare spending will grow precipitously, but, not as fast as the above scenarios due to our children of today buying their parents medical debts in the future.
Why isn't something being done?
The reasons none of these scenarios can be prevented from collapsing the economy are three fold. First, because American savings are negative. Which means Americans are spending more than they are making in income. It is called a negative savings rate. Americans are not saving and using compound interest to grow their savings to meet the growing health care inflation costs moving forward. Debt and increased future costs are a deadly economic scenario, whether it be for a family or, our government, and both are in the same boat. Workers and politicians are accumulating debt which reduces the amount they can borrow in the future to meet future needs.
Second, is the rise of third world nations to first world industrial and technological preeminence. China, Malaysia, India, and other nations have vast untapped cheap (by our standards) labor resources with which to draw upon to grow their economies. This is very similar to what America tapped in WWII as it put millions of women into the work force, and growing percentages of women continued to move into the work force for decades afterward, which in turn, increased American productivity, without having to incur commensurate growth in labor costs. This resulted in the greatest economic boom in American history from 1947 to the present. It is now other nations' turn to tap similar productivity potential and expand their economic growth, as the U.S. begins to experience intense competition for market share, contraction in consumption, and increasing debt, and interest on that debt, for the next 70 years.
The third, and lynch pin, reason the dire economic scenarios painted above are not salvageable is purely political. Contraction now, or, contraction later, is the issue. Politicians campaign on economic stimulus and growth every 2 years to win election. Greenspan, Bernanke, and many other economists say we must stop consuming so much, and start saving much more, if we are to hope to deal with the gross human suffering and losses in America which will result, if we do nothing substantial now to turn the future of this Titanic economy around.
But, what politician is going to get elected telling the public the truth that:
- consumers have to stop spending so much
- stop borrowing so much so that they can
- dramatically increase savings so that
- the government can cut back on entitlement spending while
- raising taxes on the wealthy and middle class for Soc. Sec. and Medicare in order to
- pay down the national debt with annual surpluses while workers get squeezed in their checking accounts?
Oh, sure, there are a few politicians who speak some of the truth, but, they do so within the context of their political parties and fellow politicians who insure that Americans will not have to sacrifice today for the future, which would risk their reelection chances. It is easy to speak the truth when you know no one is listening. Something else again when painful consequences result from your truth saying, and those suffering the consequences, ignorantly come after the messenger of truth for having caused it. Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota, one of the most ardent spokespersons of the truth on this issue for many years, knows the security blanket of speaking the truth to a deaf audience.
The last real debate in the Congress over the entitlement crisis, which had any chance of addressing it occurred in 1996. That was the year the impasse between the divided party Congress' and Pres. Clinton over the budget shut down government 3 times, before reconciliation was achieved. Many issues were being fought but, entitlement spending was chief among them. Republican proposals ranged from raising Medicare taxes and cutting benefits, to privatizing all medical insurance and ending the Medicare program at some point in the future. Democrats were fighting raising taxes on the middle class, cutting Medicare benefits, and definitely opposed to eventually ending the Medicare safety net program which at the time, was rescuing 37 million Americans from preventable death and poverty resulting from bankrupting medical bills. In the end, the reconciliation of that budget which put government back to work, essentially dropped the topic altogether.
When Republicans acquired full control of Congress, they had no political incentive to resurrect the issue on Medicare, choosing instead to take the far less threatening entitlement program of Soc. Sec. and move to privatize it, instead. The public would have none of that. Pres. Bush again tried to move privatization of Soc. Sec. and the backlash against Republicans was scary.
It is too soon to know if Democrats in the Congress will take on the issue after Bush's veto threats leave office. But, it is probably a safe bet, that Democrats too will refuse to address, in any significant way, the long term bankrupting effects of inaction, preferring instead band aid approaches which will neither scare today's public nor solve the problem in the long term. It is about elections in Congress, not about saving the nation.
The Remedy
Which leaves the issue in voter's hands to address, by way of an anti-incumbent vote that shakes the foundations of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Or not. Iraq does not pose near the long term threat to the people of the United States as inaction on entitlements does. Yet, it appears at this time from the polls, that the 2008 elections will be about Iraq, and not the long term solvency of our children, their aging parents - us, and our economy in ever growing peril. Such is the Achille's Heel of America's republic political system, and the ignorance of the democratic electorate, to the major economic issues hanging like a dark asteroid in space aimed directly at their futures.
There is a bright side however. For those with the where-with-all to invest $10,000 now in major medical stocks in their child's name, to be redeemed on their child's 50th birthday when a 9 trillion dollar national debt will be remembered as peanuts, there's a reasonable chance their children may retire in the middle to upper middle class; in Brazil or China.
(Author's note: Future value of GDP was computed based on 2000 GDP, assuming 2% average GDP growth, and using Medicare percentages of GDP provided by NewRetirement.Com's excellent article on Rising Medical Costs.)
Posted by David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 08:04 AMWhile I, or anyone with a brain, can see the writing on the wall, I fail to see what good an anti-incumbent vote would do. First, new politicians would do no better winning office on such a platform than an incumbent would do trying to stay in office with the same. Americans do not want to tighten their belts that much, and that is the real problem.
Our only real chance, assuming it would have happened, was to have elected Gore in 2000, since he had a plan to use the budget surplus to start paying down the national debt. Would he really have done it? Maybe, hard to say, what with 9/11 and all. Would he have done a better job of it than Dubya has? A trained chimp could have. If the economy really does collapse, history will look back at this administration and point the blame.
Does something need to be done about this? God, yes, but politics is not where to start. Educating the American public is the only answer. Your anti-incumbent idea, while well-meaning, falls terribly short.
L
Posted by: leatherankh at September 10, 2007 09:45 AMLeatherankh, the anti-incumbent idea is the only thing that will move politicians to act, but, you are quite right, such an action can only result from an education by the public as to how dire the situation is becoming, and how close we are to a point of no return.
But, let’s assume enough of the public does acquire that education. What difference will it make to politicians if the public doesn’t vote them out of office? Why would politician incumbents choose to make painful policy decisions for the public, if the public were not demanding it by voting them out of office, in which case they would no longer be incumbents.
Seeing incumbents being voted out left and right over the economic future, their replacement freshman would choose to avoid the same fate, and make the tough decisions. You can’t put the chicken before the egg.
Education, yes. Then anti-incumbent voting. Then Freshman politicians willing to do what the incumbents wouldn’t in order to become incumbents themselves.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 10:00 AMAnd that’s not even all of the debt.
- Social Security, $12.8 Trillion in debt, has been plundered for decades. Shortfalls for the appoaching 77 million baby-boomer bubble would not have exist had it not been for the pilfering of Social Security almost from the day it started.
- The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is $450 Billion in the hole.
- Nationwide personal debt is over $20 Trillion
- Add that all up, and that’s over $42 Trillion of nation-wide debt. Some estimates place it higher (e.g. $48 Trillion)
- Year 1929: 1% of population had 40% of all wealth
- Year 1976: 1% of population had 20% of all wealth
- Year 1983: 1% of population had 30% of all wealth
- Year 2007: 1% of population has 40% of all wealth (see: Year 1929 above)
- 60% of the U.S. population has only 5% of all wealth.
- 40% of the U.S. population has a net worth of only $2,000.
- 20% of the U.S. population has a negative net worth of -$9,000.
- Inflation will be the probable outcome for so much debt, as more money is created out of thin air to bail out banks that try to loan out money to everyone possible; making interest on new money created a a 9-to-1 ratio for every new loan. In 2007:
- a 1997 dollar is now worth only 77 cents?
- a 1987 dollar is now worth only 55 cents?
- a 1957 dollar is now worth only 16 cents?
- a 1937 dollar is now worth only 07 cents?
- a 1913 dollar is now worth only 05 cents?
- And now, we may be entering a recession; not a good thing while trying to fight two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Net worth may still exceed the total debt, but only a very few own most of that wealth. A tiny 1% of the U.S. population owns 40% of all wealth. The disparity has never been worse since the Great Depression. Even the rosiest of the rose-colored glasses crowd acknowledges the growing disparity, as concentrated wealth grows wealthier, and the middle class shrinks.
The tax system is regressive and needs to be reformed (along with many things Do-Nothing Congress ignores). Warren Buffet, 2nd wealthiest person in the country, pays a lower percentage of tax (relative to income) than a secretary making $60K annually. That’s primarily because capital gains are taxed at 15%. But most Americans (i.e. middle and lower income groups) pay an average tax rate of over 20%.
But taxes alone can’t help if government continues to spend and print money so irresponsibly, and grow government larger and larger to nightmare proportions.
And the continued occupation of Iraq due to Bush and Other Occupationist Proponents (OOPs) continues to grow the debt ever larger.
The federal government takes over 20% of GDP. And for the trillions bilked from tax payers annually for national defense, the Pentagon can’t even keep jets from flying into their own building, and the federal government continues to fail at one of its most fundamental duties to secure the nation’s borders and ports.
What do we have to look forward to?
- If you are wealthy, you’ll probably get wealthier.
- If you are poor, you’ll probably stay poor or get poorer.
- If you are a middle-income earner, you’ll probably see your income decline and your taxes grow.
- Getting an education will become more expensive, while declining in quality.
- If you are over 65, you’ll have to work longer … competing with younger Americans and illegal aliens for fewer and fewer jobs for less and less income, because the retirement age (i..e. eligibility age for already stressed Social Security and Medicare systems) will be raised to age 70.
- Manufacturing will continue to move out of the country.
- Getting healthcare will become more expensive (unaffordable), while declining in quality and becoming more dangerous (already killing 195,000 people annually; 106,000 annually due to Adverse Drug Reactions).
- If you are young, you will have the astronomical debt of past generations dumped on you. Thus, expect higher taxes on the middle class to pay for the $12.8 Trillion plundered from the Social Security system over many decades.
- The wealth distribution will grow more extreme.
- For most people, things will get worse because of so much nation-wide debt, and government that grows more bloated, arrogant, irresponsible, wasteful, and corrupt.
- Recessions, occuring every 2 to 11 years for the past 46 years, will become deeper and more difficult to recover from.
So, perhaps you should ask yourself:
- What will my life be like in the next Great Depression?
While I, or anyone with a brain, can see the writing on the wall, I fail to see what good an anti-incumbent vote would do.What good will repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbment politicians with re-election accomplish, except to make them more corrupt and irresponsible?
Educating the American public is the only answer. Your anti-incumbent idea, while well-meaning, falls terribly short.Yes, in a voting nation, education is very important. Americans can choose to learn:
- the smart, responsible, peaceful way
- or, the hard, painful way (again). Pain is a good teacher too.
$9,000,000,000,000.00 My calculator doesn’t even go that high. So I can’t figure how much my grandyoungins owe. The thing that really frosts my butt is that at between 5 months and 13 years old none of them are old enough to hold a full time job. None of them have any credit. And none of them were able to vote for or against the irresponsible politicians that have run this debt up. But they sure as hell owe the money. And are expected to pay it. And at almost 61 years old I won’t be around long enough to pay my share of this outrageous debt. That means that my share will be passed down to my grandyoungins.
What kind of future are our youngins facing? It can’t be a very good one.
There’s plenty of blame for this to go around. No one particular person or party is 100% responsible for this country being $9,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. Every politicians that has held office. Every voter that has blindly voted the party line. Every voter that has ignored the irresponsibility, corruption, and ineptness coming out of DC. And every person that has wanted government to do more than it could afford is responsible for the this outrageous debt. And yes, that does include you. And to my shame, it also includes me.
Everyone of us need to beg the forgiveness of our children for the mess we’re leaving them.
Add up all the $22 Trillion of federal debt, and that comes to:
- about $72,848 per person (for 302 million Americans).
- For people under age 60 (about 223 million), that’s about $98,654 per person.
- For all 200 million eligible voters, that’s about $110,000 per voter
- For about 100 million households (based on 3 persons per household, that’s about $220,000 per household.
Ron Brow, You are right. All voters are responsible. Those too young to vote are the only innocent individuals that must suffer the consequences.
Currently, we have 77 million baby boomers that will soon be demanding their Social Security and Medicare. Since $12.8 Trillion was plundered from Social Security, should future generations be burdened with that? Especially when most of the young workers now entering the work force had no responsibility for creating that debt since they were not even of voting age yet? I think the resentment is going to create a generational storm. All of the economic factors and decades of fiscal irresponsibility are getting closer and closer every day. How long can it be propped up with excessive money printing? A few more years perhaps, but it could easily collapse when 77 million baby boomers meets $22 Trillion of total federal debt.
I think most people know its doomed to collapse.
It’s just a waiting game.
Congress can’t address it because it’s too late.
Therefore, incumbent politicians are now in a mad dash to get theirs, give themselves fat raises every year (9 of the last 10 years while troops go without body armor, medical care, and promised benefits) build up their own bank accounts and assets before the $#!+ hits the fan.
Blaming the voters does little to rectify the fact that there were no alternatives to vote for, in either party. What is a voter to do?
It would never get passed, but the way to start paying down the national debt and educate the public about how serious the problem is at the same time is a national debt tax.
You want to buy some shares of stock, national debt tax.
You want a 20,000 dollar car, $20,500
The $40,000 model is $42,500 and in big bold red letters is $2,500 NATIONAL DEBT TAX.
You want to know what the NATIONAL DEBT TAX is on the 3000 horse power Fasassombichi GT? Just give me a minute while I check your credit score.
Posted by: jlw at September 10, 2007 01:56 PMDavid,
While I do not see absolute destiny of doom and gloom on the horizon, there are certainly dangers with soaring national debt and trade deficits.
I think resolving the health care crisis by implementing a national health care agency, like most civilized industrial nations have, will go a long way towards that end.
The use of illegal immigrant labor and poor trade policies that encourage shipping jobs off shore are other issues that damage the economy.
I don’t quite share in your explanation of the Great Depression, however. The Laissez Faire extremes of Hoover and the Smoot Halley tarrifs coupled with an ignorance of money supply economics led to, and prolonged the depression.
The one problem with many Libertarians is that they ignore the lack of economic restraints that led to a crisis in confidence and a credit crunch which is why the market crashed. They continue to aver that Laissez Faire is the solution to economic cycles. It isn’t and is a return to a thinking pattern that DID lead us into the Great Depression.
The economic situation with poor quality home loans , while based on the same lack of good business sense and governmental oversite, is not anything like the economics of the twenties. We’re not at all in the same boat.
While the Fed does have issues, it has been a stabilizing factor since the 30’s. The problem lies more in a Congress that spends imaginary money that the American people have to work out with real sweat. True conservatism in Congress would go a long way to resolving that.
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 02:17 PMwomanmarine wrote: Blaming the voters does little to rectify the fact that there were no alternatives to vote for, in either party.Who should we blame? Voters elect them.
womanmaring wrote: What is a voter to do?Stop Repeat Offenders. Don’t Re-Elect Them.
womanmarine,
OK, so you say your all of choices stink?
Then why reward the incumbent with re-election?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more corrupt?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more arrogant?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more irresponsible?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more powerful?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more difficult to oust?
Doesn’t that simply condition them to become more FOR-SALE?
The logic is simply this:
- Don’t reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election.
What is wrong with this logic?
How can something so simple be so elusive?
Well, the answer to that requires an understanding of human psychology. Humans tend to be complacent, apathetic, lazy, disinterested and irresponsible until painful consequences provides the motivation to become more responsible. That laziness is why voters pull the party lever. They choose to believe the clever assertions that THEIR party is the best choice. Little do they know that it would eventually lead to BOTH parties being so corrupt that the few differences they do have are meaningless.
Why is it, after two years now, no one can answer this question:
- Can you name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are accountable and responsible?
Unless you can name at least 268, then what can you conclude about Congress as a whole?
Lastly, Congress is elected by the voters.
So Congress is a reflection of the voters.
So the voters have the government they deserve.
That is, as long as they can vote.
But if they vote irresponsibly, then they can expect those they elect to be irresponsible too.
So, if voters elect the politicians, and voters have continually rewarded incumbent politicians with 90% to 95% re-election rates (since 1996), then who else is to blame for it?
As long as voters can vote, politicians are not to blame for all of the corruption, irresponsibility, and unaccountability.
How are voters holding their elected politicians accountable by repeatedly rewarding them with re-election and life-long terms?
The highest anti-incumbent voting (with 50% turn over in Congress) was during the Great Depression.
Thus, it’s quite likely that it will take a similar situation to finally make voters stop blindly pulling the party-lever, and stop rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election.
It is sad that it has to be that way, but humans don’t seem to care until things become too painful, and then it is usually too late.
Already, the debt is so huge, it is probably too late. The painful consequences of so much fiscal irresponsibility is probably unavoidable now. The debt must be paid or the economic consequences of defaulting will be even worse. What were also likely to see is higher inflation as the government and FED are forced to print more money just to stay ahead of the billions needed every day just to pay the interest alone on the $9 Trillion National Debt.
Just stopping the debt from growing larger would be difficult, much less reducing it. As it is now, it would literally take two centuries to pay off $22 trillion of federal debt. Just the $9 Trillion of federal debt would take over 140 years. The interest on that debt is astronomical (even if the interest never exceeds 4.5%).
It is already out of control.
The discipline it would require to deal with such massive debt does not exist. And it won’t until its absence becomes too painful.
In a voting nation, education is paramount, and that education is already on the way, and few (if any) are gonna like it, as the deterioration we see now is just the beginning of what will most likely get much, much worse.
Dan:
Simply this. Had anyone run from either party that I believed would tackle this honestly, they would have had my vote. Since none addressed it in a manner that gave me any positive inclination that they would do the right thing, I cast my vote between the choices available based on what I felt I knew about those running. Sometimes the incumbent, sometimes not. To just say vote out incumbents is to over-simplify the problem and the supposed fix.
alien from planet zorg wrote: David, While I do not see absolute destiny of doom and gloom on the horizon, there are certainly dangers with soaring national debt and trade deficits.It’s a lot more serious than just debt.
The most important factor, the thing we lack at the moment, that will most likely bring about the next Great Depression is:
- discipline and virtue
It’s not that all of these pressing problems can’t be fixed. It’s that we lack the will to fix them … that is, until the consequences become too painful. Look through our history. We repeat the same mistakes over and over. There is sometimes progress, but it is 2.000 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward. Progress is slow indeed. And we have not yet learned our lesson. Where there is a lack of virtue and conscience, follows a lack of transparency, education, responsibility, and accountability. The only thing that finally trumps this dark side of human nature is pain. It’s a good teacher. It is our built-in self-correction mechanism. There is a danger though. The longer things are allowed to deteriorate, the more difficult it is to correct it (if at all).
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 02:50 PMwomanmarine wrote: Dan: Simply this. Had anyone run from either party that I believed would tackle this honestly, they would have had my vote. Since none addressed it in a manner that gave me any positive inclination that they would do the right thing, I cast my vote between the choices available based on what I felt I knew about those running. Sometimes the incumbent, sometimes not. To just say vote out incumbents is to over-simplify the problem and the supposed fix.Not true. Especially since Congress has enjoyed a very cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since year 1996.
Perhaps you are better than most voters. Perhaps you are not like the average voter.
However:
- most voters don’t even know who their state and federal senators and representatives are, much less their voting records.
- 40% to 50% of voters don’t even bother to vote at all.
- most voters pull the party-lever (i.e. vote straight ticket); many not even knowing who they are voting for … just that they are in THEIR party (abdicating the responsibility to vote wisely to THEIR party).
- most voters, 90% of the time, elect the candidate that spends the most money.
- 99.85% of all 200 million eligible voters donate $2 per person (on average) to a federal campaign, while a tiny 0.15% makes 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more).
- most voter have no idea what Article V of the Constitution is, or that it is being violated, despite 567 requests to make amendments by ALL 50 states
- 20% of students in American public schools can’t identify the United States on a world map.
- most voters think the problem is the OTHER party.
- most voters think THEIR politician is grand. Most voters believe MOST politicians are crooked, but they think that THEIR politician is great. Look at the voters that re-elected Rep. William Jefferson. And it wouldn’t surprise me if the voters of Idaho re-elect Larry Craig … giving new meaning the the meaning of Idaho .
- most voters bitch and complain and give Congress a low approval rating, but repeatedly re-elect and reward the same incumbents, giving them a cu$hy 90% to 95% re-election rate since 1996.
- most voters are easily bribed with their own tax dollars; especially the older voters lobbying for entitlements. Too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.
- most voters don’t know what the National Debt is, much less the total federal debt, Social Security debt, or the nationwide personal debt.
- most voters fall for the partisan warfare, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than work to solve prolbems; foolishly emphasizing minor differences rather than working on unity to solve the many things most of us all already agree upon (the problem and the solution).
- most voters (if not all) can not name 10, 20, 50, 100, or 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable. But then, perhaps that’s because there aren’t any?
- most voters blame Congress and the President, but fail to understand that the voters (the largest group of 200 million eligible voters) have the government that they repeatedly re-elect and reward. The voters are the one largest group responsible for their own problems. But, again, it’s easier to blame politicians, rather than take responsibility themselves.
- too many voters are one-issue voters, making them easy to manipulate.
- most voters think the nation is on the wrong track, but most voters reward incumbent politicians with re-election for keeping us on the wrong track.
- most voters simply don’t care … at least, not until the consequences of that disinterest motivates them to become more interested. Voters will become much less complacent, apathetic, and lazy when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry.
Therefore, all I (and David R. Remer and Ron Brown and VOID) suggesting is for enough voters to do what voters will be forced to do eventually anyway (when the painful consequences provides the motivation). It will happen again. One of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods ever was during the Great Depression. Are we going to wait of the next Great Depression? Or are we going to learn from history and finally make progress?
That doesn’t mean we should always vote out incumbents. But as long as incubments are irresponsible, they do not deserve and should not be rewarded with re-election. The only way that logic can be refuted is only if you think they are responsible and deserve to be re-elected. Even if you think all of them are irresponsible, that is all the more reason not to reward them with re-election.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 03:03 PMDan:
You have yet to show me any non-incumbents worthy of being voted in based on what you want to happen. I am interested in who you think they would be.
d.a.n. said: “It’s not that all of these pressing problems can’t be fixed. It’s that we lack the will to fix them … that is, until the consequences become too painful.”
That was the prophetic fundamental point of the article and research. And alien and womanmarine and the hundreds of millions of others in this country who don’t want to believe Greenspan and Bernanke, and don’t want to assume the responsibility for educating their politicians by voting them out, inadvertently compound the problem.
As long as the human mind can rationalize away the difficult ability to respond appropriately, it will, until it becomes a fight or flight situation. The wealthy will flee, leaving the rest to fight for the scraps of the American economy left behind.
My daughter is learning Japanese on the internet, Spanish in high school, and will take Chinese in College. And yes, $10,000 invested in health care stocks will be put in her name next year. It is the only hopeful plan I can see for her, given the response many Americans give to articles such as these. But, it shouldn’t have to be this way.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 03:48 PMAnd alien and womanmarine and the hundreds of millions of others in this country who don’t want to believe Greenspan and Bernanke, and don’t want to assume the responsibility for educating their politicians by voting them out, inadvertently compound the problem.
Um, excuse me? What gives you the idea, or the right to post that I don’t believe Greenspan or Bernanke? Please. And I take full responsibility for my votes, I try to make informed votes.
Lets not go overboard.
womanmarine, it doesn’t matter if the current lot of challengers will be better, most likely they won’t. But, if voters refuse to allow incompetence and irresponsibility to serve more than one term, there will quickly be competent and responsible challengers stepping forward, upon realizing voters are holding them responsible.
Americans are psyched by their culture to expect and demand an immediate fulfillment of their desires. Our negative savings rate is insurmountable testament to that fact. But, this political problem cannot and will not be solved in one election. It will take growing numbers of voters voting anti-incumbent for 3 or 4 election cycles before everyone contemplating running for office finally grasp that reelection depends on results, not excuses and finger-pointing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 04:16 PMwomanmarine, please note the word AND in my statement: it should have been OR. My apology. My error, for you clearly are not in the group that doesn’t take to heart Greenspan’s and Bernanke’s warnings.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 04:20 PMINFINITY minus ONE is STILL INFINITY
woman marine wrote: Dan: You have yet to show me any non-incumbents worthy of being voted in based on what you want to happen. I am interested in who you think they would be.
- (1) Until they have served, how do you know the challenger is more irresponsible?
- (2) If you already know the incumbnet is irresponsible, why reward them with re-election?
- (3) IF we keep rewarding irresponsible incumbents with re-election, how will they ever get the message that Congress (as a whole) is irresponsible and failing to get anything done?
- (4) Who should you vote for? Vote for challengers that will note what happens to incumbents that are irresponsible.
- (5) Why be so concerned with the possibility of a good politician not getting re-elected ? Is that more important ?
- (6) You asked me is is responsible? I don’t know yet, but it’s not hard to show who is irresponsible.
- (7) Unless we can name 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, then Congress as a whole is irresponsible and perhaps voters should start treating Congress as a single entity? Perhaps it will then get the message? Perpahs then, they will have some peer pressure? As it is now, no one is even calling for the resignation of William Jefferson, despite getting caught red-handed taking bribes. In fact, what’s utterly ridiculous are the voters of Louisianna that re-elected him anyway.
- (8) So, is what we’re doing working. Should we keep rewarding Congress with 90% to 95% re-election rates and expect anything to get better? There’s a term for that. They call it insanity.
- (9)If Congress’ dismal approval rating is only 18%, why do most voters reward them with 90% to 95% re-election rates? Congress’ approval ratings just before 7-NOV-2006 were dismal too. Not quite as low as the 18% now. Yet, 90% of Congress was re-elected. There appears to be a misconception that DEMs took a huge lead. They didn’t The have a small majority. Voters will have to do a lot better than re-electing 90% of all incumbnets (as in the last election) if voters ever hope to really get Congress’ attention.
- (10) Does it make sense for voters to give Congress such dismal ratings, complain endlessly about the corruption, waste, unnecessary wars, etc., but then reward it with 90% to 95% re-election rates? No, it doesn’t.
- (11) Why does that happen? It’s not really that complicated. It happens because most voters (the 60% that bother to vote) have been convinced that the best way to vote is to pull the party-lever. The reason that does not work is because most (if not all) incumbent politicians in BOTH are so irresponsible, FOR-SALE, corrupt, and unaccountable that it doesn’t matter which is more or less corrupt. Likewise with the two-party duopoly. And that is why so little gets accomplished. That’s why the call it Do-Nothing Congress. Politicians can give themselves a raise in a heart-beat (like the 9 times in the last 10 years while our soldiers go without body armor, medical care, and promised beneifts), but they can’t solve the growing problems with Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, illegal immigration, Iraq, capture Bin Laden, inflation, tax reform, National Debt, $450 Billion pension debt (PGBC), violating Article V, spying without civil oversight, other constitutional violations, eminent domain abuse, corpocrisy, corporate welfare, waste, corruption, campaign finance reform, energy vulnerability, declining public education, etc., etc., etc
- (12) BOTH parties are just about equally corrupt. There’s a lot of argument over WHICH party is more corrupt, but when BOTH are so corrupt, does it matter?
… millions of others in this country who don’t want to believe Greenspan and Bernanke, and don’t want to assume the responsibility for educating their politicians by voting them out, inadvertently compound the problem.Yes, it is up to the voters. There is no one else to blame. Government is a reflection of the voters. As long as voters have the right to voter, the voters have what they deserve. They voters only have themselves to thank for it. But they have to stop being lazy and stop wallowing in the divisive, distracting partisan warfare, stop blindly pulling the party-lever, stop believing the lies that THEIR party is the more responsible party, because BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible, it does not matter which is more or less corrupt.
That is, if you subtract one from infinity, it is still infinity.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 04:21 PMDavid and Dan:
You really still don’t get it. Don’t pick me out because I don’t ascribe 100% to your philosophy. I HAVE voted for non-incumbents and will in the future. I just don’t buy it as an all or nothing strategy, I don’t think you will convince anyone that it will work.
I plan to work within my party to make my feelings known quite vociferously. Were I free to travel, I would be knocking on congressional doors. You really need to give up the all or nothing stance and use more persuasive tactics than talking down to the folks you are trying so hard to convince. You put people off.
David,
I like your analysis above in “THE FUTURE”.
You broke it down to a family and individual.
One or two parents could impact their childrens’ financial situation. That means different spending habits for the children of the elderly too.
Now multiply it times 77 million.
It’s good that Greenspan and Bernanke are finally sounding the alarm, but they should have been sounding the alarm a long, long time ago. Truly, it may be too late now. I just don’t think voters will think about the way they vote (for the 60% of eligible that even bother to voter) until it affects them directly in a very painful way. That’s a few years away still. It could come on slowly at first. Successive recessions will get deeper and longer, until eventually, one possibly turns into a depression that lasts about as long as it took to create it.
Also, 77 million baby boomers (i.e. senior citizens) are the biggest group that is good about getting out to vote. This could mean higher taxes on everyone else (younger workers) to keep Social Security and Medicare going, but it won’t be enough. The Social Security fund has already been plundered, and the so-called surplus in Social Security is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.
Sad that it has to be this way, but the voters truly are the only ones that can change it, and until they finally become unhappy enough to hold Congress accountable (i.e. stop re-electing them), Congress will continue to grow more corrupt as the severely bloated government continues to grow to nightmare proportions. It’s already lasted far too long, and it will now take many decades to undo the damage. Just the $9 Trillion National Debt could take over 140 years to pay off. Add the $12.8 Trillion plundered from Social Security and 77 million baby boomers (26% of the nation’s population) when that money is needed most, and you have a recipe for economic instability (to say the least). But somehow, some people don’t think so. I wish I could look at the huge list of worsening ecnomic factors and believe the same thing. Where can I get some of those rose-colored glasses?
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 04:56 PMD.a.n, Bernanke said earlier this year, ‘The time to act on the coming entitlement crisis in 10 years ago’, or words very similar.
Greenspan said earlier this year, the debt and entitlement crises threaten the very existence of democratic capitalism around the world.
The warnings don’t get more dire than these. Still, which politicians want to hear it, let alone act on them? Damn few, indeed. And the American public, even if they hear such warnings, simply don’t understand their meaning or import, due to their woefully inadequate education in economics and politics. They know things are not right. But, they don’t know how they are wrong and how they can be corrected. And politicians don’t want them to know either for election reasons.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 05:05 PMwomanmarine said: “I plan to work within my party to make my feelings known quite vociferously.”
Many voters have been doing that all along, womanmarine, and yet, here we are! The Party’s are not the solution. The politicians are not the solution. The voters are the solution using the only weapon and power the Constitution gives them, the VOTE! Which was always intended to be used first, and foremost, to remove politicians from power. No one needs to vote to allow politicians
to remain, they will take care of that all on their own.
The vote was the founding fathers answer to King George’s perpetual office for life. It was there answer to any politician who would use their power to keep their power (precisely what political parties first and foremost objective is), instead of solving the nation’s problems which they campaigned to do.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 05:11 PMwomanmarine wrote: David and Dan: You really still don’t get it.Get what? You asked a question and I answered it. I have not singled you out or picked on you at all.
womanmarine wrote: Don’t pick me out because I don’t ascribe 100% to your philosophy.That’s fine. But again, I have not picked on you, or been rude to you at all.
womanmarine wrote: I HAVE voted for non-incumbents and will in the future.Good. Like I said, you may not be in the huge majority of the 60% of voters that even bother to vote.
womanmarine wrote: I just don’t buy it as an all or nothing strategy,Fine. You have that right. No one said you didn’t.
womanmarine wrote: I don’t think you will convince anyone that it will work.Others are already convinced. And that number will grow as the consequences of the voters’ own making grow more painful. Just like in the last Great Depression, when anti-incumbent voting was at one of the highest levels ever. David and I are merely saying sooner would be better than later.
womanmarine wrote: I plan to work within my party to make my feelings known quite vociferously.OK. Good luck. Because parties don’t have the answers. Just look at Congress’ 18% approval rating. Look at the Main Strea Media calling Congress the Do-Nothing Congress. It appears to be well deserved when one looks at all what has been accomplished and what continueally goes ignored.
womanmarine wrote: Were I free to travel, I would be knocking on congressional doors. You really need to give up the all or nothing stance and use more persuasive tactics than talking down to the folks you are trying so hard to convince. You put people off.I did not talk down to you. You asked a question and I answered it with no rudeness whatsoever. Others are free to relate their beliefs, and that alone does not equate to “talking down”. Please cut and paste from anywhere in this thread where I was rude to you.
Yes, I’m sure some people are put off. But many agree with VOID.
But the question is, how can anyone refute not rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election?
No one said good politicians should be voted out (something there is very little danger of since Congress enjoys a 90% ot 95% re-election rate).
Those that probably get the most upset are the strong party loyalists that truly think THEIR party is better.
The problem with belief is history, and the overwhelming evidence of corruption and irresponsibility by BOTH parties.
When BOTH are so corrupt, what difference does it make which is the least corrupt.
Infinity minus one is still infinity.
But the question is, how can anyone refute not rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election?
This is the attitude I’m talking about. How can anyone dispute what you say is right? This leaves no room for discussion and puts others off.
Dan:
Just one example:
They voters only have themselves to thank for it. But they have to stop being lazy and stop wallowing in the divisive, distracting partisan warfare, stop blindly pulling the party-lever, stop believing the lies that THEIR party is the more responsible party, because BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible, it does not matter which is more or less corrupt.Posted by: womanmarine at September 10, 2007 05:29 PM
The warnings don’t get more dire than these.
AAaaahhh…yes, you are right about that. However, why aren’t they more vocal about it? I suppose it wouldn’t do much good anyway. Most voters don’t even know who Bernanke and Greenspan are.
Still, which politicians want to hear it, let alone act on them? Damn few, indeed. And the American public, even if they hear such warnings,
I think most (if not all) know what is coming and many are in a mad rush to get theirs, pad their own cu$hy multimillion dollar retirement plans, and make sure they can ride out the rough times ahead.
…simply don’t understand their meaning or import, due to their woefully inadequate education in economics and politics.True. 40% to 50% don’t even vote, know who their Congress persons are, much less their voting records, or that new money is created at a ration of 9-to-1 for every new bank loan; perpetuating inflation, bubbles, and the economic instability it creates.
They know things are not right. But, they don’t know how they are wrong and how they can be corrected. And politicians don’t want them to know either for election reasons.That’s all the more reason to consider Congress as a whole perhaps? Like two teams on the football field. The losing team all shares in the loss. Perhaps that should apply to Congress persons? The sooner the better. At any rate, the voters will eventually arrive at that very conclusion when they are finally motivated by their joblessnes, homelessness, and hunger. Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 05:30 PM
Funny, I haven’t heard Greenspan or Bernake predict a depression. You guys have that documented? I suggest you forward it to CNN,FOX, the NYT and the Wash Post, because it will be a worldwide headline, and you both will up for Pulitzers if you author it.
d.a.n.
Discipline and virtue are great subjects for Sunday school, but I nor any other American needs you, OBL or anyone else preaching to the choir. We know what it takes to function.
Yes, there is irresponsibility in government and people on a personal level, but we aren’t the slackers that you and David wish to cast us as. 300 million heads are better than one and have repeatedly shown that throughout our history. We may stumble along, but we mostly get it right, or at least as well or better than the rest of the world has. Stop counting us out before the bell.
David, That’s great advice for your daughter, giving her as many options as she can handle. I just don’t think screaming the world is coming to an end serves anything but sensationalism. There’s a popular game of predicting the next depression every 5 or 10 years. Whatever happened to that depression that SMU professor Ravi Batra was selling back in the eighties? Oh. He was wrong.
You don’t stop an over heated consumerism society that is created by Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and Wall Street, with full backing of a bloated pork barrel government by yelling at Voters or Joe Shmoe America. Jimmy Carter looked like an idiot when he did it. You educate with a campaign that enlists the grudging aid of Hollywood and the like that resets the goals of the American Dream. That’s leadership.
I’m totally with Woman Marine on this. The world isn’t going to hell in a hand basket any faster than it was in the Greatest Generation or any other generation. You guys are just getting old and cranky. Eat some oatmeal.
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 05:31 PMI would like to echo Womanmarine in that sometimes there is a drowning effect rather than a dialog. I apprecate the simplification of her position, that she sees grey on the incumbants, not black or white. Having someone representing “some” of your interestes is better than voting them out and getting none of your interestes represented.
Posted by: Edge at September 10, 2007 05:34 PMwomanmarine wrote: d.a.n wrote: But the question is, how can anyone refute not rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with re-election?This is the attitude I’m talking about. How can anyone dispute what you say is right? This leaves no room for discussion and puts others off. womanmarine,
Notice the bolded word “irresponsible” above. Surely you not advocating that we should re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians are you?
womanmarine wrote:
Dan:
Just one example:
They voters only have themselves to thank for it. But they have to stop being lazy and stop wallowing in the divisive, distracting partisan warfare, stop blindly pulling the party-lever, stop believing the lies that THEIR party is the more responsible party, because BOTH are so corrupt and irresponsible, it does not matter which is more or less corrupt.
How did I single you out?
That is a statement about blind loyalties.
I did not address you in that sentence.
Are you saying misplaced partisan loyalties do not exist?
Because they do.
Surely, you are not saying blind loyalt it good are you?
Thus, you assertions are unsubstantiated. Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 05:35 PM
Dan:
Your bolded word “irresponsible” gives pause as to who decides? You?
And, Dan, you are addressing everyone in that sentence that doesn’t subscribe to VOID.
I’m totally with Woman Marine on this. The world isn’t going to hell in a hand basket any faster than it was in the Greatest Generation or any other generation. You guys are just getting old and cranky. Eat some oatmeal.You’re entitled to your opinion. Time will tell. Anyone that thinks $22 Trillion of federal debt is nothing to worry about could be in for a surprise.
As for calling people old and cranky (and I’m only 49), that’s typical. No facts, no data, just name calling.
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 05:42 PMDan: Your bolded word “irresponsible” gives pause as to who decides? You?Of course not. The voters decide. I wrote that above.
Dan: And, Dan, you are addressing everyone in that sentence that doesn’t subscribe to VOID.Not true. We all have a choice. We are entitled to our own opinions. We still have freedoms. I’ve never supposed otherwise. Thus, that argument has no substance. Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 05:46 PM
I would like to echo Womanmarine in that sometimes there is a drowning effect rather than a dialog. I apprecate the simplification of her position, that she sees grey on the incumbants, not black or white. Having someone representing “some” of your interestes is better than voting them out and getting none of your interestes represented.And that is fine.
We are entitled to our opinions.
While we may not agree, that does not justify turning it into a personal attack and resorting to name calling (as alien from planet zorg did above).
Again, above, I wrote (in my opinion):
- (1) we shouldn’t re-elect irresponsible incumbents.
- (2) blind loyalty is a bad thing.
Few (if any) are going to disagree with those two statements. But even if they do, that’s fine. So we disagree. But resorting to personal attacks, accusing others of being old and cranky, or rude, or “talking down”, or condescending isn’t justified. Why not debate the reasons rather than resorting to personal attacks?
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 05:59 PMalien said: “Funny, I haven’t heard Greenspan or Bernake predict a depression. You guys have that documented?”
Guess you have to read between Greenspan’s lines when he says we may face the end of democratic capitalism?
Damn, man! What the hell do you think he means by that? A minor setback?
Google search “Greenspan democratic capitalism”. Why is it funny you haven’t heard this? I think it is very sad that you haven’t read this in the media or here at WB where it has been recited several times by myself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 06:34 PMHaving someone representing “some” of your interestes is better than voting them out and getting none of your interestes represented.And why would a challenger not represent “some” of your interests?
alien from planet zorg wrote:any faster than it was in the Greatest Generation or any other generation. You guys are just getting old and cranky. Eat some oatmeal.Any faster?
Does “any faster” that mean the world is going to hell in a hand basket at a slower rate or at the same rate?
And who said the world was going to hell in a hand basket?
As for economic downturns, they come and go. Recessions occur every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years. We are probably entering a recesion now. No one can perfectly predict if and when another recession or depression will occur.
However, many economic factors can certainly give us an idea of the probability of it. We have not had a depression since the Great Depression of 1929, but that does not mean it can’t happen again. In fact, that sort of thinking could be dangerous.
David R. Remer gave many good reasons for concern.
Here’s some more.
So, why don’t you think these could possibly add up to economic instability. Recessions? Possibly even a depression? It’s not that far fetched. It’s happened before. It could happen again.
David truly believes there is reason for concern.
Bernanke and Greenspan do too.
David Walker (U.S. Comptroller) strongly agrees.
Lots of people agree.
I happen to agree with David.
At any rate, things could be much better.
One thing can be said with considerable certainty.
Things are likely to worsen if we don’t start addressing some of the nation’s most pressing problems, now growing in number and severity.
The following have the potential to create significant economic instability:
- $9 Trillion National Debt
- $12.8 Trillion Social Security debt
- $450 Billion pension debt
- 77 million baby boomers (13,175 per day) becoming eligible for entitlements
- manufacturing leaving the country; there are now more jobs in government than all manufacturing
- corpocrisy, corporatism, and their influence on elected officials (83% of all federal campaign donations come from a mere 0.15% of all 200 million eligible voters
- trade deficits
- energy vulnerabilities; this one should not be underestimated
- inflation; this erodes savings; not a good thing with 77 million baby boomers with insufficient retirement savings
- Ongoing occupation of Iraq and war in Afghanistan
- $20 Trillion of nation-wide personal debt
- Billions per day in interest due each day on the $9 Trillion National Debt alone.
- China holds over $1 Trillion of federal debt. This is a security issue too. That gives China power over our economy.
- Increasing cost and declining quality of healthcare
- Increasing cost and declining quality of education
- Medicare shortfalls; hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities
- illegal immigration; pitting American citiens and illegal aliens against each other for fewer and fewer jobs as older Americans are forced to work longer
These are growing and serious issues.
No one said the world is coming to an end.
But there are valid reasons for concern about the nation’s economic future.
Bernanke, Greenspan, and David Walker agree.
We should listen to them.
Dan/David:
Ok. So there is $100 Trillion of assets our there owned by individual americans and corporations.
This figure grows at about 6% a year. According to the rule of 72 that means that these assets should double every 12 years. That means that in 12 years there will be $200 Trillion in assets and in 24 years $400 Trillion in assets.
Does that relate to the problem at all?
Second, Bernanke says that if we do nothing, our children’s standard of living will fall 14% over ours.
That putst them at about the same level as Canada. That is if we do nothing.
What is so horrible about that?
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 10, 2007 07:08 PMDavid,
Guess you have to read between Greenspan’s lines when he says we may face the end of democratic capitalism?Damn, man! What the hell do you think he means by that? A minor setback?
Google search “Greenspan democratic capitalism”. Why is it funny you haven’t heard this? I think it is very sad that you haven’t read this in the media or here at WB where it has been recited several times by myself.
I have been away from the computer for a couple of months, but I had heard Greenspan’s comments on economic disparity. How exactly you get from that to a Great Depression, I’m not sure. I wonder what Greenspan means when he says things like eventually and in the long run? Maybe he is talking about long term consequences, not a looming Depression. It’s funny Greenspan talks about education as a solution, I wasn’t thinking of him in my response.
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 07:24 PMCraig, good questions?
I tried to make the clear implication more than once, that before 2030 and long, long before 2080, economic contraction, unemployment, bankruptcies, homeownership losses, all increase on average year after year as the boomer’s children spend on parents health care, and investors grow more reticent to invest in U.S. treasuries as the national debt hits 12, 14, even 16 trillion dollars in the 2020’s.
This is not an environment in which assets will double on a schedule based on the past productivity and consumer growth patterns. Also, Large percentages of those assets cannot be converted to cash for paying medical debts and supplementing retirement incomes.
You said: “Second, Bernanke says that if we do nothing, our children’s standard of living will fall 14% over ours.”
I missed that. Where does Bernanke say this?
If you are referring to NewRetirement.com’s prediction of 14% of GDP spent on medical care by 2080, clearly, our economy will collapse long before that. The assumptions upon which that prediction was made, were that there would be no recessions or depressions between now and 2080, and that a sustained GDP growth kept the work force employed at the rate of 2000’s employment percentage, which was the baseline year for the projections.
Those assumptions will not be valid going forward, as the 2/3 of the economy supported by consumption constricts and the wide basket of products and services shrinks, in deference to rising medical expenses.
So, the outcome is not par with Canada, but, closer to what Greenspan says may be the collapse of democratic capitalism. Remember, Canada and Western Europe are facing similar demographic dilemmas, affecting the global economy as well in a negative fashion, save those up and coming economies with huge untapped productivity reserves in un- and under-employed populations today, like China, India, and Malaysia.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 07:31 PMalien, do the google search I recommended. It is pointless to respond to you until you are on the same page. You asked for documentation of what I say Greenspan said. I am not going to do your legwork for you. Look it up. Or, don’t, and act as if it was never said, because you never read it.
The “end of democratic capitalism” will not happen without an economic collapse, which should be logically obvious.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 07:37 PMd.a.n.,
While we may not agree, that does not justify turning it into a personal attack and resorting to name calling (as alien from planet zorg did above).
I apologize if I offended you d.a.n. It was not intended as a personal attack. It was levity. A sense of humor often helps keep one from getting overly serious in these debates. I do not think you are old (I have no idea of your age). I don’t know if you are cranky ( I don’t live or work with you). Oatmeal is nutritious and tasty with cinnamon and sugar. I was characterizing your doom and gloom outlook. It IS old, cranky and in need of oatmeal.
Perhaps I should use a smiley symbol more. Perhaps we all need to take a break from the internet.
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 07:52 PMCraig,
Ahhh … but who owns those assets?
Tell it to 90% of Americans who are in debt upto their eyeballs ($20 Trillion of personal debt; $22 Trillion federal Debt).
A tiny 1% of the U.S. population owns 40% of all that wealth (up from 20% of all wealth in 1980).
- Year 1929: 1% of population had 40% of all wealth
- Year 1976: 1% of population had 20% of all wealth
- Year 1983: 1% of population had 30% of all wealth
- Year 2007: 1% of population has 40% of all wealth (see: Year 1929 above)
- 60% of the U.S. population has only 5% of all wealth.
- 40% of the U.S. population has a net worth of only $2,000.
- 20% of the U.S. population has a negative net worth of -$9,000.
Also, how do you know it will result in only a 14% drop in the standard of living is as far as the deterioration will go? That’s a really hard prediction to make. And how can it be 14% across the board? If that includes the upper wealthiest 1% of the U.S. population again, then it’s not very meaningful to 90% of the U.S. population whose standard of living dropped 50% (or more).
An economic meltdown may not be so orderly either.
And what makes you think Congress will do anything soon (or in time)? If we go by history, they will wait until the last minute, and it will be too late (again).
See what the following people have to say about it:
- David Walker (U.S. Comptroller)
- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
- Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
- Kent Conrad, a Democratic senator from North Dakota
- Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation
- Alice Rivlin ; first director of the Congressional Budget Office
- Leon Panetta, former White House budget director and chief of staff to President Clinton
You have to look at the big picture.
However, Craig, I’m encouraged that you are at least seeing a 14% fall in the standard of living if nothing is done (in time). However, how that fall of the standard of living breaks down in the quintiles would be interesting to see. As usual, the lower and middle income groups are going to suffer the majority of that decline in the standard of living. Also, does it account for the destabilizing bubbles along the way? Like the 1999 bubble where people lost trillions; many lost a large portion of their retirement savings? Like Black Monday, 1987? Like the current foreclosure meltdown (which isn’t over yet).
Remember I predicted a recession in late 2006 that would occur in late 2007. You wrote:
Now, it looks a recession could be starting now. Some more jobs are going to be lost by this foreclosure meltdown, and inflation can’t be helped by the FED pumping $38 billion of new money into the banks. But the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the many other factors doesn’t make that a terribly hard prediction to make. And it doesn’t look like we’ll be leaving Iraq until after 2009 (when Bush is finally gone from office … unless someone replaces him that thinks we should stay there (e.g. John McCain, Fred Thompson, etc.)). Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 07:57 PM
I will be still saying, we are average. The economy should perform at near historical norms. Then instead of an optimist I will be called a pesimist.
I did, David.
My comments stand.
You’ve already admitted that you “read between the lines”
You are stating the obvious. A Nuclear War could also spell the end of democratic capitalism, as well as pestilence. He wasn’t channeling Nostra Damas. What exactly was the timeline and thrust in Greenspan’s remarks? That’s the problem in your analysis.
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 08:05 PMalien, if in fact you did look it up, then you reading it should have provided you with Greenspan’s timeline and thrust.
So, did you look it up and read it? Or, do you have a question about the context of the article in which his comments appear?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 08:37 PMDavid,
Google’s top result is a USA article on Greenspan’s comments before the Joint Economic Committee in 1995 or late 1994, about the disparity in wages at the top and bottom of the economic ladder.
If you are referring to something else, you’ll have to be more specific and less Alan Greenspan-like by saying what you mean.
I still don’t see him touting economic disaster anywhere, except in very long trendlines and generalities…IF NOTHING ELSE HAPPENS OR IS DONE.
Having what I think of as a grasp of his outlook, I seriously doubt there is such a quote without liberal doses of “reading between the lines”
Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 09:17 PMalien, just chalk it up to my dissemination of liberal misinformation then. The link is in one or more of previous economy articles, so, I already did my leg and homework. I will leave it to others to do theirs.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2007 09:38 PMalien from planet zorg,
The following applies to credibility.
You write above you don’t know how old I am, yet it was written above (e.g. 49).
You don’t know the timeline and thrust of Greenspan’s and Bernanke’s, yet it is within their statements. And I’d add that the U.S. Comptroller, David Walker, is in agreement.
In a previous thread, you incorrectly assumed I was a 911 Conspiracy demolition theorist. I am not.
And then you challenged and/or questioned my comments on the definitions of momentum (momentum = mass x velocity) and acceleration (a = F/m).
Yet, you seemingly withdrew later those assertions.
That’s not a very good record.
Sorry, but it was almost impossible not to notice.
Note … smiley face —-> : )
alien from planet zorg wrote:Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 10:29 PM
Perhaps I should use a smiley symbol more.
I come to this forum and scan the VOID webpage almost every day because I believe change is necessary. There are two ways change happens: 1) someone gains power within the system who answers to a panel (local or national, doesn’t matter) and to what they feel is right. Then they act on these admirable goals and try to improve the future, mostly not for themselves, but for everyone else. You’ve heard of these people. They are famous. That’s because the system doesn’t like a mover and a shaker. The system doesn’t like change. When one of them succeeds the fate of mankind is changed. 2) Revolution. A rapid change is put into effect that is usually initiated by the defeat or destruction of the system and a strong leader emerges who is popular among the unsatisfied crowds. The costs of this change are almost always higher than type 1 and damages are offset by a new system that inherits the mess the whole process created.
Doomsday articles are not uncommon online. In fact, they are rather noxious and pervasive. The viperous tongues who put them in the media, it is my experience, seek dissent and attention. What suprised me was to find one on Watchblog. David, I understand that you put in lots of time to inform yourself to the best of your ability, but you should know better. To proclaim that it’s already too late and merely spew astounding numbers citing the incompetence of the nation’s leadership is something anyone can do. Such depressing and rabble rousing claims as the end of America do get people’s attention, and their negative attention at that. This thread degenerated into a doomsday dispute like any other. Hmm do we go out theorizing about these bad signs it was coming or these other bad signs. Or even better, to question someone’s ability as a voter. Madison did not trust the populace to control his new nation and shunned Greek democracy. Therefore to criticize the little influence every citizen is given in the future of thier country and how they choose to use this meager tool is disgusting. Education is needed, but not education that speaks of the end.
I believe in never posting without suggesting a better method and asking a question, so here goes. Perhaps this thread would stimulate ideas and innovative efforts in the right direction if the topic had been opened in a more welcoming manner. I am not asking anyone to relinquish their passion for America’s future. Rather I’m asking them to take that energy and direct it towards something constructive. It’s not too late. I would forever respect Watchblog’s leading participants and managers, many of whom shared their thoughts here, to start a new forum with an acknowledgment that there is a problem, and it’ll take new ideas to fix it. In a Socratic form open-ended questions could be made instead of statements. You all know lots of numbers but it takes more than four or five brains to save a country. The next president of the United States is going to be a Democrat or Republican. Let’s start there.
Questions: 1)Who has addressed this issue and HOW?
Don’t just say no one has, find multiple people’s views.
2)What are the current ways of addressing the debt, which seems to be at the core of this problem, and how can they be expanded, implemented, and capitalized?
p.s. Don’t quote the above comments in the thread as answers to my questions please. I have the determination and respect to read all of your opinions, and know what’s already been said.
Posted by: Alastor's Heaven at September 10, 2007 10:37 PMAlastor’s Heaven,
David R. Remer goes farther than simply asking a question such as yours that we have already heard a million times before. David R. Remer recommends action. Simply what he thinks voters will eventually do anyway; sooner than later would be better. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. For you to say he “should know better” disrepects that, and borders on a personal assessment, rather than debating the reasons. If you disagree, then debate with reaons your why it can’t work rather than resorting to personal remarks such as “you should know better”.
Again, David R. Remer is someone who takes action, and has inspired many more people all across the nation; more than you will ever know about. And those people have inspired others, and so on, and so on. Not because they were coerced and manipulated. Because they agreed with a very simple premise. Government is a reflection of the voters. It depends on the voters. You yourself, as many others, stress education. How many people do you know that have done as much or more?
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: I believe in never posting without suggesting a better method and asking a question, so here goes.What method? Reformatting a web-page? It’s going to take much, much more than that to transform America (or a web-site).
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: Perhaps this thread would stimulate ideas and innovative efforts in the right direction if the topic had been opened in a more welcoming manner.How? How is it not welcoming. Just because people disagree does not mean it is not welcoming. David R. Remer does not own WatchBlog. The format is not entirely up to him. Undoubtedly, you may have observed the terribly partisan layout. It does seem to fuel partisan warfare. But, that is simultaneously part of its problem and popularity.
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: I am not asking anyone to relinquish their passion for America’s future. Rather I’m asking them to take that energy and direct it towards something constructive.That’s very nebuluos. What exactly do you have in mind? And can you lend the time and money to make it happen? This site offers debate on many topics from many perspectives. The three column nature appears to fuel partisan warfare, but it also appears to attract a lot of readers and writers.
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: It’s not too late. I would forever respect Watchblog’s leading participants and managers, many of whom shared their thoughts here, to start a new forum with an acknowledgment that there is a problem,Too late? For this blog, or America? Do you expect, based on this one comment, WatchBlog will transform into something else that has not been very well defined? Seriously?
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: It’s not too late. I would forever respect Watchblog’s leading participants and managers, many of whom shared their thoughts here, to start a new forum with an acknowledgment that there is a problem,What problem? With the forum, or with the nation?
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: and it’ll take new ideas to fix it. In a Socratic form open-ended questions could be made instead of statements.Questions, and statements, and answers are all important and valuable. Questions alone are pointless without answers and statements, and somebody willing to research them.
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: You all know lots of numbers but it takes more than four or five brains to save a country.And that is a good thing. That is what we have here. You seem to make it sound like a bad thing. Few are willing to do that sort of homework. Especially knowing it will be challenged. Thus, we have many brains debating many sides of an issue. What you are suggesting appears to already exist.
Alastor’s Heaven wrote: The next president of the United States is going to be a Democrat or Republican. Let’s start there.Maybe. Not necessarily. Though unlikely, it could be an independent. Remember Perot. While he didn’t stand much of a chance of winning, he influenced the outcome and debate.
I’m not at all sure what you are suggesting, but it isn’t likely to be well received when you are telling those that you hope to agree with you that they “should know better”, and completely forget or ignore that they are entitled to their opinion too.
Now, what are the specifics of your “method”? Could you please elaborate in more detail?
Posted by: d.a.n at September 10, 2007 11:42 PMI think there are six reason why voters keep reelecting irresponsible incumbents.
1.They are party faithful and don’t question anything the party says.
2.They either don’t know the incumbents voting record or don’t care about it.
3.They rather stay with the known evil than chance electing a worse evil.
4.They like the pork the incumbent brings to their state.
5.They just don’t like the challenger.
6.The challenger has a proven record of being even more irresponsible than the incumbent.
Of the six only #6 is close to a valid reason to vote for an irresponsible incumbent. And it’s on very shaky ground.
BTW, David and d.a.n, A little off the subject. But I’m in the running again for school board seat I ran for last election. The incumbent had a major stroke and had to resign his position. Let ya know 3 Oct 07 how it comes out.
Posted by: Ron Brown at September 11, 2007 12:08 AMDavid:
Sorry for the long quote. I did this because it is Bernanke (October 2006 speech found on the Fed’s website) and because it is so central to one your basic thesis:
In recent work, economists at the Board of Governors have used a stylized model to get a rough estimate of the magnitudes of the intergenerational tradeoffs that we face.1 Their analysis takes as a starting point a baseline scenario in which U.S. demographics remain (hypothetically) the same in the future as they are today. In this counterfactual scenario, the ratio of workers to the overall population is assumed to remain at its current level over time and per capita consumption grows with productivity. Now in reality, as I have noted, an aging population will reduce labor force participation, so the likely future trajectory of per capita consumption over time lies below that implied by the baseline scenario that assumes away the demographic change. The shape of the actual consumption trajectory depends, however, on the saving behavior of the current generation. If today’s saving rate is low, then the current generation can enjoy consumption close to what it would have been if the aging issue did not exist. However, in this case, the burden on future generations will be relatively great. Alternatively, the current generation could consume less and save more, which would allow the consumption of future generations to be closer to what it would have been in the absence of population aging.How big are these effects? To assess magnitudes, the Board economists first examined the case in which the nation saves at its current rate for the next twenty years, thereby largely insulating the baby-boom generation from the effects of the coming demographic transition. After that, they assumed, consumption falls and saving rates rise, with all future generations experiencing the same percentage reduction in consumption relative to the baseline in which no population aging occurs. Their rough calculations suggest that, in this case, the per capita consumption of future generations would be about 14 percent less than what it would have been in the absence of demographic change.
For comparison, they next considered the case in which the burden of demographic change is shared more equally among current and future generations. They considered a case in which the national saving rate, instead of staying at its current level for the next twenty years, rises immediately. Further, they asked by how much today’s saving rate would have to increase to lead to equal burden-sharing among current and future generations. (“Equal burden-sharing” is interpreted to mean that the current generation and all future generations experience the same percentage reduction in per capita consumption relative to the baseline scenario without population aging.) They found that equal burden-sharing across generations could be achieved by an immediate reduction in per capita consumption on the order of 4 percent (or, since consumption is about two-thirds of output, by an increase in national saving of about 3 percentage points.) This case obviously involves greater sacrifice by the current generation, but the payoff is that all future generations enjoy per capita consumption that is only 4 percent, rather than 14 percent, below what it would have been in the absence of population aging. The large improvement in the estimated living standards of future generations arises because of the extra capital bequeathed to them by virtue of the current generation’s assumed higher rate of saving.
These numbers shouldn’t be taken literally but the basic lesson is surely right—that the decisions that we make over the next few decades will matter greatly for the living standards of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t begin soon to provide for the coming demographic transition, the relative burden on future generations may be significantly greater than it otherwise could have been.2
From this data I looked for a country whose standard of living was about 14% lower than ours. I found Canada. It could be Europe as well. If we do nothing our children could have a standard of living like that of today’s Europeans.
I’m all for “doing something” but even if we do nothing, it could be worse.
Craig
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 11, 2007 12:33 AMHey Ron, Great!
I wish you luck on the School Board race.
BTW, your six reasons are pretty darn accurate.
It is bad for voters when the challenger is worse. Then you are pretty much stuck with the least worse of the worst. Still, I might still consider a challenger just to keep the incumbent from growing more powerful and corrupt.
I’m all for “doing something” but even if we do nothing, it could be worse.Yes, it can always be worse. That’s what worries me. This type of thing may undermine what checks and balances we have at the moment. With the growing disparity and government is essentially FOR-SALE, there is very good reason for concern. I think we will be very lucky if a 14% fall in the standard of living is the worst of it. Again, that 14% is not homogeneous. The lower income and middle income groups could be looking at more that 14% in the decline of their standard of living. Posted by: d.a.n at September 11, 2007 12:40 AM
Craig, it is important to take Bernanke’s words to heart: “These numbers shouldn’t be taken literally but the basic lesson is surely right—that the decisions that we make over the next few decades will matter greatly for the living standards of our children and grandchildren.”
This very hypothetical model DOES NOT incorporate the national debt or its growth and possible attending recessions, calamities, or emergencies which could dramatically increase national debt to GDP, raise interest rates, and cause unemployment, loss of Medicare and SS benefits, and the many other consequences I mention in my article.
In fact, this model appears to assume demographic aging medical and retirement costs will come from private savings alone. His scenario 1 is not even in the realm of possibility, used only for comparison, and his scenario 2 assumes private savings increase right away, which of course is opposite to what is happening in reality, a negative savings rate.
I appreciate your citing the passage, as it eliminates my confusion over the 14% rate which is coincidentally the same number used by the link I provided as percent of GDP in 2080 (all other things being equal) of medical care spending.
Alastor’s, the Socratic method was limited to an examination of assumptions and definitional terms of language in conjunction with the exercise of logic. When discussing economics, there is a limit to what one can accomplish with the Socratic method. At some point, real numbers and data have to enter into the debate and evidence the merits and pitfalls of inaction and various actions.
Reality trumps the Socratic Dialectic outcomes of what should have been, everytime. There is a reason Aristotle was so incredibly wrong about the universe about him, he lacked real world measurement and data in those areas in which he was so very wrong. This does not detract from his genius for his time, or the volume of ideas and discovery which were very accurate. But, Aristotle’s knowledge and inquiry stood on the shoulders of only several centuries of empirical thought and investigation and inquiry.
And economics today has the benefit of several more centuries of inquiry, empirical thought and investigation, as well as a couple decades of that miraculous tool called computers.
It would be a marvel however, if we could turn on the Tele and watch a debate over economics between Aristotle and Adam Smith, moderated by Alan Greenspan. Now that would be a show worth TIVO or a DVR for posterity. :-)
My article assumed our political - economic system would continue until it couldn’t. A debate over economic systems is a worthy debate, but, not the subject of this article I wrote. This article pays somber homage to the passing of the 9 Trillion dollar (and growing) national debt mark in the face of immense shortfalls in retirement savings to meet the needs of some 70 million plus retiring and aging Americans.
Since I published this article less than 19 hours ago, about 3/4 of a million dollars have been added to the debt for every minute that has passed. 19 hours or, 1,140 minutes have passed, raising the national debt by about 855 Million Dollars since this article was published. I think this warrants a discussion and projection of our future using real numbers, don’t you? Or, do you think I am just being alarmist without a cause?
Has kind of a ring to it, Alarmist without a cause! Too bad there is more than ample cause for alarm, and no answers forthcoming from our government’s political hacks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2007 04:13 AMDavid,
To go WAYYYYYYYY back to the beginning of the thread, all I was trying to say (badly, mind you. Sleep dep and crying babies do not make for good blogging) was that it seemed like you were putting the cart before the horse. You can vote all the incumbents out of office you like, but until the American public realizes just how bad our economic situation is, no elected official, incumbent or freshman, will do anything about it because to do so would be political suicide.
Sadly, most people prefer to keep their heads in the sand. That is why social and moral issues are always at the top of everyone’s list why voters vote as they do. It’s far simpler and more satisfying to vote based on emotional ideas such as abortion, war, or homosexuality than it is to vote on financial issues, and facing up to this country’s economic irresponsibility would mean having to face up to their own. As long as the credit card companies keep raising their limits, the American consumer will continue to spend spend spend. Big screen TVs, $600 video games systems and $500 phones do a great job of keeping people busy so they don’t really think about the consequences of their actions, or inactions for that matter.
Craig,
If the economy of the US contracted by 14%, it would do far worse things than simply reduce our comfort level to that of Canadians. As goes our economy, so goes the world, and if that happened to the US it would have a ripple effect that would make the Great Depression look like a bad mood. China, since it carries so much of our debt and trades so much with us, would get sucked down the rabbit hole right behind, and with that, so would S. Korea and Japan. Ditto India. And the sheer gravitational force of such an occurance would knock the EU for a loop as well, since a great many countries in it, especially in Eastern Europe, keep a lot of liquidity in US dollars. 14% would not be Canada, 14% would be a nightmare.
This is not a problem we can just wish away, ladies and gentlemen. Until the American Consumers change their habits, this spiral will continue. We are addicted to debt spending, and, like any good addict wishing to sober up, we first need to admit there is a problem. Until that happens, it will only get worse.
L
Posted by: leatherankh at September 11, 2007 09:01 AM womanmarine
Blaming the voters does little to rectify the fact that there were no alternatives to vote for, in either party. What is a voter to do?
last time i checked there where more than two parties that could be elected into office. the failure of us the voters to remove them from our government has led to this debacle. stop voting for either of the two evil parties.
the only way we as voters can definitivly stop pandering to multi-billion dollar coorperations and millionaire & billionaire elite intrests is to stop voting them into ploitical offices.
such politicians will constantly and consistantly pass legislation that predominantly supports their peersnot their majority middle income and poor constituants.
a voter revolution must take place to remove corrupt influence in state and federal ploitics. Is a government of the wealthy truely of the people by the people or for the people????
we live in a country where the elite wealthy determine policies for their contemporaries not for the majority of americans. A very large percentage of our elected officials make much much more personal income than their salaries as representatives provide. wouldnt it be nice if the pay our government officials recieved was actually more than their “other” income, an actual financial incentive to do their job??
Stop electing officials that dont need the income then politics will cease to be a hobby of the elite and will become a true job that the politicians will do because their livlihood depends on it.
Placing the blame of our current crisis in government is simplistic and honestly stupid. It is like blaming a parent for the poor decisions of their adult children since after all we put them on tis planet. the blame falls squarely on the politicians. We give them power and trust and they constantly betray that confidence. it is time to put a stop to this and remove the elite infesting our government.
i love my country with my whole heart, i fear and distrust my government.
the only way we as voters can definitivly stop pandering to multi-billion dollar coorperations and millionaire & billionaire elite intrests is to stop voting them into ploitical offices.
such politicians will constantly and consistantly pass legislation that predominantly supports their peersnot their majority middle income and poor constituants.
a voter revolution must take place to remove corrupt influence in state and federal ploitics. Is a government of the wealthy truely of the people by the people or for the people????
we live in a country where the elite wealthy determine policies for their contemporaries not for the majority of americans. A very large percentage of our elected officials make much much more personal income than their salaries as representatives provide. wouldnt it be nice if the pay our government officials recieved was actually more than their “other” income, an actual financial incentive to do their job??
Stop electing officials that dont need the income then politics will cease to be a hobby of the elite and will become a true job that the politicians will do because their livlihood depends on it.
Placing the blame of our current crisis in government on the voters is simplistic and honestly stupid. It is like blaming a parent for the poor decisions of their adult children since after all we put them on tis planet. the blame falls squarely on the politicians. We give them power and trust and they constantly betray that confidence. it is time to put a stop to this and remove the elite infesting our government.
i love my country with my whole heart, i fear and distrust my government.
If the economy of the US contracted by 14%, it would do far worse things than simply reduce our comfort level to that of Canadians. As goes our economy, so goes the world, and if that happened to the US it would have a ripple effect that would make the Great Depression look like a bad mood.Possibly. An economic melt-down is not all that far fetched.
It could happen like T H I S.
Yet, those that believe so are often labeled “alarmist”, “chicken little”, “dooms-dayer”, “pessimist”, etc. It does not seem to matter that two FED Chairmen and the U.S. Comptroller are making dire warnings too (people that know quite a lot about economics).
I really hope that the growing number of worsening economic FACTORs don’t lead to economic instability, but it is valid reason for concern. Especially when Do-Nothing Congress continues to let the most serious problems to grow in number and severity.
John wrote: the only way we as voters can definitivly stop pandering to multi-billion dollar coorperations and millionaire & billionaire elite intrests is to stop voting them into ploitical offices.John, I agree. Rewarding corruption simply begets more of it. It doesn’t make a bit of sense does it? But there is is. Why?
Did you know that 83% of all federal campaign donations come from only 0.1% of the 302 million people in the U.S. ?
That is one tenth of one percent.
That is essentially 300,000 people donating $6667 per person (on average).
The remaining 99.9% of the U.S. population only donates $2 per person (on average).
So, how can the remaining 99.9% of the U.S. population compete with that?
Few (if any) politicians will address campaign finance reform.
Most (if not all) are FOR-SALE.
But most voters repeatedly reward them with 90% to 95% re-election rates.
How is it Congress has a dismal 18% approval ratin