Generations and Solutions

Posted by Zero 10 years, 11 months ago to Politics
98 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Paul Krugman and his minions aside, most of us know that the massive federal debt (currently $17.5 TRILLION) is nothing short of inter-generational theft.
So often we complain that our worthless lawmakers are "stealing from our grandchildren."

But is that really true?

Of course, no-one (N O - O N E, nobody AT ALL) is calling for a balanced budget but let's just pretend for a minute.
Let's pretend we could balance the budget tomorrow. Let us pretend we could actually have a budget surplus in this twisted day and age.
And if we're dreaming we might as well dream BIG - let's imagine we could recreate the largest US Federal Budget Surplus in HISTORY ($236 Billion in the year 2000.) and do it every year, year-in year-out, for as long as it takes to pay off that huge debt.

How long would it take Paul Krugman's progeny pay off his Ponzi scheme?

Well, PK is 61 years old. Leaving his real kids out of it, let's just assume his offspring follows the oft-stated average of 20 years per generation. (That's about how long it takes for one baby to grow up and have another.)

OK, Paul's child is 41 and already paying, so is his grandchild at 21. His great-grandchild is only one year old but she'll get her turn when she starts working 15 years later (I started at 16, so have/will many others. Maybe not HER, but....)

Twenty years later (35 years from now), Krugman's great-great-grandchild will pick up the burden - as will, twenty years after that, his great-great-great grandson. In fact, his great-great-great-great-grandchild will dodge the bullet by only a year or so.


But this is a dream world of impossible expectations. What if we made it just a little more realistic - just the tiniest bit.
Assume every other condition remains the same but we can only manage the SECOND highest budget surplus in history - $127.3 billion in 2001.

If we still balance the budget tomorrow and keep it that way - and we pay down over a hundred billion a year, it'll take only... 137 years!

Paul Krugman's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild will write the last check to pay off the legacy of the "worst" generation.

Ten generations (including ourselves) - six of which as yet unborn - to pay off our folly.

And of course this is still living in a fantasy.


The obvious fact is that PK and his ilk have no intention of ever paying off this debt.

And some day, when the financial chicanery falls through,
when the artificially deflated interest on our Treasuries begin to rise from the lowest rates in history,
when the interest payment on all that debt doubles, triples, quadruples...! - the sh!t WILL hit the fan.

And then the pundits will say the obvious solution is to "forgive" this "crippling" debt,
and on that day untold trillions of dollars of invested wealth will disappear.

And our nation will fail.

Make no mistake we are talking financial collapse. Not a recession, not a depression, but the complete collapse of untenable economic "system".

And REAL bad things ALWAYS arise from such times.

We'll still be here. We'll still be Americans. But our Constitution will be "proven" "unworkable" and abandoned. And a strong-man WILL take over - they always do when the world goes to hell.


However, unlike the suppositions I started with, there is no fantasy here. This WILL happen. And it won't take generations.


But, there is an answer. It's not the answer to every problem we face, but it will buy us the time to work on all the rest.

A BALANCED BUDGET AMMENDMENT.

Nothing more - nothing less.

It can be done. It's just a constitutional amendment. We do them all the time (well, figuratively speaking). We just have to change some minds. Well, pretty much everybody's mind really, but still.

What could be more important.
Really.

-----------------
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing." Thomas Jefferson




---- (SHOW YOUR WORK) ----
($17,514,000,000 / $236,000,000 per year = 74.2 years)
($17,514,000,000 / $127,300,000 per year = 137.58 years)

now he pays
now child pays,
now grandchild pays,
15 years later great-grandchild begins to pay,
35 years later great-great-grandchild
55 years later great-great-great-grandchild
75 years later great-great-great-great-grandchild
95 years later great-great-great-great-great-grandchild
115 years later great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild
135 years later great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild
----------------------------------------------


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You have me there.
    The mouthpieces - the leaders with the megaphones - are simple thieves lying to themselves.
    John Q. Public is easily mislead.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 11 months ago
    “I place economy among the first and most important of virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared.” “To preserve our independence we must not let our leaders load us with perpetual debt. ….If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of caring for them, we will be wise.”
    — Thomas Jefferson
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    that's the "look at this shiny thing over here!" logic
    run amok, right? -- must be an Alinsky tactic! -- j
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think many of them know this type of social speak to be true. They have integrated the illogical conflicting social preachings from many public sources, as what really exists for everyone. Kind of like one person learns to know the one true God is Jehovah and another person learns to know the one true God is Allah.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Isn't this a violation of the 13th Amendment? It reads in part "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Aren't our children and the unborn being subject to "involuntary slavery" to repay debt they didn't agree to? They've committed no crime..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not that I doubt what you've said - it's just I think you've oversimplified who we owe that money too.

    The central banks are not the perpetrators of this crime - they are the facilitators. The money was spent on politician's agendas. It was borrowed from nations, corporations, and just about every Tom, Dick and Harry in America.

    T-bills are the foundation of every diversified holding. Indeed, they are the foundation of the world's economy.
    To invalidate them - to say they are worth nothing - would be an economic crime beyond precedent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you give them too much credit. They're simple thieves, lying to themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm with you, but I'm quite certain we'd be looking at the end of America as we know it.

    You should prepare for the worst, of course, but if it's not too late to save it....
    (Yeah, that one big IF!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Their answer is based on social justice and social need and seeming breaks the rules of physics and rationality. You would need to ask someone who is an expert in the field of social believes to explain it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Group think isn't possible without individual thought. As "mere" individuals it's our choice to try and mold group think towards what we think is morally right. Which begs my original question: How can you morally justify forcing a debt on some one who didn't consent to it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "arrest the people who loaned us the money? Just keep it and throw them in jail?"

    Not sure China would like that.

    It would be easier to stop the pensions of the poticians who were part of the scheme, and that would be nearly impossible.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The social mind dictated it's is for the greater good.
    How are we as mere individuals to argue with this kind of group-think logic?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jhthurman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, it's like this. Since 1913, the Federal Reserve (and its international counterparts) have been systematically transferring the nation's wealth into the pockets of the "banksters" who have created a fiat currency based on debt...to them. The politicians who went along with this were as criminal as the banks, but that's another whole story.

    Since 1913, our currency has lost 97% of its purchasing power (due to designed-in inflation) and that same currency is an instrument of debt (hence "Federal Reserve Note) that the country has obligated itself to pay for the privilege of using the dollars the Fed creates out of thin air.

    It can be argued that the Fed is, in fact, running a huge Ponzi scheme and we're paying for it through our system of debt-based currency. So, since this whole thing is nothing but a scam, why not just put a halt to it, invalidate the criminal debt, and put the criminals in jail? Do some basic research if you doubt anything I've said here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who has the authority to impose a social contact on an individual without their consent? And where did they get this authority?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, if one has moved a significant portion of one's holdings into things that hold value in inflationary periods, then one might just be very happy to have it occur ;-}
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Uhhm, arrest the people who loaned us the money? Just keep it and throw them in jail?

    I'm not sure I follow.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.
    I wasn't saying growing *instead* of paying off. I was saying growing so we *can* pay off.

    I agree with the need for a balanced budget amendment.

    Who was it that advocated cutting all spending of all departments by one penny for every dollar?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jhthurman 10 years, 11 months ago
    While it only makes sense to demand and require a balanced budget from government, there is, perhaps, another solution to the $17 T debt.

    Who, exactly, is the debt owed to? Well, a huge portion of it is owed to the so-called "central banks" that were instrumental in getting us into this quagmire of debt in the first place. What if we simply declared that debt null and void? Yep, we just invalidate the debt these banks have put us into, and move on. Oh, and yes, we arrest these thieves and put them in jail for their crimes!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I encountered an interesting comment this morning describing Obama as 'a grocery clerk! A fraud and a salesman used to sell us something on TV.'
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I promise I'll follow the link in a bit - but I gotta disagree on the balanced budget thing.

    Politicians ARE sensitive to public opinion, and people don't like to have their taxes raised all the time. That's why there are so many means of hidden taxation.

    Public resistance is inevitable.

    A Balanced Budget Amendment would be ours for the writing. Make it say what it needs to say.

    But, as I said in the post, the BBA would not be the answer to all problems - it just buys us the time to deal with the rest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oops, good catch Rob.
    Caught me napping on that one.

    Ultimately doesn't change much though, for the reasons stated above.

    We should not be hoping for rampant inflation to make a mountain of debt more manageable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 10 years, 11 months ago
    A Balanced budget is useless and dangerous on it's own. All it will do is give politicians an excuse to raise taxes to "Balance the Budget". They won't stop spending.

    You need a series of amendments to correct the problems we face.
    see: http://www.TheSocietyProject.org
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo