Speculation requested

[Seraphim]

I wonder more about what would happen if we collected all the debts owd us by other countries

[Lizking]

Pongo, thanks for findng that link, but it does not source the number, it justs says that it is.

[Nash]

Source the source of the source of the source of the source then maybe, perhaps, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous obviousitude, you can continue...

Google is great. Google sucks.

[J_A_B]

"Source the source of the source of the source of the source then maybe, perhaps, despite the slings and arrows of outrageous obviousitude, you can continue... "

Or by opposing, end them?


J_A_B

[Pongo]

Originally posted by J_A_B
Pongo--

The figure you quote is based on projections and predictions.  Hence it may turn out to be accurate....or it may not.  It might even prove low.  

It reminds me a lot of the Clinton budget surplus, which was similaly based on predictions; we all saw what happened to that when their economic predictions turned out wrong.

I try to take any such projections with a grain of salt--they're useful, but merely a tool.


The national debt is a point of interest to me because something like 2/3 of our current budget deficit can be attributed to interest we pay on the debt (effectively we sevice the debt by borrowing more).  As long as the debt keeps climbing, that isn't going to get any lower.




J_A_B

So its "projected" that in 2003 the administration moved 2.4 trillion dollars that have been acumulated over decades of saving by the american public for thier retirement to cover revenue short falls he created.
Normally the word projected isnt used to describe something that happend in the past.

[Nash]

(J_A_B: nice)

[Lizking]

Come on, children, every data point has a primary source.  Without this minimum requirement, internet discourse is pointless.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Lizking
Pongo, thanks for findng that link, but it does not source the number, it justs says that it is.

Well.
It must be a lie right? Who would take 2.4 trillion dollars out of social secuity right befor the Baby boomers start getting old enought to draw from it..

No rational person would give a tax break to the very wealthy(himself-all his friends- all his cabinet) and take 2.4 trillion dollars out of the SS fund when we all know that it is in fact underfunded for the load that will hit it soon...dont you agree?

[Sandman]

Ahem... there is something inherently corrupt about spending $200 million to campaign for a $300K/yr job.

[Lizking]

So far, all I agree with is that you are making suppositions based upon a number pulled out of your ass.

[J_A_B]

Pongo--

If I read your article right, the Administration is "paying" for projected shortfalls by using projected SS funds.  Neither has actually happened yet.  The projection covers the decade from 2003 to 2013.  Well, that would mean 1 year of it has supposedly happened.  Is such information handy?


Cut from the posted article--


"For instance, in 2003 the G. W. Bush administration announced a projected $1.4 trillion deficit over the next 10 years "

"For instance, in the 2003 projection, the U.S. Department of the Treasury used a $2.4 trillion Social Security surplus to offset its cash shortfall. This means that in 2013, "the government will owe Social Security about $4 trillion"


Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that the habit of using SS money to cover general expenses is monumentally stupid.  However, it isn't a case of taking that money out all at once.  The Social Security surplus the government "used" in the above quote isn't money SS currently has, but rather the excess money it would otherwise accumulate over the next decade.   And like any predictions, it isn't set in stone and is subject to change.

Although it isn't a case of taking a lump sum out of the SS fund (a fund which is nowhere close to being $2.4 trillion, which is why I originally asked for your source), it still shows just how dedicated they really are to "fixing" Social Security.  But then, sadly, politicans on both sides of the fence have a long and sad tradition of using SS money to pay for normal budget expenses.


J_A_B

[Pongo]

ah..
that distinction was beyond me. Thanks for the clerification.

Liz.
Its ok. I know its upsetting to find out what your hero is up to with your daddys retirement funds.

[Bodhi]

Lizking, yes google is good, as is every bit of BS posted, because it links to it... especially if the ley words hit.  

So piss off, and provide me hard data that what I said is wrong.

[Lizking]

Just to hit the high points, Bodhi, Lendlease in total was 50 billion, and has all been repaid, even by the Soviets.

[Dinger]

It's happened in the past, repeatedly. Governments get deep into debt, then suddenly decide to just cancel them, or even better, arrest their creditors and seize their assets.  The suppression of the Templars in 1309 (or was it 1308)? Done by Philip IV "The Fair", King of France; the Master of the Temple was routinely his treasurer, and he was short on cash.  The expulsion of the Jews from France and England the century before? The kings "suddenly got religious", annulled their debts, seized the assets of the Jewish communities (including loans to others in the kingdom), and got some cash. The collapse of the Banks of Florence in the 1340s? The king of England defaulted.
Of course, now we have demoratically elected leaders who only serve for a short time before returning to the private sphere. So look for them to rack up even bigger debts to businesses and try to ride that train all the way to the station. Just hope the other guy's in power when it crashes.

(and btw, foreign investment is artificially propping up the US economy to make foreign goods more affordable).