Debt (economic, social, generational, etc.)

[Clarity]

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.

This hidden debt is the amount taxpayers would have to pay immediately to cover government's financial obligations. Like a mortgage, it will cost more to repay the debt over time. Every U.S. household would have to pay about $31,000 a year to do so in 75 years.

From: USATODAY.com

No surprises here. Not really a partisan issue either, no one wants to end up where we're going. No one can really believe that we could stand pat as things are right now, and carry on forever.

A few years ago, a few economists were bold enough to claim the US was past the point of recovery in terms of economic sustainability. I imagine there are more of those voices today, but one does have to wonder where the proverbial line in the sand is.

Without regard to the value of the war in Iraq, the reasons for going there, the reasons for staying -- the truth is that we've broken the back of the military at least in the short term (per Collin Powell and basically any general grade officer, active or retired, who has opened their mouths), and in the process, dumped a staggering amount of money into it, to accomplish a dictatorial overthrow that could have been accomplished by a SEAL team with the same resulting upheaval, instability, and global outrage. I'm not being totally serious there, and I don't want to get bogged down with arguments about why it's important we do or don't stay in Iraq, because it's not relevant to the point. But we're there at the expense of here. Any doubt about that was erased by Katrina, tornadoes, the health care crisis, our current inability to exert ourselves militarily anywhere else in the world.

I don't care about Republicans shitting on Democrats over this, or Dems shitting on Reps, or Reps shitting on Reps, or Dems shitting on Dems. That's all a pointless exercise in futility.

We reach a point where terms like oligarchy and crony capitalism are tossed around without much concern, when the stench of deep corruption in and between major corporations and different levels of government isn't so much considered a stench as it is just the odor we've acclimated to.

What to do?

Kill all social programs? That would be great if the poor weren't getting poorer and could provide for themselves. Expand social programs? How does someone look at their checkbook, see red, and think, "I should build an addition to my house?" Become more isolationist? Less so?

Social Darwinism failed as an experiment in this country a long time ago, and yet we've gravitated back to that, and in some areas taken it to new extremes. Without getting into Bush as a president, I think all sides would agree that he did not end up being the fiscal conservative that his supporters and party were promised, or perhaps that they just hoped.

Meanwhile, as our very foundation crumbles beneath us, we fight a civil war across party, religious, and ideological lines, that draws our attention and energy away from the real problems. I won't parrot Al Gore here, but it's hard to argue his point that 'we' care more about Lindsay Lohan, Tom Cruise, and Kevin Federline than the issues that define our quality of life and country.

None of this is really about belief or perspective. Would anyone claim that we're not in a state of crisis on a number of levels? If so, please do explain.

I'm not going to ask something ridiculous like "how does all of this get fixed?" I mean, if you can answer that, for Pete's sake, please run in 2008 -- for anything. My question is whether or not it can be. Can the normal ebb and flow of prosperity/recession, conservatism/liberalism, etc. produce enough of a correction that we maintain a sustainable baseline, or is that which ails us so pervasive at this point that those economic experts who predict our demise right?

Can minor/normal changes and adjustments do it? Meaning, can we get by without rethinking our basic foundations for belief and ideology?

Our armed forces are exhausted, and broken to the point where it will take many years to recover. Meanwhile, China is modernizing and spending at a rate that's been disconcerting for a few years.

We're in a ridiculous amount of debt at a time where our poor are as isolated from the basics that we assume as American qualities of life. Meanwhile, China's economy is exploding, and studies/polls circulate trying to get a grip on what the global consequences might be if theirs surpasses our own.

We have two notions of justice, ethics, and duty in this country. One for the real people who face rules related to each. One for the corporations, who are essentially people without duty in the eyes of the law, and don't face the same rules. The latter, with the money and position, to play a much greater role in the shaping of law and government than the former. More than that, the shaping of public perception, which rules all. Perspective is more 'real' than reality these days. How the public is approached, who has the best PR, often deciding the very shape and importance of the issues we're allowed to face at any given time.

This post isn't trying to lead towards a discussion about the death of democracy, just the sustainability of our current version of it. I really don't think it's a party issue at its core, even if it is on its face. I won't invoke the imagery of Nero fiddling as Rome burns, but one could for the sake of humor, if there's any to be found. I'm not Chicken Little, or an alarmist. On the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that what we're seeing right now is all part of a very organic process, what I don't know is what that translates into in our generation, in our children's generation, theirs, etc.

Would love to see people unload their individual thoughts on this, if they try to avoid canned talking points and other products of PR campaigns. If the best athletes always strive to be better, then the 'best' country should too. If we're the best, or even if we're not, how to we become better?

 

[Beenthere77]

IMO, you can go to just about any time in history and make a similar argument. There was that article floating around about our youth of today being so terrible and how we were in so much trouble with them being our future and I think it was written by Pluto. You really think Rockefeller, Carnegie and the rest of them big boys didn't influence our government for their personal interests more than corporations do now?

As for our civil war across party, religious, and ideological lines, again people from the beginning of time have used these methods to control the masses. The only time it doesn't happen is when the leaders can come up with an enemy that everybody can unite to hate.

IMO, the internet and its ability to spread unfiltered information is a big step to shining a light on a lot of what's wrong in the world. IMO, we need to fight every attempt to censor it.

 

[Clarity]

What you're saying then, if I understand you correctly, is that you don't see insolvency in our future, and that all of it is the product of a normal ebb and flow, instead of a systemic degradation approaching the point of failure.

Fair enough, what do you expect to see in terms of an organic correction if this is all part of the natural order? I'm not saying it's not. Indeed, I rounded out my original post by indicating I believed this all to be something along those lines.

The parallel to similar periods in the past is tenuous at best, for a lot of reasons, and I say that as someone who both loves and values history. Some of the reasons are global, some domestic. While the concerns are the same, the circumstances are quite different. History is always a guide, and never an answer.

It's a bit like a hypochondriac saying "I'm probably going to die today," and those around that person getting fed up with the melodrama and retorting with "you said that yesterday, and you didn't, so shut up." The truth is that hypochondriac's concerns will be realized at some point. Certainly no benefit is truly served by him or her focusing on that truth every single day until it is, but the admonishment that it won't be today just because it wasn't yesterday is hollow at best. A better purpose is served by helping them understand how there are better and even more preventative ways to help delay the inevitable, and increase the quality of life they have.

So while I see little use in flailing our arms about, and grousing about our national state of affairs, I also see the relevance to considering the reasons for it, and the consequences of it. History is absolutely relevant in that in gives us a point of reference that allows us to help interpret and understand what we see, but it by no means lessens the significance or portent of what we find, or that of what we might miss entirely.

I'm also not sure we can point to a period that represents the same meeting of significant conditions, not that it would change my point much if we could. Certainly we've had periods where big business threatened to become government, rather than just influence it. We've had periods where the military was taxed to the point of breaking, although I would suggest this is the first time we've gone past that. We've had the divisive politics all along, but never a period where religious fundamentalism attacks the core tenets of our design from both inside (and that's actually not pointing a finger at the current administration at all) and outside of the system. We've had a huge chasm between the haves and the have-nots before, and the result last time was one of the biggest over-corrections in history. When has there been a time when all of this has converged like it has so neatly this time?

Like I said though, even that's sort of off the track of my point though. Certainly some of these questions are timeless, but that doesn't mean they may not be timely here and now.

Where I intended to bring this, was to a question of patch vs. rebuild.

Let's use BP as an example. I put it up with a copy of vBulletin 1.something ~5+ years ago. In that time, we've added features, users, forums. Adjusted based on the needs of our growth. Patched, upgraded, added, and removed. We will continue to do so, adapting as we go, learning from various efforts and experiments.

At some point, we're better off taking everything we've learned, and applying that knowledge to the construction of a new foundation. We will be better served at that point (and who knows when that is), rethinking it from the ground up, rather than trying to keep twisting what's there into what it needs to be as time moves on.

At what point, does America as an institution need that? Several of the founders considered 20 years an appropriate length of time before another convention should form to consider changes to our groundwork. Or at least to that of our states. We've gone on quite a bit longer than that, and with each patch and adjustment, each one to follow becomes a little less clear and well defined.

I'm not saying it's time for a new constitutional convention. But that time may come, and how will we recognize it for what it is? If the time doesn't come, then it may be that change came to 'us', rather than us going to it.

We, as a people, absolutely recognize that many of the core beliefs that were taken for granted as absolutes during the creation of our society turned out to be neither absolute, nor relevant to the type of society we wanted to construct. The nature of man, the meaning of self, the basis for property, rights, duties, even the value of life. At what point do we say, "okay, they did an outstanding job last time, and we've learned an extraordinary amount since, so let's take a crack at America v2.0?"

Assuming things will be forever as they are now is comfortable. As a species, we love comfort and security. Where things can get interesting, is stepping outside that comfort, and exploring the philosophical and practical side of what could be before 'us', where the 'us' I keep referencing is one that has little tie to you and me personally, or the time in which we live.

 

[Taosman]

We are a lazy people that waits on our government to lead us on issues like energy and health care.

If we could just make energy independence a national priority, not just give it lip service, it would change the whole dynamic of how we deal with people, globally.
Other countries have made energy independence a national priority.

Every American should have affordable health care. We are last among the elite nations with value for dollar health care. Health care is my biggest expense.

We need to teach people how to save and not live on debt. We need to make it a national priority, also.

Our government must show us the way. That is the only way we will change for the better.

 

[Clarity]

Can that be accomplished, practically, within the current structure?

My position is not that it can't be. Just wondering if you believe it to be possible, if those are the directions you feel we have to take in order to improve.

I don't approach this issue from a personal perspective, rather, I'm genuinely interested in what it is people have to say about all of this. What they think.

A simple exercise. :) Good points though.

 

[Taosman]

Look at other countries.

Other countries are working towards energy independence. It's a national security issue.

Other countries have better health care for the dollar. And have affordable health care.

Other countries have learned how to save.

Are we going to say we aren't capable of the things that other countries like Germany, Sweden, England, Japan, can accomplish?

But, we are sheeple, and must be led.

 

[Clarity]

How does all of that balance against the current state of economic debt?

 

[Taosman]

What are our(the US) priorities?
We have lost our way on what is really important......people.
Our most valuable asset is our people and our decisions must be based on a people first philosophy. Not big business.
What is the best thing for the American people?
Is it energy independence?
Is it affordable health care?
Is it financial security?
Just affordable health care would relieve a lot of stress and anxiety.
That should be obvious to all.

 

[buckeyegrad]

We need to teach people how to save and not live on debt. We need to make it a national priority, also.

Our government must show us the way. That is the only way we will change for the better.

So the government is going to teach us to save and not live on debt.......yeah, get back to me when that happens, of wait, I'll be dead.

 

[Clarity]

So the government is going to teach us to save and not live on debt.......yeah, get back to me when that happens, of wait, I'll be dead.

Right, which brings us back to some of the basic "truths" upon which the entire foundation of our society was laid. We're built on consumption, not conservation, although certainly both are present in most phases of our culture.

So what's practical?

And, either way, when is it time to people to really start talking about "America v2.0"?

 

[Taosman]

I think it all gets back to us expecting our government to tell us what is right. What we should be doing.
We are, I believe, sheeple. Needing to be led.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

This will not help either.

U.S. men earn less than their fathers
Annual income dropped 12.5 percent between 1974 and 2004, data review shows
Saturday, May 26, 2007 3:25 AM





WASHINGTON (AP) -- The part of the American dream that says a man's children will be better off than he was, has become a dream, not reality, according to an analysis of Census data released yesterday.
A generation ago, American men in their 30s had median annual incomes of about $40,000 compared with men of the same age who now make about $35,000 a year, adjusted for inflation.

 

[Clarity]

Our most valuable asset is our people and our decisions must be based on a people first philosophy.

That's not what we're built upon though, even if it was a central consideration while creating the country, and defining its rules. If one realizes along the way that they'd have been better served starting from a different point of origin, can they change that after the fact? Or is that a flawed analogy in the sense that it's more like lifting an existing house to replace the foundation?

So much goes back to the nature of man, as defined by white Christian men (brilliant men in many cases, but of a largely homogenous perspective not necessarily representative of whole they were defining), and all that early philosophical debate that we all read back in the early years of college. If one allows that there are reasonable foundations, for example, for some areas of the 'major' areas of critical legal study, and that these deep flaws are the basis from which all else was built -- how much can we change what's already about us?

Again, and I'll keep on placing the qualifiers and caveats; not saying we can't, just asking how we can.

 

[Taosman]

When I married in 1974, I had $400 in my pocket.(wedding present from my parents) I started with nothing.
I won't tell you what my net worth is now, but it came from working hard, saving and learning how to invest.
I learned my work ethic from my parents.
I learned how to save and invest because I was concerned about true happiness, not if I had a new car or 42 inch plasma.
I found out that buying things only gave temporary happiness.
I asked myself the question;

"What would really make me happy?"

We as a society need to ask our selves that question.

 

[fourteenandoh]

And, either way, when is it time to people to really start talking about "America v2.0"?

When China, Japan and all the others stop buying US Treasuries (aka loaning us money). Unfortunately, that is what it will take for the gov't to wake up and change their ways.

I read over the weekend that China has over 1.2 trillion in reserves, (the largest in the world) most of which they just park in US Treasuries. The time will come that it is no longer financially adventageous for them to invest that money solely in US debt. When that happens the interest rates we pay on our debt will rise dramatically (because there will be less demand for US debt, rates will have to rise to encourage more demand) forcing the US govt to figure out a way to borrow less. In effect they will be forced to reign in their spending. Free market at work.