U.S. hits debt ceilng.

["User"]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/index.htm?hpt=T1

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/21/the-total-us-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-now-worse-than-in-the-great-depression/ (older article)

They better get their shit in gear by August 2nd otherwise don't be surprised to see the U.S. lose it's stellar AAA credit rating. How they maintain that credit rating when in steep amounts of debt and are constantly see as a "safe haven" baffles me at times...there are lots of other western countries out there (like Canada) that have their debt a lot more under control - why aren't these countries considered "safe"?

[LoneWolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI&feature=channel_video_title

[Fluxy]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/16/news/economy/debt_ceiling_deadline/index.htm?hpt=T1

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/07/21/the-total-us-debt-to-gdp-ratio-is-now-worse-than-in-the-great-depression/ (older article)

They better get their shit in gear by August 2nd otherwise don't be surprised to see the U.S. lose it's stellar AAA credit rating. How they maintain that credit rating when in steep amounts of debt and are constantly see as a "safe haven" baffles me at times...there are lots of other western countries out there (like Canada) that have their debt a lot more under control - why aren't these countries considered "safe"?

This is definitely not a question we can answer, as we can not see all the money our government does with their tax money, Lol. All we, over here in the US, can do is hope Obama's little plan he gave for over like, 12 years I think, works out really. *Shrug*

So... Is this a honest how did America screw up, cause that is rather obvious, or is this just a "Look how bad the USA is doing" thing? Lol. I really don't see what your trying to discuss here that isn't simply to point out the obvious at where our country failed. XD

[GameMasterGuy]

I think it's considered safe because of Wall Street. If not, I have no clue.

[Drasiana]

there are lots of other western countries out there (like Canada) that have their debt a lot more under control - why aren't these countries considered "safe"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "safe", but as far as I know our banking system, taxation and general financial plans are structured completely differently than in the states. As much as Harper spending a gazillion dollars on fighter jets that I think weren't quite as important as, like, healthcare, we didn't get hit nearly as badly by the recession. I'd have to look into the specifics about this to gather a more educated response, however. Things with numbers in them generally aren't my strong point.

That being said, something's going to have to be done a lot differently to pull the States out of debt. I don't know if there'll be success in that any time soon, however.

[Thu'um]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI&feature=channel_video_title

I love you

["User"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI&feature=channel_video_title

I love that song. :0

This is definitely not a question we can answer, as we can not see all the money our government does with their tax money, Lol. All we, over here in the US, can do is hope Obama's little plan he gave for over like, 12 years I think, works out really. *Shrug*

So... Is this a honest how did America screw up, cause that is rather obvious, or is this just a "Look how bad the USA is doing" thing? Lol. I really don't see what your trying to discuss here that isn't simply to point out the obvious at where our country failed. XD

If you've noticed, it's a habit of mine to post up political or other Pub-worthy and sometimes controversial topics that catch my attention that have been newsworthy. DZ does the exact same thing, although maybe with less frequency. Nevertheless we are both in tune with that kind of news and it's what interests us.

I assure you I don't discriminate in my wording when it comes to what information concerning what countries I post up material concerning - unless of course it's something like a madman in Libya killing his own citizens, than I can be as demeaning as I want without violating the rules of course. If there was an article about something incredibility stupid that my own government was proposing I'd post up about it as well. I've visited the U.S. dozens of times in the last few years and I'm quite fond of the places I've had the opportunity to visit over that time.

I think it's considered safe because of Wall Street. If not, I have no clue.

Wall street and the NYSE (and other world stock exchanges) going to take a beating if they don't do something about this soon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "safe", but as far as I know our banking system, taxation and general financial plans are structured completely differently than in the states.

And that's why we have some of the soundest banks in the world and the best banking system in the G7, because our banks wouldn't have been legally allowed to do what was done in America. Regulation of banks is your friend.

As much as Harper spending a gazillion dollars on fighter jets that I think weren't quite as important as, like, healthcare, we didn't get hit nearly as badly by the recession. I'd have to look into the specifics about this to gather a more educated response, however. Things with numbers in them generally aren't my strong point.

While the fighter jet issue is for another topic something like how we do healthcare isn't sustainable and there are other ways to reform our system that have been proven to work in other countries like the U.K.

That being said, something's going to have to be done a lot differently to pull the States out of debt. I don't know if there'll be success in that any time soon, however.

Maybe not get involved in two wars and possibly another one with Libya for starters. Also, use the military to build roads, schools, etc in America rather than in countries like Afghanistan where they already strongly dislike Americans. :/

[ZM Anonymous]

If america doesn't get going soon.........

You know, I'm not going to answer.

Next thing you know, ORGANIC, HEALTHY food will be more expencive than McDonnalds.

And we look twords Europe for crap that you manily find in america.

You, fellow man, seriously have no FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about!

["User"]

Gentlemen/Furries please, lets remain professional shall we? This is the pub after all. Anymore making posts with no real merit value to the discussion at hand or general off topicness will be prompted deleted.

[Matrilwood]

How they maintain that credit rating when in steep amounts of debt and are constantly see as a "safe haven" baffles me at times.

People put the US on some sort of god-like pedestal, you'd think it was the Kingdom of Heaven the way people treat it. Even if the French decided to convert it into the worlds biggest rubbish tip, it would still be considered the best country in the world.

As for their economy right now, the only reason why it's crashing is because the Afghan' war is coming to a close. Since the US is a military driven economy, if they don't have someone to pick fights with, they lose money. So naturally their most likely preparing to fight with someone else now, probably North Korea.

As for the August 2nd deadline, once they cash in on the spoils of war (Read, what they came for in the first place) they'll be fine over the peace-time.

[Sylum]

High, I've removed your posts from this topic. Next time make worthwhile posts that are actually allowed in the pub. Discuss your reasons. No one liners like "i agree (insert smiley)"

["User"]

As for their economy right now, the only reason why it's crashing is because the Afghan' war is coming to a close. Since the US is a military driven economy, if they don't have someone to pick fights with, they lose money. So naturally their most likely preparing to fight with someone else now, probably North Korea.

Actually no, that's not a reason at all. On the contrary, direct involvement in fighting wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc is one of the fastest ways the U.S. runs up it's debt. They should be OUT of these wars and sinking that money instead into their ecomony. You're probably thinking of arms exporting which the U.S. is clearly #1 in and is one of their biggest exports. Selling weapons and technology to other countries like Saudi Arabia or random African nation #53 in order for them to pwn each other is a good source of income for the U.S.

As for the August 2nd deadline, once they cash in on the spoils of war (Read, what they came for in the first place) they'll be fine over the peace-time.

I home you are really being sarcastic here, because if not what are you talking about? What spoils? I have no idea why people keep claiming the U.S. ultimately gets anything out of this other than perhaps increased stability in the region. Here's the facts, they don't "steal" a shit load of oil from so and so nation, load it on to tankers and return them home and everyone is happy. On the contrary with these recent wars they have been losing far more than anything they have gained. They've lost popular support in most every nation for their involvement in what the majority of people worldwide think they should have no involvement in. They have driven themselves further into debt and devalued their currently in the past couple of years by almost 20%. Geez, the list goes on and on. I've been saying since the Iraq war they need to stop getting involved in stuff like this and assume they will be out rather quickly. There's no end in sight for NATO in Libya for example, at least the U.S. quickly delegated leadership of that situation to someone else - good move.

As far as the August 2nd deadline goes despite all the rhetoric about not raising the debt ceiling at the very last minute it WILL get raised no matter what - that's a given. No one wants a DEPRESSION that would put the more world-wide recent recession to shame if the U.S. defaults.

[Sluggsnipa]

I'm not suprised,the US was in debt for YEARS...

["User"]

I'm not suprised,the US has been in debt since the founding of the constitution.

Fix'd.

[unoservix]

"Delegating responsibility to NATO" isn't really saying anything in regards to Libya. The US provides the bulk of NATO's funding and resources. The US has the Predator drones and reconnaissance aircraft and aerial tankers and launched the missiles that wiped out Qaddafi's air defenses. The US still has several ships in the area, as I recall. If shit gets real, it will be the US that does the bulk of the fighting. Britain and France would not have pushed ahead on this if they didn't think the US would back them to the hilt. Cloaking this thing in the trappings of multilateralism and NATO-led humanitarian intervention might make for good international politics, but in terms of US involvement, it's still the US that's doing the heavy lifting. Comes with the territory when you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your armed forces.

There are lots of reasons why the US has run up its debt and not all of them are military-related. For example, the political discourse of this country is such that the only acceptable change possible to the tax system is lowering tax rates. But the government still has important programs it needs to fund, like the military and Social Security and Medicare. Politics has made it impossible to alter the tax system in such a way that will allow revenues to stay somewhere in the same ballpark as expenditures, so the government borrows money to make up for it. And in the past ten years, the government has started spending exponentially more, between the wars, an expansion of Medicare under the Bush Administration, and the bailouts and stimulus spending. The last is not necessarily bad--it's one of government's roles to resuscitate the economy when private money can't or won't--but it does jack up the deficit and the debt.

I think the Republicans will give in on the debt ceiling before the August deadline, though. They played this game back in March over the budget, and after weeks of negotiations and goalpost-moving and brinkmanship, all they got to show for it was a few billion in cuts over ten years, with only a few hundred million this year, a pathetic drop in the bucket for all the political capital they spent. With the debt ceiling, the stakes are much higher, and if the NY-26 special election yesterday is any indication, the voters don't have much patience for a radical right-wing agenda.

["User"]

"Delegating responsibility to NATO" isn't really saying anything in regards to Libya. The US provides the bulk of NATO's funding and resources. The US has the Predator drones and reconnaissance aircraft and aerial tankers and launched the missiles that wiped out Qaddafi's air defenses. The US still has several ships in the area, as I recall. If shit gets real, it will be the US that does the bulk of the fighting. Britain and France would not have pushed ahead on this if they didn't think the US would back them to the hilt. Cloaking this thing in the trappings of multilateralism and NATO-led humanitarian intervention might make for good international politics, but in terms of US involvement, it's still the US that's doing the heavy lifting. Comes with the territory when you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your armed forces.

Indeed. I mean, the pass-off to NATO was IMO mainly political grandstanding to make it look like America was having much less to do with this war than what was actually going down. A move mainly designed to appease Congressmen and Senators as well as American citizens in general. NO ONE wants another prolonged conflict after all.

There are lots of reasons why the US has run up its debt and not all of them are military-related. For example, the political discourse of this country is such that the only acceptable change possible to the tax system is lowering tax rates. But the government still has important programs it needs to fund, like the military and Social Security and Medicare. Politics has made it impossible to alter the tax system in such a way that will allow revenues to stay somewhere in the same ballpark as expenditures, so the government borrows money to make up for it. And in the past ten years, the government has started spending exponentially more, between the wars, an expansion of Medicare under the Bush Administration, and the bailouts and stimulus spending. The last is not necessarily bad--it's one of government's roles to resuscitate the economy when private money can't or won't--but it does jack up the deficit and the debt.

True, but whatever military situation the U.S. finds itself in usually gets the most flak from citizens when it comes to the debt even though like you said things like Medicare and Social Security cost more. On a related note I'm pleased to see that the DOD actually had it's budget cut for once. Next on the agenda should be pulling out of these countries where their citizens clearly don't want anything to do with America and use the military instead to build roads, schools, etc IN AMERICA instead of some random country on the other side of the world. I mean really...you're in debt and you're throwing money on other countries whose more radical citizenry would shoot you if they had the chance.

Speaking of things like Medicare and Medicaid...these are relatively newer programs compared to the entire history of the U.S. so why are they there again? I mean...citizens survived just fine without this government funding for centuries. I'm not well versed on the whole thing regarding it's history so someone fill me in.

As far as both rounds of Quantitative Easing are concerned, most every credible economist will tell you they have been failures. Sure the stock markets have been doing very well over the past two years but that is mostly to do with the sheer amounts of money that have flooded the market since and depreciated the U.S. dollar by almost 20% during that time.

I think the Republicans will give in on the debt ceiling before the August deadline, though. They played this game back in March over the budget, and after weeks of negotiations and goalpost-moving and brinkmanship, all they got to show for it was a few billion in cuts over ten years, with only a few hundred million this year, a pathetic drop in the bucket for all the political capital they spent. With the debt ceiling, the stakes are much higher, and if the NY-26 special election yesterday is any indication, the voters don't have much patience for a radical right-wing agenda.

The GOP (as well as the Dems) don't want to be the party that is blamed for "obstructing progress" prior to an economic collapse due to the ceiling not being extended so yeah, the GOP will back down but with unanimous agreement in the Senate recently on rejecting Obama's budget proposal it's clear that the Dems are serious as well about cutting back.

[unoservix]

Speaking of things like Medicare and Medicaid...these are relatively newer programs compared to the entire history of the U.S. so why are they there again? I mean...citizens survived just fine without this government funding for centuries. I'm not well versed on the whole thing regarding it's history so someone fill me in.

No, you're really not.

Medicare and Medicaid are state-run health insurance programs for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. Social Security is the state-run pension fund for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. They are both necessary to provide a layer of support for two segments of society most vulnerable to the predations of others and least able to care for themselves. Social Security was first instated during the Great Depression, to alleviate poverty among the elderly, which was so persistent because the elderly usually didn't have enough money saved for retirement, couldn't work anymore, and couldn't be cared for by their children. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in the 1960s to deal with the enormous medical costs of the elderly, because the elderly tend to consume much more health care than younger people and it's not profitable for private health insurers to do so.

Citizens didn't really "survive just fine without this government funding for centuries." They survived to reproductive age and managed to squirt out offspring before they died, and it gradually got better, but "surviving to reproductive age and squirting my genes into the pool" isn't exactly the tender dream we all clasp to our hearts as the curtain of sleep descends upon us every night. The worldwide rise in life expectancies in the past century wasn't due purely to increasing medical technology, because more medicine and technology don't mean shit if you can't get to it. It owes itself in part to increased access to health care through programs like Medicare. And that, likewise, is the reason why poorer countries like Yemen and Burkina Faso have such abysmal public health records. It's not that the resources to help them don't exist--it's that they aren't accessible.

This is a rather odd claim for you to make just a few paragraphs down from your insistence that the US should spend its money on Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are, by definition, spending money on Americans. They pay for Americans' medical costs and retirements. If not programs like that, then what should the US government spend its money on?

[Drasiana]

Speaking of things like Medicare and Medicaid...these are relatively newer programs compared to the entire history of the U.S. so why are they there again? I mean...citizens survived just fine without this government funding for centuries. I'm not well versed on the whole thing regarding it's history so someone fill me in.

People getting sick and not being able to afford treatment is a pretty obvious motivation, I would think.

["User"]

Thanks for the history lesson.

This is a rather odd claim for you to make just a few paragraphs down from your insistence that the US should spend its money on Americans. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are, by definition, spending money on Americans. They pay for Americans' medical costs and retirements. If not programs like that, then what should the US government spend its money on?

I actually made that claim one paragraph up from my comments about medicare and medicaid.

"Next on the agenda should be pulling out of these countries where their citizens clearly don't want anything to do with America and use the military instead to build roads, schools, etc IN AMERICA instead of some random country on the other side of the world. I mean really...you're in debt and you're throwing money on other countries whose more radical citizenry would shoot you if they had the chance."

Of course America spends money on it's citizens with these programs and I wasn't trying to say that they SHOULDN'T since I was a little befuddled on the history of Medicare and Medicaid and what people did prior to that (which you graciously told me about). What I was trying to say (and pretty much did) is that America needs to cut back the money that it gives to other nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc and use that to build up it's own infrastructure. Ever been to Detroit or other parts of Michigan recently? They look horrible!

[unoservix]

The money the US gives to other nations is a drop in the bucket next to what it spends at home. Here's what Wiki says about the 2010 budget and here's a fun site for breaking down government spending in terms of tax contribution. Money to foreign nations, as part of the budget, is a vanishingly small part of what the US government pays for.

Now, the money that the US government spends isn't all in the budget. And the US does give billions of dollars to some countries (hi Israel). But the idea that the US is bankrupting itself by lavishing money on other countries is faulty; if the US is bankrupting itself, it's through its insane revenue/spending system and the wars it's still fighting.

["User"]

The money the US gives to other nations is a drop in the bucket next to what it spends at home. Here's what Wiki says about the 2010 budget and here's a fun site for breaking down government spending in terms of tax contribution. Money to foreign nations, as part of the budget, is a vanishingly small part of what the US government pays for.

Now, the money that the US government spends isn't all in the budget. And the US does give billions of dollars to some countries (hi Israel). But the idea that the US is bankrupting itself by lavishing money on other countries is faulty; if the US is bankrupting itself, it's through its insane revenue/spending system and the wars it's still fighting.

Yeah, it is only a tiny portion but a couple of extra billion to help out the infrastructure in various hard hit cities or states wouldn't hurt.

Speaking of revenue/spending, the tax code really needs to be simplified and overhauled so that you don't have to have the money needed to hire a lawyer/accountant to be able to find all the loopholes but that's a story for another day lol.