Who profits from the US national debt?

  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
19,662
5,935
Ivan Seeking said:
When you say conspiracy theories, I assume that you mean Bush's conspiracy theories about the Iraqi WMDs. I was talking about business. You know, like the one that partners the Bin Ladens and the Bushs.
And better yet, when faced with facts, change the subject so you don't have to deal with them! Lovely.
Are you just making things up again?
No, Ivan - you said:
Yes, lets go start some more wars for Halliburton and the Carlyle Group,
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
and forget about social security.

This is why we are in debt: these guys and their buddies.
...which implies a problem of equal or greater scope than social security. Unless you can show that the problem you see is costing us as much as social secuirty (roughly $40 trillion), your arguement is specious.

And just be glad I'm not asking you to substantiate the conspiracy theories. I'll let them go for this thread because they are an irrelevant diversion, but feel free to start a thread discussing the validity (or lack thereof) of these conspiracy theories.

edit: my facts are off just slightly and since facts are important to me, I'll correct myself: our social security debt is "only" $12.7 trillion, however, there is $30 trillion in medicare debt. Total democrat-debt: $42.7 trillion.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
russ_watters said:
And better yet, when faced with facts, change the subject so you don't have to deal with them! Lovely. No, Ivan - you said: ...which implies a problem of equal or greater scope than social security. Unless you can show that the problem you see is costing us as much as social secuirty (roughly $40 trillion), your arguement is specious.
No Russ, you see, debt grows by how much we overspend, not how much we spend. So, not only do you again fail to understand the point, you know nothing of the facts.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.71 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

So the war in Iraq alone accounts for a significant portion of Bush's debt in the last year and a half.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
187
0
I'll give a good example why 911 benefited the upperclass: Debt.

When loans default, people loose there physical interest. The property then has to be bought once again. Those who invested, get no credit. Those who'll sell it once again, do. Who that owns most, who doesn't fall, benefits from economic disaster.

Debt and economic disaster is the ultimate selling short attitude, spread accross the county all at once for those who have the ideological titles, rather than physical interest titles(the people) which can be expunged by simple psychological means of the so-called elite.

You will not find a more siginificant fundamental point than this.
 
  • #29
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.

Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room. [continued]
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041101-733760,00.html
 
  • #30
russ_watters
Mentor
19,662
5,935
Ivan Seeking said:
No Russ, you see, debt grows by how much we overspend, not how much we spend. So, not only do you again fail to understand the point, you know nothing of the facts.
Uh huh. Have you even read the thread/article on the Social Security/Medicare debt? That's $40 trillion in actual debt. That's money the government has taken in and already spent on other things that it has promised to pay out later.

Which is the bigger problem, Ivan? Is $7 billion a bigger problem than $40 trillion? I know you (and everyone else who thinks social security is free money) want to close your eyes and pretend that money will fall from the sky when you retire, but it won't.
 
  • #31
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
So you wish to redirect the the blame his father? Okay that's true in part. We had to rob social security in order to fund Bush's cold war. I really thought the ability to destroy the planet ten time would have been enough, but according to Bush Sr we needed more nukes.

I was talking about the deficit created by Bush Jr since he took office - a good portion of which can be attributed directly to Bush lies and his phoney threat - Saddam.
 
  • #32
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
See this study of Republican and Democratic presidents and their budgets by a budget maven. Wake up and smell the coffee!


(PDF, courtesy of maxspeak)
 
  • #33
1,823
190
Thanks for that link SelfAdjoint.
 
  • #34
russ_watters
Mentor
19,662
5,935
Ivan Seeking said:
So you wish to redirect the the blame his father? Okay that's true in part. We had to rob social security in order to fund Bush's cold war.
If I thought you actually believed that, I'd respond. Since I know you know its rediculous, thoughtless rhetoric, I won't.

SA - an admittedly leftist website is not a good place for an unbiased argument. It only mentions SS in passing on page 5 and basically just says we need to pay off the obvious debt before we can pay off the hidden debt (SS/Medicare). To use the mortgage analogy he presented (but make it accurate), its as if we're paying it off like a credit card (paying the interest while the principle increases) and now we have to save extra money just to be able to keep making the interest payments.

Yeah, a billion here, a billion there - the yearly "deficit" (as people like to call it...) isn't a good thing. But we've got bigger fish to fry and ignoring it won't make it go away (though it might allow you to die and leave the problem to your children).

I'd really really like to know what you guys think is going to happen to Social Security/medicare in the next 20 years. Are you just hoping you'll be dead by then and won't have to deal with it?

Here's my proposal: end SS and medicare pay-ins today. Give people back (when they retire) what they paid in, inflation adjusted, and nothing more. That way, the real debt that no one wants to talk about will stop increasing immediately.
 
  • #35
onegermanbeerglass
Russ, where do you propose to get the money from to perform your plan?

The money delegated for Social Security has been placed in government bonds which grow at less than 2% on average. Meanwhile, average economic growth for the U.S. is 2.98%. Thus, the money "used" for paying back social security is de-valued over time. This is where the problem lies with social security.

Additionally, if you eliminate social security, or simply pay back only what's paid in, you'll leave many older people destitute in a short time, and they will have to rely on entitlement programs, which in effect, further increases the national debt.


We have to work the problem out in a more efficient way and find the problems with our plans and create a greater plan to resolve the issues.

At some point here in the near future (hopefully today) I'll post "The Great Plan" and give a basic outline of my notion on where we need to go and how we need to get there, what the problems of my plan are, that I know of, and how we can overcome them.
 
  • #36
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
onegermanbeerglass said:
The money delegated for Social Security has been placed in government bonds which grow at less than 2% on average
'Scuse me? During most of my lifetime 30 year treasuries have paid in the 7-9% range. They are currently depressed along with all other interest rates, but you can't use a current minimum to compare to a long-time average.
 
  • #37
onegermanbeerglass
7-9% over 30 years, not annually and not compounded.

Meanwhile, with even only 2% inflation annually (which is far lower than average), we reach 10.41% when compounded after only 5 years.

Meanwhile, those treasury bonds are becoming de-valued.
 
  • #38
russ_watters
Mentor
19,662
5,935
I was being somewhat flip - I was trying to get some reaction (any reaction) to the social security problem. Yes, any such plan would require a gradual phase-in, likely over the course of a generation. Rough guess, but any phase-out would make the budget worse-off for a decade, but after that, far, far better off.
 
  • #39
onegermanbeerglass
Refer to the great plan for fixing some of those budget problems. I'll be posting some info I've found to support that.
 

Related Threads on Who profits from the US national debt?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
12K
Replies
22
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
119
Views
12K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
137K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
120
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
15K
Top