Your prediction about the US finances and its debt ??

[Telstra]

.
What is the US debt at this moment ?
And can the US pay back the debt ?

Describe the world economy in the future ....

[evanrick]

i think you have been watching too much television.

[palbert]

All will be well Telly.

All will work out.

If we go down the world's going with us.

[chance1]

I hope it doesn't happen until after the ND Bama game

[rareboy]

Telly

Check the Mayan Calendar.

All will be clear.

[EastMed]

If you live in Australia, I'd be more concerned by the impending property bubble collapse.

[Telstra]

Telly

Check the Mayan Calendar.

All will be clear.

lol ......................

[JayHawk]

I 'fink de impendin' crisese wull find a way of bein the dog's bollocks agin....

[maxpowr9]

If you live in Australia, I'd be more concerned by the impending property bubble collapse.

At least from what I read in the Economist, Australia weathered the recent recession by mining "resources" (coal, iron and various minerals) and shipping them to China. However, China's economy is slowing down and left Australia with depressed prices and an abundant supply with said minerals which has a cascading affect.

[palbert]

.
What is the US debt at this moment ?

As of Tuesday, 11/27, the debt was US$16,315,984,269,811.12. Each citizen owes US$51,969.47. Piece of cake. Move on.

[xbuzzerx]

If you live in Australia, I'd be more concerned by the impending property bubble collapse.

I can say the young people in Australia are happy that the censorship on videogame violence/blood lifts come January.

Sorry, relevant to nothing.

[JayHawk]

Do you accept a check or does it need to be a money order?

[xbuzzerx]

Do you accept a check or does it need to be a money order?

It can be paid in blood only. That or pyramid-building levee labor.

[maxpowr9]

I can say the young people in Australia are happy that the censorship on videogame violence/blood lifts come January.

Sorry, relevant to nothing.

Now you just need start selling alcohol at the Chemist and you can be Americans too!

[xbuzzerx]

Now you just need start selling alcohol at the Chemist and you can be Americans too!

LOL, I'm American but I'm a gamer which means that I'm used to seeing as the top question in any videogame forum or discussion whatsoever: "Help, I'm Australian, how can I get an American/Euro copy of this game instead of this horrible Mister Rogers version when confetti comes off people when you shoot them instead of blood?"

[andysayshi]

What is the US debt at this moment ?

http://www.usdebtclock.org

And can the US pay back the debt ?

The reality is that much of the US debt will never need to be repaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/op...ands-debt.html

Describe the world economy in the future ....

Unlikely we will see massive changes in our lifetime.

[Kulindahr]

The numbers will continue to be too large for most people to grasp for at least another fifty years.

It's possible, but unlikely to happen, for the US to actually pay off the debt in that time. It would be very helpful if we at least paid off the foreign debt.

[gamestarp]

What Congress has done, Congress can undo. There is no "cliff".

[maxpowr9]

Just to give a rundown of the top 5 holders of US debt (at the end of 2011). The numbers are from the St. Louis fed but the tidbits are my own...

1. Federal Reserve - $6.328 trillion. A lot of economists have a gripe with this since their holdings have nearly sextupled since 2000 (the chart below explains why).

2. China - $1.132 trillion. Funnily enough, this number has been trending down but countries' holdings tend to fluctuate as a form of pegging.

3. Private Holdings - $1.107 trillion. This is your Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Barclay's and other similar finance companies.

4. Japan - $1.038 trillion. This number is outdated as Japan will supposedly pass China this year as the #2 debt holder. I believe they bought something like $300billion this year alone.

5. Pensioners - $842.2 billion. Thrift Savings Plan (TSP): G-Fund is all that money. If you're a government employee, you know what this is.
---

Courtesy of the US Fed, this our Debt:GDP ratio chart over the past 60 years...

[Kulindahr]

Just to give a rundown of the top 5 holders of US debt (at the end of 2011). The numbers are from the St. Louis fed but the tidbits are my own...

1. Federal Reserve - $6.328 trillion. A lot of economists have a gripe with this since their holdings have nearly sextupled since 2000 (the chart below explains why).

2. China - $1.132 trillion. Funnily enough, this number has been trending down but countries' holdings tend to fluctuate as a form of pegging.

3. Private Holdings - $1.107 trillion. This is your Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Barclay's and other similar finance companies.

4. Japan - $1.038 trillion. This number is outdated as Japan will supposedly pass China this year as the #2 debt holder. I believe they bought something like $300billion this year alone.

5. Pensioners - $842.2 billion. Thrift Savings Plan (TSP): G-Fund is all that money. If you're a government employee, you know what this is.
---

Courtesy of the US Fed, this our Debt:GDP ratio chart over the past 60 years...

Where do all the IOUs in the Social Security fund fit in?

[JayHawk]

Where do all the IOUs in the Social Security fund fit in?

I used to believe the IOU lie but it isn't the cause of the defunct SS in 25 years.... the problem is the income of the bottom has been so eroded over the last 20 years that there isnt enough money at the bottom to pay Social Security.

This is just another net effect of trickle up economics.

Thus, once a wage earner’s income exceeds the $110,100 in a given year, that earner stops contributing to the Social Security fund. Therefore, it stands to reason that if more income is funneled up to those making more than $110,100, at the expense of those earning below the cap, less money is available to be paid into the Social Security fund.

That is precisely what has been happening.

The result of the nation’s growing income disparity has altered the Greenspan expectation that 90 percent of income would stand as the tax base for Social Security contributions to our current circumstance whereby only 83 percent (or less) of income is being taxed for the Social Security fund as more money flows into the pockets of those earning more than the cap.

Since the 1980s, the share of covered workers below the taxable earnings base has remained relatively stable at roughly 94%. However, the share of covered earnings that are taxed has fallen from 90% of all earnings in 1982 to 83% in 2007. The large declines in the late 1990s were mainly because salaries for top earners grew faster than the pay of workers below the cap.

[Kulindahr]

I used to believe the IOU lie but it isn't the cause of the defunct SS in 25 years.... the problem is the income of the bottom has been so eroded over the last 20 years that there isnt enough money at the bottom to pay Social Security.

This is just another net effect of trickle up economics.

You're claiming there are no IOUs in the Trust Fund?

[JayHawk]

Not that I am aware of.... you have to understand it is all made up anyways... no actual cash exist that is sitting in a stack somewhere called Social Security. The fund invested by buying bonds so we are in debt to ourselves as it were but the funds invested were surplus to what was currently needed.

The truth is that in prior years, Social Security taxes collected from workers added up to more than the amount of benefits paid to retirees. This buildup of surplus was intentional -- the government wanted to build a reserve that would cover the benefits of the baby boomers. This surplus has been invested in special U.S. government bonds that are legally obligated to pay the stated rate of interest, and then repay the principal when they mature, according to the terms of the bonds.These special bonds are just part of the funding of the overall federal government, and the assets in the Social Security trust fund represent about 15 percent of the government's total debt. This process has taken place in full view of anybody who cared to learn about it. There have been no smoke-filled rooms where politicians sat around divvying up the earmarked money in the Social Security trust to finance their pet projects.

If we default on that then we default on everything else and Social Security wont matter anyways...

[cgymike]

Taxes will go up for America's most wealthy but they will find new loopholes or bribe the taxation authority...as usual.

[Kulindahr]

Not that I am aware of.... you have to understand it is all made up anyways... no actual cash exist that is sitting in a stack somewhere called Social Security. The fund invested by buying bonds so we are in debt to ourselves as it were but the funds invested were surplus to what was currently needed.



If we default on that then we default on everything else and Social Security wont matter anyways...

So there is a stack of IOUs in the "Trust Fund" -- call them "bonds" or whatever, it means IOUs.

So my question was, where does that sit in the listing of US debt? Whether we owe it to ourselves isn't relevant; it's still debt and can't be ignored.

[opinterph]

So my question was, where does that sit in the listing of US debt? Whether we owe it to ourselves isn't relevant; it's still debt and can't be ignored.

There are better links, but this should give you an idea ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bigges...ov-t-debt.html

[Jack Springer]

The rich will not pay more -- no matter how high they set the rate. The really rich -- including democrats and republicans -- have ways of not paying taxes that the ordinary citizen does not.

There will not be any more taxes paid by raising the rates on the super rich.

Boehner offers to close loopholes and Obama rejects the idea --- that should be major news.

Taxing the rich is a popular idea and Obama is using it to make republicans look bad. If I was Boehner I would agree to the increase in new taxes for the rich -- maybe those over $500,000 income -- call his bluff.

Obama is trying to break the republican party.

[xbuzzerx]

The rich will not pay more -- no matter how high they set the rate. The really rich -- including democrats and republicans -- have ways of not paying taxes that the ordinary citizen does not.

There will not be any more taxes paid by raising the rates on the super rich.

Boehner offers to close loopholes and Obama rejects the idea --- that should be major news.

Taxing the rich is a popular idea and Obama is using it to make republicans look bad. If I was Boehner I would agree to the increase in new taxes for the rich -- maybe those over $500,000 income -- call his bluff.

Obama is trying to break the republican party.

If that's really, legitimately true, then yes. They should go ahead and pass it. They'd get to look good and less like they were throwing a sour grapes temper tantrum and playing power games after losing an election.

I wonder why they aren't, since according to what you say, they really stand to lose nothing by cooperating.

[JayHawk]

So there is a stack of IOUs in the "Trust Fund" -- call them "bonds" or whatever, it means IOUs.

So my question was, where does that sit in the listing of US debt? Whether we owe it to ourselves isn't relevant; it's still debt and can't be ignored.

It isn't an IOU... you are still refusing to comprehend. It is debt just like everything else we have borrowed except we hold the ticket so that to me is much better.... Yet at the end of the day if we cant pay that debt then it wouldn't matter if six hecta-trillions were saved the US will be defaulted and so will Social Security... in other words as long as Social Security exists the debt and bonds on SS will exist and they will always be paid. Calling it an IOU is semantics since it never really actually existed in the first place.

[Kulindahr]

There are better links, but this should give you an idea ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bigges...ov-t-debt.html

Ah -- an answer!

Should have come to you first.

[JayHawk]

Meh I didnt realize you were asking what constituted our debt....

[JB3]

I'm not super-knoweldgeable about economics, so this may be a silly question: What would happen if the Federal reserve decided to forgive most or all of their debt holdings? Or, what if they decided to forgive all of it if the government made a large single payment?

[JayHawk]

Everything would collapse.

[Kulindahr]

Meh I didnt realize you were asking what constituted our debt....

[Kulindahr]

I'm not super-knoweldgeable about economics, so this may be a silly question: What would happen if the Federal reserve decided to forgive most or all of their debt holdings? Or, what if they decided to forgive all of it if the government made a large single payment?

"All"? My guess is chaos.

I think the most they could get away with and not cause economic disturbances would be give a holiday on interest.

[xbuzzerx]

Yeah I'm no expert either but my uninformed mental picture of "forgiving the debt" would be wheelbarrows of cash to buy bread.

[JB3]

"All"? My guess is chaos.

I think the most they could get away with and not cause economic disturbances would be give a holiday on interest.

Pretty much what I figured. It just seems odd that the Fed is the biggest debt holder considering their relationship to the government. I mean, really, what's to prevent the Fed and government from colluding with each other to say that the government is paying down debt when they aren't and having their debt magically 'disappear'?

[Kulindahr]

Pretty much what I figured. It just seems odd that the Fed is the biggest debt holder considering their relationship to the government. I mean, really, what's to prevent the Fed and government from colluding with each other to say that the government is paying down debt when they aren't and having their debt magically 'disappear'?

You mean cook the books? Fascinating concept. Wall Street did it to the whole country, inventing money and then making it all vanish except their portion... might it work?

[JB3]

You mean cook the books? Fascinating concept. Wall Street did it to the whole country, inventing money and then making it all vanish except their portion... might it work?

Pretty much. I also imagine that someone, somewhere in the government has evaluated the concept. (My sibling works for the GAO, and they get asked to do stuff like that all the time, even if its just a huge what-if)

[JayHawk]

Okay so back to reality land where debt doesnt just vanish with the tooth fairy.


Republicans are more and more talking about giving into Obama's demand to raise taxes which is somewhat a win as they agree to cut taxes on the majority of us in the same bill. At least that is what they are talking about. I agree taxes should not go up on the majority of America. At least not to the Clinton era levels that would be an average net increase of 3000 bucks for each American. However I would fully support a plan to raise everyone's taxes 1/3 of that rate. It is quite obvious to all concerned that raising taxes on just the wealthy doesnt solve anything substantial but does start (very slightly) to level the taxable playing field.

Now republicans are going to hold debt hostage once more to barter with Americas credit for more entitlement cuts...

CORKER: The Republicans know they have the debt ceiling, that is coming up around the corner, and, the leverage is going to shift, as soon as we get beyond this issue. The leverage is going to shift, to our side where hopefully we’ll do the same thing we did last time and that is if the president wants to raise the debt limit by $2 trillion we get $2 trillion in spending reduction and, hopefully, this time, it is mostly oriented towards entitlement and with no process. [...]

[Kulindahr]

^
The problem is that raising taxes at all on the bottom end will dampen the economy substantially. That $1k a year is presently being spent, and that spending is what drives the economy -- the rich don't drive it, the "rest" do.

That's why the bail-out of the banks was a silly thing to do: we should have bailed out the people with "problem loans", because that would have been money into the economy.

Here's an easy way to put it: earned income, i.e. income people actually work for, is the foundation of the economy; unearned income is secondary.