That National Debt thingie
The folks at Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) sent us their latest video about how the National Debt, which recently reached $16T, is the greatest threat to our national security
The 90-second web video, titled “16 Trillion”, focuses on repeated warnings from national leaders (including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin) about how mounting government debt endangers our national security. The video also urges Congress to focus on entitlement spending reform and pro-growth tax policies to spur the economy and reduce the national debt.
“Veterans and active duty troops are deeply concerned about our stagnant economy and towering national debt, and rightly see them as drivers of our economic weakness,” said Pete Hegseth, CEO of CVA. “We understand that a strong economy is key to ensuring a robust defense, and that our government’s addiction to spending and debt is a sure path to weakness and vulnerability.”
“The $16 trillion national debt mark should set off alarm bells in Washington—it’s time to stop playing political games and get to work reforming government spending,” Hegseth concluded.
Raising taxes on the “rich” won’t solve the problem, only cuts tp the size and scope of the government and hacking away at entitlement programs will get the job done. But the folks in Washington who have buying votes with entitlement programs and scare tactics would much rather hack into the institutions that work and the things that have kept us a free nation lo these hundreds of years.
Category: 2012 election, Military issues
For what it’s worth, here are some historical US Federal Debt figures. Daily data prior to 1 Jan 1993 is not available, so the earlier figures here are “eyeball” interpolated from available fiscal-year-end figures.
20 January 1961: approx $287,000,000,000
22 November 1963: approx $307,000,000,000
20 January 1969: approx $363,000,000,000
8 August 1974: approx $487,000,000,000
20 January 1977: approx $730,000,000,000
20 January 1981: approx $940,000,000,000
20 January 1989: approx $2,691,000,000,000
20 January 1993: $4,188,092,107,183.60
20 January 2001: $5,727,776,738,304.64
20 January 2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
4 September 2012: $16,008,060,301,079.15
We need to look at foreign aid first. When you’re feeding both the neighborhood children and your own, you don’t start cutting back by starving your own kids first. We’re giving too much money to too many nations who would gladly watch us burn.
Hey Hondo, what about Wild Bill’s Infamous Surplus? Those numbers look suspiciously like a sustained deficit increase from ’93-2000….just today the Dems were talking about how Bill Clinton had a surplus that we frittered away…it p1sses me off no end, and they get p1ssed when you point out it was a surplus in name only…a neat accounting trick similar to the Social Security “Trust” Fund…
VOV, here’s another statistic for you:
5,000,000 jobs lost since Bo took office
4,500,000 jobs created since Bo took office
-500,000 jobs deficit
(all are rounded numbers; source: Market Watch this AM)
If companies can continue to squeeze more profits from the same number of workers, they have little incentive to add to their payrolls. That doesn’t bode well for future hiring. — MSNBC article 9/5/12
So, fewer workers pay fewer taxes. Where is the revenue to come from to pay off this egregious debtload?
@3 That’s a fair point, but even looking at these numbers, Bill Clinton did ‘well’ (strictly with regards to this, mind you, and with ‘well’ meaning ‘not nearly as bad as the other guys’). The debt increased to 137% of its value from when he entered 8 years before. The other 8-year runs that bracket that (skipping GHWB’s 4) are 286% (Reagan) and 186% (GWB). Bush Sr. had, over 4 years, 156%.
Obama, at 4 years, is already at 151%.
All of which tells us absolutely nothing of real consequence, since the economy is complicated and doesn’t really function on election cycle time-frames.
Here’s the link to the article that I quoted in @4 above:
http://pheedo.msnbc.msn.com/click.phdo?i=d30697c451c6e690cf3ac9d7ac6ec752
Note that employers have begun slashing health care (and other beneifts) ahead of the Obama/Pelosicare due date and are hiring independent contractors, or freelancers, instead of permanent employees. Independent contractors are self-employed and pay their own taxes.
I’m not sure what the “drag” time is on reversing an economic slump, but if you truly want to get rid of a debt load of any kind, you knuckle down and do it. Do you see anyone in WHDC doing that?
If companies can continue to squeeze more profits from the same number of workers, they have little incentive to add to their payrolls.
And in industries such as mine where the workforce is already pretty old, and getting older, then what? You don’t go to the streetcorner and say, “Hey, kid–wanna run a nuclear power plant? It’s not much different than flipping burgers, really!”
Finally, there’s going to come a point where companies can’t cut any more–what then?
#4. I’m with you. My company has shed 200 workers through attrition and layoffs in the last 4 years. About 1/4 of our work force. As long as what’s left can still do the same work, why hire? That’s why I am salaried and pull 50-60 hour work weeks now.
Oh hey, don’t get me wrong–the money right now is great and only getting better as long as they don’t hire anyone to replace those who have left.
But again, at some point you aren’t going to get the work you need doing done, or you’re going to end up with a workforce that’s a bunch of ineffective (and unsafe) burnouts.
@9 – Yes, and how long do you think it will take them to wake up to that simple fact?
And what will it take? Another Chernobyl disaster?
In actuality what is being done is, cheapening of US labor down to that of third world countries. Lets use china for the example. Due to their not operating under the same environmental rules our country does(wealth redistribution)and rate of pay to their workers, what normally would be a higher cost to us for a produced product, is substantially lowered due to labor cost on their end.
Never mind the shipping across the ocean because the Chinese (or any other country)doesn’t adhere to the far left loons carbon foot print rule of thumb…Does that turn on a light bulb?
People, I can only say, the Big They had better get their SH and their IT together, because it’s gonna hit the fan before too long.
1) cut congress’ pay to match military officer pay
1a) set retirement the same way. ‘public servants’ ? not so much. financial incentive should not be a factor for those who are supposed to serve the people.
2) end the white collar gang war known as bipartisanship. i lost faith in congress in like 5th grade when i learned what a filibuster is. the ‘us vs. them’ mentality hinders progress (isn’t it obvious?) and reduces their effectiveness to that of garbage fermenting in the sun.
And what will it take? Another Chernobyl disaster?
The industry came pretty damned close at Davis-Besse in 2003. Not a reactivity accident, but an unisolable LOCA. Boric acid ate at the vessel head–actually THROUGH the vessel head until all that was left of a football-sized chunk was the 1/2″ stainless clad.
I’m still convinced nuclear power is the most effective and safest means of generating power, but the public needs to understand the days of 3-cent per KWh are long over. Hell, I’d be happy with triple that.
We have fatigue rules much like other industries do, but unless you have enough people to do the work to satisfy NRC requirements, you can only push people so hard. Believe me, you really feel the difference between a 40- and a 60-hour week after a while.
Understood. You have my sympathy.
3 cents per Kwh? I pay .06123/Kwh. I haven’t seen 3 cents in at least 20 years.
Utilities can’t even generate power for 3 cents per KWh.
http://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state.php
Stand by to be amazed.
Thanks for the link. I didn’t include the delivery, distribution charges, environmental cost recovery or energy efficieny program charges.
Not much surprises me any more.
@Quincy — how about term limits for both houses of Congress?
No pensions, freeze Congressional pay raises for 12 years, make them pay for their own health care costs.
I put an analog National Debt “clock” in my office. I use it for a fan.
Ex-PH2: Congressional term limits? That was tried before by individual states, and as I recall the SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.
By the way: Congressmen do pay for their health care. They have the option to enroll in FEHB, just like all other Federal employees. And they pay the same rates, with decent plans costing the employee in the neighborhood of $4000/year for family coverage.
— break —
PintoNag: in the great scheme of things, Foreign Aid is a pittance. In 2010, it amounted to about $47B – or a bit over 1% of the Federal outlays. In contrast, Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Other welfare was over 40% – and rising. Not sure Foreign Aid is the best target if we’re serious about trying to control the growth of the Federal debt.
— break —
VOV: Clinton ran a deficit in his first 5 or 6 years, but managed a surplus in his last 2 or 3. However, the dot.com bubble bursting in 2000 plus 9/11 rather screwed things up economically for the first few years of the Bush(43) administration.
The real debt level when accounting for unfunded liabilities is more like north of $60 trillion conservatively. David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General has been warning for years that the national debt ( $16T today ) is only a small component of a far larger problem.
In the near future just paying the interest on debt could be problematic as creditors inevitably demand higher rates. This will crowd out spending on defense, education, protection, transportation and so on. We’re in a pickle all right.
This is pertinent to what we are all discussing, so read it carefully. This is part of a weekly column by a financial analyst whose forecasts have been spot on since 1997:
From: MMA Cycles Report Week starting 9-10-2012
Thus truth and trust will be on center stage. It will be there during the November 6 election. The issues and the ideology separating the two candidates and two parties are in stark contrast to one another. Yet despite all the differences between all the issues, the final tally may come down to this one important character issue: who do you trust, who is telling you the truth, and who has been truthful to you throughout this campaign – or at least, who exhibits these principles the most in the last month of this election?
Voters in the USA have shown throughout their history that as much as they support a particular party’s position on certain issues, nothing will solidify their vote more than their belief that the candidate is being truthful. If either candidate makes a huge mistake in the matter of truthfulness prior to election, it could be costly. However, if it happens after the election, it may be even more costly, for the “urge to purge” will be at a peak. There will likely be little tolerance for a leader who makes promises he does not keep, and even more so if he carelessly ignores or modifies those promises of the campaign season. We are fully in an era of demanding accountability in 2012-2015, and if not forthcoming, it can quickly become an era of expulsion.
@ 13 Quincy P, why officer’s pay? Why not a Staff NCO level? Maybe something like a SSgt (E-6), Marines that still ‘work’!? Ok I’ll be generous, how about GySgt (E-7)? Better yet, how about a Sgt (E-5)? It’s common knowledge that Sgt’s are the backbone of the Corps!
Yat Yas 1833: with all the $$$ flowing around DC in the hands of lobbyists and others looking to buy influence, do you REALLY want Congresscritters getting paid $50-70k a year? If you think there’s under-the-table dealing going on now . . . .
@ 24 Hondo, LOL! Why not pay them a working man’s wage?? Make “lobbyism” illegal, to be shot on sight, and make those ratbastages (politicians) responsible for their performance and actions! Weren’t we held to that standard as NCOs?? I was doing it for < $600 a month, as a Sergeant of Marines, being directly responsible for 15 Marines and five Amtracs, worth millions, all at the tender age of 23.
Yat Yas 1833: Well, they’re not exactly doing a working man’s job. And they’re held accountable every 2 or 6 years, depending on whether they’re in the House or Senate.
One of their primary jobs is essentially managing Federal spending. The Federal government spends around $4,000 billion a year. There are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Allocated equally, that means each is managing annual spending of about $7.5 billion.
A person making $50-70k a year in the DC area is being paid relatively low wages (it’s a very high-cost area). I’m not sure I want someone managing $7.5 billion on my behalf being paid that kind of a salary for 12-16 hour days (typical for many in Congress). It would be simply too easy for them to give in to temptation and decide to take some “easy” under-the-table cash. I’d wager a fair amount of that goes on today as it is; we certainly don’t need more.
@ 26 Hondo, I guess you’re right. We’re men, and women, with honor and pride. They’re politicians.
I watched Fox this morning, as I always do on Saturday mornings, to see what the REAL business people were thinking. By REAL, I mean people who actually have fiscal awareness, demonstrate some kind of fiscal responsibility, and know more about business and taxes than the president.
In all sincerity, I would truly prefer a capitalist pig over the glad-handing sack of sh++t slacker who has the job now.
I think anyone who has had to manage on a tight budget and stay solvent knows what I mean. Seriously, a coupon-fanatic housewife could do a sight better job than that dope.
Anyway, the message this morning was clear: corporations are not people — no, they are legal entities — but they employ people and people with jobs get paychecks and pay taxes. That generates revenue. As former SecState Madeline Albright put it on Bloomberg this past Tuesday, revenue comes from taxes. If you cut taxes, where does the revenue come from? Since the labor force is lower than it has been since 1981, tax revenues are down a LOT. The simple solution is to get the bloody hell out of the way of business.
I don’t think we can afford another four years of this asinine crap. The USA is now 7th in the world economicaly, according to the World Economic Forum, behind the Netherlands, for Pete’s sake!
As I said, I would rather have an aggressive capitalist pig in the White House, and for 8 years if necessary. than the fool who’s been there since Jan 2009.
Let’s get together and vote that moron out of office!!
Ex-PH2, does this mean you’re not gonna vote for the “Beloved Leader”?
YatYas, not if you put a gun to my head and offer me a winning lottery ticket. I’d say “Shoot me and keep the money. I’m not voting for that a—–e.”
Ex- you are my knda girl!:)
“In all sincerity, I would truly prefer a capitalist pig over the glad-handing sack of sh++t slacker who has the job now”. And, after 3 hours, Insipid hasn’t shown up to call you a racist, Ex. Must be a record.
Totally agree with your analysis of where the country is at, and who got us there.
Thanks, to both of you.
Ex-I’d never put a gun to your head! A bottle of champagne maybe but never a gun!?;)