We make 250,000/year. I'm not a f***ing billionaire

So, Trex, I gave you a few days to do your research, read the entire documents from which the quotes you posted came from to understand the context.

What did you come up with?

runners from kenya who were born at altitude, who saw a national pride toward distance running, who were given training advice at a young age should not be forced to start the race 200 yards back from behind you.

people who grew up in a supportive, nourishing environment should not be forced to limit their success to make it more "fair" for people who grew up in a suffocating slum or ghetto.

i say improve technology and enourage more opportunities to improve the standard of living. the bottom 15% who are around the poverty level with access to public education, chlorinated water, welfare, medicaid, and food stamps are DOING A LOT BETTER than the poor in 3rd world countries like nigeria.

stop the communist mentality, and let's improve everyone's standard of living.

My interpretation is that the quote is fake.

GenericID wrote:

rhdgjjjjjjj wrote:

You sound like you think what you know what you are talking about...but you dont.

We are going into greater and greater debt not just in absolute terms, but in terms relative to GDP as well. Eventually people will stop giving us free money. It will happen and we will be screwed.

One question about the graph you link to - is the 231% of GDP based on GDP in 2050, or GDP in 2012?

Now you really seem unreasonable. Unless you can show that exponential growth of our debt to GDP ratio isnt a bad thing then you have been shown to be a fool.

Listen, I get that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and are panic-stricken because someone has finally called on you to demonstrate some actual knowledge, but each time you post without demonstrating the basis for your doom-laden predictions you look more and more clueless.

Please don't bother responding unless you actually want to have an adult conversation (and, in this instance, an adult conversation means that you PROVE your claims), because I'm simply not interested in you demonstrating your stupidity any further.

"Unless you can show that exponential growth of our debt to GDP ratio isnt a bad thing then you have been shown to be a fool."

GenericID wrote:

Listen, I get that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and are panic-stricken because someone has finally called on you to demonstrate some actual knowledge, but each time you post without demonstrating the basis for your doom-laden predictions you look more and more clueless.

Please don't bother responding unless you actually want to have an adult conversation (and, in this instance, an adult conversation means that you PROVE your claims), because I'm simply not interested in you demonstrating your stupidity any further.

I take that as a NO. LOL

I understand that trolls have got to troll, but it is your thesis that debt to GDP growth is (a) exponential, and (b) inherently bad, so it is up to you to prove it.

What is bad about debt? I guess you have a point that most people seem to take debt for granted as a bad thing without really understanding when it goes bad. We have all heard a little debt is a good thing, but when does it become too much? This looks like a very complex question for the likes of most of us without any clue.

I think the two issues are sustainability and confidence. How long can the US government sustain a compounded annual deficit, and how long will lenders be confident in buying US credit? Besides borrowing and repaying money, the government has a country to support, and a growing and aging population with certain expectations regarding maintaining or increasing their quality of life.

How valid is your assumption that the government can always borrow at near 0% interest (thanks to inflation)?

If the government runs annual deficits, it has to continue to borrow new money every year. At 0% effective return (your assumption), it's not a very attractive investment for lenders. They may start to look at other markets, like China, or emerging markets, rather then injecting more capital in the US. The US will have to raise interest rates to attract lenders, increasing their cost of borrowing. As we've seen recently with the Internet and housing bubbles, the collective loss of confidence is not always a gradual thing.

Also government obligations will start increasing once baby boomers start retiring. They will expect pensions from a system they contributed their working life, and require medical care. If the government does not default on these obligations, they will be required to borrow larger and larger amounts of money.

If our source of borrowing dries up, the government will also be unable to maintain a military, being unable to pay or feed them or provide weapons and protection. This leaves our country vulnerable. Without a strong military, one of our less debt burdened enemies will be able to invade and overtake the USA.

One thing that contributes to debt sustainability is a GDP that continues to increase. What happens when GDP flattens or decreases? (see 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WeltBIPWorldgroupOECDengl.PNG

). In recent history, many of the jobs have been exported to cheaper labor countries like Mexico and China. If we do not restore domestic jobs, private consumption will decrease, forcing more companies to close and layoff employees, potentially creating a vicious negative spiral, and all of it negatively impacting GDP.

Two common concerns about increasing GDP is that it often involves increasing negative side-effects, like depletion of natural resources, or harm to the environment, e.g. pollution, deforestation, etc. For example with oil and gas, we will need to start employing more costly methods to extract enough to meet increasing demands, and these can be more harmful to the environment.

At some point, quality of life starts to suffer for many potential reasons: the retired are poor and sick, without access to medical care; pollution from industry required to support ever increasing GDP making the young and healthy sick; destruction of natural habitats which start to impact things necessary for human survival; increasing global warming (for those who think it exists) will cause greater and greater swings in climate, resulting in larger natural disasters.

If quality of life suffers, or opportunities have all been exported, our children may decide they do not want to repay the unmanageable debt caused by their parents, migrating to other countries with more opportunities, and changing nationality.

I know this answer is all over the place, with many dire predictions of doom and gloom, but basically an increasing debt is only sustainable when GDP continues to grow at the same rate, and that we have an endless supply of lenders willing to supply low-interest loans. I'm not sure either of these assumptions are valid in the long term, and when they are not, just about everything that we take for granted today can start to go wrong.

If the government runs annual deficits, it has to continue to borrow new money every year.

You are conflating structural and cyclical deficit - sort those two out and we'll talk.

There is another way to look at the US debt.

Most of the debt is Americans lending money to the US.

Or you can say mostly Americans investing in the US.

Say the US is looking for cash to pay for something extra.

They could tax you and have no debt.

Or borrow the money from you and incur debt.

You would rather loan them your money and get US bonds that you can redeem later then pay extra taxes that you won't get back. Wouldn't you?

Even an investment that yields zero interest is better than giving your money away.

So, the other side of debt is the building of wealth for individuals.

GenericID wrote:

I understand that trolls have got to troll, but it is your thesis that debt to GDP growth is (a) exponential, and (b) inherently bad, so it is up to you to prove it.

You clearly arent following along. Here is the graph that I posted earlier showing that projected debt as a % of GDP is growing at an exponential rate.

If I need to explain to you why going into debt at an exponential rate relative to how much money you are bringing in is bad, then you really are a moron.

If I need to explain to you why going into debt at an exponential rate relative to how much money you are bringing in is bad, then you really are a moron.

Can you point to the bit where it says that the graph refers to the projected GDP in 2050? For all you know, that graph might refer to the US National Debt in 2050 as a percentage of the US GDP of 1906.

It's called scaremongering, and you've fallen for it.

GenericID wrote:

If I need to explain to you why going into debt at an exponential rate relative to how much money you are bringing in is bad, then you really are a moron.

Can you point to the bit where it says that the graph refers to the projected GDP in 2050? For all you know, that graph might refer to the US National Debt in 2050 as a percentage of the US GDP of 1906.

It's called scaremongering, and you've fallen for it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I didnt think you would be dumb enough to challenge that it really was 2050 debt/2050 gdp. Here is another chart that gives both and shockingly looks very similar to the other. You, sir FAIL AT READING GRAPHS!!!! GO BACK TO 5TH GRADE!

GenericID wrote:

If I need to explain to you why going into debt at an exponential rate relative to how much money you are bringing in is bad, then you really are a moron.

Can you point to the bit where it says that the graph refers to the projected GDP in 2050? For all you know, that graph might refer to the US National Debt in 2050 as a percentage of the US GDP of 1906.

It's called scaremongering, and you've fallen for it.

HAHAHAHA What a moron!

GenericID wrote:

If I need to explain to you why going into debt at an exponential rate relative to how much money you are bringing in is bad, then you really are a moron.

Can you point to the bit where it says that the graph refers to the projected GDP in 2050? For all you know, that graph might refer to the US National Debt in 2050 as a percentage of the US GDP of 1906.

It's called scaremongering, and you've fallen for it.

Are you seriously this dumb? Wait. Don't answer that.

Yawn - jog on little boy.

so what's your recommendation, genericid?

the deficit should grow by another 10 billion dollars? there's no harm in that, because the united states is too big to fail, right?

money grows on trees, and it's just cyclical, so there's nothing to worry about when it comes to the debt, right?

the opposite of scaremongering is to just relax and let the politicians take care of it, right?

I completely agree with you, and am ashamed at how naive so many people have become as to allow themselves to be shoved into percentages and class categories that aren't ethical and aren't appropriate. No one here seems to understand that $250,000 AFTER....I'll repeat that....AFTER taxes, which amount to about 44% or more depending upon where you live, is barely enough to keep kids in college and support elderly parents. We haven't had a vacation in over 10 years, drive a 30 year old volvo and take public transportation, have done without medical and dental procedures to make ends meet. At the end of the day we here we're in the same tax bracket as true millionaires and billionaires and the exceptionally wealthy celebs who were pimped out by their publicists to make stupid political ads they'll live to regret. I can tell you this--whatever it takes--the government, who could care less that they take nearly 1/2 of our hard earned paychecks, isn't going to get one more cent. Families in our position who work until they fall over to care for their families aren't going to pull a kid out of college or kick an elderly parent to the curb to hand over any more. When either one of us had been laid off, we were not the evil wealthy. When we would get a job again, we were evil again. Not any more. Not one more cent. And to anyone who starts talking about stuff we'll never see in our lifetime like big boats and high end items, you can kiss my 30 year old volvo.

So you're barely keeping up on $250,000 per year. How on earth does a family making a fraction of that survive (since the median household income in the United States is about one eighth of your annual earnings)?