[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

Sun Apr 25 01:16:54 UTC 2010

Laura, I think you're making my case for me.  If every single asset 
in this country is worth so much less than our debt to the tune of 
about 50% more, that means with every single asset we have, we'll 
need a 150% return to pay off the debt.  Since those assets include 
all income, property, and everything else we own, we have a major 
problem that our income is a whole lot smaller than our "outgo".

People dependent upon federal programs and living on fixed incomes 
will be the first and hardest hit when either the government decides 
to address the problem, or our debtors decide to force them to do so.

As noted, my numbers come from the US Debt Clock website, which gets 
them from various government sources.  I'd have provided a link, but 
the site's woefully inaccessible as I said, so it won't do a whole 
lot of good.  You're free to disagree with the results, since I 
haven't done all the legwork the debt clock person/people have done 
to calculate all of the figures and check their math.

Joseph

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 04:32:51PM -0500, qubit wrote:
>good one -- where did you get the figures?
>Income is not all a sum of static assets, though. I don't pretend to be an
>economist, but when people are working and contributing to the general
>commerce, isn't there an increase in the value of the country's assets? It's
>both the static assets and the movement of money.
>Now if I am remembering high school economy wrongly, please correct me.
>The problem with pure socialism is that the productivity of individuals is
>less -- this is a historical fact -- look at the soviet union -- when people
>have little or no incentive to work, they will naturally be inclined to work
>less.
>Now I know someone is going to flame about that one.  So have at it.
>Happy flaming.
>--le
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
>To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:50 AM
>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled
>
>
>According to the US Debt Clock (privately run and woefully
>inaccessible), the current total US liability per person is in the
>neighborhood of $350,634.  If you spread the wealth evenly, the total
>US national assets (public and private), per person, are only
>$234,237.  That means if you follow the current doctrine of soak the
>rich and make sure nobody has any more than everyone else gets, every
>single man, woman, and child in these United States would still owe a
>total of $116,377.
>
>I've got no idea how much of that is owed to other countries like
>China and how much of that is owed to Grandma (the largest unfunded
>liability of the government is Social Security), but there you have
>it.  If everything we own, all of our land and possessions are taken
>as payment of the national debt, we all still owe something in the
>neighborhood of the value of my family's house, pre-housing debacle.
>
>The government has no money to pay squat.  One of these days, Social
>Security is going to not get paid because our debtors are going to
>start demanding a return on their investment.  That's basic Economics
>101.  WHEN that happens, not if, people looking for the government to
>pay their bills are going to be screwed.
>
>Ask the teachers in California how well they can spend IOUs.  In
>time, that'll be readers' SSI and SSDI checks.  The alternatives are
>a complete and immediate collapse of the dollar or Zimbabwe-style
>inflation.  Scary stuff.
>
>You cannot spend money indefinitely without the ability or desire to
>pay.  If you and I do that, we will at least destroy our credit
>rating or at worse go to jail for fraud.  The Weasel Caucus (which
>seems to be the only thing bi-partisan in DC anymore) is doing the
>same and has been apparently since before I was born.  They probably
>won't face any real consequences for it.
>
>We will, sooner or later.  And it's gonna hit certain populations
>(like blind people collecting SSI and SSDI for example) a whole lot
>harder than it's going to hit political fat cats who quibble over
>which model of Gulf Stream Jet they are forced to fly in.
>
>If the media wants to see real anger in the streets, wait till people
>figure out just how screwed we really are, courtesy of a whole bunch
>of fat elephants and complete donkeys, who will have moved their not
>inconsiderable assets to safety long before it happens.
>
>Ready to vote them all out,
>
>Joseph
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:43:03PM -0500, David Andrews wrote:
>>Well, the government probably has more money, and can provide things
>>in a more even-handed regular way.  Yes, there are problems with
>>administering government programs -- but private ones too.  Who
>>hasn't had billing problems with an insurance company, a phone
>>company, a a bank or a credit card company.  Any large system that
>>tries to make everybody, and everything the same is going to have
>>these kinds of problems.  If you think the government has a monopoly
>>on the bad stuff, or that the private sector could administer a large
>>program without mistakes, fraud and the rest of it is just thinking
>>selectively to make a point.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>At 11:43 PM 4/22/2010, you wrote:
>>>Chuck, I don't know you of course, but based on your comments, I'm
>>>tempted to think that you don't receive social security or Medicare
>>>benefits. I and many of my friends can relate horror story after
>>>horror story involving the bureaucracy and ineptness of various
>>>government programs. I've asked many liberals in amicable debates
>>>why they believe that the government is better able to provide
>>>assistance than the private sector. I ask on a historical,
>>>efficiency and motivational basis. At the end of the arguments,
>>>though many platitudes come across, I've never received a solid
>>>answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>RyanO
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>nfb-talk mailing list
>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org