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

[John Heim]

These numbers just can't be right. Its not clear what "total  
liabilities" means. But the national debt is somewhere around $8  
trillion. There are 300 million Americans. That works out to less than  
$3000 per person. Under no conceivable view of United States  
government debt can you get $350 thousand per person. Maybe if you  
include things like personal and corporate debt But that's not really  
relevant to this conversation..


On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:50 AM, T. Joseph Carter wrote:

> 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
>