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

John G. Heim jheim at math.wisc.edu
Mon Apr 26 13:02:55 UTC 2010


Oops... $8 trillion divided by 300 million is 27,000. 8 trillion is 8 
million million. So yu cand just divide 8 million by 300. To do that, cross 
off2 more zeros and divide 80 million by 3. Which is $27,000.

So the national debt is about $30K each. Still, that's a long way from 
$350,000.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled


> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
> 





More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list