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

[John Heim]

I too would like to know where TJC got his figures. There are 300  
million people in the USA. The national debt is about $8 trillion. $8  
trillion divided by 300 million is about $2700, not $350 thousand as  
TJC says.



On Apr 24, 2010, at 4:32 PM, 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
>