Now that the coronation of President Barack Obama is over and the nation returns to the poorly scripted soap opera being played out on Capitol Hill, the harsh realities of our nation’s financial crisis is center stage.
Everyone seems to be aware that our national debt is $16.4 trillion. Our current budget deficit — what the government takes in versus what it spends — is $1.06 trillion. In fact our nation’s revenue is $2.48 trillion. Not bad. However, the government of the United States is spending $3.54 trillion a year. That’s bad. Hence, the deficit spending of $1.06 trillion.
That’s not a good thing. Why? Well, when one examines the nation’s fiscal problems more carefully, one discovers that we have an unfunded liabilities total of $122.4 trillion. So, if one was thinking that all we have to focus on is the annual deficit and the total debt, one should realign one’s thinking. My question — how does one wrap one’s mind around $122 trillion when the nation’s total national assets — small business, corporations and households across this nation — only total $93 trillion?
Why is all of this important to the discussion? It frames the total picture of our government as excessive and well beyond what we can afford. It should no longer be swept aside when the negotiations between the White House, Senate and House commence. This is serious. This is what could ultimately bring this nation to its knees.
Now, for some good news. As a citizen of the United States of America each taxpayer has a liability for this spending of only $1.1 million. So if you have an extra million laying around, send your share to the IRS and get that bill out of the way before April 15.
We must, as citizens of this nation, hold our elected officials responsible for this overwhelming problem. We have allowed them to rack up this indebtedness. It is now our responsibility to demand that they cut spending more than we bring in any given year. If we fail to follow through with this demand as individuals of our leaders, then we all fail the generations that will follow us.
Keith Hansen
Comments (18)
Add commentWaiting!
Alright libs, prove to me that Keith is wrong! Please try to do it without mentioning Fox News, Bush, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh!
dean1961
So far, no one can. I will check later as it might take time to look something up on the HuffPost, Media Matters, MSNBC,CNN, and the alphabet soup channels.
I see that the Lefters
are avoiding this one totally!
Nice try.
There is 103 trillion sq. feet in the United States not counting Alaska and Hawaii. So, what your suggesting is each sq. foot and the contents it holds is worth less than a dollar per square foot. Using your figure of 93 trillion in assets. Now, toss in Alaska, Hawaii, and other overseas assets and our country's square footage and its contents are worth even less per square foot. Facts can be stubborn things. Our country loses over a trillion dollars every year to tax cheats. Maybe double that if you count all 50 states, thousand of counties and cities which collect taxes. I highly doubt it's the welfare recipients and illegal aliens which are at the crux of the tax cheating. Generally, the whiners are the perpetrators. Honor our fallen soldiers by voting in every election.
grandpatax
I got up early this morning so, it is getting late. I don't see
anything about welfare recipients and illegal aliens in this article.
How is this article wrong?
Hmm eyeolf
I thought you said you're father passed. (Reincanation)
Yes sir (Gramps) I will always Honor the fallen!! To my last breath anyways.
ROFLMAO
ROFLMAO
I noticed that keith gives no sources for his $122 trillion of unfunded liabilities.
Either keith has sources, or keith made up this B.S......again!
The article is wrong as our
The article is wrong as our country has more than 93 trillion in assets. People on the Right continue to rail on welfare and illegals as our country's main problem. Tax cheats cause more strife than welfare and illegals.
Here is where I realized this
Here is where I realized this unfunded liability, TRUE deficit. The numbers in the book are lower than Keith's, but this book was released in 2009. I think the number thrown out was somewhere around $56 trillion???
Book: Comeback America-Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility
By: David M. Walker-who served under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Baby Bush 43 as Comptroller General of the GAO.
Dean 1961: Okay -- you agree with Keith's take. Here's an
answer to that, from another perspective (if you're really interested): http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
and
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-republicans-dont-care-about-the-debt-....
Republicans don't care about the debt/deficit -- they just want an excuse to gut the social programs they never liked in the first place. As usual, Keith likes to frame his dogmatic pseudo-solutions to fit his pre-fab (half-true) definition of the problem. Until the nation addresses both our spending AND revenue problems -- engaging in that nasty "c" word, compromise -- we'll continue to flounder and fall short of our economic potential. Hansen isn't generally in compromise/problem-solving mode, however. The V.P. of Outrage Development needs to stir the pot to get the online "hits", right? That'll work for a while, anyway.
OFB
Good one.
From eyolf to grandpatax
From eyolf to grandpatax in the click of a button. Did you get to keep eyolf also. That would get you two votes, two greenies, two reds. Wow, just like the ballot box. And just like Marcia also, except she has 4.
I don't think
they are the same guy.
Okay -- we're approaching another "put-up or shut-up" moment.
I'm seriously intrigued with the conspiracy theory about commenters on this site who supposedly have multiple, simultaneous on-line monikers. Do tell -- don't keep the proof to yourselves!! What do you "insiders" think you know (including, but not limited to poor Denton's complicity?!?) to be true regarding this that the rest of us haven't figured out? And, why the preoccupation/paranoia? I've been meaning to ask this for a while, and since the conspiracy theory continues to linger, from whence does it arrive? (I haven't been on this comment site as long as some of you, so I must not have the appropriate radar for detecting these multiple personalities. Help out a fellow traveller with your insights on this.) It seems like this criticism arises most frequently when one of the C.C.'s -- conservative cabal -- you know who you are! :-) doesn't like something said by one of the so-called "liberal" (aka: lefty, libs, ...) posters. Yes, no -- on base, close? Inquiring minds are dying to know! (However, if it's just another fanciful bunch of nonsense, never mind. Some conspiracy theories have a way of taking on an imaginary life of their own that exceeds their claim to credibility.) But, pray tell, do tell, . . . IF there's any "there" there.
So for the last 4 years of Obama's reign as "Tinker Toy for the
Day", all we heard from liberals was about how Bush raised the deficit $8 trillion, but now we have the same people defending Obama's $16 trillion spend thrift ways in half the time as a fine example of budget balancing! Double standards or no backbone?
The cost of climate change to
The cost of climate change to our future economy will probably dwarf the debt and the longer we stall action the more it is going to cost.
S & P 500 up to 1500 today
Sounds good.
Bubba
Did you read this opinion? Neither of your links counter Keith's opinion. They just denigrate Republican politicians. Keith is talking about government spending, not one side or the other.
P.S. Krugman? Really?
Dean: I completely disagree. Both pieces address the fact that
our economic problem isn't "one dimensional", and that we need to approach solutions more wholistically (not just a single-minded focus on debt/deficit, as Keith can't resist framing it). Did you read the articles? And yes, absolutely Paul Krugman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman)
His 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics is one more than either of us has won. I realize that so-called conservatives don't like reading Krugman's column (and 20 books, ...) in the NYTimes, but he's no slouch. You prefer the now-ruined (by Rupert Murdoch) Wall Street Journal, and it's slate of "conservative" supply-siders, I presume? To each their own. Have a nice day. I'm heading to Crashed Ice with my teenaged nephew. Brrrr.