U.S. heading for financial trouble?

buddy

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 21, 2000
10,897
85
0
Pittsburgh, Pa.
image2531451g.jpg



(CBS) When the stock market plunges like it did this week, everyone pays attention. The man you're about to meet says hardly anyone is paying attention to what really threatens our financial future. Like an Old Testament prophet, David Walker has been traveling the country, urging people to "wake up before it's too late."

But David Walker is no wild-eyed zealot. As Steve Kroft reports, David Walker is an accountant, the nation?s top accountant to be exact, the comptroller general of the United States. He has totaled up our government's income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded the numbers simply don?t add up. And he?s not alone. Its been called the "dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows" ? a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don?t even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.

"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility," Walker tells Kroft.

David Walker is a prudent man and a highly respected public official. As comptroller general of the United States he runs he Government Accountability Office, the GAO, which audits the government's books and serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress. He has more than 3,000 employees, a budget of a half a billion dollars, and a message he considers urgent.

"I'm going to show you some numbers?they?re all big and they?re all bad," he says.

So bad, that Walker has given up on elected officials and taken his message directly to taxpayers and opinion makers, hoping to shape the debate in the next presidential election.

"You know the American people, I tell you, we've been to 13 cities outside of Washington with the fiscal wake up tour. They are absolutely starved for two things: the truth, and leadership," Walker says.

He calls it a fiscal wake up tour, and he is telling civic groups, university forums and newspaper editorial boards that the U.S. has spent, promised, and borrowed itself into such a deep hole it will be unable to climb out if it doesn?t act now. As Walker sees it, the survival of the republic is at stake.

"What?s going on right now is we?re spending more money than we make?we?re charging it to credit card?and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it. And that?s absolutely outrageous," he told the editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

You have heard this before, from Ross Perot 15 years ago. You might have even thought the problem had been solved, when President Clinton announced, "Tonight, I come before you to announce that the federal deficit ? will be simply zero."

"Well, those days are gone. We've gone from surpluses to huge deficits and our long range situation is much worse," Walker says.

"President Bush would argue that the economy is in pretty good shape, unemployment is down, the deficit is actually less than expected," Kroft remarks.

"The fact is, is that we don't face an immediate crisis. And, so people say, 'What's the problem?' The answer is, we suffer from a fiscal cancer. It is growing within us. And if we do not treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country," Walker replies.

The cancer, Walker says, are massive entitlement programs we can no longer afford, exacerbated by a demographic glitch that began more than 60 years ago-- a dramatic spike in the fertility rate called the "baby boom."

Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.

"The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious," Walker explains.

To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.

What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?

"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else ? national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," Walker warns.

Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud, and the entire Pentagon budget and the long range financial projections barely change, in what's shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.

Part of the problem, Walker acknowledges, is that there won't be enough wage earners to support the benefits of the baby boomers. "But the real problem, Steve, is health care costs. Our health care problem is much more significant than Social Security," he says.

Asked what he means by that, Walker tells Kroft, "By that I mean that the Medicare problem is five times greater than the Social Security problem."

The problem with Medicare, Walker says, is people keep living longer, and medical costs keep rising at twice the rate of inflation. But instead of dealing with the problem, he says, the president and the Congress made things much worse just three years ago when they expanded the Medicare program to include prescription drug coverage.

"The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," Walker argues.

Asked why, Walker says, "Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We're not being realistic. We can't afford the promises we've already made, much less to be able, piling on top of 'em."

With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years.

"We?d have to have eight trillion dollars today, invested in treasury rates, to deliver on that promise," Walker explains.

Asked how much we actually have, Walker says, "Zip."

So where's that money going to come from?

"Well it's gonna come from additional taxes, or it's gonna come from restructuring these promises, or it's gonna come from cutting other spending," Walker says.

He is not suggesting that the nation do away with Medicare or prescription drug benefits. He does believe the current health care system is way too expensive, and overrated.

"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," he says.

"We have the largest uninsured population of any major industrialized nation. We have above average infant mortality, below average life expectancy, and much higher than average medical error rates for an industrialized nation," Walker points out.

Walker says we have promised almost unlimited health care to senior citizens who never see the bills, and the government already is borrowing money to pay them. He says the system is unsustainable.

"It's the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it's the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it's the number one competitive challenge for American business. We're gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years," Walker tells Kroft.

And if we don't?

"And if we don't, it could bankrupt America," Walker argues.

You?re probably expecting to hear from someone who disagrees with the comptroller general?s numbers, projections, and analysis. But hardly anyone does. He is accompanied on the wake-up tour by economists from the conservative Heritage Foundation, the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and the non-partisan Concord Coalition. The only dissenters seem to be a small minority of economists who believe either that the U.S. can grow its way out of the problem, or that Walker is over-stating it.

"The Wall Street Journal for example calls you 'Chicken Little,' running around saying that the 'sky is falling, the sky is falling,'" Kroft remarks.

"Unfortunately they don't get it. I don't know anybody who has done their homework, has researched history, and who's good at math who would tell you that we can grow our way out of this problem," Walker replies.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke validated much of Walker's take on the situation at congressional hearings this year, and so did ranking Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the Chairman.

Sen. Conrad thinks David Walker is "providing an enormous public service."

Asked if he agrees with Walker?s figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, "I do. You know, I mean we could always question the precise nature of this projection or that projection. But, that misses the point. The larger story that he is telling is exactly correct."

Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is. "They know in large measure here, Republicans and Democrats, that we are on a course that doesn't add up," the senator tells Kroft.

"Why doesn't somebody do something about it?" Kroft asks.

"Because it's always easier not to. 'Cause it's always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices," Sen. Conrad says.

Asked if he thinks taxes should be raised, the senator says, "I believe first of all, we need more revenue. We need to be tough on spending. And we need to reform the entitlement programs ? we need to do all of it."

But he admits he doesn't think there's a consensus for raising taxes.

"Any politician who tells you that we can solve our problem without reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is not telling you the truth," Walker told an audience at the University of Denver.

Over the next year, the nation?s top accountant will be traveling to the early primary states, telling voters that we need to begin raising taxes or government revenues and put a cap on federal spending if we want to maintain our economic security and standard of living.

"If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices," Walker argues.

Asked if he knows any politicians willing to raise taxes or cut back benefits, Walker says, "I don't know politicians that like to raise taxes. I don't know politicians that like to cut spending, but I think what we have to recognize is this is not just about numbers. We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it's an issue of immorality."
__________________
The Plungers & the Peacocks: 170 Years on Wall Street (Legends of Commerce)

Mark Skousen, author of The Making of Modern Economics:
Best history of Wall Street. Absolutely fascinating

Using interviews with "old-timers" who lived through the events of the Street from the 1920s to the 40s and memoirs, and letters, the author has produced a sweeping narrative of "the games people played" in establishing America's financial center.
_______________________________________

I'm convinced we're all completely ****ed

social security, health care, pensions are all going to collapse

i know a public school teacher who could have retired at 57 and received health benefits and 80% of his salary for life. Living 40 more years is not unheard of, and he ends up getting paid more in retirement than in his working career.

I see no possible way we are going to be able to solve all the problems with social security and health care piled on top of a huge deficit. Add to that the increading personal debt and reduced savings, and if a major recession ever hits we are all ****ed.

i find it hilarious that we spent 50 years fighting evil communism, and yet we are almost there ourselves. Isn't this pretty much what communism is all about?
____________________________________

The gov't will just print more and more money. Its not backed up by anything, so what is there to stop them?
As long as the rest of the world will let the US get away with it, we will be OK. (if the US goes down, it drags down everyone else with it, so looking the other way is good for everyone)
After that gov't will just nuke any country that tries to dissent
__________________


THE US has been treading water for 2 decades. If it was a business it would have filed BK years ago.
Reply With Quote
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
First off Buddy if there were no Churches. We would have to stand outside by the wagons and pray.
As for this report. Many as you say agree with this report. You can add Steve Forbes to the list. His flat tax plan would help a great deal. But so many don't want to listen.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,314
1,506
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Great post Buddy. This should NOT be suprising to anyone. Without even seeing the US books, we've heard of our spiraling national debt, borrowing from Social Security, and increased defense spending. It adds up to debt that is out of control. The Bush backers will continue to point to the economy in an attempt to show that all is well. All is not well, it is not even bad, it's terrifying.

This is just another reason we need to get the Republicans out of office. The future has been mortgaged and the next administration (Democrats) will be forced to come in and look like the bad guys as they try to correct the US financial woes.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
"If you tell them the truth, if you give them the facts, if you explain this in terms of not just numbers but values and people, they will get it and empower their elected officials to make tough choices," Walker argues.
I have a hard time believing that. When it comes to money, we barely look 1 month ahead. I'm afraid we won't do anything about this until it's collapsing our budget.
 

Dead Money

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 15, 2005
4,350
64
0
Upstairs watching sports on the big TV.
Buy gold...

Buy gold...

No politician, much less the American public, is going to accept the Draconian conditions that will lead to fiscal responsibility.

They will keep the charade ongoing. You are looking at massive inflation. Guns and butter has never worked, and with the baby boomers retiring, watch out!!

Gold and silver have free market history on their side, the stock and bond market do not.

PROTECT YOUR WEALTH, put a portion of your nest-egg into precious metals, available at your local coin dealer..lots of good info here.

.http://goldismoney.info/forums/
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
This is easy to fix. Just get it from the middle class, tap into social security, get rid of the programs for the old people or poor and disabled. Its the right wing way. If there is any thing left see if you can give it to rich people or put it to the biggest defense budget in the history of the world. A budget that always has to go up because nitwits get scared if you cut it because the right will say you are weak when in fact its their buddies companies and people like the Carlyle group that make all the money we piss away. The right wingers hate entitlement programs that is why they love deficits. Its a way to crush them. One program they love tho is corporate welfare. Don't touch this either.
 
Last edited:

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Word on street is that was bled dry several years ago......the next 10 years are going to be extremely painful for the citizenry of this country...

Not for the rich. They made out like bandits under this administration. I should be okay. I finally found a way to keep these greedy pricks out of my life.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,516
212
63
Bowling Green Ky
Interesting --you might want to take note on another of his quotes--

"DAVID WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE: "Without a change in entitlement programs, demographics will overwhelm the surplus and drive us back into a period of escalating deficits and debt."


---so you say we put more tax burden on the already shrinking tax payor--or do we cut spending on the escalating deadbeat element that contributes 0 to society?

42.5 mill (32.4%) of population pay no income tax.

There a good chance most wanting tax increases pay no taxes-

--and who statisically are the supporters of tax increases--(the dem voting block)

- those that have 7 of every 10 children celebrating fathers day on April 1st (88%)
--and the dems largestest voting block per income (63%) those earning less than $15,000.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Dogs - will you please tell me how you propose extracting an income tax from someone making under 15 grand?

And how do you explain that this number of 32.4% has exploded since Bush took office? With Clinton, it averaged closer to 25%. Why is it that this very stat that you always point to has reached all time highs under Bush and his tax cuts?

Based on your logic, Bush's policies are creating more Democrats.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
After the 1929 crash, Car companies kept on making cars, Oil companies kept drilling, the Empire State building was erected, Genera Electric, Westinghouse and others kept on making money. Only one segment of the population took it in the shorts. Around 1933, Roosevelt closed the banks and called it a holiday. One segment of the population took it in the shorts
The government passed a law requiring all citizens to turn in their gold. One segment of the population took it in the shorts.
1939, the government embargoed E. Indian oil shipping to prevent the Japanese getting oil, triggering the Pearl Harbor attack. A segment of the population took it in the shorts.
There is nothing new here. One segment of the population will always take it. We are collateral.
 

Man O' Vegas

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 29, 2001
601
0
0
Las Vegas, Nev
Saw this 60 Minutes segment (To my detriment) looks like this guy didn't get the attention he wanted in govt. circles so he started his own "Road to Damnation" tour. Unfortunately he looks to govt. for his solutions.
There are some very good private sector solutions for S.S. and health-care, but too many in govt. wont relinquish control of those high revenue programs. Yeah I know, big surprise.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,314
1,506
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
42.5 mill (32.4%) of population pay no income tax.

Couple questions:
1. Does this figure include children?
2. Does this figure include the elderly?
3. Does this figure include the unemployed and illegal aliens?
4. Does this statistic have anything to do with the financial irresponsibility of the White House and the story in the original post?

What is really admirable about your favorite debate tactic (subject change) is that not only do you change the subject, but you come through with statistics and weblinks to back up your point....which is always irrelevant to the topic at hand. Bravo DTB, bravo.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
this stat is the one dtb drags out whenever the topic of taxes comes up. it's the number of working americans who don't have to pay taxes due to the fact that they earn so little of a salary.

The ironic thing is that DTB himself listed the increased % that fall into this category over the years - with of course the giant leap over 30% ocurring during the Bush years with a GOP congress. ...I don't know if DTB means to emphasize that part, but it's undeniable.

So 32.4% of US workers earn so little that there's no point in even taxing them. You know - I really doubt that ANY tax payer would want to switch places with them. I really don't think that people making 15K are taking advantage of the system. I'd much rather make a liveable wage and pitch in my share to the fiduciary gods.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Couple questions:
1. Does this figure include children?
2. Does this figure include the elderly?
3. Does this figure include the unemployed and illegal aliens?
4. Does this statistic have anything to do with the financial irresponsibility of the White House and the story in the original post?

You should ask him for his stats on blacks... I'm sure he has those on hand.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,314
1,506
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Smurph/BJ - I think you both know I had zero interest in the answer to questions 1-3. I'm getting tired of this tactic and will expose it every chance I get.

On taxes: If the DTBs of the world had their way, the rich would not be taxed at all, since they are the driving force behind the American economy. The less money the gov takes from them, the more they have to invest back into the country: sparking entrepreneurship, creating jobs, etc. What a crock. I apologize for generalizing DTB, but let me know where I went wrong in your theory.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,516
212
63
Bowling Green Ky
1st I would assume the qualification for those that pay taxes and those that don't are the same--considering the facts didn't come from a political blog site--

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/542.html

Smurph Those earning under $15,000 was only in reference to the Dems party highest % of voters per income.

My Question is why are they earning less than $15,000 a year?

On the escalating % of non tax payors from Clinton era to present--it is not a political issue but a demographic issue and you will see it increase further regardless what party is in power--it stems from increase in non productive population with increasing flood of immigrants.
When you reward non productive at expense of productive--you create an adverse environment.

Don't care how you cut it--taxes are not economy friendly--and especially when its on businesses that create jobs.

Would agree that gov spending cuts is best route by far--and agree this admin has not done good job in that area--especially increasing Medicare spending--eg ** drug benefits.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson--The gov that rules the least--rules the best.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's been an increase of rewarding non-productivity. Welfare was reformed by Clinton admin. Show me specific examples of rewarding "non-productivity".

Earning a lower wage simply means you have a crappy job. Crappy jobs will always exist and somebody will always have to do them. You seem to believe that the people doing these crappy jobs are not being productive --- I don't get that view, it makes no sense. Even if everyone worked as hard as you would like, these crappy jobs would still have to be filled by someone - can't you understand that?

The problem seems to be that these crappy jobs pay below a liveable standard - hence, the "unproductive" (as you say) bearers of these glorious jobs CANT AFFORD to pay taxes. What's so hard to understand about this?

So why is it that the % of these crappy low paying jobs has increased so much the last decade? It seems to me that the solution to this problem which you constantly bring up is to simply pay more for this work. That way, everyone is above the liveable wage and can afford to pay taxes.

So in conclusion, your rants about these numbers are simply a strong argument for a much higher minimum wage. I'm sure you didn't want your point to reach that conclusion, but it obviously has.

The only way you will ever be satisfied about the unfair tax burden, would be if minum wage was at least $10 hr. That's the only hope of you getting off this kick.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,516
212
63
Bowling Green Ky
Welfare reform under Clinton Admin--yes
Was he and Dems responsible for it--:mj07:

It was 3# objective on Rebs-- Contract with America--you might want to look who introduced the bill--I'll save you the time of who voted against it--all liberals ;)



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_104_2.htm

NAYs ---24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Glenn (D-OH)
Graham (D-FL)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Pell (D-RI)
Pryor (D-AR)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Simon (D-IL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

oops there is 1 reb stuck in there :)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
Whatever, Dogs. That's not even the point. Most Americans including President Clinton were in favor of welfare reform. The other dems should have backed it too. Not suprising of course - you emphasize that vote rather than stay on the topic you started but will not answer my statements.

The point is that welfare reform happened - yet somehow in spite of that, this 32.4% has happened. Since that number obviously is not coming from non-working welfare recipients, it's coming from people working fulltime jobs with sub-liveable wages. So, am I to assume that you want to increase the wages of these jobs to a liveable standard? ....I mean, that would obviously decrease the dreaded 32.4 that you hate so much substantially - right? If you don't answer, I assume you agree.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top