To Many Hands Out, How Will We Pay?

When we look at what's going on with our economy, one has to wonder.  How will the United States pay for so many people on the Federal Dole?
Let's consider for a moment that we have about 10,000 people per day that are signing up for Food Stamps, or roughly 300,000 per month.
On top of that we have thousands on a daily basis signing up for Welfare.
On top of that we have around 10,000 people per day retiring and collecting Social Security (which is a pay as you go program, there is no trust fund)
On top of all these handouts to non producers, we also have the Federal Government adding about 100 new employees per day.
So you might be sitting there saying, Yeah, we're a big country, what's the big deal.  Here's the big deal.  We're only adding around 150,000 jobs a month to the economy.  Yes, you heard that right.  We have around 300,000 new retirees per month collecting Social Security and over 300,000 NEW people collecting Food Stamps plus who knows how many collecting Welfare EVERY month and yet only 150,000 new jobs a month to support all of this.  How will we pay for it all?  I just don't see it happening.

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY.

For those with short attention spans:
Total Household Debt:                          $140,000.00
Household Income:                                 $21,000.00
Household Spending:                              $38,200.00
New Debt:                                             $16,500.00
Amount Cut:                                                $385.00

Translated to the Federal Government:

Total Federal Debt:             $14,000,000,000,000.00
Federal Income:                    $2,100,000,000,000.00
Federal Spending:                 $3,820,000,000,000.00
New Debt:                            $1,650,000,000,000.00
Amount Cut:                              $38,500,000,000.00

Either way you look at it, it's only about 1% of the budget.  Let's keep in mind this video was made about a year ago with the original budget deal.  The new budget deal calls for "800 Billion" in cuts... [over 10 years], or about 80 Billion a year.  Pretty much all the other numbers are about the same, except the income has increased to around 2.3 Trillion a year.  The new "cuts" will amount to only around 2% or about double the original budget deal a year ago.

If the new numbers were put into the video the amount the guy had "cut" from his budget would be around $800.00 a year, instead of $385.00 a year.  Either way we're talking about tiny, insignificant "cuts" that only perpetuate the incredible levels of spending.

How New Logic Sows Distrust

     We've all seen the reports, how it turns out that the supposedly 38 Billion in cuts is in all actuality only 352 Million in cuts.  When asked, they all shrug it off because as politicians, they've gotten used to using new math and new wording that is coached in political terms and quite frankly if used by any of us, would probably get us in a great deal of trouble.

     The way they see it is that they should have increased spending by an inflation adjusted 38 Billion, but instead cut the imaginary, never proposed, never passed into law, budget of 2011 by 352 Million.  To you and me, ordinary citizens, well that's a 352 Million dollar spending cut, to the politicians it's a 38 Billion dollar cut.  

     Once we find out the truth, does this lend more or less trust, not only in the Government, but also the Media itself that reports these "facts" without bothering to explain to the people what it really means.  Am I to believe that these reporters really don't know what's going on?  I'm a part time pundit and I know what's going on, these guys do this for a living!

     Now, Obama's new proposal is to "cut" 4 Trillion, not by cutting spending, but instead by cutting things like our ability to deduct the Mortgage Interest we're paying on our homes, (In other words, tax increases! - I'm sure this will do wonders for the Housing Market).  Even his plan of "cutting" 3 dollars for every 1 dollar in tax increases, doesn't quite add up, because the cuts are not really cuts, but instead the cuts are actually slowdowns in spending.  However, even with the slowdowns in spending, his budget calls for increases in Government spending from 25% of GDP today to well over 40% by 2050!  This represents another problem in the form of Hauser's Law, throughout the entire history of the IRS, the Federal Government has NEVER been able to collect more than 20.9% of GDP in Taxes!  Even when the top rates were 80%.  To top it off revenue usually averages under 19% of GDP.  Again, they don't know this stuff?    So they're lying to us, AGAIN.

     Even Ryan's Plan of "cutting" 6 Trillion, REALLY only cuts about 400 Billion the first year, by not implementing Obama Care and not renewing the failed Stimulus Plan.  Every year after that there's still growth, taking the budget from 3.5 Trillion to nearly 5 Trillion in 10 years, vs a Trillion dollars more in Obama's plan.  So where's the 6 Trillion in cuts?  It's the difference over 10 years between the Republicans Debt Ridden spending plan, vs Obama's INCREDIBLY debt ridden spending plan, NEITHER OF WHICH eliminates the deficit, though SUPPOSEDLY Ryan's plan will get us to a balanced budget in 10 years, but not before adding Trillions more to the National Debt.

     Is it any wonder that more and more Americans turn to the new Media like Glenn Beck, the Blaze, Rush and others?  How do we proceed with an "honest conversation" when the very words they use to describe what they're doing are in all actuality lies?  

     We need to demand HONESTY from our politicians and we need to stop the idiotic tendency that people have of saying that you "can't talk politics and religion" because we're afraid that someone will be offended.  What's the point of having the right to free speech if we can't and won't exercise it?  At the same time we need to grow up and stop getting angry at people because they disagree with us on one point or another.  We need to realise that everyone has a different point of view and no 2 people are EVER going to fully agree on everything.  Only once we start demanding HONEST and open dialogue with each other, will our politicians who are a reflection of us, will begin to have an honest and open dialogue with us in return.  In the meantime, when you hear that the "Republicans" want to starve people, and the "Democrats" want to bankrupt us, we need to do our own research and find out what the real truth is, because unfortunately, neither side will tell us the honest truth.

Geithner Warns Nation to Hit Debt Limit Deadline in Mid-May

Published April 11, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Mark it on the calendar. The next big deadline in Washington is May 16, if not earlier.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner now estimates that the nation's debt ceiling will be reached no later than that date. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Geithner wrote that Congress must act in a matter of weeks to raise the limit or face a fiscal calamity potentially worse than the one from which the nation is recovering.
Geithner noted that the Treasury Department can take "extraordinary measures" to buy time -- about eight extra weeks, maximum -- after the May deadline. But he said once those measures are exhausted the U.S. government would not have enough money to pay its bills. Military salaries, Social Security payments and jobless benefits would cease, he warned, adding that a default on the debt would drive up interest rates, erode home values and cause a new financial crisis.
"For these reasons, default by the United States is unthinkable," Geithner wrote.
But after extracting a last-minute budget deal out of Democrats, in turn averting a government shutdown and marking billions of dollars in spending cuts in their column, Republicans are in the mood for another stand-off on Capitol Hill. From the top down, GOP leaders warn they will not vote to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling unless they see genuine efforts to reduce the deficit.
"There will not be an increase in the debt limit without something really, really big attached to it," House Speaker John Boehner said at a fundraiser Saturday night.
"This is about making the right decisions now," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., told "Fox News Sunday." He touted Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-Wis., budget proposal -- a plan released last week that contains about $6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years -- and suggested Republicans would fight for at least a chunk of that plan as a condition of their support on the debt limit vote.
Ryan, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," said the Republicans' strategy is not to default but compel the government to control spending.
"I think there will be some kind of negotiations, and yes, it probably will go up to some sort of a deadline. The debt ceiling deadline is a moving deadline, it's not a date certain deadline like the government shutdown," Ryan said.
He said the debt ceiling increase, if Republicans are to support it, must come with "real fiscal reforms, real spending cuts, and real spending controls going forward so we can deal with the debt in the future."
White House senior adviser David Plouffe, over the course of several television interviews Sunday, indicated that the White House is willing to put some reforms on the table. President Obama plans to announce a new deficit-reduction plan Wednesday -- a follow-up to a budget proposal earlier in the year which was widely panned by Republicans as doing little to control spending.
Plouffe, though, told "Meet the Press" that voting "no" on the debt ceiling increase could be a "catastrophic failure for the United States economy."
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., urged Republicans to take the debt-limit threat off the table.
"It could be a formula for recession or worse," Schumer told CBS' "Face the Nation." "So this is playing with fire."
Though Geithner, in his letter to Reid, said Treasury has a few tricks up its sleeve to forestall the default deadline, he noted the government has "much less flexibility" than it used to because of the sheer size of its deficits.
The secretary said the U.S. government, for instance, can't simply cut spending or raise taxes to avoid hitting the cap. With the public debt increasing at a rate of about $125 billion every month, Geithner said it would take an impossible amount of budgetary rearranging to halt that climb in the near-term.
For reference, the projected fiscal 2011 deficit was about $1.6 trillion. After weeks of wrangling, Congress cut that by just $38.5 billion in the deal reached over the weekend.
"In order to avoid an increase in the debt limit, Congress would need to eliminate annual deficits immediately," Geithner wrote.
Print Close
URL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/11/geithner-warns-nation-hit-debt-limit-deadline-mid/#ixzz1JDlHmg52

How Much Euro Membership Has Cost Ireland In Terms Of GDP

This is the problem with having a single currency.  You're not letting the Market set a value on what your economy is worth, and so your currency ends up being managed by a bunch of ministers in a far off land.  Instead of what's best for each individual country, they're concerned with what's best for the collective.
How many times after the fall of the Soviet Union do we need to prove that Collectivism doesn't work?
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

It Pays to be Poor!

Someone Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than Me – A Middle-Classer

Written by Daisy  //  November 22, 2010  //  Weeps And Glees  //  16 Comments

Interesting stuff. I read it this morning here, and the chart they provided as a visual (for people like me who avoid just numbers alone) was pretty damn telling.

A family of 4 on minimum wage now has more disposable income than a hard working American middle class family making $60,000 a year.

Zero Hedge reported, via Free Republic:

Tonight’s stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.” And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper – it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world’s most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

And here’s the nifty little graphic that tells the story quite clearly:

The analyst in the article states that someone is pretty much better off working one week a month at minimum wage than working their ass off at a full-time $60K-a-year gig. Go figure.

And it reminds me of that chick I once saw at a grocery store in Atlanta – she had a Louis Vuitton purse full of freakin’ food stamps, which she used to pay for her groceries (shrimp was included, of course), and then got into her Mercedes and drove away.

Yep. I guess I’m the chump for working 60-hour weeks. Stupid me…

Confidence In The U.S. Will Collapse And Change Will Come With Alarming Speed

People just don't get it, they don't seem to realize what a HUGE problem we're sitting on, yet the average person goes on as if nothing is wrong. We need to change direction FAST, and we need to prepare ourselves, our families and our friends.


The Collapse of the Dollar and How to Profit from It: Make a Fortune by Investing in Gold and Other Hard Assets

More Cities on Brink of Bankruptcy - CNBC

Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

More Cities on Brink of Bankruptcy

Published: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 | 11:01 AM ET

Text Size

By: Kate Kelly
CNBC Reporter

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• More Share

Jeremy Woodhouse | The Image Bank | Getty Images

The possibility of a bankruptcy filing by the city of Harrisburg, Pa., the state capital, looms large these days—and it could be the first in a series, say some Wall Street traders.

Harrisburg, population 55,000, owes nearly $70 million in debt payments this year, and it's unclear where that money will come from.

Harrisburg now has one of the lowest credit ratings of any municipality in the United States.

Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson told CNBC Wednesday that she had assembled a group of bond stakeholders, the city council and other interested parties to work out the crisis "so that we don't become the poster child of the world in terms of bankruptcy."

Municipal bond underwriters are monitoring Harrisburg, which has struggled to contain the costs of financing a troubled incinerator project.

Kate Kelly
CNBC Reporter

In 2003, the city borrowed $125 million to expand and retrofit its incinerator, which officials thought would make money for Harrisburg. The incinerator re-opened five years later, but it's turned out to be nothing but a money drain.

On May 1, the city missed a $452,282 loan payment related to the incinerator.

Raising taxes or selling assets, like real estate or parking lots, are options for Harrisburg. So is a restructuring plan—either inside or outside of bankruptcy.

If Harrisburg does file for bankruptcy, it would do so under Chapter 9—which is employed by cities, but rarely. In one closely watched case, the city of Vallejo, Calif., has been in Chapter 9 since 2008.

About the Harrisburg situation, Jim Lebenthal, head of public affairs for the longtime municipal-bond underwriter, Lebenthal & Co., said that while filing for Chapter 9 would be a small matter in the scheme of things, it's "emblematic" of the larger economic struggles that cities face right now. "If it can happen in a state capital, my God, it can happen anywhere," said Lebenthal.

The overall problem is that the $2.8 trillion muni bond market, long considered one of the safest havens for investors, now faces a daunting level of debt, as cities from Los Angeles to New York struggle with an array of headaches, including less tax revenue and high labor costs.

According to remarks made by Harrisburg mayor Thompson in April, the city spends rought 70 percent of its annual budget on labor.

Cities can always raise taxes to fight a budget shortfall. But costly projects, fewer people in the workforce and more demand for city services can make budgets tough to square these days.

Financial firms underwrite bond offerings for cities and public-works projects, and the default rate on muni bonds has historically been quite low—less than 1 percent—compared to nearly 13 percent for corporate bonds, according to ratings agency figures.

RELATED LINKS

• US Triple-A Rating Stable: Moody's
• Covered Bonds May Play Role In Mortgage-Financing Fix
• Consumer Confidence at 2-Year High

In that sense, the Street encourages investors to go long municipalities.

But investors and the Street can also short munis through credit default swaps, or CDS policies that pay out if an entity defaults.

The Markit MCDX, an index that tracks the cost of insuring against default of a basket of 50 municipalities, is on a recent high of $173,000 for $10 million of protection on a five-year bond—a point last reached near the beginning of this year. A swap that would pay out if the state of Pennsylvania defaults cost $112,000 for the same $10 million amount.

Jesse Bergman contributed to this story.

• Slideshow: Municipal Bonds at Greatest Risk for Default

© 2010 CNBC.com

TOPICS:Economy (U.S.) | Regulations | Investment Strategy | Debt | Credit | Banking |Corporate Bonds | Municipal Bonds | Bankruptcy | New York City | Politics & Government

SECTORS:Financial Services | Banks

15 Mayors Who Must Shred The Budget To Save Their Bankrupt Cities

Just as they bankrupted the Auto Companies, the Unions have now bankrupted the cities.
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

Child's Pay 2 - The Ten Trillion Dollar Sequel

Move On featured an ad a while back where they asked the question. Who will pay for Bush's One Trillion Dollar Deficit. The answer, according to their video was the Children.



Now it seems that RedState has Hijacked the Ad to ask who's going to pay for Obama's Ten Trillion Dollar Deficit!

And here's the Original Ad by Move On....

Is Gold Expensive at $791 an Ounce? Why Gold Will Continue to Soar Much Higher

Is Gold Expensive at $791 an Ounce? Why Gold Will Continue to Soar Much Higher. By J.S. Kim.

November 2nd, 2007

I’m not really sure how all the “Gold at 27-year high” headlines came to be, but my own calculations tell me that gold would have to break at least $2,400 an ounce to break its supposed 27-year high. When discussing the purchase of a 7-series BMW that sells for a MSRP of $90,000 today, no one ever looks at its sales price from 5-years ago at $35,000 and exclaims “BMWs are trading at a 5-year high!” That would be ludicrous. One would have to factor in the effects of inflation and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar before being able to make a reasonable assessment of how expensive BMWs really are today.

At today’s prices of over $790 an ounce, gold is still cheap. If we experience a correction any time soon, and gold breaks back down to the $720 level again before continuing higher, it will just be really cheap. Here’s why.Anyone that’s ever studied the formula that is used to calculate the Consumer Price Index(CPI) in the U.S. knows that the formula has been greatly tinkered with over the years to produce absurdly low inflation numbers that are merely an artificially manufactured number that probably fits some pre-determined number the government would like to report. This pre-determined inflation statistic is needed to maintain consumer confidence in the economy and to keep the hot air flowing that is necessary to keep the U.S. stock market bubble rising.

One of the most closely watched indexes to gauge U.S. economic conditions is the core Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is viewed as THE measure of inflation in the U.S. economy. However, the core CPI just happens to exclude food and energy prices. The government excludes these factors because they claim, these sectors have a history of being extremely volatile. Thus, they feel that their inclusion would skew real inflation rates. This is the dumbest, most deceptive piece of junk that I’ve ever heard. Skew them? No, their inclusion would just tell you what real inflation is. The government concludes that fantasyland numbers are skewed and that real numbers should not be disclosed to the public for fear that real inflation numbers, if reported, will kill stock market rallies. As Morpheus tells Neo in the Matrix, “You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.” The government is serving up blue pills left and right in most of their key economic statistics and reports, and the public gladly ingests.

When crude oil remains above $80 a barrel for months on end, and citizens necessarily have to spend USD $80 a week on gas alone, this affects the amount of money they can save. When higher oil prices cause higher transportation prices and thus higher food and higher EVERYTHING prices, then every citizen necessarily spends more money every month on the normal basket of goods they buy. Core CPI represent true inflation rates for all citizens that don’t have to eat and don’t use heat and don’t drive a car. When you can find such a planet, then I’ll concede that the government’s core CPI statistics are accurate. When energy prices are high and the purchasing power of the dollar is being diminished, the CPI inflation index can understate true inflation by 100% to 200%.

The U.S. Federal Reserve’s unstated goal has been for years, to keep inflation rate at 3% a year or less. It is ironic that many times, the exclusion of energy prices and food prices from the core inflation index allows them to “accomplish” this. When inflation, as reported by the CPI, is stated as “under control”, the thundering sheep herd rejoices, plunges money into U.S. stocks, and amazingly, often European and Asian markets follow, also rising on this news in the short term. However, given this target, I’ll explain how I concluded that the price of gold today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, has to reach a minimum figure of $2,400 in today’s dollars to surpass its 27-year high of gold on September 21, 1980.

In the chart below, I have plotted two series of prices. The light blue series shows the high price of gold in 1980 of $850 an ounce, the average annual price every year thereafter, and the Nov. 1, 2007 price of $791 an ounce in non-inflation adjusted dollars. The red series merely demonstrates the 1980 high price of $850 an ounce in inflation-adjusted dollars every year thereafter.

To calculate the inflation-adjusted $850 an ounce price as equivalent to $2,400 in today’s dollars, here are the assumptions I made. With $850 an ounce as my base price in 1980, for the sake of simplicity, I added an average 3% annual inflation rate to this price every year from 1980 to 1997.

I didn’t bother to chart the exact government released figures for inflation every year because we know that they are a total farce anyways and would be a waste of time. If you wonder why I used the higher end of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s “unofficial” annual inflation target of 3%, this is because most years between 1980 and 1997, it was most likely significantly higher, so as a conservative measure, I accepted the Fed’s annual target rate as the “real” inflation rate. From 1998 to 2007, however, I used a “real” annual inflation rate of 5.5% and here is my rationale for doing so.

The formula for determining the CPI in the United States was further tinkered with under President Clinton’s reign. The are many variations of CPI that are calculated, some that include the price of food, some without, but all have been tinkered with in one way or another to minimize the numbers. In fact, often the CPI index that shows the lowest rates of inflation is the one that is officially reported.

To begin, there is the ludicrous substitution factor in which a cheaper good is substituted for an increasingly expensive good in the basket of goods that determines the CPI index. For example, if the cost of beef is rising but chicken prices remain constant, the government assumes beef eaters will not eat beef and substitute a cheaper food in its place like chicken. For those carnivores that love beef, they will continue to eat beef and pay a premium to eat beef. That’s inflation and it’s real though this inflation component is actively removed from the CPI index every month. Secondly, the government is constantly adjusting and tinkering with the components of the CPI index without actually reporting on what specific adjustments they are making. However, you can be certain that whatever adjustments they make are not increasing inflation numbers but lowering them. The opacity of this action is probably worth at least another 0.25% to 0.50% being added to the official inflation numbers. Finally, the basket of goods that determines the CPI index at one time was equally weighted. That meant that if the CPI index contained 100 items, each item received a 1% weight. Not anymore. Now, the CPI index is manipulated by a weighting system that most heavily weights the goods that have dropped the most in price while least heavily weighting the goods that have increased the most in price. For example, if in January, the cost of beef is cheap it might receive a weighting of 3% in the basket of goods. In February if the cost of beef soars, then it may altogether be dropped from the basket of goods or perhaps it the weighting may be reduced to 1%. Because every single change in the calculation of the core CPI index over the years has been designed to minimize inflation, I’ve added another 2.5% to the target rate of 3% as a conservative addition for the last decade. That is how I arrived at an inflation rate of 5.5% for the last decade.

Using the above calculations, I’ve concluded that if gold were to reach its 1980 heights, it must reach $2,400 an ounce. Several years back, once gold broke the $500 an ounce barrier, almost everyone was saying it was way too expensive to purchase. When it soared higher and then broke back down to the $570 level, I was saying how cheap gold was. Hopefully we’ll get a correction soon to allow us to purchase more at even better bargain-basement prices, but just like back then, I firmly believe that a time will come when people will reminisce with amazement at how cheap gold was at $790 an ounce.

Rich Dad's Advisors: Guide to Investing In Gold and Silver: Protect Your Financial Future

The Ultimate American Dollar Collapse

American's don't believe that the Dollar can collapse, but all the forces of our reckless ways will eventually come back to haunt us.
With Gold at nearly $800.00 an ounce, and Silver at nearly $15.00 an ounce, both have already doubled since 2001, however with never ending deficits even in good times, eventually confidence in the dollar will begin to erode at an ever expanding pace, leading to a collapse in the dollar and Gold and Silver at astronomical prices when denominated in Dollars.




The Day After the Dollar Crashes: A Survival Guide for the Rise of the New World Order
The Day After the Dollar Crashes: A Survival Guide for the Rise of the New World Order