President of the Dallas Federal Reserve says US Debt Actually $100 Trillion

[bamacre]

A Speech by Richard W. Fisher, President of the Dallas Federal Reserve...

This is a MUST read.
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/...sher/2008/fs080528.cfm

Sure, SS and Medicare were enacted years ago, but the recent Medicare Prescription drug bill, which Fisher says will end up being more costly than all of SS, was enacted just recently.

Congress is completely and totally out of control. They are doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done in order to solve what Fisher calls a "looming fiscal disaster."

"The sky is falling," I can already hear. Hey, those aren't my words, so save it for when you see Richard Fisher, and throw those words in his direction.

It seems more and more people are standing up to tell the truth, we are in financial trouble. Big trouble. And if things continue, and we ignore the problem, this nation will go bankrupt.

 

[Mursilis]

[Yawn]
The masses don't care about deficits.

 

[herm0016]

the fed. reserve bank ( a private bank with share holders and such) loves it though. we just keep writing them iou's and they keep printing.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Medicare Part D was a give-away to Big Pharma. Until Bush is gone any attempts at reform will be vetoed (and have as part of S-CHIP).

The current level of Federal Debt and annual interest payments is unforgivable. The last 8 years have effectively broken the federal gov't. Congratulations are in order to the Contards who allowed this farce to develop and fester.

Correcting the path of SS and Medicare is not difficult. The solutions are obvious and amount to less than 2% of GDP over the next 75 years. The difficulty is compounded exponentially because of an unnecessary war of occupation, Voodoo Economics and GROSS annual interest on the FEDERAL DEBT which will exceed $500 BILLION this year and continue to grow each year thereafter in the foreseeable future.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Obvious, but, from his speech linked in the OP...

We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today?s Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today?s bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflating your way out of debt only works if you stop accruing it faster than the rate of inflation.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflating your way out of debt only works if you stop accruing it faster than the rate of inflation.

All you have to do is print money FASTER.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflating your way out of debt only works if you stop accruing it faster than the rate of inflation.

All you have to do is print money FASTER.

I always wanted to study post WWI Germany (Weimar Republic), I just didn't want to live through it personally.

 

[StageLeft]

Oh and BTW, that is a good read, thanks.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflating your way out of debt only works if you stop accruing it faster than the rate of inflation.

All you have to do is print money FASTER.

I always wanted to study post WWI Germany (Weimar Republic), I just didn't want to live through it personally.

Why? Don't pretend there isn't a certain empowering freedom to it. Money suddenly has no merit, you have no debt, no assets except what you already bought (or have a loan for). It's like a complete reset, a painless monetary communist revolution. I think it would be great fun, like stopping a footrace in the middle, getting everybody to line up again, and then firing the gun once more.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflation is typically calculated in the actuarial tables when projecting future expenses. How a person factors in the combination of inflation compounded negatively with a actual decline in the value of the dollar is above my paygrade.

Federal debt will increase an estimated 67% under the Reign of Error by George W. Bush. United States GDP under his reign will increase approximately 43.74%.

Federal Debt will increase over $660 BILLION this year to $9.7 TRILLION with gross interest on the debt in FY2008 of $470 BILLION growing to a projected $603 Billion in FY2013.

GDP increased during Bill Clinton's 8-year term by 47.66% while Federal Debt increased 28.60% (with annual growth of only $18 billion in FY 2000! )

Gross interest paid each fiscal year on the Federal Debt peaked in FY1998 at $365 billion and had declined over 13% before the impact of 'Econ Voodoo II' by GW Bush (and an increase of annual gross interest paid on the Federal Debt of 48% in less than 5 years! ).

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
[Yawn]
The masses don't care about deficits.

Right, the presidential candidates never talk about the economy, either.

:roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflation is typically calculated in the actuarial tables when projecting future expenses. How a person factors in the combination of inflation compounded negatively with a actual decline in the value of the dollar is above my paygrade.

Federal debt will increase an estimated 67% under the Reign of Error by George W. Bush. United States GDP under his reign will increase approximately 43.74%.

Federal Debt will increase over $660 BILLION this year to $9.7 TRILLION with gross interest on the debt in FY2008 of $470 BILLION growing to a projected $603 Billion in FY2013.

GDP increased during Bill Clinton's 8-year term by 47.66% while Federal Debt increased 28.60% (with annual growth of only $18 billion in FY 2000! )

Gross interest paid each fiscal year on the Federal Debt peaked in FY1998 at $365 billion and had declined over 13% before the impact of 'Econ Voodoo II' by GW Bush (and an increase of annual gross interest paid on the Federal Debt of 48% in less than 5 years! ).

None of these figures matter to the true believers.

Tax cuts pay for themselves. If they don't pay for themselves, it's because of other stuff.

Tax increases don't pay for themselves. If they do pay for themselves, it's because of other stuff.

The economy is tanking now? Blame it on Clinton and the War on Terror.

The economy improves? See, tax cuts work.

 

[bamacre]

I'd be happy to continue a conversation about how financially destructive the Bush administration has been, but let's not pretend the Democrats are innocent in bringing us this "looming fiscal disaster."

The war in Iraq was completely irresponsible and inexcusable, but honestly, the $3 trillion cost of it is small compared to the costs of social programs. Please don't take that as an excuse for the invasion, because it certainly isn't.

Both parties are responsible for this. Pointing the finger at one, while ignoring the fault of the other is NOT going to solve this problem, and in fact, is part of it.

 

[alchemize]

Unfunded liabilities != debt.

/Dave & Techs mode
I predicted this 5 years ago!
Link
/end

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
hmm. I have to admit I don't know enough about these programs and how they fit into the economy to comment very intelligently.

How does inflation factor into this? I have heard that we will try to inflate our way out of the debt. I am under the impression that these programs are not affected by inflation in the same way because they represent monthly/annual spending.

Inflating your way out of debt only works if you stop accruing it faster than the rate of inflation.

All you have to do is print money FASTER.

I always wanted to study post WWI Germany (Weimar Republic), I just didn't want to live through it personally.

Why? Don't pretend there isn't a certain empowering freedom to it. Money suddenly has no merit, you have no debt, no assets except what you already bought (or have a loan for). It's like a complete reset, a painless monetary communist revolution. I think it would be great fun, like stopping a footrace in the middle, getting everybody to line up again, and then firing the gun once more.

Hmm, when you put it that way it doesn't seem so bad for anyone not in the top 10% of wage earners.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Mursilis
[Yawn]
The masses don't care about deficits.

Right, the presidential candidates never talk about the economy, either.

:roll:

Your point doesn't refute his. It's true, they really don't care. Ask the average joe what the federal budget or deficit is. They don't have even the first clue. It means nothing to them. They care about the economy insofar as it means they can work and afford food and gas but deficits are completely beyond their scope of interest/understanding. How many presidential candidates have really talked about it? I've heard half-hearted comments from McCain about balancing the budget, which is just a lie. That's about it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
How many presidential candidates have really talked about it?

I can think of one, actually no, two.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: herm0016
the fed. reserve bank ( a private bank with share holders and such) loves it though. we just keep writing them iou's and they keep printing.

The Federal Reserve is non-profit

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I'd be happy to continue a conversation about how financially destructive the Bush administration has been, but let's not pretend the Democrats are innocent in bringing us this "looming fiscal disaster."

The war in Iraq was completely irresponsible and inexcusable, but honestly, the $3 trillion cost of it is small compared to the costs of social programs. Please don't take that as an excuse for the invasion, because it certainly isn't.

Both parties are responsible for this. Pointing the finger at one, while ignoring the fault of the other is NOT going to solve this problem, and in fact, is part of it.

Well, no.

Increases in the Federal Debt were virtually eliminated in the late 1990's. You have conveniently neglected the infamous 'Lock Box' proposed by the 2000 Presidential candidate that won the popular vote.

Economists were worried that the Federal Debt would be eliminated too quickly (IIRC at the rate of debt retirement it could have been 2009 or 2010). 'Reasonable' tax cuts were proposed at the time to slow the rate of debt retirement.

While I may share a number of your libertarian leanings some of your ideas are just plain goofy. It is generally accepted that each spent Federal dollar bounces around the economy 7 times. It's a balancing act of maintaining the lowest possible tax rates and delivering efficient and productive public services at the lowest possible cost.

I'm sorry you can't accept that because for the most part there are substantial differences between democrats and republicans on the local, state and federal level.

It may not fit your agenda but that's the way it is ...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: bamacre
I'd be happy to continue a conversation about how financially destructive the Bush administration has been, but let's not pretend the Democrats are innocent in bringing us this "looming fiscal disaster."

The war in Iraq was completely irresponsible and inexcusable, but honestly, the $3 trillion cost of it is small compared to the costs of social programs. Please don't take that as an excuse for the invasion, because it certainly isn't.

Both parties are responsible for this. Pointing the finger at one, while ignoring the fault of the other is NOT going to solve this problem, and in fact, is part of it.

Well, no.

Increases in the Federal Debt were virtually eliminated in the late 1990's. You have conveniently neglected the infamous 'Lock Box' proposed by the 2000 Presidential candidate that won the popular vote.

Economists were worried that the Federal Debt would be eliminated too quickly (IIRC at the rate of debt retirement it could have been 2009 or 2010). 'Reasonable' tax cuts were proposed at the time to slow the rate of debt retirement.

While I may share a number of your libertarian leanings some of your ideas are just plain goofy. It is generally accepted that each spent Federal dollar bounces around the economy 7 times. It's a balancing act of maintaining the lowest possible tax rates and delivering efficient and productive public services at the lowest possible cost.

I'm sorry you can't accept that because for the most part there are substantial differences between democrats and republicans on the local, state and federal level.

It may not fit your agenda but that's the way it is ...

In regards to your first statement, the debt was "virtually eliminated," as you put it, by an economic boom, thanks to the birth of the "consumerized" internet, the Windows OS, and the Pentium processors. All of which created massive change and large investment in private infrastructure. Just because Clinton was president doesn't mean he had anything to do with it. Same for the Republican-ruled Congress. If they did anything good, it was that they didn't grow the size of government by leaps and bounds. As well, while the debt may have been zero on paper, it sure didn't account for the future entitlements of the growing costs of Medicare. And although a "lockbox" for SS may have been proposed, SS isn't the same problem that future Medicare entitlements surely are. David Walker said the Medicare problem is five times bigger than the SS problem.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure of its relevancy to what I said above. I stand by my argument, both parties are to blame for this coming mess.

As for your describing the differences between the two parties being "substantial," that is all relative. One could argue they have become, as Chomsky has said, "two factions of the same party." And there's more truth in that than there is fiction.