A Fiscal ‘Tsunami’ (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70378)

David Walker can sound like a modern-day prophet of doom, warning about the gross irresponsibility of his countrymen and the disaster that awaits them if nothing is done. Put a scraggly beard on him, replace the neatly pressed suit with a tattered frock, and you could drop a coin in his cup and walk on by. But Walker is frighteningly sane. A former partner at Arthur Andersen LLP, he has been the comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office since he was appointed to a 15-year term in 1998. The GAO is a nonpartisan agency that investigates, on behalf of Congress, how the government is performing. It then issues thoroughly researched and often critical reviews. If the federal government is not spending taxpayers' money effectively, it's Walker's job to holler. He's hollering now—mainly about a severe fiscal crisis that will strike the United States as baby boomers reach retirement age. His fears are supported by economists from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Apparently Walker likened the situation here in the United States to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Are things really that bad in the USA?
Michael

This was interesting:

Sum up for me the fiscal situation with Medicare and Medicaid. How long will those programs be sustainable? Well, they're not sustainable right now. Let me just give you some statistics to put it in perspective. Social Security is underfunded [meaning there's a gap between dedicated funding and benefits] by $6 trillion in current-dollar terms. Medicare is underfunded by over $32 trillion in current-dollar terms, of which the Medicare prescription-drug benefit is underfunded by $8 trillion.

What about the notion that we can grow our way out of this, that if you lower taxes and get more growth and more taxable revenue, that somehow we will find a way out?
There is no way we can grow our way out of these problems. We would have to grow at double-digit, real GDP growth for decades in order to close the gap that we currently face, absent reforms. We haven't grown at that rate in modern times, and we are not going to grow at that rate.


Didn't Bush say that the tax break for the mega-rich was the only way to grow our way out of debt? :bugeye:

Just for perspective, can you compare the size of this fiscal "tsunami" [to the size of particular spending programs]?
Well, you could decide not to renew the Bush tax cuts, you could eliminate all foreign aid, eliminate all earmarks, eliminate NASA, eliminate the National Endowment for Humanities and eliminate the entire Defense Department tomorrow, and you still wouldn't solve the problem.

This much doom and gloom is way to much for Americans to take in. It simply doesn't fit with out psyche. We'd rather wait until the very last minute and then when shit hits the fan run a muck. I wouldn't want to be an ultra-rich arse hole come that day!

His fears are supported by economists from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the conservative Heritage Foundation. The Brookings Institution, and in particular its economic stuff, is not left leaning.

Social Security is fine if it's tweaked to be an honest welfare setup and the debt owed it by the Federal Government is paid back. Medicare is fixable in theory, by adoption of any of the better functioning European delivery systems - "socialised medicine".

The central problem is the dependence of the economy on steadily increasing military expenditures - like an alcoholic's blood level, it needs to keep rising to keep having the effect - and the accumulation of wealth in the upper class. These are both fixable problems - not that it won't be painful.

I thought one of the most interesting quotes from him was

There will have to be modifications to both Social Security and Medicare; much greater modifications to Medicare than Social Security because the financing gap is multiple times greater. And I think we also have to recognize that our Medicare challenge is really a subset of the broader health-care challenge. Ultimately, we are going to have to reform our entire health-care system in installments over a number of years because if there is one thing that could bankrupt America, it is health-care costs.


Of course as long as people keep hearing "healthcare reform" translated into "socialist takeover of the healthcare system" there isn't going to be any effort on that front.

I thought one of the most interesting quotes from him was



Of course as long as people keep hearing "healthcare reform" translated into "socialist takeover of the healthcare system" there isn't going to be any effort on that front.

of a solicialist approach to medicine is better than the us current system

of a solicialist approach to medicine is better than the us current system

True, but the point I was making is that any attempt to reform the system gets shut down by claiming fully socialized medicine is the only option.

Are things really that bad in the USA?

I wonder ......how many people in the world have walked around predicting the end of something or other in the past?

We know Chicken Little did it ...."THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Baron Max

I fought for this country and at one time would have died for it. But now, I could not say I would do so. I am thinking about leaving the country. It is not the country I thought I knew. Ultimately, we are heading for a massive financial and political disaster. The country is not being managed, it is being sold to the highest bidder. And it used to be that the election process held some hope for me about the future of our country. But now, when I see who we have to choose from on the Republican side and Hillary, makes me want to puke. If you have money, you can have anything in this country. This country is no longer the land of the free and will soon not be the home of the brave either. Who wants to die to satisfy George W's revenge against Sadam for trying to kill his daddie? Who wants to die, so that corporate america can continue to sell poisoned foods and toys to our families? Who wants to live in a place that wants to errode what freedoms you may have. Who wants to live in a place where justice is determined by your policical connections and the money in your wallet?

I am thinking about leaving the country.

And go where?

Europe, Canada

Funny, when the Roman Empire was pagan and immoral by our standards, it grew and it thrived. It was only after it converted to Christiantity did it become corrupt in ways that led to its downfall.

Funny, when the Roman Empire was pagan and immoral by our standards, it grew and it thrived. It was only after it converted to Christiantity did it become corrupt in ways that led to its downfall.

Coincidence perhaps, but that wasn't the reason for Rome collapsing. Rome collapsed under the weight of population that it could NOT provide for ...there were just too fuckin' many people for the available services. Sorta' like New York City, Los Angeles, London, etc, huh?

Baron Max

The conversion to Christianity played a huge part in the fall of the Roman empire. You've got that amount of people, all pagan, and all of a sudden you want to go around destroying their temples? With that sort of ill will, how were they expected to keep loyal to the empire? Also the empire spent lots and lots of money building churches.

The conversion to Christianity played a huge part in the fall of the Roman empire. You've got that amount of people, all pagan, and all of a sudden you want to go around destroying their temples? With that sort of ill will, how were they expected to keep loyal to the empire? Also the empire spent lots and lots of money building churches.

Destroying temples? ...a few radical individuals?

C'mon, if you're going to try to blame Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire then I'd like to see your evidence of it.

Now if you'd have said, "The damned mamby-pamby, doo-gooder, bleeding-heart liberals caused Rome to fall." ...then I'd believe you without any proof or evidence, because I can see the same thing happening in the big cities today.

Baron Max

At no point did I blame Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire, I was just saying that it definitely played a part, it wasn't "coincidence".

C'mon, if you're going to try to blame Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire then I'd like to see your evidence of it.

Now if you'd have said, "The damned mamby-pamby, doo-gooder, bleeding-heart liberals caused Rome to fall." ...then I'd believe you without any proof or evidence, because I can see the same thing happening in the big cities today.

Well within the context of the Roman Empire Christianity=Namby Pamby Liberals (at least that's Gibbon's argument) who couldn't or wouldn't stand up to the barbarians. They were pacifists for Christ's sake.

Well within the context of the Roman Empire Christianity=Namby Pamby Liberals (at least that's Gibbon's argument) who couldn't or wouldn't stand up to the barbarians. They were pacifists for Christ's sake.

Yeah, perhaps. And that's something similar to what's happening in US cities all across the nation .....the mamby-pamby liberals won't stand up to the barbarians (criminals), so we're seeing many similarities to the fall of Rome.

Baron Max

The Roman Empire fell for a number of reasons. The empire grew too large, unwieldy and expensive to run. More money was going out of Rome than was coming in. Romaqns became complacent and farmed out their security to mercenary soldiers who had to be paid from the public treasury and whose loyalty could not be depended on. The borders were too long to effectively defend. These were the internal reasons. There were also external reasons such as the movement of peoples and tribes outside the empire.

The Roman Empire fell for a number of reasons. The empire grew too large, unwieldy and expensive to run. More money was going out of Rome than was coming in. Romaqns became complacent and farmed out their security to mercenary soldiers who had to be paid from the public treasury and whose loyalty could not be depended on. The borders were too long to effectively defend. These were the internal reasons. There were also external reasons such as the movement of peoples and tribes outside the empire.

that mercanary one sounds familer could it be bcause that is what we are doing today in the us

Well it has to happen eventually - all things end. In America's case, due to the stack o' cards-pyramid scheme setup of Capitalism, I'd have to agree with this guy.

Of course the United States will not always be top dog. In the history of the world empires and kingdoms have come and gone. A one time the Babylonians ruled the area of the Fertile Crescent. They were succeeded by the Persians and Medes who were in turn succeeded by first the Macedonians/Greeks and then the Parthians. Greece was succeeded by Rome which was in turn succeeded by Germanic tribes in the West and Turkish Muslims in the East. Spain, Austria, France, England, all have had their place in the sun only to be succeeded by another country. It is not a question of if the United States will stop being the world's superpower but a question of when this will happen.

A more interesting question is, which country will be the next superpower.

The Roman Empire fell for a number of reasons.


Human Empires collapse because the invisible and the unknowable will always have an incalculably greater effect upon our world than anything the human mind can discern.

In the end you have belief... or you have nothing.

Human Empires collapse because the invisible and the unknowable will always have an incalculably greater effect upon our world than anything the human mind can discern.

In the end you have belief... or you have nothing.

This isn't the philosophy forum, so can you please show us the proof that it was the 'invisible' that caused the downfall of Rome as opposed to the solid and logical reasons explained above?

The nation will fall precisely because it is NO LONGER a republic.

It is an empire, and empires eventually collapse under their own weight.

Cut military spending in half, ban most types of advertising, and bring back prohibition...all will be well.

Cut military spending in half, ban most types of advertising, and bring back prohibition...all will be well.

And this will do what exactly?

This isn't the philosophy forum, so can you please show us the proof that it was the 'invisible' that caused the downfall of Rome as opposed to the solid and logical reasons explained above?


I see no such solid or logical reasons only people speculating about things which they know nothing about.

My caveat was 'anything the human mind can discern' which you clearly didn't understand as you now ask me for proof.

If you want to slander Christianity then be my guest but please do it in the correct forum.

If you want to slander Christianity then be my guest but please do it in the correct forum.

This has nothing to do with me slandering Christianity, it has to do with the fact that you are saying something about a well document event in history, and I was merely pointing out that unless you have a reasoned argument with proof, then this is not the right forum to be presenting that information. There were no invisible factors, and it would even be different if we didn't know why the Roman's fell but we do, so there isn't even a need for an alternative explanation.

..., and it would even be different if we didn't know why the Roman's fell but we do, so there isn't even a need for an alternative explanation.

We do? And it's something that all qualified historians and archeaologists agree to? If so, what is it?

I've read numerous histories on Rome and the Roman Empire, and one thing I found out for sure is that no two historians agree. So ...when did that change?

Baron Max

and it would even be different if we didn't know why the Roman's fell but we do


Please see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire) for a thorough historiography of the decline of the Roman Empire.

And this will do what exactly?Stop the bleeding!

There are reasons Baron, and even though historians may agree which was the largest factor that ultimately led to the fall, those reasons are still valid. It's not something that just happened for no discernible reason, so I don't see how someone can attribute that to a higher power.

..., those reasons are still valid. It's not something that just happened for no discernible reason, so I don't see how someone can attribute that to a higher power.

Well, that's easy ....the higher power made all of those reasons happen. See? Simple, huh?

Baron Max

*sigh*

of a solicialist approach to medicine is better than the us current system
It's the socialized approach that's bankrupting us!

All you Ron Paul fans out there, what do you think he would do to resolve this crisis? I haven't looked it up, but I'd imagine he'd shut the whole system down.

The federal government was never meant to provide healthcare and retirement services. It was to provide for national defense and interstate commerse. That's about it.

The socialized approach leads to bankruptcy and then to dictatorship:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Whos that from...Tocqueville?

Whos that from...Tocqueville?

It's attributed to late Scottish Enlightenment intellectual, Alexander Tytler, but appears in no known work ever written by him (and so was probably attributed to him as a means of giving it some added academic weight). As such I've seen it attributed to others as well (including Arnold Toynbee the 19th century British historian who was somewhat pessimistic about democracy in the context of people he didn't consider "civilized", but who also does not seem to have written the quite down in that form.)

The quote seems to have started appearing in the mid-20th century and was popularized by conservative intellectuals, including Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure when the misattribution started.

Edit: That's not to say that there's anything wrong with the quote. Take what wisdom from it you see in it, whoever may have written it.

It's the socialized approach that's bankrupting us!

I agree wholeheartedly!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. .....with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

I'm curious ....what democracy ever collapsed to become a dictatorship? Has there ever been such a happening in history?

Baron Max

Whos that from...Tocqueville? de Tocquevelle never wrote anything as clumsy and dumb as that.

He had his take on the problems of democratic government, and was perceptive about them - but in his day the idea was a new one, and no one knew what was going to happen in the US.

I'm curious ....what democracy ever collapsed to become a dictatorship? Has there ever been such a happening in history? ? Joke?

All forms of government have collapsed, throughout history - the loose fiscal policies of kings and dictators often primary movers in such events.

One of the benefits of democratic rule is supposedly the fact that the poor outnumber the rich always, and can impose taxes and obligations on them, so that the rich cannot avoid the immediate personal consequences of profligate governmental spending or promiscuous warfare. Thus the rich and powerful - historically the source of loose fiscal policy and careless war - are led to more responsible behaviors from self-interest.

That's the theory, anyway.

I'm curious ....what democracy ever collapsed to become a dictatorship? Has there ever been such a happening in history?

The Weimar Republic voted Hitler into power. That's the best example I can think of.

As Pandemoni noted, the quote I gave is by an unknown author, and goes on to give a 200 year average lifetime for democracies. I have no idea if that specific aspect of the statement has any basis in reality. But other than that, it sure as hell rings true.

I mean, the Democrats and the Republicans are in a bidding war to see who can hand out the most goodies to buy our votes. Well, those goodies have to be paid for. We can't go on spending and spending and expect no consequences. At some point, you have to settle up.

You have this irrational reasoning where the Democrats say, "Bush is spending ten billion dollars per second in Iraq, so why not spend another 50 billion on this other program"

WTF! The fact that the war in Iraq is breaking the bank is not a reason to spend more money!!!!! It's a reason to spend less! We are in a war. You may not like it. You may not approve of it. You may not have voted for it. But you still have to deal with the consequences, one of which is that we have less money to spend on bullshit programs even if they are "for the children" (ie S chip or whatever that insurance program is called). Bush himself was already increasing funding for it (which is bad enough with a massive debt and a war), but the Democrats had to call his bluff and raise him another forty billion!

It's all a fuckin' game to these jackasses and we're the ones who are going to pay the price.

I mean, the Democrats and the Republicans are in a bidding war to see who can hand out the most goodies to buy our votes. Well, those goodies have to be paid for. We can't go on spending and spending and expect no consequences. At some point, you have to settle up.
Nine trillion dollars less than zero can never be paid off by the US government.

The currency will have to be devalued at some point.

This is what happened in the Wiemar Republic. The German government had to pay so much in World War I reparations that they simply decided to start printing money that didnt exist.

Workers would have to be paid at noon, so they could rush off and buy groceries before the prices went up.

The Bush admin is doing the same thing by tacking more zeros on to the national debt. The inevitable consequences are merely delayed.

Nine trillion dollars less than zero can never be paid off by the US government.

The currency will have to be devalued at some point.
The currency is being devalued right now! We don't have the hyper inflation you describe. But there seems to be no end to the governments appetite for spending.

And while the Republicans are bad enough on this issue, look at the Democrats! Hillary is suggesting we give every child 5 grand, universal health care, retirement money, whatever you want! We'll just put it on Uncle Sam's credit card!

I think Ron Paul has the right idea on a lot of issues. For instance, why do we still have troops in Germany and South Korea? While I clearly see the need for troops in the middle east, I don't see the need to keep troops in every country we've ever fought in.

I don't think any intelligent honest being has ever accused these so called conservatives of being clear thinkers. I have never known any of the prominent Republican speakers concern themselves much with facts.

The Weimar Republic voted Hitler into power. That's the best example I can think of.

.

Mad, I am so sorry. I hate to burden you and your fellow conservatives with facts. But the fact is Hitler was never elected to anything in a public election. He was appointed chancellor by entrenched politicians. Please see the following from Wikipedia:
"In 1932, Hitler intended to run against the aging President Paul von Hindenburg in the scheduled presidential elections. Though Hitler had left Austria in 1913, he still had not acquired German citizenship and hence could not run for public office. In February, however, the state government of Brunswick, in which the Nazi Party participated, appointed Hitler to a minor administrative post and also gave him citizenship on February 25, 1932.[35] The new German citizen ran against Hindenburg, who was supported by a broad range of reactionary nationalist, monarchist, Catholic, republican and even social democratic parties, and against the Communist presidential candidate. His campaign was called "Hitler über Deutschland" (Hitler over Germany).[36] The name had a double meaning; besides an obvious reference to Hitler's dictatorial intentions, it also referred to the fact that Hitler was campaigning by aircraft.[36] This was a brand new political tactic that allowed Hitler to speak in two cities in one day, which was practically unheard of at the time. Hitler came in second on both rounds, attaining more than 35% of the vote during the second one in April. "

For instance, why do we still have troops in Germany and South Korea? While I clearly see the need for troops in the middle east, I don't see the need to keep troops in every country we've ever fought in.
I suppose its because the US likes the idea of being an international empire, as opposed to a republic minding their own business.

Ron Paul on the right and Mike Gravel on the left both want a return to the constitutional republic Americans enjoyed until the second world war.

Mad, I am so sorry. I hate to burden you and your fellow conservatives with facts. "
Give me a break. Did he seize power in a coup? Or did he come into power by legal means involving an election? Let's not split hairs, especially not with such a holier than thou attitude. Here's the rest of the Wiki article:
Although receiving five million more votes than in the previous election, the NSDAP had failed to gain an absolute majority in parliament, depending for a slim majority on the 52 seats won by its coalition partner, the German National People's Party.

To free himself from this dependency, Hitler had the cabinet in its first post-election meeting on March 15 draw up plans for an Enabling Act, which would give the cabinet legislative power for four years. The Nazis devised the Enabling Act to gain complete political power without the need of the support of a majority in the Reichstag and without the need to bargain with their coalition partners.So Hitler's coalition achieved a majority. He then engineered the "enabling act" which was approved by the Reichstag and gave him dictatorial powers. He was voted in! The fact that his party did not achieve an absolute majority doesn't mean shit and is the norm in a parliamentary system.

The conversion to Christianity played a huge part in the fall of the Roman empire. You've got that amount of people, all pagan, and all of a sudden you want to go around destroying their temples? With that sort of ill will, how were they expected to keep loyal to the empire? Also the empire spent lots and lots of money building churches.

I think it is more likely that Christianity allowed the Roman Empire to go on for a bit longer than it otherwise would have.

The Christians were one of the first groups able to identify themselves as a subgroup within the empire without having a seperate identity. Other groups wer Gauls, Africans, Thracians, etc. They had an identity seperate from that of being Roman. Christians had no such national identity since their kingdom was not of this world. They were not Gauls, Africans or Thracians. They were Romans who happened to believe in Christ as the sone of God.

This ability to have an identity that did not compete with being Roman might well have kept the empire going for longer than it otherwise would have.

I don't think any intelligent honest being has ever accused these so called conservatives of being clear thinkers. I have never known any of the prominent Republican speakers concern themselves much with facts.

Well at least it took this thread a bit longer than most to descend to name calling and blaming the conservatives for all the ills of the country and by extension the world.

To question the truthiness of our prominent Republican speakers is to blame them for all that is wrong with the world. Such criticism is taboo; beneath this open and unprejudiced discussion. So shut up and go away, all you who sow doubt about our glorious conservatism.

If the federal government is not spending taxpayers' money effectively, it's Walker's job to holler. He's hollering now—mainly about a severe fiscal crisis that will strike the United States as baby boomers reach retirement age. His fears are supported by economists from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the conservative Heritage Foundation.[/COLOR]

Apparently Walker likened the situation here in the United States to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Are things really that bad in the USA?


No, they are not.

All cries of doom about baby boomers and Social Security is based on a simple, yet false assumption -- that all baby boomers will retire in traditional sense, i.e. they reach 65 and work disappears from their life. Hardly any baby boomer WANTS to do that, and most of them are in good enough health to continue working. Not necessarily full time, but even part-time work (either 15-20 hours a week, or 6 months out of a year followed by 6 months of travel) by 65-75 year olds will make tremendous difference to Social Security balance. Drastic raising of retirement age is politically unfeasible, but it is also unnecessary. Boomers will in effect do it on their own.

As for fall of American superpower... it may happen, but hardly with the same level of misery and death as fall of Rome. British Empire was a superpower, and it certainly fell -- to "mere" first rank power. How many Brits fell to ravaging babarian hordes?

No, they are not.

All cries of doom about baby boomers and Social Security is based on a simple, yet false assumption -- that all baby boomers will retire in traditional sense, i.e. they reach 65 and work disappears from their life. Hardly any baby boomer WANTS to do that, and most of them are in good enough health to continue working. Not necessarily full time, but even part-time work (either 15-20 hours a week, or 6 months out of a year followed by 6 months of travel) by 65-75 year olds will make tremendous difference to Social Security balance. Drastic raising of retirement age is politically unfeasible, but it is also unnecessary. Boomers will in effect do it on their own.

As for fall of American superpower... it may happen, but hardly with the same level of misery and death as fall of Rome. British Empire was a superpower, and it certainly fell -- to "mere" first rank power. How many Brits fell to ravaging babarian hordes?

The boomers I know are not interested in working past retirement if they don't have to.

If Rome fell because of Christians, how come Constantinople and the Eastern Roman empire didn't fall at the same time. The western roman empire grew fat, happy, and complacent. They hired mercenary police and allowed bad tough neighbors to live in their back yard. When those neighbors realized the police would look the other way they pillaged the house of their benefactor. The US will probably fall under the weight of irresponsible spending. When this happens Americans will take whatever scraps they are given and agree to whatever life preserver is presented to them.

The boomers I know are not interested in working past retirement if they don't have to.

Perhaps you know wrong boomers:

Why Do Boomers Plan To Work So Long? (http://www.urban.org/publications/311386.html)


Between 1992 and 2004, the mean expected probability of working full-time past age 62 among workers ages 51 to 56 increased from 47 to 51 percent. The increase was even more rapid for the expected mean probability of full-time work after age 65, which grew from 27 to about 33 percent over the period. In relative terms, work expectations after age 65 were about 23 percent higher for the early boomers than the pre-war generation.


Rethinking Retirement: More Boomers Choosing to Work (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/09/law.overview/index.html)

Online Job Networks for Baby Boomers (http://boomerlifeafterwork.blogspot.com/)

I'm planning on working until I die. I like my job, I hope that as I get older my position rises higher and I'm in even a better position to enjoy my work. We'll see, but I hope that's the case.

Perhaps you know wrong boomers:

Why Do Boomers Plan To Work So Long? (http://www.urban.org/publications/311386.html)



Rethinking Retirement: More Boomers Choosing to Work (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/09/law.overview/index.html)

Online Job Networks for Baby Boomers (http://boomerlifeafterwork.blogspot.com/)

A 4% increase isn't what I'd call a barn burner but I guess it is a trend. Although, I bet if you asked them they'd say they mostly do it for the money or benefits. The ones I know who work after reaching that age do so because they have to.

I think you have proven my point very well with your own words Mad. I have been what I consider to be a conservative for decades, almost my entire life. But since the Republican part was ceded to the shrubs and the Hannity's and the Limbaughs, and all of their followers that promulgate lies to centralize and abuse power at the expense of the American people, I am ashamed and greatly saddened. When the Republicans had the congress, supreme court and presidency, they sold out the country. And these leaders had all of the neocons running with all the sense of chickens without heads running around pointing fingers at everyone but themselves. IT JUST MAKES ME Sick!