ESCAPE VELOCITY

1 - "...the ultimate disenfranchised special interest: the unborn. The unborn can't form a lobby. They can't hold a protest. They can't run for office or call into a radio show or write a book or start a blog. In fact, they can't do anything at all."

So true! This is also why the abortion industry in the US is so successful.

Hard to overstate how important it is for thinking folks like you to correct the course at the voting booth (and encourage others to do the same).

2 - @1 I suspected that using "unborn" would kind of rope in the abortion debate. And it's not unreasonable to do so. But I respectfully request that commenters not divert the topic. While I think there's lively debate to be had on the matter, I think it's more interesting and important to know whether anyone who DOES have a child would wish that child, and that child's child, and THAT child's child to be forced to still pay our 2011 credit card balances in 2112. (ironic, that!)

3 - Regardless of what you believe that solution is, agreeing on what the problem is, is important.

I for one am glad that the silent majority is getting fed up and willing to fight and put their name on the record.

I think there is a large population of Americans that still possess common sense, but, they have been successfully silenced by the minority. They have cowered into the corner hoping not to offend anyone with their reason, logic and common sense.

A government that does not serve the people will die, history is littered with powerful regimes that no longer exists. Current day USA is just one of them. The only question is how destructive the downfall will be, and will the government that takes the place of what we have now still be called USA or something else.

Communism of USSR did not work and the fall was exceptionally destructive. Lots of people died. The countries are not doing well today.
Communism of China did not work, but, is slowly being changed over a 30 year (so far) process, and they seem to be doing pretty well. The country is still called China, but, does not remotely resemble the China of 30 years ago.

Change is possible, but, people that used to keep their beliefs to themselves need to be willing to speak aloud.

4 - If you assume that the US would stop taking new debts (which they probably won't do like most all other industry nations in the world) it would take much less than 118 years because in this case a low inflation rate would probably make it easier to repay the money. It probably would not even be required to pay the debts back as long as you can pay the interests. Again growth and inflation would result in the debts becoming less when compared to the overall budget.
Again the problem maybe is not the 14 trillion $ but that governments don't stop taking more debts. This would not even be that bad if they invest the money into the future. Unfortunately they don't do that (neither in the US nor here in Europe).
The "advantage" of the US may be that there are lots of countries that have a much higher debt than the US. So before the US gets into real trouble it will be interesting what happens with countries like e.g. Japan.

5 - Lots of room for you and your family up here in Canada , Nate :) While we are far from perfect ourselves, there are a few things we have done right. :)

On a serious note, I reflect the same level of concern as you. I am not directly affected by this issue however, at a humanist level - we are all affected. It will be the world's children who be paying for the mistakes that we (as a generation) have made and to deliberately/intentionally pass them the burden is nothing short of shameful.

The eternal optimist in me believes that perhaps we are encroaching on the brink of change. While it looks bleak now, maybe it takes bottoming out to realize that the system in place now is unsustainable as it is. It is people like yourself, myself, and many others that yearn for something different. We are instilling the hope of a better future for our children not based on the material wealth as a level of success - but rather something more deep and profound.

Keep on believing in change, take action, and you will see that our children will be pioneers of a new future. It is our job to dismantle the disillusions and they will be the ones to rebuild something better.

Cheers

6 - What also needs to be debated is why this happens at all. in most cases, the issue is whether enough tax is raised by the government - and that includes ours in the UK just as much as yours - to pay for all the things that the country needs government to pay for, wants government to pay for, or the government decides for itself that it needs to pay for. If the voters of a country continue to elect politicians who won't raise taxes, and then require that those politicians do stuff that requires spending public money, then the government has no option other than to borrow.

It's nice and easy to rant against things the government does that you don't approve of, but not easy when it spends money on things you do approve of. Who'd be a politician?

7 - @4 - So there's several things to digest here. First, you're describing it as an advantage that other nations are worse off than the US. That might be an advantage to someone who cackles with glee at the misfortune of others, but to me, that simply makes the story even sadder. Not only could I not expatriate to Japan to protect my children, but the Japanese themselves have perpetrated even worse on their own future generations. (Taking your description at face value, at least.)

Your point about inflation makes me chuckle. When a private party borrows money, they have 3 choices on how to pay it back: 1) make payments out of income; 2) liquidate assets to make payments; or 3) default. These are the same options available to the US government. Tax increases and expense cuts are necessary for option 1; the sale of governmental assets are necessary for option 2; and the acceptance of the collapse of the Federal Reserve Bank is necessary for option 3.

But the government has a fourth option. It can devalue the currency by printing more money. Technically, private parties have this option too, but when they exercise it, we call it "counterfeiting" and they go to jail. The government can do it with impunity though.

But even when it's done that way, it doesn't make the debt magically disappear as you suggest. It's simply a tax in a different form. If I have $100 in the bank, and the government prints more money and devalues the dollar by 3%, and so my $100 is now worth only $97, how is that any different than simply reaching into my bank account and taking out $3? It's no different. Inflation is simply a tax on savings. Or more accurately, it's a tax on CAPITAL, because it's a tax on creditors by reducing the value of their loans and a tax on reserves by reducing the purchasing power of fixed dollars.

It may be that an inflationary monetary policy would shift the tax burden from income earners to asset holders. (This is unlikely since it just results in higher real interest rates.) That doesn't make me feel any better about it, especially considering that even at a steady 3% rate, it would still take over 50 years, which means perhaps my grandchildren don't have to pay it their whole lives, but my children will. And they'll have to do it in the midst of a half-century of runaway prices at the end of which a new car will cost $100,000.

And yes, I did assume the US would stop taking new debts, because THAT IS THE LAW. Of course, the law is going to be changed between now and Aug 2. And thus the whole point of my post -- that changing this law is a fantastic display of deliberately disenfranchising hundreds of millions of people, namely all US citizens born between the years 2000 and 2100.

@3 - I don't wish for the death of the US. But some days I can't imagine any other option. And it breaks my heart.

8 - Yes this is a sad circle we got ourselves into. The government reflects on it's society. We as a society are hugely in debt in many ways, housing, credit cards, autos,personal and business leverage/debt.

Yes it can take time to repay it, look at the UK who finally paid back, after 60 years, the debt to the US from WW2.
The UK is about to pay off the last of its World War II loans from the US. { Link }
In good years hopefully they will get back to a surplus or balance but int he short term, our lives, it's just business as usual.

9 - @6 - Well that's the real trick, isn't it? By electing officials willing to mortgage future generations, the current voting public gets to exploit their own children, even before they're born. If they weren't allowed to do this -- and they had to pay the full price for whatever programs they wanted NOW, then that would clarify priorities and they'd either pony up the tax dollars or accept the reduction in services.

It's incredible how images of children toiling in fields or factories are so evocative and cause people to take action, but *imagining* the same thing for your own kids inspires almost no one.

I keep thinking of that scene in The Matrix when Morpheus is describing the machine power plant: "the dead are liquified and fed intravenously to the living, all to turn a human being into this..." and he holds up a battery. If he's just waved his coat to reveal an ATM machine, I think that would pretty much sum up governmental fiscal policy.

10 - Here's wonderful reference from Wikipedia about the sitaution...

"Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis."

So there's another $9,000 billion in shortfall this decade. And notice that the first thing the director of the budget office does is BLAME THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.

I weep for the future.

11 - Well Nathan, we don't disagree that this is a bad thing but it could probably still be fixed (which I think is good). And (low) inflation is not always a bad thing but the result of growth. People get raises and companies increase prices. Even when people don't get raises companies often increase prices.
The bankruptcy of a country works differently. When a company goes bankrupt they risk losing everything. When a country cannot pay its debts anymore its debts are normally being reduced and the game restarts.
A country normally does not lose its assets (but it won't get new credits for a long period of time).
Argentina did this in 2002 and so far they recovered quite well. And because they cannot borrow money easily they have to work with what they earn.
The bad thing in this game is that when the government badly needs money they often cannot take it from the rich (who normally say they would then leave the country) nor the poor (who just don't have enough money). They will try to take it from the (already shrinking) middle class.
As a father of a 10 year old girl myself I can only try my best so that she will have the flexibility to adopt. Whatever happens imho it won't be the end of the US.

12 - I think blaming the previous administration is par for the course, for either party, whether it is warranted or not.

Everyone knows there is a problem, but no one (in the world!)seems to be willing to take the serious austerity steps required to resolve it. Case in point, the people of Greece rioted in defense of their greed. So would every other nation, including the USA.

Unfortunately, we humans collectively suck at controlling our greed, and when push comes to shove we tend to want our sh*t right now, even if it's our kids who will pay for it later. Be it "stuff" or energy or good ol' cash we want it all and we want it now.

The sooner some Star Trek fan invents the "Replicator" the better off we will all be...

13 - @11 - "People get raises and companies increase prices. Even when people don't get raises companies often increase prices."

Ummm... how is increased prices a sign of successful growth? All other factors holding steady, prices should DECREASE with growth, as capital investments are fully amortized, and marginal prices are pushed down by successful competition.

@12 - True, it is typical behavior. That doesn't excuse it.

14 - Simply the fall of one and rise of another nation or the fall of the largest, dragging down other nations and no nation rises (to balance the size of the fall at least), and not in this generation or the next even? If the balance is not restored by the equivalent rise, what will the consequences be?

This accumulated debt, by design, relies on repayment from tax on future economic growth and was never designed to be repaid by the existing tax base, as simply arithmetic shows that it cannot be, at least in its current form. However, the current tax base needs transformation as it is clearly not coping with the needs of today nor this 'future tax on future growth' dilemma. We now have the concept of justice in the tax system coming to the fore, this needs to be addressed and overhauled. Except now we have learnt that the future of 'future growth' looks bleak, neither it seems can we 'drive growth', at least not at a macro economic level. We are now stuck with the cost of the growing pains of these principles that have resulted in national bad debt that must be covered - real cover - and not simply throwing more printers at the problem and changing the 14 to a 20, and believing that we now have another 6 available to 'drive macro economic growth' which is sinonymous with dig the hole even deeper.

Those responsible to make descisions to be acted on are still arguing and the burden of nation bad debt falls on what we have today: existing tax base and tax structure and government spending all while keeping a shaky economic principles alive in a decaying body. I do not see efforts in evolving the principles and truly breathing new life into the body.

So now we have an option to add drastic government spending cuts together with increased taxation (likely to be misdirected by the arithmetically challenged towards ... ). However, goverment spending has become an integral part of economic growth with decades of experience of playing the numbers for political gain. Some guilty by action, others by inaction dispite the warnings and solutions presented: insert the many cries in the wilderness economists here).

Results: agreement on how the required 123 combination solution is to be excecuted, and argue why it is/is not a catch 22. Action is stalled and any hope for the right descisions derailed by the political circus.

Is add x more generations the 4th component to the final long term solution we are stuck with or can we add a 5th element: money will have to be 'reinvented' once again. It was done previously with a plan: the move off of the gold standard. Should the US (and EU for that matter) suck its financial thumb, print more money and let the markets respond - one way or another, 'money WILL be reinvented' with or without a plan, and it could just lead to the fall and maybe guarantee the rise of another as the river of money must flow somewhere, it must balance out somewhere, surely? Is that what we will all finally be at the mercy of? Not consoling if on the falling side, and it ends up a rough and steep ride.

In any case, is this really new? Have we not been living off this system of huge debt for decades anyway, money bet against future 'whatever money will be' (purposely did not state 'future economic growth'). Are we not actually at a cross roads and need to realistically face what we have and respond honestly, justly and with control / plan.

Too confusing for me to understand, so I will do my best to live within my means, be responsable and assist those closest who are the first to fall and then believe that life goes on and money will be reinvented once again, no matter the ride and no matter who is on the up or down. Is this burying my head in the sand and simply playing with the impact on my future generations? Without understanding / having an alternate action/solution, I will give in to anger or rage.

Some I know have a risk assessment that the situation is likely significantly more fall without a balancing rise, a sustained fall (maybe even a generation) and are putting in place action plans that include subsistance farming capability, stock of good quality moonshine and equipment for short term trading and first year implementation period and converting current paper into gold for long term investement as 'gold will always rise' again, money can only be burnt. Which response is the craziest?

15 - The problem is that the previous administration IS responsible for a great deal of the debt. As is this administration, and the ones prior to this administration. We have a tendency in this country to say, "If person A bears responsibility, person B does not," but it doesn't mirror reality.

16 - Get rid of the monetary system and watch how much of a better world this would be ;) I can imagine the "ya rights", but if you think about it, money has done very little good for the species and the planet.

17 - As others have alluded, the debt problem ultimately boils down to our society's slow abandonment of morals and principles. Many politicians and people today are flexible when it comes to morality and so they often do immoral things. How we got to this point may be a matter of debate but the country didn't become great by being immoral. It was through moral, law abiding (though not perfect) men - who did think about future generations and accepted that no man is above the law.

"“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams

18 - Made me think of this: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." ~Native American Proverb

19 - @5% interest on 14 trillion, and you're spending $700Billion on interest a year + change.... Can't believe that raising taxes on the rich is a "sticking point". How much money is enough ?

You think that level of debt is scary ? Check this visualisation of US National debt
{ Link }

20 - I believe that the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq was running at 4% of GDP so this always had the potential to cause a problems down the track. When combined with the GFC this created a bit of a perfect storm. It's popular to bash the US but they have a history of resilience and I wouldn't be counting them out just yet.