I got this email from a friend of mine and thought this would put the US debt ceiling deal into perspective:
The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms.
Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:
- · U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
- · Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
- · New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
- · National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
- · Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)
It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.
- · Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
- · Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
- · Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
- · Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
- · Amount cut from the budget: $385
So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending? It is a start, although hardly a solution.
Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt). You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.
Please let me know your thoughts about what is above. Even if you don't agree I won't sensor your comment.
Helping you retire on time,
Big A
Leave a Reply
We do not allow spamming or advertising. Any posts with links will not be approved.


One idea I've been working on for several years is to actually fund Social Security and Medicare to help solve our debt problem. It would start with depositing $20k ($10k for each) for each newborn and legal immigrant into investment accounts. The accounts would be invested in broad stock and bond indexes (foreign and domestic) — these would be community accounts not individual accounts — thus having a good chance of becoming self-funding over 60 or more years and provide insurance for those who have been more fortunate. Additionally, at least 50% (initially) of new revenues would be deposited into these accounts to goose returns and cut off funds for Congressional spending. These accounts would be rebalanced monthly or quarterly to adjust for market conditions, inflows and outflows.
Also, we cannot be competitive when we spend more than all our competitors combined on national security (defense, homeland security, and intelligence). One idea might be to sell National Security bonds so those who want to could buy them. We cannot be competitive when we spend twice as much on healthcare as any of our competitors. Whether we like it ir not every developed country except the US has national health coverage. Norway for example is reported by my neighbor to have an 8% employment withholding to cover social security and national healthcare, while w pay 7.5% just for social security. I am a retired geologist, so take it for what it's worth.
You stated: "The Fed mainly manipulates interest rates and the money supply…. The intent is to encourage more borrowing and spending by business and consumers to fuel the economy. On the other hand, when the economy grows too fast and inflation becomes an issue….Economic growth and the inflation accompanying it slows down."
But the true purpose of the Fed and the world's central banks is to ensure that all states and their citizens remain in debt and continue to pay the interest.
When you see who is collecting vast amounts of the interest the purpose of the central banks is made clear.
It is basically a hidden tax on the poor and middle class. No different than it has ever been – when the peasants occupied the land and paid their taxes to the land owners.
This is classic US Government behavior. Their salaries should be cut to no more than 100,000 dollars per year, convert their penson plan to Social Secuarity,and include them in Obamacare. These steps would stop the over spending, and fix the ailing Social Security and Medicare programs. Oh yes, a complete audit of the federal reserve banking cartel,and full transparincy of their operations. Soon most of these bankers would be in jail.
It might be instructive to see how the Jones family arrived at the $385 budget cut. So here's last year's data: * $21,700 - Total annual income for the Jones family * $37,585 - Amount of money the Jones family spent * $38,585 - Planned budgeted spending for next year * $15,885 - Amount of new debt added to the credit card * $126,210 - Outstanding balance on the credit card Clearly there's a problem, so the family agreed to cut the planned budgeted spending for next year by $385. Thus arriving at the amount spent of $38,200 (as reported in the article).
The "uptick rule" is just a scapegoat for what is and aawlys be a speculative and volatile market. People try to react to events in order to feel they have control over what hurt them; when in reality they are short-sighted on the reality of what is happening. Is there a "downtick rule"? Why not? Why are longs favored over shorts? A market is speculative. You should not favor one side over the other unfairly. Markets go up over time basically only because of inflation. We are supposed to be a sophisticated and mature market, as opposed to newer controlled markets, as in say China or Russia. The market is by design speculative and fluid, and to attempt to stop it from being so would only imbalance it and be likely to have adverse effects. Regurgitating the "uptick rule" is something usually barked out by unknowledgeable politicians in response to knee-jerk reactions by the populace hurt by their perception that markets only go up. To cave it to that would not solve anything.