The US typically borrowed to get past a crises, the Vietnam war, the war on drugs, the dotcom bust, the gulf war. The idea was they would pay it back once the crisis was past but they never have. They just fabricate another crisis to justify more debt.
Clinton was commended for getting the deficit down but he did so by borrowing it. It's just a big joke played on everyone who holds US treeasuries. Most notably the future recipients of social security. All that money has been spent and the trust fund consists of a filing cabinet stuffed with US debt.
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
Child poverty in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed world
The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty.
Since 1973’s historical low of 11.1 percent poverty in the United States, poverty rates generally rise during recessions and drop during recoveries. The recovery following the 2001 recession, however, saw poverty increase and then further explode during the Great Recession. From 2008 through 2009, 32.2 percent were in poverty for at least one month, and 52.6 percent were below twice poverty for a least one month. In addition, 4.6 percent were in poverty for the entirety of the two-year period, while 18 percent were at twice poverty for the entirety. Therefore, the official poverty rate of 15.1 percent understates the number of people who experience poverty.
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
Falling Standard of Living 2011 Think life is not as good as it used to be, at least in terms of your wallet? You'd be right about that. The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the US government began recording it five decades ago. Bottom line: The average individual now has $1,315 less in disposable income than he or she did three years ago at the onset of the Great Recession – even though the recession ended, technically speaking, in mid-2009. That means less money to spend at the spa or the movies, less for vacations, new carpeting for the house, or dinner at a restaurant.
Contrary to the belief that Americans are paid well, the standard of American workers has fallen tremendously in the last decade. About 67.1 per cent of wage earners in 2012 earned an average wage less than or equal to $42,498.21. According to the Social Security Administration, 50 per cent of wage earners make less than or equal to $27,519.10 annually.
The reasons for the decline in the standard of living of American workers are: Corporations are moving their production overseas and limited investment in factories has led to the elimination of good jobs. Good paying jobs are now being replaced by low paying part-time jobs In 2013, 77 per cent part-time jobs were created as against 953,000 full-time jobs. This can be quite depressing as wages of low paying jobs are declining while the cost of living is increasing every day.
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
Standing on the Washington Mall at the turn of the new millennium, it was impossible not to be struck by America's power and global pre-eminence.
Victory in the Cold War made it the hegemon in a unipolar world. Few argued when the 20th Century was dubbed the "American Century", a term first coined in the early 1940s when the country was still overcoming its isolationist instincts. Even the New Year's fireworks, which illuminated the obelisk of the Washington Monument in a way that made it resemble a giant number one, projected the country's supremacy as the world's sole superpower.
Over the past 15 years, America's fortunes have changed with dizzying speed. First came the tremors: the dot-com bust and a disputed presidential election in 2000. Then came the massive convulsions: the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2001 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have exacted an enormous blood price - the lives of 6,852 American military personnel - not to mention immense financial expense, estimated to be as high as $6 trillion (£3.9tn). The detention centre at Guantanamo Bay has undermined American ideals, just as the NSA and Wikileaks spying scandals have undercut American diplomacy.
George W Bush, a president with a Manichean worldview, was widely seen as over-eager to project America's military might, without adequately considering the long-term consequences. Barack Obama, who campaigned in 2008 on a platform of extricating America from its unpopular and exhausting wars, has drawn criticism for disengaging too much. Under both presidents - the first an impulsive unilateralist, the second an instinctive multilateralist content sometimes to lead from behind - America's global standing has been diminished.
Lost fear factor:
Polls regularly show that Americans recognise that their country's international standing has waned. Among the young, this trendline has fallen sharply. Only 15% of 18-29-year-olds believe that America is the "greatest country in the world", according to Pew, down from 27% in 2011. Tellingly, however, there has been no great public outcry. No longer is there much appetite for America playing its long-standing role of global policeman, even in the face of the rise of the group calling itself Islamic State. The cost, human and financial, is considered too great. Americans increasingly think that other countries should share the burden.
Obama, while continuing to trumpet "American exceptionalism", regularly prefaces remarks on foreign affairs by acknowledging the limits of US power, again with little public outcry... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33440287
"Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works." John Stuart Mill
If America's roads are so shocking, you must not have travelled much. Australia's road system is 10 times worse.
I do believe America has serious issues, but find another example to make your point.
I'm an American living in Melbourne and I completely agree with this. The US has big problems that political gridlock isn't going to help, but the roads? That's not one of them.
Detroit? Detroit isn't alone, but it was once the hub of a huge industry that has changed considerably.
lulldapull
8 Sep 2015, 10:16 PM
It's already a depression TWT.......specially in the U.S.
It's fucked!
A fortnight ago, China dumped around $200 billion in U.S. T-bills on the market. It caused a panic. Stock markets went into free fall. That was just a warning from China. Now $40 billion they are dumping weekly:
I wouldn't rely on that ultra left-wing Canadian "think tank" for anything. Most treasuries are not owned by the Chinese. THey are owned by American people and corporations.
If you think that the Chinese are just going to pull the plug on what has been their business strategy for decades, you can think again. If you think that the Chinese have more levers than the USA in that relationship, you're mistaken, but the tone of your post indicates that you're borderline certifiable.
The Whole Truth
19 Sep 2015, 08:23 PM
BBC: The decline of US power
Standing on the Washington Mall at the turn of the new millennium, it was impossible not to be struck by America's power and global pre-eminence.
Victory in the Cold War made it the hegemon in a unipolar world. Few argued when the 20th Century was dubbed the "American Century", a term first coined in the early 1940s when the country was still overcoming its isolationist instincts. Even the New Year's fireworks, which illuminated the obelisk of the Washington Monument in a way that made it resemble a giant number one, projected the country's supremacy as the world's sole superpower.
Over the past 15 years, America's fortunes have changed with dizzying speed. First came the tremors: the dot-com bust and a disputed presidential election in 2000. Then came the massive convulsions: the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2001 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have exacted an enormous blood price - the lives of 6,852 American military personnel - not to mention immense financial expense, estimated to be as high as $6 trillion (£3.9tn). The detention centre at Guantanamo Bay has undermined American ideals, just as the NSA and Wikileaks spying scandals have undercut American diplomacy.
George W Bush, a president with a Manichean worldview, was widely seen as over-eager to project America's military might, without adequately considering the long-term consequences. Barack Obama, who campaigned in 2008 on a platform of extricating America from its unpopular and exhausting wars, has drawn criticism for disengaging too much. Under both presidents - the first an impulsive unilateralist, the second an instinctive multilateralist content sometimes to lead from behind - America's global standing has been diminished.
Lost fear factor:
Polls regularly show that Americans recognise that their country's international standing has waned. Among the young, this trendline has fallen sharply. Only 15% of 18-29-year-olds believe that America is the "greatest country in the world", according to Pew, down from 27% in 2011. Tellingly, however, there has been no great public outcry. No longer is there much appetite for America playing its long-standing role of global policeman, even in the face of the rise of the group calling itself Islamic State. The cost, human and financial, is considered too great. Americans increasingly think that other countries should share the burden.
Obama, while continuing to trumpet "American exceptionalism", regularly prefaces remarks on foreign affairs by acknowledging the limits of US power, again with little public outcry... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33440287
The BBC are also big on US decline. They share the schadenfreude and hate for the USA that the rest of the Anglosphere (including Australia) does. The BBC is the Guardian in broadcast form and the Fairfax here.
Clinton was commended for getting the deficit down but he did so by borrowing it
Huh? This statement does not even makes sense! How can you "get the deficit down" by "borrowing"??? Can't wait to hear the mechanics of how you think that works!
How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?
'The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense'
A question posted recently on Quora asked, "How much stronger is the United States military compared with the next strongest power?" Check out these answers and keep the discussion going. Add your own thoughts and experiences in the comments below.
By Daniel Kearns, former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division
1,000 times. Maybe more.
No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States military in a conventional war.
Consider: The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. $711 billion. Per year. The next closest is China at $143 billion.
The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.
China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.
We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined. And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters.
There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.
The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.
We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.
Now you have 14 tanks looking for you. Oh, and it also uploads to every Apache helicopter in the area. Every indirect and direct fire system in the area knows what you are and where you are. Your survivability just dropped to 0. Instantly.
Fighting a conventional war against the U.S. would be like a 3-year-old child playing chess against Gary Kasparov. They wouldn't even know what they were supposed to be looking at.
*Edit: The purpose of the answer is not borne out of some nationalistic sense of pride, although I am a U.S. veteran and consider myself patriotic, but rather to call attention to how much larger the U.S. military industrial complex is than the entire rest of the world.
I truly believe that the rest of the world really has no clue just how powerful the U.S. military is. We must begin to question the disparity of lethality between the U.S. and the rest of the world. But we must also question, if not the U.S., who? Who do we want to have the largest military? China? North Korea? Or an ally like the UK?
Do we need to have 1,000 times the lethality of the closest military in strength? Or would 100 times suffice? I don't have the answer to those questions, nor am I purporting to. But I think it's important to begin a dialogue.
By Alan Cohen, US Army veteran
Well, the next strongest power is Russia.
I seriously doubt that 1000 times better is the case.
The US serviceman, right now, is way ahead of his counter parts, and for a simple reason; he has been in combat. When, I arrived in Vietnam, I thought I was the best trained that I ever would be. However, when I left I realized I had become a much better soldier than training could have made me.
If history teaches us anything, it is this—just because you look good on paper, don't bet on it translating into a victory. Vietnam taught us that, and then turned around and taught China the same lesson. SinoVietnamese War Seriously, China couldn't squash Vietnam like a bug? Even if you chalk this one up as a draw, Vietnam comes out way ahead of China.
Could any country mount an attack on the US? Probably not.
Could we defeat any country in the world? I seriously doubt it.
We couldn't even occupy enough territory in Russia or China to have a victory. We are stronger than anyone else; but I wouldn't expect us to fight a land war in Russia or China or India without taking significant casualties.
My guess would be, the US would be twice as strong as Russia, if we were engaged in Russia, and maybe five times stronger than Europe, if we were engaged in Europe. If the fight took place in North America, I think the chances of the US being able to overpower an adversary would increase dramatically. They might get an airborne unit into Alaska, but not much more than that.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy