'It's Over' for U.S. Economy, Yes or No?

[500,000]

Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s longtime business partner in Berkshire Hathaway, warns in a new column that the U.S. economic empire is crumbling before our eyes, thanks to federal debt and poor planning.

The U.S. deficit — just the gap between spending and income in one year — is projected to hit $1.6 trillion in 2010. Total debt is project to exceed 100 percent of GDP starting in 2011.

http://moneynews.com/Headline/munger...mo_code=97C7-1

Some one tell Obama.

[hugegrowth]

The total debt keeps getting bigger every year, eventually something has to give if they can't reign it in somehow.

[18493]

Charlie has been saying this every year. They have a vested interest in downplaying the economy,
as BRK's MO is to buy private/public companies on the cheap. Wesco's public holdings are very similar to BRK's.

Warren is very optimistic on the US's future. Charlie has always been the "glass is half-full" of the two. "Damn Right: Behind the Scenes with Berkshire Hathaway Billionaire Charlie Munger" is a good read.

[Creature]

Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s longtime business partner in Berkshire Hathaway, warns in a new column that the U.S. economic empire is crumbling before our eyes, thanks to federal debt and poor planning.

The U.S. deficit — just the gap between spending and income in one year — is projected to hit $1.6 trillion in 2010. Total debt is project to exceed 100 percent of GDP starting in 2011.

http://moneynews.com/Headline/munger...mo_code=97C7-1

Some one tell Obama.

No more tarp and worse problems than 2008, I guess hyperinflation could be just around the corner and apparently the dollar can collapse overnight. Surprised you need to ask with that all seeing eye of yours!

[18493]

No more tarp and worse problems than 2008, I guess hyperinflation could be just around the corner and apparently the dollar can collapse overnight. Surprised you need to ask with that all seeing eye of yours!

I think just the opposite. I think the economy is simply in a deflationary period until commerce picks up. Fewer jobs creates lower house prices, which creates upside down mortgages, which creates defaults, which creates everything to go down in price. The only ones available to borrow are those extremely credit worthy or banks.

The incredible amount of dollars being used in bailouts has been used for quantitative easing and
building up the banking industry - which is needed to support the economy to any extent.

As long as interest rates are near zero, it's deflation that's the main concern. Zero interest rates props up gold and stocks as nobody can hold cash at 50 bps. If the interest rate was 10%+, then maybe we are heading towards Zimbabwe or Greekville.

Japan's debt level was extremely high too compared to the GDP, and they were in deflationary times for 20-30 years. They are the masters of the qe.

[Seraphim]

The United States as we know it will begin to rapidly disintegrate once a 35 - 50% Hispanic or Mexico leaning voting block has solidified. That should happen around 2050 - 2075 or so. We have a nation forming within our nation, or to put it more accurately, Mexico's borders are rapidly expanding [funded by the US tax payer of course through free social welfare benefits, benefits which regrettably are not afforded to our own citizens]. Not the politically correct thing to say, but it's the cold hard truth nonetheless, and one that will likely cause some borders to eventually shuffle around.

Not really a racial thing either, more of an ethnic cultural-ish human nature thing. If a tight-knit Irish or Ireland leaning identity made up 50% of the UK's entire population within three generations, borders would flap all over the place [Ireland's current borders would likely expand in such a hypothetical case].

Growing up in Southern California, land-of-segregation, is what I base my hypothesis for the future on.

[Donald Aquilano]

The "Empire" will continue as long as foreigners keep buying up are debt. What happens when that stops? The US dollar will collapse and the states will have to pick up pieces.

---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 PM ----------

The United States as we know it will begin to rapidly disintegrate once a 35 - 50% Hispanic or Mexico leaning voting block has solidified. That should happen around 2050 - 2075 or so. We have a nation forming within our nation, or to put it more accurately, Mexico's borders are rapidly expanding [funded by the US tax payer of course through free social welfare benefits, benefits which regrettably are not afforded to our own citizens]. Not the politically correct thing to say, but it's the cold hard truth nonetheless, and one that will likely cause some borders to eventually shuffle around.

Not really a racial thing either, more of an ethnic cultural-ish human nature thing. If a tight-knit Irish or Ireland leaning identity made up 50% of the UK's entire population within three generations, borders would flap all over the place [Ireland's current borders would likely expand in such a hypothetical case].

Growing up in Southern California, land-of-segregation, is what I base my hypothesis for the future on.

Scary isn't it. Twenty years ago people would have said it couldn't happen but now its a real possibility that we will become Balkanized.

[Seraphim]

Scary isn't it. Twenty years ago people would have said it couldn't happen but now its a real possibility that we will become Balkanized.

At some point in the near future, the dominant American-European-Anglo culture, as well as the American English language, are going to be faced with a tough decision. Bow and give way to the new Mestizo-Hispanic Spanish speaking majority, or draw new borders where it stands. That's exactly where we're headed, and yet it's still not acceptable public conversation [I don't mind discussing it though]. A 50/50 racial-ethnic-cultural face off occurring within US borders is pretty scary indeed, especially when one thumbs through a history book to search for a probable outcome [real or perceived income disparity between the two is usually where things start to get violent].

[Devil Dog]

At some point in the near future, the dominant American-European-Anglo culture, as well as the American English language, are going to be faced with a tough decision. Bow and give way to the new Metizo-Hispanic Spanish speaking majority, or draw new borders where it stands. That's exactly where we're headed, and yet it's still not acceptable public conversation [I don't mind discussing though]. A 50/50 racial-ethnic-cultural face off occurring within the US borders, is pretty scary indeed, especially when one thumbs through a history book to search for a probable outcome.

What's so scary about it? Trying to figure out your thought process.

[Gerry]

Someone tell those that don't want to face the truth that when Bush took over in 2000, the national debt was about 5.6 trillion.

Bush raised the national debt not once, not twice, not thrice, but SEVEN times in his tenure.

At the end of December 2008 the debt stood at 10.7 trillion.

In Bush's eight years, he took the debt (hell, he started out with a surplus) from 5.3 to 10.7 and rising from 58% of GDP to 70.2% of GDP.

Now, why is that too hard to understand, comprehend, and NEVER brought up in any of these discussions?

Why did the Paulson plan call for an increase in the ceiling up to 11.3T?

Because they knew they were in the shitter and in deep.

And here's the real kick in the balls...these increases do not pay for two wars nor do they cover the Medicare Supplement, which has NEVER received funding to this day.

So, no one needs to tell Obama. He is well aware how ****ed up the GOP spent, spent, spent during those eight years.

And some have the never to call the democratic party the party of spending.

So, before you want to argue these points - prove that I am wrong.

Prove that George W Bush did not nearly double our debt.

Prove that he totally and fully funded both wars.

Prove that he totally funded the Medicare Drug Benefit.

Prove that he did not increase our debt.

Prove me wrong.

Because government records and bills signed into law and for all to review state that in 2000, the the national debt was at $5.6 trillion and by 2006, big budget surpluses have collapsed into huge deficits, and the debt has shot up to 8.2 trillion as of March 2006 causing Bush to sign to have it raised again to nearly $9trillion.

In the fall of 2008, Bush's Paulson plan raised the national debt nearly an addition 3 Trillion!

Again, lets do the math.

From 5.5T in 2000 to 8.2T in 2006

Then from 8.2T to nearly 11.3, signed in the Paulson Plan.

That act alone pushed National Debt above 70% of GDP.

In less than 2 years, he blew through 3T.

Still, neither war fully funded. Medicare Supplement 0% funded.

Yet, the teabaggers and baboons on TV want to make a crime out of Obama spending an estimated 1.4 T?

Count em folks...look it up...Bush raised the debt ceiling SEVEN times. And in 2006, it was estimated that the two wars was costing 2 trillion a year.

Do the math...2T a year since 2006 is 8T.

I hate to be the one to tell you that your Boy Bush has physically and morally bankrupted this country.

Here's the clincher...if you are looking at and reviewing the same government documents that are available to every citizen and not listening to the talking heads to sway you, then you are looking at the same numbers and figures I mentioned.

[HasRob]

Doc com, I've learned to not argue with these people. They just want to bash Obama, a guy who imho has more brains then both the Bush presidents combined. All you have to do is look at all the stats from all the republican presidents and the dems and you'll find the republicans **** everything up everytime.

[Gerry]

Oh, and to answer the original question:

'It's Over' for U.S. Economy, Yes or No?

Yes, it is over.

It started in early summer of 2005 when Bush signed into law the sweeping new Bankruptcy law making it nearly impossible for an individual to file bankruptcy.

It was in a full downhill spiral in the fall of 2007 but it would still be more than a year later when anyone in the Bush administration would mention the word "recession" but only after the November election.

Oh, and by the way...China no longer holds the largest amount of US debt.

Japan does.

[500,000]

Take some time and watch or at least listen to this CPAC Honored Speaker. Glenn Beck.

[Seraphim]

What's so scary about it? Trying to figure out your thought process.

If racism is a group of thugs, then segregation is a standing army. The United States has declared war on racism, yet it remains one of the most racially segregated countries on the planet. Nearly every state, city, county, town, and district are divided along racial lines. The Elephant in the room has a band aid on it's heel, and on that band aid are two words, "melting pot". Just one problem, the United States has never been a melting pot, unless we're speaking about some Irish guy marrying an Italian woman in 1803. Look at a racial demographic map of the United States, and tell me it's a melting pot. Walk through the Jewish and Black districts of New York City, and tell me it's a melting pot. That's just something that people say, so that they can go home to their all black, white, Jewish, or Asian part of the city, and not feel "dirty" about directly participating in full-on racial segregation [and everyone is doing it].

To flip the question around, what isn't scary about the prospect of two heavily segregated, several hundred year old cultures approaching a 50/50 demographic stand off, all within the same borders no less? 60K down the drain in college tuition fees, I can assure you that losing my white entitlement benefits are not what concerns me here. What concerns me is that the United States will eventually become a far more potent and bloody version of Northern Ireland, or Serbia and Kosovo, or Georgia and South Ossetia, or most African countries, I could go on and on...

If a government can't secure it's own borders, if it can't foster a degree of national unity or cultural continuity for the sake of internal peace and stability, then what is it's purpose? Conquest isn't immigration, demographic swamping isn't immigration, a failed state and civilization bleeding poverty, chaos, and corruption into the United States, is not immigration. Apply the same rules and standards to parts of the United States as you would to Tibet, and you'll understand my point.

[RatherGood]

I think its probably "over" for the middle class or anyone hoping to make an honest living.

[Donald Aquilano]

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern ment health care fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in creased this spending by 20 percent.
President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/...t-in-pictures/


You can't just blame Bush for everything in fact Obama is a lot worse when it comes to spending.

---------- Post added at 07:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

Doc com, I've learned to not argue with these people. They just want to bash Obama, a guy who imho has more brains then both the Bush presidents combined. All you have to do is look at all the stats from all the republican presidents and the dems and you'll find the republicans **** everything up everytime.

You forgot to add that we also don't like obama because he's black and all republicans are racists.

[Mike Cruz]

you forgot to mention Bush walked into his presidency with a surplus or did i miss something?

[bobovia]

"I need a bailout so I can spend my way out of debt." Bobovia, February, 2010.

Byron Dale has an excellent video series on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQWK2SPMdGo about how the Federal Reserve dollars are "evidence of debt."

National debt 12 trillion and counting!

www.usdebtclock.org/

[Acro]

We're going through a bad economy, that's for sure.

[ilovedomains]

We're going through a bad economy, that's for sure.

What bad economy?

Wall Street bankers made 17% more than than they did the previous year. Since Obama chose the same aswipes to "regulate" banking that that the last administration had, they are probably alrerady planning the next crash. That will probably be the "green bubble". America will compete with China making wind turbines. Yea, lets invest all our money in that.