BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

eleven bravo wrote:

a gazzilion percent of gdp

yeah goddamn lol. but i wonder how much of that debt would be slashed off due to investments.

That's external debt btw, it adds up that of the government, private sector & individual citizens. It's not that much of a big deal if you've got a stable, strong economy & currency.

Large external debts are definitely a problem, don't get me wrong, but it's not exactly the end of the world either. Some of the countries listed are in economic positions in which it is affordable to have such enormous debts, like Norway. A country has to go about accumulating these debts carefully though, they will all have to be paid back at some point.

eleven bravo wrote:

doesnt the US owe 80 trillion dollars in social security payments for the next 30 years?

I think those are terrible estimates. They can do what France does, raise the retirement age.

unless you raise it to 95

Cybargs wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

doesnt the US owe 80 trillion dollars in social security payments for the next 30 years?

I think those are terrible estimates. They can do what France does, raise the retirement age.

Raising the retirement age now won't change a thing... people who are nearing 65 won't accept a change like that and it would only be applied to people who are now in their mid 40s or under.

Your situation can be solved easily. Once you're out of Iraq & Afghanistan, cut the defense budget a bit and increase tax revenue again when the bush tax cuts expire, there should be more than enough money to go around. At least you don't have to worry about paying socialized healthcare / education on top of other social security programs.

What's the ratio now then? The problem with people above the age of 60 is that even if you raise the retirement age many of them won't be able to find any work because companies won't hire them. They cost too much.

Yep, the boomers have always been a majority and unless a miracle happens they're going to hold everyone else hostage through democracy. It's not like they have that much of a choice either, people want to live long and reasonably. Most people who are 70-something really can't get back into the workforce. Too old, outdated, slow, costly - they won't be employed by anyone. & it's not like that generation hasn't sacrificed anything either, Vietnam anyone?

Anyway, if we survive the next 30 years we're going back to a sustainable situation. I very much doubt a new baby boom is going to happen, the population growth/decline seems to be quite steady for every generation after the boomers. Once they're gone it's fine, no doubt it will be tough but just gotta wait it out.

I also hope they get a move on with aging research, the outlook of being a physically and mentally unfit 80 year old is depressing to me.

Shocking wrote:

Yep, the boomers have always been a majority and unless a miracle happens they're going to hold everyone else hostage through democracy. It's not like they have that much of a choice either, people want to live long and reasonably. Most people who are 70-something really can't get back into the workforce. Too old, outdated, slow, costly - they won't be employed by anyone. & it's not like that generation hasn't sacrificed anything either, Vietnam anyone?

Anyway, if we survive the next 30 years we're going back to a sustainable situation. I very much doubt a new baby boom is going to happen, the population growth/decline seems to be quite steady for every generation after the boomers. Once they're gone it's fine, no doubt it will be tough but just gotta wait it out.

I also hope they get a move on with aging research, the outlook of being a physically and mentally unfit 80 year old is depressing to me.

Well, that's one of the primary reasons we're in this mess in the first place. When our social security system was designed, people were expected to drop dead around the age of 65. Now people routinely live into their 90s which places a tremendous burden on the system.

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Compulsory voting and votes that get punted sounds like a great way to legitimize whatever trash politicians vote for. Can't complain since it's what you voted for amirite? It's a system designed to stifle dissent.

Its still better than having a choice of only two parties to vote for.

We have as many choices as we want, including the choice to not legitimize the government by voting. I happen to be registered as a Libertarian Party member.

No vote for a libertarian candidate will ever have any effect - well done.

Don't you think having only two real parties, and huge numbers of people refusing to legitimise the govt is bad for democracy and the country as a whole?

Govts need to be legitimised to get things done, look at your situation, the elected govt can't basically do anything for at least 3 out of 4 years of their term, the opposition can't either - how is that democratic or good govt?

FEOS wrote:

When was the last time anyone other than a member of one of the two major parties in the UK sat at 10 Downing?

That has happened in Norway a couple of times ...

Varegg wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

edit: WOW HOLY SHIT NORWAYS DEBT

Not sure where those numbers come from because the official Norwegian statistical source says 666 billion dollars in total debt and not 2,2 trillion dollars, as of 1 quarter this year that is ... and then again we have our fortune in the pension fund that amounts to 587 billion dollars.

The numbers are correct. External debt is not only gov. debt but that of every company/citizen in Norway owed to foreign creditors, it's the real collective debt.

FEOS wrote:

I know some countries--particularly European countries--have true multi-party systems. But most are dominated by a couple of major parties (just like the US). A parliamentary system vs a republican system also makes a difference, as we directly (and separately) elect our representatives and president, vice electing a party or coalition and having them put the party head in as the head of government.

The party leaders are the ones campaigning, in 99% of the cases the party which is largest after the election will form the coalition and the party leader then takes the presidency. It's true that you don't really vote directly for the president but you know who's going to be taking that seat anyway. The main difference is that because we have multi-party systems there's not really any infighting going on inside the parties, so there's no need for multiple nominees for taking on leadership.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-04 03:52:52)