Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I've said this many times but blaming "the politicians" is a cop out.  They are easy to demonize but at the end of the day every one of them is elected by "we the people".  The politicians are the problem in theory but in practice the problem goes much deeper.  A politician who ran on a platform of any combination of spending cuts and tax increases necessary to balance to budget wouldn't stand a chance.  That is on us, "we the people". 

You're not saying anything differently than what I'm saying.  When I say, "no politician wants to vote for it" it's because they know they won't be elected--or reelected-- if they try.

I don't foresee any imminent demise of our economy, but I do think it's coming.  The thing is, I've thought it was coming since about 2001.  So, it could well be 2050 or more.  My goal would be to start seeing a drop in debt: GDP ratio to  get it back under 1, but even that is .... unlikely.

I agree that the relevant figure is debt:GDP ratio and getting it back under 1 would be a good start but even that, IMHO, is only barely sustainable.  

Here is a graph of Debt:GDP from 1966-2024, basically:

• Massive debt incurred fighting WWII was still being paid down in the late 60s.  It bottomed out just over 30% of GDP in the mid 70s then again in the very early 80s.  
• In roughly 1980 "we the people" figured out that we could elect anti-tax Presidents (Reagan, Bush I) and pro-spending Congresses and get "the best of both worlds".  From 1981-1992 we had a Democratically controlled HoR and a Republican President and the debt grew to about 60% of GDP.  
• Then with the 1992 and 1994 elections we flipped that and went to a Republican controlled HoR and a Democratic President and Debt:GDP stopped rising then started dropping.  It bottomed out just a little under 55% right before 9/11.  It is hard to say what would have happened in the absence of 9/11.  
• The response to 9/11 included a lot of stimulus spending and a big increase in defense spending and Debt:GDP started rising again but only incrementally and it was still "only" 62% right before the credit meltdown in 2008.  
• The credit meltdown in 2008 was when things really went nuts.  Heading into that the Debt was ~62% of GDP and by the time the recession ended it was pushing 90%.  That was bad enough but it was made worse by the fact that it continued to grow even after the recession ended and was around 100% by the end of Obama's first term.  
• After 2012 the Debt:GDP ratio finally stabilized and remained at roughly 1 up until COVID.  Then it spiked to ~1.2 where it remains today.  

The Treasury actually does a commendable job of putting the information out there, for fiscal 2024:

• 4.92 Trillion in revenue
• 6.75 Trillion in Expenditures
• $1.83 Trillion added to debt.  

To put that in perspective double it then lop off EIGHT zeros and this is the equivalent of a family with:

• $98,400 Income
• $135,000 Expenditures
• $36,600 added to the mortgage

We need a 27% cut in expenditures or a 37% increase in revenue or some combination of the two to balance this.  

A family adding that much to their mortgage in a year would be fine IF that was a one-time thing.  If they did it to take a once-in-a-lifetime trip or to add on to the house or buy a once-in-a-lifetime RV they could pay it down in future years but what do we spend the money on:

• 21% Social Security
• 14% Medicare 35% cumulatively
• 14% Interest on existing debt, 49%
• 13% Health, 62%
• 13% Defense, 75%
• 11% Income Security (welfare), 86%
• 5% Veterans Benefits, 91%
• 2% Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services, 93%
• 2% Transportation <-- This is the ONE part of this that might plausibly be comparable to a one-time capital expenditure only it isn't, there weren't any massive expansions in Highways in 2024 this was just maintenance.  95%
• 1% Natural Resources and Environment, 96%
• 3% Other, 99% (adds to 99% due to rounding)

So what are you going to cut?  Social Security and Medicare are considered Entitlements and effectively off limits.  Interest has to be paid.  Those three make up roughly 1/2 of the budget so if you are going to balance the budget through spending cuts without cutting those, the rest needs cut not 27 but 54%.  

To put that in perspective double it then lop off EIGHT zeros and this is the equivalent of a family with:

• $98,400 Income
• $135,000 Expenditures
• $36,600 added to the mortgage

Let's be realistic, much of that $36,600 would be put on credit cards, exacerbating the problem, lol.

The average credit card debt per HH in the US is also very scary.  My No. 1 piece of financial advice to my kids was do run a balance on a CC except for dire emergency.

Pay it off every month.  If you can't pay it, don't use it.

Before we got married I had to ask my wife if she had CC debt, she kind of snorted, she said she didn't like debt on any kind.  Check check.

She doesn't even like having a mortgage payment even though I pay it, and it's a couple months away from being gone, which will make her happy.  Financially, I'd be better off not paying it off this soon, but it's a matter of a percent or so I might get from a CD.  I'll be glad when it's done myself.

My first divorce tapped everything I had for a few months because I wanted my kids to stay in the same house, which I managed.  I even borrowed off a whole life insurance policy.  

A military wouldn't be of any use if folks quit buying our debt.  Set as a target reducing the ratio of debt to GDP and try and stick to it.  Even that is likely not possible.

A major reduction in Federal spending would probably send the economy into recession, or worse, and then tax revenue drops as well.  A major increase in taxes would do the same.

In other news, I just received my recent order of silver, so there is that.

In 1917 when the British Empire- who had zero authority to give away land that they were occupying that didn't belong to them, promised to support just exactly that at some point in the future with the Balfour Declaration- the population of Mandatory Palestine was 94% Arab and 6% Jewish. People can say "well those dirty Arabs should've just taken the UN partition plan" all they want- but the UN partition was merely a recommendation- there was nothing binding about it- and it was a completely ridiculous and ludicrous proposal which called for the Arabs which were 67% of the population and who owned around 90% of the land in Mandatory Palestine to receive around only 45% of the total land- of course they were going to reject this complete and utter nonsense. It was a complete non-starter.

The way that Israel was founded by the mass immigration of European Jews (most of which was illegal immigration and against British law) and the forced expulsion and relocation of roughly 750,000 indigenous Arabic peoples was always going to be a long term catastrophe for Israel and guarantee future conflict for oh-ever. It was never going to just go away quietly. You don't invade someones homeland evict them establish a country and take what's most precious to them- their land and expect they won't try to fight you back with everything they have for eternity. If you're Israel you have to either make peace with them or expel/kill them all. And I don't think anyone here would seriously support the latter.

Had to smirk a bit at both of these. There's always a tale of Palestinian non-responsibility. We just stop at the non-starter, because what happened next sort of spells out what follows. 

But setting aside the first part, the second contains the deepest of contradictions. If the modern, and really only existence of Palestinians as a movement is solely dedicated to fighting back for everything it wants for eternity, then it can never actually make peace. Not as long as there's an Israel at all. That last couple sentences becomes a falsehood. You can't make peace when the Palestinians have no terms they'll settle for. 

If the Palestinians say "we'll drive you out or die trying," the response is likely gonna be "well you seem to accept either outcome." Especially when the efforts to fight back are mostly about killing civilians and then making sure their corpses look extra sad for CNN. Any avenue to peace involves giving up the fight and realizing you won't get what they want. And they won't do that, even when holding basically none of the cards.

Shoot, Israel gave them sovereignty in 2005. And with that, they chose avenues to conflict repeatedly. The kind of conflict that could only lead to suffering. But that, it seemed, was worth it. 

In 1917 when the British Empire- who had zero authority to give away land that they were occupying that didn't belong to them, promised to support just exactly that at some point in the future with the Balfour Declaration

Word,Germany,Czechoslavakia,Ireland say hello to name just a few,as the song says - and I'm frightened by those that don't see it. So good at it they didn't need to occupy Czech lands