The United States is $222 trillion in debt

Economist Laurence Kotlikoff: U.S. $222 Trillion in Debt

(https://www.realclearpolicy.com/blo...ce_kotlikoff_us_222_trillion_in_debt_363.html)

RealClearPolicy: Cox and Archer argue that the U.S.’s underlying debt is much higher than the officially stated debt of $16 trillion. They argue that if you add up the unfunded obligations the government has -- to Social Security, Medicare, federal workers’ pensions, and so on -- the real debt is about $87 trillion. Can that be right?

Kotlikoff: That’s wrong. It’s $222 trillion.

 

(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...ing-unfunded-liabilities-222-trillion-dollars)

 

WE. ARE. BROKE.

 

Don't care anymore.

 

What's the big deal, you have a printing press. Just print the money and pay it off.

 

A nation that has control of its own currency can never be broke.

 

Yay, lets give "free" health care to around 20 million illegals, just vote Democrat in 2020! Sounds great...if you are a moron that never heard of mathematics.

2020 vote for Santa Claus...he is the only one that can make that work out

2020 vote like an adult.

 

Yes it can - There are numerous examples. The US having the world reserve currency - so long as it remains as such - we can not go broke.

Should we start printing dollars like crazy - we would not remain the reserve currency - and then would go broke ...

 

No worries...Trump’s going to eliminate it. He said so.

 

Thanks obama.

 

Anyone who thinks our debt is due to one president is a moron. Not that I’m saying anyone in this thread is a moron. No...I would never do that.

 

Who is making that claim?

Anyone who ignores the fact that obama doubled the debt is a blind sycophant.

 

You ONLY named Obama, correct?

 

Well, obama is responsible for half of that debt. Sounds like he is responsible for the biggest portion.

 

It has nothing to do with having the reserve currency. We cannot go broke. That is simply a feature of having control over U.S. dollars. A nation that has control over its currency can never "go broke."

 

And yet you ONLY named Obama. Whereas I give blame to ALL who’ve contributed. Your bias is showing

 

Where is there bias in the truth? The truth is obama doubled the debt. No bias, just fact.

 

What's that old saying 'When you find yourself in a hole KEEP digging' Been this countries moto for decades and won't get any better unless we're willing to cut, cut and cut some more. But there goes the votes, votes and votes....

 

Obama isn’t the only contributor to the debt. Yet you singled him out. Your bias is showing.

 

Deficit without GOP tax cutting and war policies:


Actually, we'd have a surplus.

Now, as all projections, these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt, since we cannot rewrite history. However, there is probably a strong element of truth in them.

 

I find it funny that all of a sudden the GOP fan base attitude is again "deficits don't matter". The second defense is "but Obama", of course totally neglecting the fact that Obama was handed the great recession by GWB, making lots of the additional spending and corresponding debt mandatory.

But, no fret, should a Dem be elected to the oval office in 2020, all of a sudden the debt will become number one priority again for GOP fans, the Tea party will be resurrected, and calls for austerity will become extremely loud. Why? Because they know that austerity will hurt the president in office, and the economy. But they don;t care about that because having their party in power and money in their pocket is the only objective.

 

Well this a bunch of MMT nonsense. There are real resource constraints in the economy. MMT totally disregards the capital structure, and says that increasing the supply of money, can have only have positive externalities, aside from of course inflation, which even they recognize. But if real resources are used to build a skyscraper, then those resources are not available to make a factory, etc.. When output is consumed, there is no availability of investment. When we are at full employment, these constraints are ever more so present.

Both capital and labor must be complimentary to each other. When a firm isn't profitable there are costs in the economy to re-format capital and labor structures to another allocated industry. When a business falters and malinvestment occurs, resources are not moving, and cannot be transferred to a new production process. MMT disregards this entirely.

 

The constraints have nothing to do with the reality of a nation's fiscal standing. Nations that control their currency cannot go bankrupt. The level of high powered money is not relevant. Sure, inflation can be a potential issue, but that is irrelevant to the question, "Can the U.S. become bankrupt;" which the answer to that question is, "No."

I don't know why you're telling me this; this has nothing to do with Central Banking...

 

Not shocked in the least. The American Express No Limit Gold Card will continue to be charged...

 

Depends how much you want to pay for bread?