The problem with us obsessing about the national debt is that this flap detracts us from the FAR larger TOTAL government debt and unfunded liability obligations. By normal human being standards, the $14.5+ trillion national debt is unimaginably huge. As of 5 August, the constantly growing per citizen obligation for that debt comes to $46,844.12 – according to the National Debt Clock.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The average number of people in an American “household” (defined as people living together) is 2.11. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb11-cn132.html
Hence the per household piece of the official national debt is $98,924.49.
But according to an April 2011 USA TODAY article, the TOTAL per U.S. household debt owed to governments is now $531,472 – the household’s piece of the estimated $61.7 trillion U.S. federal, state and local government debt/liability obligation. At 5% interest, the household bill is $26,573.60. EVERY year — foolishly assuming zero future increases in debt and liabilities. The article includes a good breakdown of the components of that total obligation.
www.tinyurl.com/3p7vo6l
I must apologize for the fact that, although the article was written this spring, it’s based on 2007 figures. I suspect that the $61.7 trillion debt has grown a tad since then. Perhaps a bit MORE than a tad.
Now remember, this is the AVERAGE obligation per household – from the poor to the rich. If you are above average, your obligation is likely more.
How do you know if you are “above average”? A good quick gage of this criterion is this – do you pay over $500 of federal income tax in a year? If so, you are above average – congratulations!
Oh, BTW — this year and perhaps next year likely will offer the lowest income tax rates you’ll face – EVER. Gee, I wonder if there’s some connection . . . .
Need some good news? The $61.7 trillion total obligation may be wrong.
The bad news? A few maverick economists estimate the total obligation is closer to $200+ trillion – more than triple the catastrophic USA TODAY numbers.
Have a nice day.
Comments 16
Another “The world is coming to an end” post from Mr. Rider.
Richard, we already know that you don’t think San Diego is America’s Finest City or that California is it’s greatest state. Do you also no longer believe in the greatness of the United States?
Richard, why do you Libertarian terrorist teabaggers hate America?
/libtard
Bradley,
I don’t think Richard hates America. It would just be nice to hear him post something positive about the country, state and city in which he has chosen to make his home.
As for Conservatives in general, I do find it interesting that most rail against 50 years of Liberal rule while at the same time touting American Exceptionalism.
Author
Gosh Alger, I didn’t know that I had to love the American GOVERNMENT, its politicians and its policies in order to love America. They ain’t the same thing, Alger. For you progressives, the American government IS America. Not for me.
San Diego COULD be “America’s Finest City IF politicians and their backers weren’t running it into the ground. California SHOULD be America’s finest state, but politicians and their backers are running it into the ground. And the same certainly applies the United States.
IF I didn’t care about and for these entities and the people who live there, I wouldn’t push so hard to reverse the bad policies.
Alger, I’m SO sorry you find that offensive . . . on second thought, I’m not.
By your way of thinking and after so many years of liberal rule,we should already have been run into the ground. Well we aren’t. Now if everyone would just take a breath and stop trying to completely blow-up a system that, at a minimum, hasn’t stopped us from a being a great country, state and city, we will be just fine.
Alger,
Financially, we are close to being run in the ground (thanks to the unsustainable free spending of both Democrats and Republicans). People like Richard are trying to warn us so we can prevent disaster, while you pretend nothing is wrong.
Author
Thank you, Alger, for presenting the essence of liberal collectivist thinking and rationale. And I mean that, Alger. Thank you.
For decades the politicians from BOTH parities have been putting in place a structure of entitlements and promised protections that at first cost little, but in the end are unsustainable. These are what should on Rastra be called “Alger programs” — subsidies supporting the “something for nothing” giveaway goal that Alger and his fellow travelers think government should exist for.
It is no surprise these promised giveaways have lasted for decades. Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme lasted almost 30 years — and had to rely on voluntary contributions. The forced contributions for government Ponzi schemes allows them to last longer (but not TOO much longer).
Like the early investors felt in any pyramid scheme, these government entitlement programs worked great, as far as early recipients could see. And these lucky souls were great walking ads for the con, telling everybody they met now wonderful the “investment” or “insurance” program was.
Of course, these recipients became loyal voters — casting ballots to keep and expand their entitlements — and to keep the elected Santa Clauses in office.
So now we have a $60+ trillion obligation, and no clue how to pay it off and met the promised obligations. But the joy in Alger’s post is his blithe demonstration that such false prosperity and future promised payouts are all that count — that the future crushing payouts really don’t matter and likely don’t even exist — and it’s somehow unpatriotic and anti-American to even talk about it.
Bradley,
There is always plenty that can be done to make things better, but we are not close to being run into the ground; at least we weren’t until compromise became a bad word and defeating an incumbent President became more important than running the country.
You seem to be a student of history; review articles and commentaries that were written during each significant recession – the world is always coming to an end. The strange thing is that when the economy rebounds, and it always does, the world is still here.
Author
Alger uses a common logic fallacy we see all the time from liberal apologists — if you criticize the massive giveaway programs and excessive spending of government, then you are trying to “completely blow-up a system.”
To phrase it differently — if you complain about government excesses, then you are opposed to all government functions, and all taxes.
It’s what logicians call a “false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Richard,
Simple question, and maybe you can answer without being insulting:
Were we better off before Social Securiy, Medicare, Medicaid and the expansion of our military influence?
Alger will get it when his government checks bounce.
Alger,
Compromise should be a bad word when the choice is continuing an unsustainable welfare state on the fast-track to complete totalitarianism or acting like adults and saying enough is enough.
The philosophy (I would argue lunacy) of economic liberalism and the philosophy of libertarians like Richard are not compatible and frankly, cannot coexist. The sooner mainstream Republicans understand this and stop worrying about a liberally-slanted media and DC establishment getting angry with them, the sooner we have a chance of saving our country before we become Rome v2.0.
You libs believe in equal economic outcomes, achievable only through a coercive nanny-state of elites who “know what is best” and like parasites, eventually kill the host because the beast can’t stop it’s feeding frenzy.
Libertarians (I wish I could say Republicans here!) believe in equal economic opportunity. These are very, very different things, and I would argue cannot coexist. Thus, compromise SHOULD be a bad word when the choice is freedom versus the road to tyranny we currently find ourselves on.
And yes, this is a point made somewhat saliently by Marco Rubio earlier this week. Nice to hear an elected understand.
Alger,
It’s because I’m a student of history that I’m concerned. No, the world will not end, but America’s pre-eminence in the world could end through economic decline, just as happened to Britain and many other great powers in the past. Those who do not learn from history . . .
Author
Of course, Alger, you are posing a silly question, comparing the past to the present, and inferring that the present is better BECAUSE of (only) the factors you mentioned.
The PROPER question is would this: Would we be better off TODAY without “Social Securiy, Medicare, Medicaid and the expansion of our military influence”? And even better question would be “Would we be better off 30 years from now if we had never instituted these policies?”
The problem is that we can see the benefit of the programs you cite, but we can’t see the lost opportunity cost. For instance, would we have been better off with we could have annually saved, invested, or spent the 15.3% we had deducted from our paychecks to allow the two Ponzi schemes to continue to operate for a while? Or are we better off because we paid that money from our salaries into “trust funds” where it was promptly loaned to Congress to spend on the huge expansion of our welfare state, leaving only I.O.U.’s in the trust funds?
Naturally, Alger, you see only the benefits. I see the foregone private sector investment funds, consumer spending and personal well being of all those wage earners — and the monster unpayable government debt that will come back to haunt us all.
Final answer — we’d be better off today without the welfare programs and the “world policeman” role (though we should definitely have a strong military for national defense).
Richard,
Kudos for phrasing my question more appropriately. My intent was not to compare life today with life in times past. It was to ask the first question you asked. The second part is more a matter or conjecture and whether we are able to modify these programs as time goes by.
I do take exception to your characterization of Social Security and Medicare as “welfare programs.”. Since we all pay into these funds, annuities or pre-paid healthcare would be more accurate. If do to changing actuarial realities, these programs no longer pencil out, then they should be adjusted as to benefits and/or upfront costs.
Should we be the “world’s policeman?” I honestly don’t know and I hate spending the amount of money we spend on our military. On the other hand, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. As you said in a different context, you never know what would have happened if you took a different course.
Thanks for answering without beIng insulting. I hope that wasn’t too difficult for you.
Author
Tom Aaron, great to see you sometimes check in on SDROSTRA, even though you abandoned our city to its fate — heading off to Chicago.
Naturally, I could have said everything you said in your post, only my version would not be as well done. Thanks.