Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 19

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Still peddling that trickle down nonsense? If that really worked ( given that the top 1% are still getting big breaks in their taxes ) we would have been out of the bad jobs market a long time ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Demand creates jobs.  Please, SDW, tell me what percentage of companies is going to hire more workers than they need to meet current demand?

No, it doesn't.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Do you hire more workers after receiving a tax cut and a lower demand forecast?

No...isn't that exactly what Obama proposes...tax cuts for "creating jobs?"  

In all seriousness, you're conflating micro and macroeconomics to an extent.  Obviously demand forecasts are important to individual corporations.  You might also call these "sales forecasts."  But that is far different from Demand Side economics, which in real practice does not work and does not create jobs.  In actuality, Supply Side works.  Supply side lowers taxes on society's producers, enabling them to produce more goods and services.  This, in, turn, causes prices to fall...which creates demand, which creates jobs.  We saw this clearly in the 1980s.  For all the crowing about Reaganomics and its deficits, the basic fact is that it works.  The economy rebounded dramatically and millions of jobs (and billions in revenue) were create despite the lower tax rates.  

But you can't accept this.  You cannot accept that someone making a lot of money gets a tax reduction.  Like most lefties, you're counting other people's money before you even have it.  To you, it's a immoral (IMMORAL!) to let a business or individual keep more of their own money.  And despite mountains of evidence, you continue to fail to understand that taxation is not zero sum.  Cutting X tax rate by Y does not mean Revenue=X-Y.  What you fail to understand is that while we take a smaller slice of the pie, the overall pie is growing.  Again though...you can't or won't grasp this.  It's been tried three times, and worked every time...yet you cannot see through your quasi-socialist lenses.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Obama will win the 2012 election with no problem at all. It is in the bag.
 

Demand creates jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001  

No, it doesn't.  

And you accuse others of quoting things out of context. You completely ignored the rest of what he said.

Production is what creates jobs.

Production may be started with the speculation that someone will buy the products (demand) and is sometimes (even often) wrong. But it is production that creates jobs. But demand in the way you are talking about it doesn't create jobs, production does.

There is tons of demand for tons of things. Many of which will never ever be produced. Production (sometimes) creates the jobs to fulfill this demand. Production often even creates jobs when there isn't any actual demand (these operations go bankrupt of course...unless they're government projects.)

You might take a closer look at Say's Law for a better understanding of this. Some of what Say had to say about the entrepreneur also provides insight into the order and relationship of things.

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

Well, in his defense, he did also post a pretty picture that was intended to bolster his "argument."

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

You gave a long string of arguments leading to a creation of demand, which you then say in turn creates jobs.  Do you not follow your own logic?  Now, you may say that demand should be somehow created via supply side (voodoo) economics, but don't try to claim that demand doesn't create jobs.  

Dissect that sentence.  You said lowering taxes serves as the impetus to increase supply, reducing prices, increasing demand, and finally creating jobs.  In your very own links of your chain of reasoning (which I contest are very weak), you say that the higher demand will create jobs.  So let me get this straight.  In your world, someone lowers taxes.  You, the businessman, say, "Great, now that I have all this extra money, I should make more goods.  Gee, now that I've made more goods, I better lower these prices so people buy them.  Yay, people bought them because they were now cheap enough!"

Are you really claiming that our current job woes are a result of companies not having enough money to make enough supply to lower prices sufficiently to create enough demand so that they can hire more people?  Really?

And still, you fail to see that the two links in the chain that are adjacent--demand and jobs--don't need all of that voodoo supply side nonsense preceding it.  If aggregate demand were to increase because middle and lower classes had more of a disposable income, wouldn't companies see that and hire more people to increase production to meet the higher demand?  Are you really claiming that companies don't have enough access to capital?

http://business.time.com/2012/05/07/why-arent-there-more-jobs/

Profits are up.  Many companies are posting record profits.  The pigs at the top won't share it with those who actually create the products and provide the services.  Wages have not kept up with productivity.  Perhaps if they had, there would be enough disposable income for the 99% to keep demand high.

Correlation does not imply causation.  Show me evidence that what you claim has more of an effect than the decades of pro-business, anti-labor, anti-union policies (or any effect for that matter).

Why don't you admit once and for all Romney is a venture capitalist who cares about himself and making money. Bain capital is a perfect example of this.People losing their jobs and Romney laughing all the way to the bank.
 

BR:

Originally Posted by BR 

Oh boy.  Are you actually now claiming that the full context of your claim wasn't directly stimulating demand creates jobs?  This is the distraction and partisan nonsense you engage in.  You'd much rather play semantics than discuss the actual issue.  

You can deride my reasoning all you want.  Supply Side works.  It's not what I "say," it's what's been proven.  There really is no way around that for you.  

In my world, I understand the laws of supply and demand.  Apparently you live in a different world. 

No.  But nice strawman.  

Ahh...now we come to it.  How, pray tell, are you going to give the middle and lower classes more disposable income?  That is the real issue. 

  Well that solves it.  Soak the rich.  That's the way to get the economy moving!  

Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the last decade is evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the last decade is evidence to the contrary.

Ahh yes..I had forgotten!  You think that we're actually engaging in supply-side stimulus, and have been since 1981.  Right on.  

For the first time ever we cut taxes while launching two wars.  The economy sucks and our deficits skyrocketed.  Romney's solutions?  MORE TAX CUTS, MORE WARS!  Yeah, we just didn't have enough of those the first time around when he was in a different cult and named George W. Bush (you do know that Romney has assembled a team of Bush advisors, right?).

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

For the first time ever we cut taxes while launching two wars.  The economy sucks and our deficits skyrocketed.  Romney's solutions?  MORE TAX CUTS, MORE WARS!  Yeah, we just didn't have enough of those the first time around when he was in a different cult and named George W. Bush (you do know that Romney has assembled a team of Bush advisors, right?).

Yes, BR...and what was the result in terms of revenue and economic growth? Employment?  The deficits didn't come from cutting taxes.  Some came from the post 9/11 war and security spending, but much of it was from other sources.  Our deficits did not "skyrocket," either.  The highest deficit before the 2008 crisis was about $400 billion, or 4 times less than the current deficit.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The deficits didn't come from cutting taxes.  

 

The deficits reduced revenue.  Like it or not, there are two parts to the equation here--inflow and outflow.  Bush increased the outflow while reducing the inflow.  You have to be fucking blind not to see how catastrophic that can be.  You are delusional that you think reducing the inflow doesn't affect the deficit. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

 

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

Romney does not want to "start a way with Iran."  And no, the Bush Tax cuts getting extended wasn't merely a compromise on Obamacare.  The GOP didn't vote for Obamacare, so there was no compromise there.  The Dems extended the Bush cuts because they knew that politically, they had to.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

The deficits reduced revenue.  Like it or not, there are two parts to the equation here--inflow and outflow.  Bush increased the outflow while reducing the inflow.  You have to be fucking blind not to see how catastrophic that can be.  You are delusional that you think reducing the inflow doesn't affect the deficit. 

You're incorrect and still proceeding from the false assumption that taxation is zero sum.  I'm not sure how many more times this has to be explained to you or how much historical precedent it will take for your to understand.  

1.  Revenue has been right around 20% of GDP (less, actually) whether the top tax rate is 28%, 40% or 91%.  

2.  You assume that revenue would have been "X" without taxes being cut, and that it was "Y" after taxes were cut.  This cannot be assumed, because the overall "tax pie" changes in size due to the overall economy's health.;  

3.  Despite lower tax rates on "the rich," government revenue hit a record in 2007.  While revenue initially dipped after the Bush tax cuts, by 2005 revenue had matched or exceeded pre-cut revenue.  In constant 2005 dollars, government revenue was actually higher in 2007 than it was in 2000, when we had the old Clinton rates.  Link.

4.  The same is true of the Reagan tax cuts, which were far more dramatic.  In 1980, revenue was $517 Billion (unadjusted).  In 1984, revenue was $666 billion (unadjusted).  Unadjusted for inflation, this is a 29% increase despite the lower rates.  In 2005 constant dollars, this is 10% increase in revenue, despite the lower rates.  How do you explain this?  

So no, BR.  Inflows have not been reduced by the lower rates, unless you're talking about the few years immediately after the cut.  That's because those cuts take 2-3 years to work their way into the economy ("lag").   And you can't claim that we would have had more revenue, because you're then discounting the importance of the health of the economy.  

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.  Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

Yes it would be helpful try and correct for those factors. The problem is that economies are complex things wherein stuff like population and/or economic growth can be affected by fiscal (specifically tax) policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.

Well it may be doing "just fine" in your own estimation. I don't know if we can put any kind of objectively measurable metric to "doing just fine." That's a subjective statement.

The better point of analysis is whether, all other things being equal, an economy grows more, faster, better, etc. under higher or lower tax levels (or whatever metric you wish to evaluate).

While it's difficult (or impossible) to have controlled laboratory-like experiments for economic questions, we have:

1. examples of what happens at relative extremes in comparable places (e.g., East/West Germany, North/South Korea)
2. examples of what happens across time...enough examples in fact that, while correlation does not prove causation, strongly suggest that the increasing liberalization of economies (privatizing government functions, lowering taxes, deregulating industries, opening trade, etc.) leads to greater economic growth, prosperity and wealth creation...and vice versa
3. present day examples comparing relatively more economically free countries to relatively less economically free countries and their wealth, prosperity, economic growth, stability, etc. and the overall well-being of their respective populations
4. deductive reasoning centered around the long and well understood laws of economics related to supply & demand (and their affect on prices of all kinds like wages, rents, interest rates, product prices, etc.), marginal utility, division of labor, trade, comparative advantage, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

You'd think so, but I'm betting that's not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

 

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

So Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to pass Obamacare...even though there wasn't a single Republican who voted for Obamacare. What compromise?

And Libya's different from Iraq and Afghanistan how? Because we killed people differently there? Because we're supporting the CIA-created Al Qaeda there instead of fighting it? We're already conducting black ops in Syria and who knows where else. The establishment is waiting for any excuse to attack Iran (I think Israel will make the first move). Our military is deployed to more places around the world than at any other time in our history (we're still in Iraq, despite what Obama and the mainstream media say). And you honestly claim that Obama is any better than Bush or Romney on this?

The richest individuals and corporations are pumping millions into BOTH the Obama and Romney campaigns - Obama actually has a slight edge over Romney on fundraising, last I heard.

Tell me, if libertarianism favors the rich and big corporations as you and many others claim, why are they not supporting Ron Paul? Curious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

So Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to pass Obamacare...even though there wasn't a single Republican who voted for Obamacare. What compromise?

 

And Libya's different from Iraq and Afghanistan how? Because we killed people differently there? Because we're supporting the CIA-created Al Qaeda there instead of fighting it? We're already conducting black ops in Syria and who knows where else. The establishment is waiting for any excuse to attack Iran (I think Israel will make the first move). Our military is deployed to more places around the world than at any other time in our history (we're still in Iraq, despite what Obama and the mainstream media say). And you honestly claim that Obama is any better than Bush or Romney on this?

 

The richest individuals and corporations are pumping millions into BOTH the Obama and Romney campaigns - Obama actually has a slight edge over Romney on fundraising, last I heard.

 

Tell me, if libertarianism favors the rich and big corporations as you and many others claim, why are they not supporting Ron Paul? Curious.

Obviously you and I have some difference between us on foreign policy/military affairs, but damn....well said. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

 

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.  Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

No, I did not adjust for population growth.  As MJ states, that's quite complicated.  I do find it hard to believe that you're claiming simple population growth would account for the difference.  I suppose it has some impact, though population growth does not necessarily mean employment/taxpayer growth.  As for economic growth, that's the entire point.  The economy and therefore tax base grows due to the lower rates.  That's how this works, BR.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Yes it would be helpful try and correct for those factors. The problem is that economies are complex things wherein stuff like population and/or economic growth can be affected by fiscal (specifically tax) policy.

 

 

 

Well it may be doing "just fine" in your own estimation. I don't know if we can put any kind of objectively measurable metric to "doing just fine." That's a subjective statement.

 

The better point of analysis is whether, all other things being equal, an economy grows more, faster, better, etc. under higher or lower tax levels (or whatever metric you wish to evaluate).

 

 

While it's difficult (or impossible) to have controlled laboratory-like experiments for economic questions, we have:

 

1. examples of what happens at relative extremes in comparable places (e.g., East/West Germany, North/South Korea)
2. examples of what happens across time...enough examples in fact that, while correlation does not prove causation, strongly suggest that the increasing liberalization of economies (privatizing government functions, lowering taxes, deregulating industries, opening trade, etc.) leads to greater economic growth, prosperity and wealth creation...and vice versa
3. present day examples comparing relatively more economically free countries to relatively less economically free countries and their wealth, prosperity, economic growth, stability, etc. and the overall well-being of their respective populations
4. deductive reasoning centered around the long and well understood laws of economics related to supply & demand (and their affect on prices of all kinds like wages, rents, interest rates, product prices, etc.), marginal utility, division of labor, trade, comparative advantage, etc.

 

All of this stuff can help us make pretty reasonable predictions while lacking the precision possible in the physical sciences (for obvious reasons), are still reasonable in terms of the pattern, directory and trajectory of results coming from certain actions, policies, etc. For example it is reasonable to predict that if the price of something rises over time, less of it will be demanded (and vice versa). This comports with our understanding of our own behavior and the reasonable expectation of everyone else's behavior. We cannot predict with precision the time lags or degree of demand reduction relative to the degree of price increase in most cases. But we generally know that demand will go down for things the more expensive those things get and up the less expensive those things get.

 

One thing this leads us to be able to (correctly) predict is that when you increase the cost of something like work (through higher income taxes), labor (through increased mandates for employer provided benefits or wages), investing (through higher taxes or increased regulation)...you will, on the whole get less of those things than you would absent those policies.

 

This is not really a terribly controversial idea except among the less economically literate and knowledgeable masses (which, BTW, includes most of the mainstream media and most elected officials.)

 

 

 

You'd think so, but I'm betting that's not true.

Excellent post.  It also lays bare BR's views and lack of knowledge about how economies tend to grow.  He is running around looking for any example to justify his dogmatic belief (oh, the irony) in higher taxes and more government control.  When he finds an economy that is "doing well" (whatever the hell that means, as you point out), he tries to point to that as proof his theory is correct.  

As you also note, this is really not all that controversial a topic.  Business may succeed with a higher tax burden, but it's in spite of that burden, not because of it.  The more we tax, the more we negatively affect growth.  Therefore, we should only tax to fund essential government functions and services...hence the spending part of the equation.  But BR thinks that government can spend out money more effectively (and more morally) than we can, necessitating even higher taxes, which further depress growth...which in turn causes people like him to scream about "greedy fucking evil corporations."  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The economy and therefore tax base grows due to the lower rates.  That's how this works, BR.  

 

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  You make the assertion that the economy grew due to the lower rates.  Prove it.

We also differ on what we consider to be essential government services.  I contend that not letting anyone die from lack of healthcare, exposure due to lack of shelter, or starvation from lack of food are all essential.  I contend that higher education should not come with crippling debt.  To provide for those, taxes need to be raised.  (Although, if you add up the cost you pay for your individual premiums & college education and add that to your effective tax rate, you'd find that you'd be paying much less in a single payer system)

Originally Posted by BR 

I contend that not letting anyone die from lack of healthcare, exposure due to lack of shelter, or starvation from lack of food are all essential.

Yes, and yet the government's involvement of every single one of those things is making them less affordable, especially for the poor so it has to compensate by providing public housing (disaster), food stamps (abused and dependency inducing) and now health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I contend that higher education should not come with crippling debt.

Good for you.

Do I get to contend whatever I want?

I contend that people should be magically transported from place to place whenever they wish. I contend that people should be able to have steak dinners for the cost of a Big Mac. I contend that people should be able to live comfortably while only working for half the year.

We can contend all sorts of shit.

But then there's reality. There's the reality that stuff costs things. This is an inescapable fact not some conspiratorial construction of greedy people. It is reality. That's where we live.

So, thanks for sharing your opinion about how the world should work. The rest of us are stranded in reality. It's incredibly ironic how you so often accuse me (and others) of living or dreaming from some Utopian perspective while being blissfully blind your own Utopian dreams.

BTW...education (both higher and lower) is yet another thing where government's meddling has actually raised costs for everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

To provide for those, taxes need to be raised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

(Although, if you add up the cost you pay for your individual premiums & college education and add that to your effective tax rate, you'd find that you'd be paying much less in a single payer system)

Why is that everyone who disagrees with you much prove their claims, but you are exempt from this requirement?

Prove your claims.

You act like what I say is so ludicrous, yet many countries are striving for similar goals--many of which are doing quite well. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You act like what I say is so ludicrous...

Not at all. I merely asked you to prove your claims. The first which implied that the only pathway to affordable education was through government action in the form of higher taxes. Your second simply asks us you take your word for it that single payer is, ipso facto, the least expensive option for both health insurance and education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

Rank	Country	Total health expenditure per capita PPP US$	Total health expenditure % of GDP
1	United States	7,960	17.4
2	Norway	5,352	9.6
3	Switzerland	5,144	11.4
4	Netherlands	4,914	12.0
5	Luxembourg	4,808	7.8
6	Canada	4,363	11.4
7	Denmark	4,348	11.5
8	Austria	4,289	11.0
9	Germany	4,218	11.6
10	France	3,978	11.8
11	Belgium	3,946	10.9
12	Ireland	3,781	9.5
13	Sweden	3,722	10.0
14	Iceland	3,538	9.7
15	Australia	3,445 (2008)	8.7 (2008)
16	United Kingdom	3,487	9.8
17	Finland	3,226	9.2

We're doing it wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

 

 

Rank	Country	Total health expenditure per capita PPP US$	Total health expenditure % of GDP
1	United States	7,960	17.4
2	Norway	5,352	9.6
3	Switzerland	5,144	11.4
4	Netherlands	4,914	12.0
5	Luxembourg	4,808	7.8
6	Canada	4,363	11.4
7	Denmark	4,348	11.5
8	Austria	4,289	11.0
9	Germany	4,218	11.6
10	France	3,978	11.8
11	Belgium	3,946	10.9
12	Ireland	3,781	9.5
13	Sweden	3,722	10.0
14	Iceland	3,538	9.7
15	Australia	3,445 (2008)	8.7 (2008)
16	United Kingdom	3,487	9.8
17	Finland	3,226	9.2

 

We're doing it wrong.

Maybe we should make up a bunch of taxes and rules to fix it. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Well, the folks that have more rules and taxes spend a lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, a lower amount of money per capita, and have better health outcomes.  So, yes, let's make up a bunch of taxes and rules to fix it.  That seems like a good idea we should adopt based on solid evidence of it working elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Well, the folks that have more rules and taxes spend a lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, a lower amount of money per capita, and have better health outcomes.

And how many of those outcomes are derived directly from the rapid advancement of American health care technologies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

And how many of those outcomes are derived directly from the rapid advancement of American health care technologies?

True, but just as importantly, these "outcomes" are self-reported (by country) and often measured very differently...and some of the "outcomes" in the US are the result of self-preventable health problem not to mention problems and deaths unrelated to the level or quality of healthcare at all.

This is what happens when you try to distill something as complex as healthcare of an entire country into a couple of statistics like (dollar) cost and life expectancy or infant mortality, etc.

Having said all of that, the health care and health insurance markets in the US are definitely sub-optimal. The problem is that BR's prescriptions won't fix them. The problem in these markets is too much government meddling, not not enough.

And yet, the evidence still contradicts what you claim when looking at markets that have MORE government involvement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

And yet, the evidence still contradicts what you claim when looking at markets that have MORE government involvement.

Actually it doesn't at all. But don't let that get in the way of your dogmatic adherence to a flawed interpretation of things.

Yup, the countries where patients don't have to file for medical bankruptcy totally have this whole healthcare thing wrong.

US National Debt 15 Trillion USD. The US National Debt ~DOUBLED~ in the past 10 years compared to what it was from ~all of history~ before that.

50% or so of that owned by foreign entities, mostly Japan, China, etc. Check this out. China sells US stuff. China Loans US money to buy Chinese stuff. US wants to buy more Chinese stuff. China loans US more money, China sells more stuff to the US which the US buys using Chinese money. Something's seriously wrong here. Who's really buying what? Answer: China is buying the US lock stock and barrel, and it has been happening for over 10 YEARS now.

US Debt-To-GDP now 100%. Greece was at 100% for several years since 2000 then in the past five years or so it ballooned to 110%, 120%, 150%, and... Well, you know what happened. Worthless currency (post-Euro, even then the Euro can barely stand on its own), worthless economy, worthless government, worthless productivity. Cradle of millennia of modern humanity down the toilet in just a few decades.

100% Debt-To-GDP doesn't mean your car will break down, but your gas indicator is showing EMPTY and the only next gas station is ten miles behind you. You wonder if you even ~have~ enough gas to go backwards to fill up. 

Also, Greek debt crisis also because their numbers were bollocks most of the time. See "IOUSA The Movie" and you'll realise 15 Trillion is the tip of the DEBT ICEBERG once Social Security, Medicare and so on are accounted for. Iraq War? Bush Cuts? Nasa? Excessive Spending? Even if you solved that 100% tomorrow, you only take a tiny sliver of the total debt including "hidden" debts.

Social Security surplus is used to finance the debt making things look better than it is. As I understand, all Social Security taxes from people goes into the fund for a year. It then pays out to people who claim it that year. Right now there is some "left over" each year. But this is dropping rapidly, and all this "left over" money is all used up each year anyway in the federal budget. So, about right now, Social Security will now have to pay out MORE than it gets from people, so Social Security will just catastrophically add to the debt. Not saying a safety net from people is not important, but if you make your safety net for from banana leaves, then it's no safety at all.

Get this as well. It is claimed that the Social Security "Surplus" is still there, except, oops, when you open the bank vault there's a nice little IOU from the US government saying "will pay u back 2morrow a few trillion USD I promize! xxx"

Don't be fooled by partisanship. As Steve Jobs alluded to when he spoke to Fox Corp, "liberal-conservative" no longer means anything. It is the great illusion of choice, freedom, justice and power. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_reform