U.S. Economy by the numbers (doesn't look good in my opinion)

[Xicano]

Suppose we looked at these numbers I circled to reflect what it would look like if this were your personal household numbers by chopping it down from trillions to numbers that are in the tens of thousands in size to bring this a little more into perspective.

Household annual income: $23, 210
Household annual expenditure: $36, 250
Household annual new debt: $13, 040
Total outstanding balance on household debt: $152,000

Now do you honestly think that on an income of less than $24,000 where your spending is over $36,000 you're gonna have any chance in getting control of your total outstanding debt of over $150,000? No way of course not. Your total debt is approximately 6¼ times your income and increasing because you're spending 1½ times your income and its near impossible if not impossible to make any meaningful cuts in that spending.

You clearly are insolvent and merely living on borrowed time. Your $150,000 debt which is steadily rising is going to get out of control real fast. And your solution up to this point was to borrow more money to stimulate growth in your income. But so far all attempts have yielded insufficient results or no results. The way I figure it, it looks like bad news for you. Maybe this is why the need for NDAA?

Hopefully I am wrong in my assessment. I sure hope so because it could mean a lot more pain for a lot of good people.

[SixthSense]

1. "Maybe this is why the need for NDAA?"

we have a winnah!

the shit is going to hit the fan and they're preparing for it... keep an eye on Europe

[Xicano]

2. Exactly! Because in who's hands is where 90% of all that wealth?

Oops! in the hands of the super rich who have bribed off our government.

[SunsetDreams]

3. You do realize the NDAA is Annual?

It's been around for 49 years. I was just wondering, maybe I read your post wrong, it seemed like you were implying that it was something new.

I understand your trying to break it down into simple numbers, but I'm not so sure you can compare the U.S. Debt, to a household debt. There are far more variables in a countries Revenue/Expenditures/Debts, than a household.

[Xicano]

4. Yes.. I do realize. Sorry, but, I was just referring to the portion of it that has to do with..

...indefinite detention.

{On Edit} Sorry forgot to respond to the second portion of your response.

Yes, you are correct a national economy is indeed more complex than personal households. In the end nevertheless, basically everything boils down to Income/Expenses/Debt. There is no (and I don't mean this in any insulting way) fairy god mother who's going to show up and slip some money under our pillow.

[SunsetDreams]

5. What would that part of the NDAA,

depending on how you interpret it, have to do with your OP about the economy?

I'm not following.

[Xicano]

6. What does that part of the NDAA do?

It authorizes the military to operate here and arrest and indefinitely detain people. Now if you (by you I mean the 1%/government) are concerned about what you have already been seeing from the occupy movement and you know the economic numbers add up to more pain for the 99%. Are you going to be concerned that a LOT more of the 99% are going to start demanding heads to roll? Wouldn't you think of implementing a law such as that part of the NDAA to try and protect you from the 99% just in case of that possibility? Especially when you know you have been screwing over the 99%?

[SunsetDreams]

8. I didn't ask you what you thought the NDAA did,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The problem is not with this NDAA. The problem is with the AUMF, that was passed back in Sept of 2001 after 9/11. That is where the problem lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists


Sect 1031 subsection E of NDAA:
(e) "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

The existing law is that AUMF of 2001, that was done under Bushs' watch I might add. At any rate, I guess I must have misread your OP intent. I thought it was to talk about the Economy and not the NDAA.

[Xicano]

9. NDAA § 1031(e)

"Nothing in *this section* shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Read it carefully SunsetDreams. Actually, here's a good break down by Cenk, and, remember the ACLU with all their constitutional lawyers are outraged about this part of the NDAA. I will agree with the ACLU.

Hope you watch this clip. And yes my intent in the OP was meant to be more about the economy and much less on the NDAA.

[SunsetDreams]

10. Maybe you should change the title of your OP

"U.S. Economy by the numbers (doesn't look good in my opinion)"

It seems your intent is to talk about NDAA, and your assumptions as to why that language was inserted, and not about "The U.S. Economy by the Numbers". Why would I need to read that part carefully? What further insight will I gain when I didn't deny that 1031(e) referred back to the AUMF of 2001?

Maybe if you think there was this big government conspiracy dating back to 2001, regarding an OWS that wasn't even formed here until July of this year(if I'm not mistaken..it was formed over the summer at any rate)...then you might be on to something. I still don't follow how that has to do with your OP.

The pundits and ACLU, need to look deeper into it. They need to disclose "what existing law" is out there that would cancel that section out. Until they do that, they leave people to assume that this was a new problem under Obamas' watch. Do I agree there is a problem? Absolutely.

Again what was the intent of your OP?

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Sept 17 is the day OWS set camp at Zuccotti park

So no, it wasn't formed in the summer. Planning started as early as may.

[Xicano]

13. Thanks nadinbrzezinski

for that clarification. And of course always good to see you.

[SunsetDreams]

14. Yes you are right Sept 17,

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is a protest movement which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district, initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

It "began". I have no knowledge of when the planning actually started.

[limpyhobbler]

7. yeah I see what you mean

It's not a conspiracy or anything. It's just that there is increasing economic uncertainty and the whole system is unstable and the population is starting to get unruly and confrontational as a byproduct of this. The difference between external threats and internal threats is unclear now but will only become more unclear. Similarly the line between legitimate political protest and illegal protest is always moving. The Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. are tools the gov't can use to deal with threats to our system as they crop up. So it's not a conspiracy, but it's also not a coincidence.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

16. Yep, that proverbial can that Dems and Repubs have been kicking will soon arrive at the dead-end.

When the music stops, the shooting may well begin.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-usa-firearms-backgroundchecks-idUSTRE80407P20120105

[JanMichael]

17. This is a spam email going around

it has been debunked many times on DU.

[Yupster]

18. I would have never believed we'd run a trillion dollar deficit year after year

What congress would be so irresponsible enough to vote for one.

What president would be so irresponsible to sign one.

And yet here we are.

And the proposals are to spend more, more, more. Got to do the doctor fix. Got to keep the tax cuts, got to extend unemployment. All those billions more right onto the deficit.

What will this generation of leaders be called in the future?