Former comptroller David Walker, in interviews such as this and this (and more, if the Google listing is any indication), has argued that the country’s massive debt and addiction to large programs is going to lead to a massive financial crash that could rip apart the U.S.
Now, I’m not sure if his arguments, and numbers, are that controversial. They do seem based on actual facts and figures, and you can’t really argue with math. Perhaps a more interesting avenue is not only what SHOULD be done, but what CAN be done. As he points out, the government (and by extension, the voters themselves) don’t seem to want to be bothered, especially if it involves immediate sacrifice for long-term gain. They certainly won’t stand for Walker’s proposals, which include massive cuts in spending, higher taxes, and health care rationing (which I’m still not sure the relevance of; I think it has to do with Medicare).
As such, there are acts there that both liberals and conservatives hate - heck, the only people who would probably be happy are the libertarians, and there might even be something they hate there with the higher taxes thing.
So are we doomed to bankruptcy because the electorate doesn’t have the will to punish overspending or reward cuts in programs? Or is there a chance that Walker’s message is either wrong, or will actually get through to people who matter (whether that be in or out of government)?
I seem to recall similar gloom and doom forcasts at several points in my life time. I recall a lot of Rome comparisons to our up and coming financial collapse in both the 70’s and 80’s…and at a guess you could probably dig up such things any time there is a down turn in the US economy.
I’m not buying it. We’ve had huge debt in the past and run with large deficits before…and yet we haven’t collapsed to the barbarians at the gate (yet). Before you can even have such a discussion you are going to have to prove that the US is in worse shape than it’s ever been in before, with less prospects of recovering than ever before. And frankly that’s going to be hard to do because we AREN’T in worse shape than ever before and we DO have better prospects for recovery than we did even after the dot com blow out. Our economy is essentially strong and the declining dollar, while not something to dance and sing about, is not exactly without benefit either. I actually think this recession is going to be rather mild based on some of the things I’ve read, and that the next up swing might be quite vigorous…and more along the lines of what folks in these parts actually can see and grasp IS a recovery since from some of the things I’ve read manufacturing in the US may actually make a modest comeback (meaning the workers and peasants will get some of the pie this time…at least in theory).
Anyway, I’m sure there will be no end to the gloom and doomers hitting the thread any time so I’ll duck out having said my piece. I have some serious drinking to do tonight and beating my head against the wall isn’t in the cards.
I’ve been saying for more than 10 years that the end result of our current Dollar policies is HyperInflation, ala the German Mark of 1922-1923. The only real questions are how long before it happens and whether or not other world currencies are likewise affected (take a look at some of the European debt levels).
The fact that no politician has the guts to do anything before a crisis is not surprising. It is the very nature of Representative Democracy.
Back in about 1990, my very odd Actuary roommate suggested that one day, we simply declare the Dollar to be worthless as a means of eliminating the oppresive government debt. Obviously the idea that This Might Not Go Over Well didn’t occur to him. Unfortunately, someday the dollar might actually BE worthless, and then we’re all in a mess.
Back in the early to mid-70s some guy wrote a book (sorry, can’t remember the title) that predicted a similar catastrophic collapse. Perfectly terrifying book–to a naive 21-year-old. Among other things, he predicted (I remember this bit quite clearly) that paper money would be worthless, and that coins would be almost literally worth their weight in gold, and that you’d have to have a silver dime, an actual dime, to buy a head of lettuce. That’s the bit that stuck in my head, the “needing a dime to buy a head of lettuce”. So I dutifully kept a box of coins around, and I still have them to this day, damn him, I can’t get rid of the need to keep a shoebox full of coins for when our entire economic system collapses and I need actual coins to buy food.
I also tried to learn how to bake bread, for the same reason. Our financial house of cards was going to collapse and we’d all be back to the Stone Age, and if you wanted bread, you’d have to make it yourself.
So the point is, this is yet another pundit. Heard it before. Not much has changed except that the bottom-line numbers are bigger, but the mechanism of American debt remains pretty much the same.
That and the collapse of the Roman Empire didn’t happen in a single generation, so judging by hearing it multiple times within your lifetime doesn’t mean much as it’s a trend that will take place over decades and possibly even centuries.
The US is in a great position really. We have an amazing amount of access to fresh water, a creative populace, a ton of arable land, a great University system, and a lot of mineral resources.
Not only that, but we could all learn to tighten our belts, as we have a huge buffer of consumerism that could be shed between now and actual poverty.
Good assumption. Of course, it’s not really up to me to prove a negative…but up to the OP or his supporters to prove that in fact the US is in danger of such a collapse. And a good place to start I should say is by proving the US is in worse shape than it’s ever been in the past…something that should be easy enough to prove if in fact we are. Feel free to use any metric that floats thy boat…unemployment. Debt. Various economic indicators usually used by economist types.
From your weighty post I’ll assume you have nothing to contribute toward these ends and don’t feel the need to help the OP out. I’ll try not to make any other assumptions at this point, as I usually don’t do so hot on them when I’m drinking.
To be fair, at least from the first link provided by the OP, nowhere does Walker mention Rome, nor does he predict the imminent collapse of the nation (but perhaps he’s more doom ‘n’ gloomy elsewhere). Rather, it seems to me that an accurate characterization is along the lines of:
From that article, it would seem that his biggest concern is Medicare – an “actuarial nightmare” he calls it, which has promised “almost unlimited healthcare to seniors who never see the bills”. The crisis results from a combination of (1) more people (baby boomers) qualifying, (2) the fact that lifespan continues to increase, and (3) the cost of medical care is increasing at twice the rate of inflation.
Now, I admit that I don’t know enough to come down on any side of this argument, but I thought I’d inject some of what Walker actually says for fodder.
Is medicare only available for those that make under a certain amount? I think that is so, if I’m not mistaken.
I keep floating the idea that people of retirement age that are eligible for Social Security should not receive a government check if they and their assets are worth over X amount of dollars, ergo, they can afford to live comfortably without any government assistance and those that have enough money can be forced to forego their SS checks in favor of people that actually NEED it to get by.
Many baby boomers are well to do. They should have insurance, pay for their own healthcare and not collect Social Security.
Yeah… that makes no sense. At all. It took a grotesque level of financial mismanagement, such as could only be acheived in this country via the entire Fed dying off and being replaced by Elvis impersonators, added onto massive destruction of the nation’s economic base, along with wild over-production of currency. Even the South during the Civil War didn’t have German-level of hyperinflation, and that was with whole cities at near-starvation levels and the resultant price-ups from cash chasing too little food.
Yea, though the article also suggests that we’re doomed because politicians are ignoring the problem, which seems obviously untrue. The increasing price of medical care and the fate of gov’t spending on it (whether to cut back on programs like medicare/medicaid/VA or to increase to a full public health system) is a pretty huge part of the current US election debate. While I suppose one could argue that politicians will never settle on a solution to the problem, they’re certainly not ignoring it.
The Comptroller comes to his conclusion that we’re DOOMED!! by extending current medical expenditures out 30 years. I think he’s wrong because, for better or for worse, current gov’t programs involving health spending are going to change fairly drastically, and so current trends don’t tell us much.
But no one is really talking about it in terms of what’s fiscally responsible for the future. Universal coverage is an issue generally designed to please people now with immediate benefit.
As a whole, I haven’t been hearing much from politicians about cutting spending, raising taxes, addressing debt, and all the various issues surrounding that.
The American people don’t want their medicine, and so you don’t have politicians trying to spoonfeed it to them.
Sorry, he makes the Rome reference somewhere else, where I first heard the name and read the arguments. I just thought the links I included in the OP were more accessible. That may’ve led to me reading more urgency/doomsaying than may have been warranted by his actual feelings. Still, I’m not 100% certain.
(Reading the actual article, he compares us to Rome in the sense that we’re addicted to big spending and debt, aided and abetted by politicians who spend big money on war and do nothing but squabble and pander to consolidate power.)
It doesn’t really matter why they change the current system, the point is that in the next decade or so a large change is likely to happen. So extrapolating the current systems finances out past that isn’t really meaningful (and less spending on health care is one of the reasons touted to swtich to a universal health care systems, so I think the current debate does address fiscal stability at least occasionally).
Pish, US politicians talk about this stuff all the time. Certainly the three prez contenders talk about them
Yes, I didn’t think it necessary to seek out more than the first link to get a sense of what he’s saying. Although, as I disclaimed, one synopsis article doesn’t necessarily yield a true representation of his position. But the first link doesn’t seem so outlandish as to be dismissed out-of-hand; in fact, it struck me that much of what he was saying could very well have been posted by xtisme or many other fiscal conservatives.
Yeah – I forgot to add a bit about this, even though it was a glaringly obvious criticism. Clearly, given its prominence in their platforms, if the Democratic nominee wins the presidency some efforts will be made to change health care. Whether or not these changes would actually make it through the lawmaking process is a separate question, as is whether they would end up reducing or expanding costs. But it does seem clear to me that things won’t be static.
I should also point out that I may have pigeonholed his position – Walker’s concerns are not limited to Medicare, but that first link did put it front and center.
Just a quick aside, but do you Americans never get tired of predicting the collapse of the your country, economy or freedoms? Likely it’s just the board but god you go on and on about impending doom like there’s no tomorrow.