How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt Americans

[hello_10]

How the United States' High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans

Abstract

America is on a dangerous budget path. Current spending and debt are dangerously high, and future spending and debt are on track to rise even higher in large part due to increasing entitlement spending. Academic research shows that advanced economies like the United States are at risk of significant and prolonged reductions in economic growth when public debt reaches levels of 90 percent of GDP. High public debt threatens to drive interest rates up, to crowd out private investment, and to raise price inflation. The implications would be severe and pronounced for all Americans, but most especially for the poor, the elderly, and the middle class. U.S. policymakers should learn from Greece and Japan and avoid a fiscal crisis and economic stagnation brought about by public debt overhang.

Growing federal debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage the budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. Such a crisis would"¦probably have a very significant negative impact on the country.
-Congressional Budget Office, 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook​

U.S. federal spending in 2013, combined with depressed receipts from a weak economy, is on track to result in a deficit of $850 billion. Publicly held debt in the United States will exceed 76 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013, and chronic deficits are projected to push U.S. debt to 87 percent of the economy in 10 years.[1] Debt is projected to grow even more rapidly after 2023. Recent economic research, especially the work of Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff, confirms that federal debt at such high levels puts the United States at risk for a number of harmful economic consequences, including slower economic growth, a weakened ability to respond to unexpected challenges, and quite possibly a debt-driven financial crisis.[2]

The federal government is quickly exhausting its ability to manage its bills, with debt having already reached the statutory debt ceiling. The resulting debate should focus on the need to reduce federal spending immediately and over the long term by making necessary and prudent reforms to the nation's major entitlement programs, and thus reduce the continued buildup of debt and the expected harmful consequences increasingly confirmed by academic research.


Vulnerable Budget Path
In the contentious 2011 debate over the U.S. debt limit, President Barack Obama and Congress agreed to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion in exchange for specified spending reductions over 10 years. The Budget Control Act allowed the President to raise the limit in three increments from $14.29 trillion to $16.39 trillion.[3] At the time, the United States lost its seemingly permanent AAA rating from Standard & Poor's, starkly affirming the risk arising from the nation's budget path.[4] America's budget problems are twofold: (1) spending and debt are dangerously high today, and (2) future spending and debt are on track to rise even higher.

=> The US Debt Piles Up

=> U.S. National Debt Clock

=> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

As dangerous as these trends are, the long-term unfunded obligations in the nation's major entitlement programs loom like an even darker cloud over the U.S. economy. Demographic and economic factors are expected to combine to drive spending in Medicare and Social Security to unsustainable heights. The major entitlements and interest on the debt are on track to devour all tax revenues by in less than one generation.[5]

While tax revenues are expected to return to their historically average levels of 18.5 percent, total federal spending driven in large part by entitlements is projected to hover well above the historical level of about 20 percent in the near term.[6] In a mere 25 years, federal spending under current policy is projected to consume as much as 36 percent of GDP.[7]

America's entitlement programs, by definition, span generations. It is vital in assessing their sustainability to consider their long-term implications. Over the 75-year long-term horizon, the combined unfunded obligations arising from promised benefits in Medicare and Social Security alone exceed $48 trillion.[8] The federal unfunded obligations arising from Medicaid and even from veterans' benefits are unknown, but would likely add many trillions more to this figure.

The International Monetary Fund,[9] the intergovernmental organization of 188 member states that seeks to ensure the stability of the international monetary system, warned that the U.S. lacks a "credible strategy" to stabilize its mounting public debt.[10] Such a strategy must begin with putting entitlement spending on a more sustainable long-term path. The sooner policymakers act, the less severe and the more gradual the necessary policy changes can be. Policymakers should not delay, since the economic consequences, particularly the impact on individuals in or planning retirement, would be pronounced and severe.

Research Confirms Danger of High Government Debt
Recent research confirms the dangers posed by high levels of government debt. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff examined over 110 years of economic data to conclude that advanced economies whose debt levels reach 90 percent of GDP face much slower economic growth.[11]

In 2009, Carmen Reinhart and Rogoff wrote This Time Is Different, a book The Economist called "a magisterial work on the causes and consequences of crises stretching back 800 years."[12] Their conclusions were based on a vast new accumulation of cross-country data, covering 66 countries across all regions of the world and spanning eight centuries. This dataset made it possible to study country debt episodes and crises much more comprehensively. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff's recent work on the impact of high public debt on growth and interest rates is based on this groundbreaking dataset.

The economists follow a descriptive approach, comparing economic variables for different countries as averages for debt-to-GDP ratios below and above 90 percent of GDP. Measures of comparison include averages for real GDP growth, real (inflation-adjusted) short-term interest rates, and real long-term interest rates. Public debt overhang episodes are analyzed for the causes of the debt, whether from specific wars, financial crises and economic depression, domestic turmoil, or other factors. The researchers refer to sustained periods of gross country debt persisting above 90 percent of GDP for five years or more as "public debt overhang episodes." Identifying 26 such episodes, of which 20 lasted for more than a decade, the research shows that even if such episodes begin with short-lived dramatic events, such as war or a financial crisis, the negative impact from high debt on growth lasts far beyond such events.

The authors' results should serve as a sobering wake-up call for policymakers. Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff discovered that the average growth rate in countries experiencing public debt overhang is 1.2 percentage points lower than in periods with debt below 90 percent of GDP.[13] These public debt overhang episodes last an average of about 23 years. Thus, the cumulative effect of lower growth by one percentage point or more means that national income at the end of the period would be lower by roughly one-fourth. The growth rate of countries with exceptionally high levels of debt—more than 120 percent of the economy—drops even lower, by an average of 2.3 percentage points, which is roughly two-thirds.

These figures indicate just how dire the U.S. situation could become: According to the Congressional Budget Office baseline economic forecast, U.S. GDP is projected to be $25.9 trillion in fiscal year 2023. U.S. publicly held debt is projected to reach nearly 90 percent of GDP that year. Assuming a 2.2 percent growth rate over 23 years, U.S. GDP would reach $42.7 trillion in 2046 if there was no impact from the debt overhang. Applying the crude assumption that GDP would be reduced by 1.2 percentage points, in each year of the assumed 23-year debt overhang period, U.S. GDP growth would be slashed by more than half to a mere 1 percent. This would reduce U.S. GDP by more than $10 trillion, to only $32.6 trillion in 2046. The cumulative effect from the debt overhang would result in a level of GDP lower by nearly one-quarter at the end of the period.

The researchers also note that in addition to vast amounts of public debt, other measures of country debt, such as levels of state and local government debt, private debt, external debt (government and private debt owed to foreigners), and the unfunded obligations from retirement and medical care programs, have risen to unprecedented heights in advanced economies, including the United States.

In the U.S., the total amount of debt held by all 50 state governments combined amounted to $4.17 trillion in 2012. If one adds state debt to the U.S. gross national debt of $16.4 trillion, the combined state and federal debt exceeds $20.5 trillion. Moreover, the long-term unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare totaled $48 trillion in 2012—three times the current U.S. gross national debt. Even this measure does not include other federal obligations in the form of Medicaid or veterans' benefits, for example. While data across countries of these debt measures is difficult to obtain, other government debt certainly adds to the risks faced by countries with high public debt levels.

A Significant and Prolonged Drag on Economic Growth

Debt overhang reduces economic growth significantly and for a prolonged period of time in three main ways.

1. Higher Interest Rates. Creditors may lose confidence in the country's ability to service its debt and demand higher interest rates to offset the additional risk. Or, interest rates may rise simply because the government is attempting to sell more debt than private bondholders are willing to buy at current prices. Either way, higher interest rates raise the cost of the debt, and the government must then either tax its citizens more, which would reduce economic activity; reduce government spending in other areas; or take on even more debt, which could cause a debt spiral.

Higher interest rates on government bonds also lead to higher rates for other domestic investments, including mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans, and business loans. Higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and other loans would make it more costly for families to borrow money. Families may then have to delay purchasing their first home and other means of building financial security. For many Americans, the dream of starting a business would no longer be in reach. Higher interest rates have a real and pronounced impact on the lives of ordinary citizens and translate into less investment and thus slow growth in the rest of the economy. A weaker economy in turn would provide fewer career opportunities and lower wages and salaries for workers.

However, higher interest rates do not always materialize in countries suffering a debt overhang. According to Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff, in 11 of the 26 cases where public debt was above 90 percent of GDP, real interest rates were either lower, or about the same, as during years of lower debt ratios. Soaring debt matters for economic growth even when market actors are willing to absorb it at low interest.[14]

Interpreted another way, in more than half of debt overhang cases, interest rates rose. In the case of the U.S., the Federal Reserve's policy of repeated quantitative easing has contributed to interest rates dropping to historical lows. Interest rates will likely rise at some point over the next several years. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that interest costs on the debt will more than double before the end of the decade, rising from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2013 to 2.9 percent as early as 2020.[15] High levels of U.S. public debt could push interest rates even higher with severe impacts for the American economy.

2. Higher Inflation. The United States has, as do other countries with independent currencies, an additional option to monetize its debts: replacing a substantial portion of outstanding debt with another form of federal liability—currency. The government could, through the Federal Reserve, inflate the money supply. The resulting increase in the rate of price inflation would devalue the principal of the remaining public debt. The resulting inflation would also destabilize the private economy, increase uncertainty, increase real interest rates, and slow economic growth markedly.

Inflation is particularly harmful for those Americans on fixed incomes, such as the elderly who rely on Social Security checks, pensions, and their own savings in retirement. By raising the cost of essential goods and services, like food and medical care, inflation can push seniors into poverty. Inflation and longer life expectancies can mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner than anticipated, then becoming completely dependent on Social Security. Inflation inflicts the most pain on the poor and middle class by reducing the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families. Inflation also means that everyone has to pay more for goods and services, including essentials like food and clothing.

Moreover, severe inflation could dethrone the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Thus far, a major saving grace for the U.S. government has been that, in comparison with other advanced nations with major currencies, such as Europe and China, the U.S. dollar has retained its status as the best currency option for finance and commerce.[16] If Washington policies continue on their current path of ever-higher sovereign debt and a risky Federal Reserve policy, both of which lack a credible crisis coping strategy, confidence in the U.S. economy and monetary policy regime could erode. Such a development would be unprecedented in size and magnitude and the impact on Americans and the economy would be massive and severe.

For all these reasons, the Federal Reserve and central banks of all industrialized countries have adopted a policy favoring low and stable inflation, though the means by which they pursue this policy can vary substantially and their success is often spotty. Reversing this policy in favor of a policy of debt monetization and high inflation would be a radical departure in policy and practice. It would be the economic equivalent of a scorched earth policy, and its adoption is thus extremely unlikely.

How High U.S. Debt Levels Would Hurt Americans
High U.S. Debt Levels Risk"¦

Higher Interest Rates

• Higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and other loans would make it more costly for families to borrow
• money.
• Families may have to delay purchasing their first home and other means of building financial security.
• For many Americans, the dream of starting a business would no longer be in reach.

Higher Inflation

• Inflation reduces the purchasing power of the cash savings of American families, inflicting the most pain on the
• poor and middle class by eroding the value of their rainy day fund.
• Inflation raises the prices on essential goods and services, like food, clothing, and medical care, and is particularly
• harmful for the poor and those on fixed incomes, like the elderly.
• Higher inflation and longer life expectancies together can mean that some seniors run out of their savings sooner
• than anticipated, leaving them completely dependent on Social Security. Some may even end up in poverty.

Crowding Out Private Investment

• Government deficit spending and its associated debt subtracts from the amount of private saving available for private
• investment, leading to slower economic growth.
• Less economic growth means fewer jobs, lower wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career
• advancement.
• Less private investment means fewer opportunities for innovation and the creation of productivity enhancing technologies,
• putting the U.S. at a disadvantage with competing trading nations.

Solution

U.S. debt is quickly approaching economically damaging debt levels. U.S. lawmakers should delay no more. Congress and the President should take firm and immediate steps to balance the budget within 10 years, by cutting spending and reforming the entitlements.


3. Crowding Out Private Investment. Economic growth, especially increasing per capita income, depends on the proper functioning of prices to signal and markets to respond, but it also depends fundamentally on increasing the amount and quality of productive capital available to the workforce. The amount of capital employed in the economy needs to increase at least to keep pace with the growth in the labor force to maintain current living standards, and must grow even faster—to increase the amount of capital per worker—to raise worker productivity and thus wages and salaries.

Government deficit spending and its associated debt subtracts from the amount of private saving available for private investment, leading to slower economic growth. Unlike what staunch believers of government spending for economic stimulus claim, government stimulus spending does the opposite of growing the economy. Less economic growth caused by high government spending and debt results in fewer available jobs, lower wages and salaries, and fewer opportunities for career advancement.

Prolonged debt overhang in the United States, even at low interest rates, would be a massive drag on economic growth, leading to significantly reduced prosperity for Americans. In the words of Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff: "This debt-without-drama scenario is reminiscent for us of T. S. Eliot's (1925) lines in The Hollow Men: 'This is the way the world ends / Not with a bang but a whimper.'"[17]

Europe's Fiscal Crisis: Precursor for the United States?
Europe is experiencing an extended fiscal and economic crisis with no end in sight. In addition to adopting a common currency regime lacking most of the institutional trappings necessary for its survival, many countries in Europe have lived beyond their means for many years. Many racked up massive government debts while benefiting from artificially low interest rates, as the euro signaled to markets that all European debts were alike. The poster child for this behavior, of course, is Greece. Greece racked up a debt-to-GDP ratio of 145 percent in 2010 and 165 percent in 2011.[18] Not surprisingly, investors eventually lost confidence in Greece's ability to service its debts. European lawmakers responded in early 2011 with a combination of a bailout and fiscal austerity. Nevertheless, Greece defaulted on its debts to the detriment of investors and other European taxpayers.

Many other European countries also amassed public debts beyond 90 percent of their economies—for instance Italy (100 percent) and Portugal (97 percent) in 2011—and are now undergoing wrenching austerity and prolonged recessions. In addition to disastrous currency policy, these countries also have a fiscal policy culprit in common: high levels of government spending on entitlements—a fiscal situation by no means foreign to the U.S. government.

Avoiding Japan's "Lost Decades" for America
Not all countries that build debt mountains suffer from a lack in investor confidence and go into default. Japan is arguably the world's most indebted major economy, with net public debt at 126 percent of GDP, and yet creditors continue to lend to the Japanese government. Japan amassed this public debt to a large extent in the midst of its "lost decades"—1991 to 2010—while falling again and again for the wishful thinking that government deficits stimulate economic growth. History and economic fundamentals have shown this thinking to be wrong. This misguided policy is standing in the way of a Japanese recovery. As The Heritage Foundation's Derek Scissors and J. D. Foster explain:

Japan's debt is almost entirely domestically financed, which means gigantic sums are shifted from the private sector to the public sector, where the social return on investment is almost nil and the yields paid on the debt are only slightly better. The huge debt and oversized government has sapped Japan's domestic sources of growth.[19]​

Japan is experiencing a prolonged debt overhang episode with, as yet, no debt crisis drama because Japanese citizens are prodigious savers. The Japanese mostly owe their debt to themselves as Japanese citizens have been willing to forgo consumption and have been buying government bonds for a long time, enabling the Japanese government to accumulate gross debt levels more than twice the size of the Japanese economy. Instead, the country suffers from persistently weak economic growth.

The IMF warned the United States and Japan against a further buildup of risk by failing to lower their debt levels. U.S. policymakers should not allow themselves to be lulled into complacency by low interest rates. Policymakers must act now to allow an orderly and controlled mechanism to reduce public debt—not wait for a sovereign debt crisis to force their hands.[20]

A full-fledged fiscal crisis hits a country with the same force as a patient suffering severe trauma. However, a no-drama debt overhang that reduces growth slowly drains the life from the patient, like a long-term disease. The U.S. should not delay adopting a credible strategy to resolve chronic deficits and debt, lest it find itself on the stretcher.

A Credible Strategy
Federal budget deficits and debt are massive today—and future spending and debt projections are far worse if Congress and the President fail to act. Federal spending was about 23 percent of GDP in 2012—far above the historical average of 20.2 percent. It is projected to surge to nearly 36 percent in less than one generation. This spending is the cause of the chronic deficits that are driving the debt higher yet. Public debt is projected to reach 87 percent of GDP by 2023 and rise sharply in later years.

Two programs in particular—Social Security and Medicare—are taking over a quickly expanding share of federal spending. In addition, they suffer from programmatic weaknesses. Social Security and Medicare provide an important safety net for seniors, but in their current form the programs are unsustainable over the medium term and long term. These programs take up 39 percent of the budget today and are projected to grow to 44 percent of federal spending in just 10 years. At $48 trillion in net-present value, their unfunded obligations are triple the size of the entire gross U.S. national debt.

There are numerous reforms to help shore up financing for these programs that garner bipartisan support and that can be implemented quickly. These include raising the Social Security eligibility age to match increases in longevity and correcting the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to more accurately measure the impact of inflation on beneficiaries. In Medicare, raising the eligibility age to match Social Security makes common sense. Seniors with high incomes already pay a higher share of their own Medicare costs, and the remaining subsidy should be pared back even further.

Beyond resolving immediate financing challenges, there are bolder reforms to resolve many of the programs' inherent weaknesses. The goal should be to arrive at a strengthened social safety net for those seniors who need it. Doing so in an affordable manner means turning Social Security and Medicare into true insurance against poverty in retirement.

For Social Security, benefits should be phased out for upper-income retirees. Consolidating Medicare's three distinct components—Parts A, B, and D—and collecting a combined higher premium would save money and simplify the program. Lawmakers should begin pursuing a credible strategy on reining in massive budget deficits and debt by implementing proposals such as outlined here.[21]

The Time to Act Is Now
By neglecting the regular budget order—the institutional schedule to assess government spending and allocate taxpayer dollars with prudence—Congress and the President are increasingly failing to govern. Congress has only budgeted when forced to do so. Reaching the debt ceiling should be such an occasion, and Congress should not delay the decision again on necessary reforms and spending reductions. The President's and Congress's failure to establish a credible strategy for reining in massive deficits and debts in 2011 led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the U.S. credit rating,[22] Moody's, another major rating agency, warned Congress early in 2013 that failure to provide a basis for meaningful improvement in the government's debt ratios over the medium term could "affect the rating negatively."[23] Ratings agencies provide important signals to investors about the risks associated with investing in government bonds. Further downgrades of the U.S. debt and demand by capital markets will eventually lead to higher interest rates, whose costs would drive up federal spending and debt even more. As U.S. debt is quickly approaching economically damaging debt levels, U.S. lawmakers should delay no more. The time to act is now.

—Romina Boccia is Research Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

How the United States' High Debt Will Weaken the Economy and Hurt Americans

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

.
=> U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

US Debt Piles Up
August 30th, 2012

What a spectacle the world has become...full of farce and morbid hilarity.
The US government just breached the $16 trillion debt threshold. The folks at Zero Hedge tell us it took the government just 286 days to add an additional $1 trillion to the US debt pile. That's $3.5 billion a day. Extrapolating, they tell us US debt will hit:

"¢$17 trillion on June 10, 2013;
"¢$18 trillion on March 23, 2014;
"¢$19 trillion on January 3, 2015; and
"¢$20 trillion on October 16, 2015

The US Debt Piles Up

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

We have National Debt Data's about the major OECD countries as below :ranger:

=> The 20 countries with the highest National Debt, in relation to GDP

Japan 237.92%

Greece 158.55%

Italy 126.98%

Portugal 122.99%

Ireland 117.12%

United States 106.53%

Belgium 99.6%

United Kingdom 90.31%

France 90.29%

Spain 90.69%

Source: IMF, Worldwide; International Monetary Fund

"¢ Countries with the highest public debt 2012 | Statistic

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

Im running this thread to summarize the real economic scenario of United States of America. you all are welcomed to put your own findings too :thumb:


=> first we have a look on the current Budget Deficit of US (along with UK), as below: :ranger:

(here, we must keep in our mind that for a developing country like India, GDP expands by on average around 15% a year, considering 7% growth rate with 7%-8% inflation all together. means, even if India type developing countries keep Budget deficit close to 8%, its still 'not bad' or even 'good' while considering its 15% economic growth in 'nominal' term. but for a developed economy like US/UK, which have growth rate less than 2% with inflation also in the same range, hence their Fiscal Deficit at 8%+ does mean for at least a 'moderate crisis'.)

190 . United Kingdom -8.80 2011 est.
191 . United States -8.90 2011 est

Budget surplus (+) or deficit (-) 2012 country ranks, By Rank

=> From here, we may also have a look on the real GDP growth of major OECD countries since 2008 as below. here we find US having only around 2% higher economic size, along with around 0.8% population growth per year since 2008 :ranger:

The euro zone posts horrible GDP numbers – Quartz

=> and where exactly the damage is being made????? the reason why there is limited economic hope in US, as there is just no real expenditure on investments to accelerate growth????? then we may have an idea about Budget Expenditure of US as below too

we have Budget Expenditure of US for 2012 as below, which had share of Social Security of 22%, Medical Expanses 23%, Defense 19%, Net Interest 7% = 22+23+19+7 =71% of total US's budget, then the number of Government's expenditure also comes . and this 71% of Budget Expenditure is only for interest payments, defence, Welfare....... means all waste at Budget Deficit of 8% to US's GDP itself.
(here we considered Interests at 7% as we do know it would be higher this year, due to higher borrowing to cover deficit )

Expenditures in the United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The euro zone posts horrible GDP numbers – Quartz

here again, the graph above does tell us, how the world changed during last 10 years..... major OECD economies, mainly US, are now twice indebted to cover the losses of recession they faced in 2008, but it could only kept their economic size as much as it was in 2008, while even population growth rate of US was close to 1% per year since 2008 too

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...tes&countryCode=us&regionCode=noa&rank=123#us


and how the world changed during this period? we have a news from Forbes stating this change as below... :ranger:

BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years
7/04/2012

The economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China account for 20 percent of the world economic output, and rising. That's up four fold in the last decade, according to a report released yesterday by the International Monetary Fund.

Despite the growth, problems in the core economies had made the post-2008 world a difficult one for the big four emerging markets.

Their combined stock-market value has dropped to a three-year low of 16 percent of the total invested in global equities, according to data compiled by Bloomberg . Jim O'Neill , the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management who came up with the term BRIC in a November 2001 research report, said that the pull back in equity values makes BRIC market stocks "irresistible," Bloomberg reported him saying on Wednesday. The last time the gap was this wide, in 2005, the MSCI BRIC Index jumped 53 percent in 12 months, more than double the gain in the MSCI All-Country World Index. :thumb:

"Unless we are seeing a major collapse of those economies, it's a huge opportunity for investors," O'Neill told the newswire.

Audrey Kaplan, a fund manager at Federated InterContinental (RIMAX) said on Monday in an interview with Forbes that she had started investing in China for the first time in nearly years in the first quarter and is now overweight China and Brazil within the BRICs.

"You want to own a lot of these big names when they're cheap," Kaplan said about Brazil's large cap stocks which have underperformed the local BM&F Bovespa index all year. "We're getting back into these names because they are very attractive at their recent price levels."

According to Bloomberg, BRIC equity value, which includes locally-traded shares and ADRs, has dropped to $7.6 trillion from $9.5 trillion a year ago, when they made up 18 percent of the global total. Petrobras (PBR), Brazil's state run energy company, fell to the world's 39th-largest company by value from the 10th-biggest in July 2011. China Construction Bank's rank dropped to 20 from 12 while Rosneft , Russia's largest oil producer, sank to 106 from 70. India's ICICI Bank (IBN) has lost 17 percent of its market cap during the past year, compared with an average gain of 9 percent for global peers.

The long term trend of rising standards of living remains in place for the BRICs, but investors still have to contend with market volatility related to problems in the advanced economies.

Allan Conway, head of emerging markets at Schroder Investment Management, said the market still needs clarity on Europe. There's no clear direction yet in global equities as a result.

"In 2008, we beat the MSCI emerging markets index. The period we suffered most was 2010 when the market had no clear trend. Since then we've clawed back and are ahead by about 300 basis points over the MSCI EM and this year as of end of June up 250 basis points over MSCI EM. The challenge for us has been to stay ahead of the curve. If we wait for some incredible plan to come out of Europe, we miss 30 percent of the rally," he said. "The trick in the coming months are to look for the sign points that show we have moved away from kicking the can down the road and are moving to more long lasting structural changes."

Dedicated emerging market investment funds that have a heavy weighting in the BRICs have posted 16 straight weeks of withdrawals , losing a net $5.3 billion, according to Cambridge, Mass based fund tracking firm EPFR Global.

The BRIC economies are slowing. They've expanded by 4.8 percent on average during the first quarter, but that's down from nearly 7 percent last year.

BRICs Share Of World Economy Up Four Times In 10 Years - Forbes

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

.
But do have a good news for the US's economy as below, why its still better than other OECD economies like UK, Italy, Spain, France etc? here, the only benefit we will have on the side of US's competition with their friends like Saudi Arabia on the side of oil/gas export from 2020+, hence reducing energy prices this way :ranger:

In a first, gas and other fuels are top U.S. export :thumb:

NEW YORK (AP) – For the first time, the top export of the United States, the world's biggest gas guzzler, is — wait for it — fuel.

Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.

Just how big of a shift is this? A decade ago, fuel wasn't even among the top 25 exports. And for the last five years, America's top export was aircraft.

Gas, other fuels are top U.S. export – USATODAY.com

= Hence we now find energy is going to be the major source of income for US, so we do hope that they would maintain their current economic size somehow for a while. but it still require around $3.0billion borrowing per day, or about $1.0 trillion+, to cover Budget Deficit too, as per this US's debt clock

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

London: India has probably surpassed Japan to become the world's third largest economy after the US and China, Paris-based think-tank OECD said today even as it lowered the country's economic growth projection for 2013 to 5.3 percent.

"China will likely pass the United States as the world's largest economy in the next few years and India has probably recently surpassed Japan to be third largest," said the OECD Economic Outlook report.


Good news: India has probably pipped Japan as third largest economy - Firstpost

the news as below are now common discussions, but increased export of energy to cover CAD/High Trade Deficit of US, post#7, does challenge these predictions :ranger:

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

and this is the true state of unemployment Rate of US, in terms of The labor force participation rate, as below. its on the lowest in many years right now, at around 63.3% by last month, means less than 2/3rd employed, as below.... :ranger:

In the United States, the unemployment rate is estimated by a household survey called the Current Population Survey, conducted monthly by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed persons by the size of the workforce and multiplying that number by 100, where an unemployed person is defined as a person not currently employed but actively seeking work. :ranger: The size of the workforce is defined as those employed plus those unemployed.[1]

The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). :thumb:

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

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

..

the Labor Force Employed Statistics of US can be obtained from the US's government website as below: :ranger:

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

we have one more website for the same information as below, it states the data's to April 2013, last month also.....:thumb:

US Labor Force Participation Rate (Monthly, SA)

Question: What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?

Answer: The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:

Are employed

Are unemployed but looking for a job

Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired. :ranger:

What is the Labor Force Participation Rate?

=> means we find only 63.3% of US's Working Age People in job till APril 2013...... this may be because of the fact that minimum wage of US is hardly around $8/hour, and if someone works on this wage for 40 hours a week, as usual working hours, then it would then come at around $320 per week, or around $20,000 a year (considering the fact that people on so low wage generally work on weekends also ). as below:

In the United States, workers are generally entitled to be paid no less than the statutory minimum wage. The federal government mandates a nationwide minimum wage level of $8.0 per hour, while some states and municipalities have set minimum wage levels higher than the federal level, with the highest state minimum wage being $9.19 per hour in Washington as of 2013.

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

the above talk is still not finished yet, i think..... we have one more statistics about UK, considering the same circumstances for US also, as below..... its states that around 20% Workers of UK aren't getting even the minimum wage also, as below:

New research indicates that more than 20% of British employees are earning less than a living wage.

Workers on the bottom rung of the earnings ladder received a leg up on Saturday, as the national minimum wage increased from £5.98 to £6.08. But new research shows that as many as 5 million people higher up the scale are barely earning enough to make ends meet.

Working for nothing – the truth about low pay in the UK | Society | The Observer

=> One in five are not paid enough to live on - Telegraph


=> and about US, the proposed raise in minimum wage to $8.0/hour would result in the consequences as below:

Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor
March 11, 2013

When they respond to the president's plea to help hardworking Americans by raising the minimum wage, Congress should follow the president's intent and not his policy. Government regulations, including the minimum wage, do little to help the poor. If Congress and the president want to help the poor, they should start by eliminating regulations that redistribute away from the poorest families.

The minimum wage is more likely to hurt the people it is supposed to help by making it harder for them to find jobs.

Minimum wage workers tend be young and unskilled. Less than half of workers under the age of 25 are currently employed and many rely on low paying opportunities to get their first break. The majority will earn a raise within a year, but they currently lack the experience and skill to compete for higher paying jobs. Raising the minimum wage makes it harder for these inexperienced workers to find a job, because businesses will either eliminate positions or choose to hire someone with more experience at the higher mandated wage. Minimum wage jobs could also be a pathway to retraining for workers facing a mismatch between their skills and available openings. A higher minimum wage would limit such opportunities, and that's particularly dangerous during this historically slow recovery

If policymakers really want to help the poor, they should seek to reduce the barriers to job creation, instead of adding to them by hiking minimum wage. Job creators are already tangled in a forest of red tape: over 170,000 pages of regulations from the federal government alone. Complying with these regulations is disproportionately burdensome for the small businesses that create the majority of new jobs.

The cost of regulation is not limited to business. Perversely, this burden falls disproportionately on low-income families through lower wages and higher prices to consumers.

Wealthier households who are willing to pay more for higher quality products and services actually benefit the most from regulation but don't pay the full cost, which is spread across all households. For example, one recent Department of Transportation rule requires that every car have a rear view camera, currently an option only on luxury vehicles. The benefit largely goes to the wealthier families who want the feature, but the cost to standardize this feature is incurred by everyone.

It's not just rear view cameras. Poorer households end up spending a bigger portion of their income to pay for products they wouldn't otherwise have purchased once we consider the cumulative impact of regulations.

Diana Thomas, an economist at Utah State, found that health and safety regulations can cost poorer families as much as six to eight times more as a share of income than wealthier families. One rule in many states forces parents who place their child in daycare to pay for child-size toilets, which increases the costs of providing child care, and hence what parents pay for the service. High child care costs make it harder for parents to afford to go to work. And when they do, it directly reduces the money they can spend on measures that they could take to make their family safer and healthier. Just moving to a better neighborhood halves the chance of a child being injured. Instead families must spend that money on regulations that provide one-fifth the health and safety benefits for each dollar spent that low income families could have achieved through their own decisions.

The first step in helping America's poor is to cut back on costly regulations that burden job creators and leave the poorest families worse off.

Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

in fact, the Employment Crisis talks of US would be ended by the news as below, stating dramatic fall in Mexican born people in US during last 3-4 years, who are now going back to Mexico for better/more paid jobs. it shows around 0.7 million drop in Mexican born people during just last 2-4 years

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

Save America Foundation (SAF) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit civic organization. SAF is nonpartisan and encourages political involvement and activism. Contributions to SAF are not tax deductible. Save America Foundation registration #:ch31949. A copy of the official registration and financial information may be obtained from the division of consumer services by calling toll-free 1-800-435-7352 within the state. Registration does not imply endorsement, approval, or recommendation by the state.


More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare

There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history. According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government. Many are enrolled in more than one. That is about a third of the entire population of the country. Sadly, that figure does not even include Social Security or Medicare. Today the federal government runs almost 80different "means-tested welfare programs", and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years. Yes, we will always need a "safety net" for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans. How much farther do things really need to go before we finally admit that we have become a socialist nation? At the rate we are going, it will not be too long before half the nation is on welfare. Unfortunately, we will likely never get to that point because the gigantic debt that we are currently running up will probably destroy our financial system before that ever happens.

It is really hard to believe how rapidly some of these federal welfare programs have grown.

For example, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in 2000 to 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.4 million today.

The federal government spent a staggering 71.8 billion dollars on the food stamp program in 2011.

That sure is a lot of money to spend on food.

And I thought that my grocery bills were high.

Medicaid is also growing like crazy.

The number of Americans on Medicaid grew from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011.

Once upon a time, Medicaid was supposed to help the poorest of the poor get medical care. In fact, back in 1965 only about one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.

But now about one-sixth of the entire country is on Medicaid.

Will we all eventually be on Medicaid?

As I mentioned recently, It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

And we all know that projections like that are usually way too low.

Other federal welfare programs are exploding in size as well.

For example, federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

The chart posted below was produced by Senate Budget Committee Republican staff. As you can see, the number of Americans on welfare just continues to grow and grow and grow"¦.

Keep in mind that the chart posted above does not even take into account the huge numbers of Americans that are on Social Security and Medicare.

In the United States today, more than 61 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.

Just think about that.

That means that nearly one out of every five Americans is drawing on Social Security.

That is just crazy.

And in the years ahead we are going to see wave after wave of Baby Boomers retire and so the number of Americans drawing on Social Security is just going to keep going up.

The same kind of thing is happening with Medicare.

As I wrote about the other day, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

Ouch.

That sure does sound expensive.

If you can believe it, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.

That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

Will you be able to pay your share?

And that is just for Medicare.

The federal government just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger part of the health care industry.

Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in America.

This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending in the United States.

Americans have become completely and totally addicted to government money, and word has gotten out to other nations that the U.S. is a place where you can live the high life at the expense of the government.

According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

Keep in mind that the study only looked at immigrants that have been in the country for at least two decades.

Nearly half of them are still on welfare.

Needless to say, the system is fundamentally broken.

And there is no way in the world that we can afford all of this. We have rolled up the biggest pile of debt in the history of the world and our children and our grandchildren are facing a lifetime of endless debt slavery.

Once again this year we are facing a federal budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars, and very few of our politicians even seem to care.

We just continue to spend money as if it was going out of style.

At this point, spending by the federal government accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. GDP.

The last time that happened was during World War II when we were trying to rescue the world from the tyranny of the Germans and the Japanese.

If you divided up the U.S. national debt equally, it would come to more than $134,000 for every single household in the United States.

Ack.

Overall, the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 37 times larger than it was when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

We are a nation of debt addicts, and both political parties have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

We simply cannot afford to continue to go down this road. We need to significantly reduce all categories of government spending.

And yes, we will always need a safety net.

But we simply cannot afford to financially support more than 100 million Americans.

That is absolute madness and it must stop.

So what do you think about all of this? :ranger:

More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare - Save America FoundationSave America Foundation

 

[The Last Stand]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

You must keep in mind that hello_10 is biased against USA. But I agree, government's mistake.

 

[datguy79]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

The legacy of Obama and the Democrats.

I realize you lean right, but this statement reeks of partisanship. Clinton had balanced the budget. Bush II came up and screwed up the whole enterprise, or are you going to tell me that the recession of 2008-09 was also Obama's fault?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

If USA goes down the whole world will go down. All currency is tied.to US dollar.

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

If USA goes down the whole world will go down. All currency is tied.to US dollar.

thats the common talk we used to read 10-12 years before, but have a look on the post#6, share of BRIC economies is now 4 times to the world economy now, along with poor performance of major EU's economies like UK, Spain, Italy, France too..... even German GDP is hardly 2% higher than its level of 2008, check post#5 :ranger:

US's economy is poorly structured. first these so called "Industrialized" nations have lost their industries to emerging economies, mainly to China, and at the same time they have borrowed heavy debt, along with keep borrowing to pay for those expanses like Social Security+Free Medical, which has just no contribution in growth/economy. just have a look on US's economy, heavily indebted, and at the same time they have to borrow at least $1.0 trillion+ every year to just run the economy as it is. heavy investment in infrastructure is also required to upgrade it now, but their all the Budget Expenditure cuts came from the investment side. around 70% of their Budget Expenditure is wasted in only Welfare+Defence+Interests, and then number of government expanses also come, post#5

if the world economy has to come down then let it happen, but US can't live with this much luxury of Welfare . we do find developing nations to be less affected by recession 2008, or in future too if the same type of recession happens again. as the issues of the recession 2008 are now stronger and we do know that these major OECD economies won't be able to borrow again in the same way as they did during last 5-6 years . even if we have to face shiits, we do need to prepare ourselves, but the poorly structured US's economy won't continue as it is

the only hope they have, from the increased production of energy, oil/gas, and lets see how much does this help them :ranger:

Encouraging U.S. Infrastructure Investment

Despite the pressing infrastructure investment needs of the United States, federal infrastructure policy is paralyzed by partisan wrangling over massive infrastructure bills that fail to move through Congress. Federal policymakers should think beyond these bills alone and focus on two politically viable approaches. First, Congress should give states flexibility to pursue alternative financing sources—public-private partnerships (PPPs), tolling and user fees, and low-cost borrowing through innovative credit and bond programs. Second, Congress and President Barack Obama should improve federal financing programs and streamline regulatory approvals to move billions of dollars for planned investments into construction. Both recommendations can be accomplished, either with modest legislation that can bypass the partisan gridlock slowing bigger bills or through presidential action, without the need for congressional approval.


The Problem

The United States has huge unpaid bills coming due for its infrastructure. A generation of investments in world-class infrastructure in the mid-twentieth century is now reaching the end of its useful life. Cost estimates for modernizing run as high as $2.3 trillion or more over the next decade for transportation, energy, and water infrastructure. Yet public infrastructure investment, at 2.4 percent of GDP, is half what it was fifty years ago.

Congress has done little to address this growing crisis. Ideally, it would pass comprehensive bills to guide strategic, long-term investments. The surface transportation bill, known as the highway bill, is a notable example of such comprehensive legislation. It is the largest source of federal infrastructure spending, allocating hundreds of billions of dollars over several years for highways, rapid transit, and rail. But the most recent six-year highway bill expired in 2009, and Congress has been unable to agree on a new multiyear bill since then. The Senate passed a new bill in March 2012 that provides only two years of funding and efforts in the House to pass a longer-term bill have nearly collapsed. The continuing impasse forced Congress to pass its ninth temporary extension of the old law at the end of March 2012, this time for ninety days. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced in February that he does not expect a bill to pass before the 2012 election, a view many experts share.

Even if Congress passes a new highway bill, the country's infrastructure debacle is hardly resolved. Transportation is only one part of the problem, and the pending bills do not even raise investment in this sector from previous, insufficient levels. Nor do they address the biggest long-term problem for transportation—inadequate funding from the Highway Trust Fund. Since the mid-1950s, federal gas tax revenues have been deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and then allocated to states for transportation improvements. But the gas tax is not tied to inflation and has not been raised since 1993. At current spending and revenue levels, the trust fund will be insolvent within two years. Raising the gas tax would alleviate the funding problem, but both parties consider that and other new taxes to be political nonstarters.


Unlocking Progress

There is no shortage of good proposals to encourage infrastructure investment. For example, President Obama has endorsed the idea of creating a national infrastructure bank to leverage federal funds and encourage PPPs. Bipartisan negotiations in the Senate produced a bill for a scaled-down version of the bank, focused on low-cost federal loans to supplement state financing and private capital. The bill is not supported by House Republican leaders, however, and is unlikely to pass this year. There are also important transportation reforms in both pending highway bills where Republicans and Democrats are on common ground: expanding the popular Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program, streamlining the Department of Transportation bureaucracy to speed approval of new projects, and eliminating congressional earmarks—a huge step toward smarter project selection based on merit rather than political interests. But if the highway bill does not pass, none of these reforms will happen.

States are already looking at new ways to finance infrastructure as federal funding becomes uncertain and their own budgets are strained. More states rely on PPPs to share the costs and risks of new projects, and they are finding new sources of nontax revenues to fund investments, like tolling and higher utility rates. But at the same time, federal regulations and tax laws often prevent states from taking advantage of creative methods to finance projects. Federal programs designed to facilitate innovative state financing are underfunded, backlogged, or saddled with dysfunctional application processes. Many of these obstacles can be removed by adjusting regulations and tax rules to empower states to use the tools already available to them, and by better managing federal credit programs that have become so popular with states and private investors.

In cases where modest reforms can make more financing solutions possible, good ideas should not be held hostage to "grand bargains" on big legislation like the highway bill or the failed 2010 energy bill. Congress should take up smaller proposals that stand a chance of passing both houses this year—incremental steps that can unlock billions of dollars in additional investments without large federal costs. Any proposals hoping to win Republican support in the House need to have a limited impact on the federal deficit and focus on reducing, rather than expanding, federal regulations and bureaucracy. Some progress can also be achieved by circumventing Congress entirely with executive branch action.


Viable Near-term Action Items

Congress can unlock state and private investment by reducing state borrowing costs and allowing flexibility for alternative revenue sources and private capital for financing solutions. Specifically, federal policymakers should:

Give states the flexibility to use alternative capital and revenue sources. Billions of dollars to finance new infrastructure could be raised every year from private-sector capital and untapped revenue sources like tolls and user fees. Neither is a free lunch, but they are potential alternatives to a federal tax increase or deficit spending. New tolls are banned on interstates, except for a federal pilot program that allows only three states to use tolling to replace worn-out roads. Congress should eliminate this cap and make tolling options available for any interstate improvement project. In addition, Congress should promote PPPs by loosening rules on government contracting and concessions and provide grants and other assistance to develop state PPP programs. Congress should also help states attract private capital by allowing broader use of tax-favored structures preferred by many investors for other types of investments, like master limited partnerships (MLPs) and real estate investment trusts (REITs).

Help reduce states' borrowing costs. Municipal bonds are exempted from federal taxation, lowering interest rates on state debt by making them more attractive investments. But federal tax exemptions are more restricted for state private activity bonds (PABs), which pass along low state borrowing rates to private companies and independent authorities investing in projects with public benefits, such as water treatment facilities and airports. Congress should provide long-term certainty by eliminating limits on the amount of PABs states can issue and permanently exempting PABs from the federal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to increase buyer demand. The federal cost of the AMT exemption is around $20 million per year in lost revenues—a modest amount that will result in tens of billions of dollars in low-cost financing for urgently needed projects.


Streamlining regulatory reviews and financing approval processes and improving program management can speed project delivery and reduce regulatory uncertainty for project sponsors. Specifically, federal policymakers should:

Coordinate and enhance existing finance programs. A modest but viable alternative to an infrastructure bank is coordinating the many loan programs for infrastructure that are already spread across various federal agencies and departments. There is bipartisan agreement that these programs need improvement—for example, TIFIA needs more credit experts to keep up with its growing workload, and the Department of Energy's loan program needs better oversight and transparency. Congress should modernize the outdated Federal Financing Bank (FFB), a nearly dormant government corporation now controlled by the Treasury Department, and convert it into an independent credit review and oversight office. The new, more active FFB could perform technical, "back office" functions like risk assessments and loan tracking for agency credit programs. Using a central team of experts would avoid duplicative staff across programs, speed approvals, and minimize taxpayer exposure to unforeseen loan risks.

Cut red tape for new projects. On March 22, 2012, President Obama issued a new executive order to "improve performance of federal permitting and review of infrastructure projects." But the order is short on substance and long on studies and steering committees. A bolder step would be eliminating duplicative reviews by merging them into single-track proceedings wherever possible. The approval process for natural gas pipelines is a model; an interagency agreement established a "one-stop" review conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with input from other government agencies. President Obama could order similar streamlining without congressional approval and without waiting months for a steering committee plan.

Conclusion

None of these steps is a silver bullet for fulfilling the United States' infrastructure needs. But big successes may be hard to come by before the 2012 election. In the meantime, small victories are better than none. The modest steps offered here could unlock hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment over the next decade. With pragmatic solutions that do not carry big federal price tags, Congress and President Obama can offer some relief to the states and local governments who know firsthand that the country cannot afford to wait any longer to make these investments.

Encouraging U.S. Infrastructure Investment - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

I realize you lean right, but this statement reeks of partisanship. Clinton had balanced the budget. Bush II came up and screwed up the whole enterprise, or are you going to tell me that the recession of 2008-09 was also Obama's fault?

Look at the increase in debt since Obama took office, and the number of years he has been president. He can still blame Bush? It amazes me how many Asians are Obama-worshippers. But then, he did say he wanted to be President of China.

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

Look at the increase in debt since Obama took office, and the number of years he has been president. He can still blame Bush? It amazes me how many Asians are Obama-worshippers. But then, he did say he wanted to be President of China.

look, the migrants have left their countries with a hope of a better place to live. they pay very high taxes as they fall in high income bracket, develop technologies for the US's firms as they have high skills, (many came in business quota itself by heavy investment there), and run those industries which provides employment to local workers too this way.... but running the government is a completely different issue, and whether Mr Bush or Mr Obama, whoever may keep US, a better place to live, migrants want him, whether Asians or South Americans.......

there is no meaning of worshiping to the person which can't keep the country running, even if he can't bring the US back to its high of late 90s. just kick the person who doesn't use the taxes for the right purpose, as you simply can't feed people for nothing...... there is no meaning to wait for a fall and then build it again . .... better try to build the country before its completely fall :thumb:

and first, just kick this Single Mother Culture from US, which then need feeding these Single Mother Kids by Welfare for nothing

Indians, who now number 3.18 millions, the third largest after the Chinese (4 million) and the Filipinos (3.4 million) have a median household annual income of $88,000, much higher than for all Asians ($66,000) and all US households ($49,800).

The share of unmarried mothers was much lower among Indian Americans (2.3 percent) than among all Asian Americans (15 percent) and the population overall (37 percent).

Indian Americans top in income and education - NY Daily News | NewsCred SmartWire

 

[hello_10]

Re: How United States' High Debt Will Weaken Economy and Hurt American

double post