I know what the GAO is, and I know they do an audit, but can we have someone else do it?

Look, if you want to think the government and Fed are 100% on the up and up, you are allowed to think that, okay?

I do not. Just watching in the past few months, financial scam after financial scam in the government, I am suppose to think the GAO is going to give me a good audit also?

Hey, i do not BLAME bankers for making as much money as possible. How can i? however, this bank is woven into our economy so tightly, that we need to be a lot more dilligent in watching the, Dont you agree?

I do not trust the Fed, I do not trust the government (regardless of who is in office) to do what is right for the American people. They are worried about themselves.

How does that saying go, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"? I might have said that wrong, but you get where I am going with this. Are they exempt from this? Is greed not a driving force behind these people?

And again though, you are getting off track as to what I disupted 2nd...I said China was not the largest Debtholder, and a few people disputed that. I was not wrong.

There is no 'single American Dream"...period.

For each person it is different. For some people, being a pimp is their idea of the 'American dream". Sounds bad, but I am sure for a few select few, that is what they want to be.

For me, I told you. My rural home in the mountains. I have lived my colorful life already, and I have lived in Big Northern Cities (Boston and Philadelphia), and I had some good times, but its not me.

For me, fishing, hiking, camping, watching my kids run around without having to keep an eye on them 24/7, not worrying about what type of car (truck maybe..lol) I have, or how big a house I ahve that I do not need.

I played that game. I hated it. I am now comfortable with a good job and a good business I run on the side. For me, I have all i want from life right now, and feel that I earned it all.

I gave a concrete description of it as it appeared when it was first popularized, in the 1950s, earlier in the thread - go to college and get your degree, and you'll have a house in suburbia with a white picket fence (and a yard, but I s'pose with the fence that's assumed), 3 kids, a dog, a car, and hell, let's throw in the assumed decent salaried job too (we'll call it $70k today, not 1% but certainly pretty well off). Obviously some of those have changed - maybe it's 2 kids or even 1, people are more moving out of the old suburbs (albeit to newer suburbs further out from the old ones), perhaps it's not as involved with the church or the Boy Scouts as it used to be - but the idea's still the same.

And it's just not reality anymore. It's questionable as to whether it ever happened to be reality, but with so many people holding college degrees, it's not a guarantor of anything anymore. 'Course that probably doesn't come as a big surprise... it's simple supply and demand, extrapolated to a subject (education) that tends to abhor reasoned economic calculation in favor of emotional appeals for 'enlightenment' or 'self-development' or 'advancement in society.' And then for some people, I'm thinking blacks in particular who have had to fight socioeconomic inequality the whole way and explicit, systemic racism for most of it, it never was there for them.

That's how I understand the AD to be, and if it's so, then I think Carlin hit it on the head in that clip I posted back on page one.

The point I and SD are making is that the American Dream is no longer concrete (if it ever really was). The picket fence bullshit was middle America's American Dream. It was never the American Dream for those who left middle America to go be a star in LA or a big shot in business in NEw York. So you gave *an* American Dream. But it was never *Tthe* American Dream because even in the 50s, that drream varied form individual to individual. By your definition, I haven't achieved the American Dream (and never will because we will never have any kids) but yet I have achieved *my* American Dream. I have my toys, my home, my cars, my hobbies, and enough income (significantly more than your listed "Dream" income) to live comfortably and save for a nice retirement.

Drau, you are right. I said earlier in the thread, ask 100 americans this question, and you will 100 answers.

and what a 'dream income' is in realtive. 150,000 in Boston or new york isnt exactly a lot. Bring that same amount to Chattanooga, and you are really doing much much better.

And also, having a 250,000 income, but having toys and bills to equal 249,000 isnt 'rich' by any means. You are a slave to toys and the job.

I have much less income than that, and have 100% freedom to walk away at any time. WHo is better off? Doctor at 400,000 but with very litttle disposable income, or me with 80-90,000 but with more than hlaf that in disposable income?

The dream is different for all, as is what is 'comfortable'.

Who ultimately has to pay back the $17 trillion and where will they get that cash from?
A) Never have to pay it back
B) Steal oil from Iran after invasion
C) Print more money, nobody will notice
D) US Taxpayer
E) None of the Above
F) All of the Above

Ultimately the dream is to be Not Poor.

Howars Zinn (historian, and author of the alternative history of the United States) grew up with parents who worked very hard and were very poor (in the 30s there was a lot of poverty in America, i guess) He knew the conventional story of the 'American Dream' was false and kept learning and studying history to find out at what point history would start telling the truth... But the narrative told/taught by even the greatest historians in the country continued the same basic truths which are taught to elementrary school kids.

Most history focuses on the rich and powerful. There is far more written about those people so it's no surprise that historians look at these sources first and the powerful have a relatively larger role in shaping history - yet still any narrative which ig ores the poor, the weak and the unvoiced, is incomplete. It is impossibpe to tell the whole story without those who didn't make it.

And again we find cognitive biases of the kind which make people buy lottery tickets - people buy the idea of the American Dream aswell!

The American Dream is the most trumped up bullshit national mythology I've ever seen in modern times. As if other people in other places don't believe in opportunity. Lol.

"I love the implication that free-market capitalism is to blame for $17 trillion in debt accrued by GOVERNMENT spending. Keep 'em coming, Nigee."

Eden, I like you, but this is fallacious. The government is a component of the market system. To the extent that the government was forced to spend because of actions of the market, you cannot begin to blame the government or the private sector.

The private sector shouldn't have been so dumb, the government should have been better regulators and stewards of the economy. The Blame Game is great on stage in campaigns but as long as we're here just talking straight let's all acknowledge that no one person or group can possibly be blamed for the financial crisis.

Thucy, stop agreeing with Nigee. You make yourself look bad.

"Eden, I like you, but this is fallacious. The government is a component of the market system. To the extent that the government was forced to spend because of actions of the market, you cannot begin to blame the government or the private sector."

That's a reason to take on some debt during recessions, sure. That ain't an excuse in hell for the fact that we have $16 trillion right now. It sure isn't an excuse for the explosion of debt due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush and Obama, or the abject failure to keep entitlement spending on a reasonable keel. Sure, no one person or thing is responsible for the current financial crisis - but considering Nigee did exactly that in blaming free-market capitalism, I'd think the criticism there should be turned his way!

Wait, Bush started two wars, and Obama ended one... SO democrats are at +1 to republican's -2 when it comes to war spending, in my book at least...

Dear President Eden, free market captialism is not one person - it is a system composed of many parts. It is not policy of the econmic wing of government, it is private and public interactions between people, corporations and nations.

Blaming the system is NOT the same as blaming one person, it is blaming everyone

I have to agree with Thucy, the American* Dream is a myth. Slave away hard enough, take out a huge loan and you can have a nice house with two cars and a family. And when things turn to shit, on who's door does the government knock? Not Ford's, not Halliburton's, not J.P. Morgan's.

Really, what country doesn't peddle this myth?

"Wait, Bush started two wars, and Obama ended one... SO democrats are at +1 to republican's -2 when it comes to war spending, in my book at least..."

That's kind of ridiculously simplistic...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

Obama's first year in office was 2009 (specifically January), so his spending starts with FY2010. Obama spent $117 billion on Iraq and $224.3 billion on Afghanistan - so far. There's still some (admittedly, relatively minor) spending left on Iraq (FY2011 ends in September 2011, we still had active operations through the end of 2011 and still have a few assorted personnel over there), and quite a bit on Afghanistan - and with the signing of the strategic pact with Afghanistan ensuring our presence until 2024, will be for some time.

So I'm not sure what the point of the partisanship is there, Obama's certainly contributed and continues to do so, so the point stands. Bush obviously did more damage in that respect, I doubt anyone denies it, but acting like Obama didn't add onto it is kinda silly.

"Dear President Eden, free market captialism is not one person - it is a system composed of many parts. It is not policy of the econmic wing of government, it is private and public interactions between people, corporations and nations.

Blaming the system is NOT the same as blaming one person, it is blaming everyone"

If you're taking up Nigee's point, then, when am I going to hear an actual explanation for how this system magically and inevitably generated $16 trillion of debt instead of the same tired 'free-market capitalism is to blame' canard?

Businesses rely on the state to do their bidding. Those that don't/can't try to get a foot in or rely on privatised state functions (PSCs, etc).

"The American Dream is the most trumped up bullshit national mythology I've ever seen in modern times. As if other people in other places don't believe in opportunity. Lol."

lol, spoken like a true natural-born citizen.

You do know that 10 trillion of that debt was that responsibility of 2 presidents....Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush? About 5 trillion a piece. Also The current administration implemented accounting procedures to more accurately reflect the actual debt of this nation (still not good enough but closer) and that the reported current debt would be 2 trillion and change less if we were still using the previous accounting system. I'm not saying the situation is anywhere near perfect but people are throwing around these numbers as if Obama bears sole responsibility for it. Loss of revenue after the crash GAO estimates 22% shortfall of Individual tax revenue and a whopping 57% drop in Corporate revenue. As to be expected when the stock market lost half it's value. I understand that there is a difference of opinion of what people think the federal gov't should or shouldn't do but we just got screwed by the biggest recession since the Great Depression...what did ya expect?

And how much of that debt falls in Clinton's 8 years? 6 or 7 trillion? Both sides are to blame.

The Clinton presidency increased the National debt by1.2 trillion. actually is was Reagan and George H.W. Bush together that brought it to 4.7 trillion. The day Obama entered office it was 11.2 trillion.

The last year of the Clinton presidency only increased the national debt by 87 billion.

I offer an alternative explanation for our debt - we have so much because we are the reserve currency and have no realistic short- or medium- term reason not to borrow, so we do. Any why wouldn't we? We are trying to spend our way out of decline, a perfectly natural reaction.

Sitting around trying to blame anyone for a problem larger than a certain level is usually never going to get you anywhere. In the rare cases where history agrees and assigned most blame to a single person, even then there is a case to be made that it is not that one person's fault alone.

For instance - are you really going to try to tell me that Hitler is totally personally responsible for WWII in Europe? We may feel that way in our gut, he may symbolize that, and as victors who wrote the history there may even be a consensus about it, but if you are honest with yourself you really can't possibly believe it was all him.

It's not about blame but getting to the facts. National Debt is misrepresented in so many ways it's silly. For one thing National Debt is is not necessarily a bad thing provided the spending that gets us there is done properly. WWII was the largest gov't spending program in the history of this country (in adjusted dollars) and brought our GDP to debt ratio over 100%. How did we come out of that massive debt....we inflated it away. Over time the money we owed just did not have the same value that it once did and it turned our economy around. The fact is the Reagan and Bush 1 laid some of the foundation of the economic boom of the 90's. Clinton was smart enough to not get in it's way and to helped it along.Bush 2 wasn't responsible for the recession that happened in the very beginning of his presidency, that was speculation that led to the dot.com crash. But 2 wars that did not boost our economy, loose regulation and ill-advised tax cuts put us in a precarious situation. Sometimes people fuck up, and Bush 2 did.

@ Michigan Man, the "it's your nation & you get to choose how to proceed "
was my way of indicating that as an Australian, I might have various opinions on
American issues, but I do not want to tell y'all how to proceed, that's your collective responsibility.

I think most Australians want America to sort out some of it's problems, we want y'all
to succeed, not crash & burn. we've invested a lot in our relationship with the USA since 1942. Australia is also in Asia, so we are in the "box seat" as China and India boom.

I support sensible welfare systems. As far as I am concerned I am happy to pay my taxes if public Health & Education services are well funded and run, I would rather invest money in helping the disadvantaged & unemployed, than have to spend it on building a police state because crime is out of control.

It also seems clear that the pompous excuse not to help others because they are
"non deserving" is still alive & cherished amongst the selfish.

the idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor & it is only the deserving poor who are worthy of charity was very popular amongst the English middle classes circa 1850-1900

It is wonderfully satarised in George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion"
on which the musical " My Fair Lady" is based

@ President Eden,
if the free market capitalists are not "paying their fair share of taxes" and yet use all the
infrastructure and services provided by other taxpayers ( government at all levels )
then yes they do have a shared responsibility in your debt.

What is total American "govt debt" ?

What is the total private wealth controlled by the wealthiest 5% of Americans ?

I think you will find that the wealthiest 5% of Americans control that much private wealth that, if required to, thay could pay out the total US govt debt "out of their spare change".

I make no statement that they should help pay, that's a decision for y'all to make.
The French gave you the great statue in New York.
Just remember a lesson from the French Revolution.
when 2% of a nation's population control 98% of that nations wealth the result is chaos and bloodshed in which a fair number of the 2% are killed by the 98% .

So maybe that priveliged 5% of Americans should consider an investment in "life insurance" for their grandchildren & great grand children.

Sadly I think they will choose a minimum investment and direct it at "more security"
rather than a brave major investment in reducing debt and increasing funding in
education and helping the disadvantaged and unemployed.

That documentary on US prison systems that I saw that popped up the trend in
California state prisons system spending thhat highlighted 2 things
because of the growth in prison populations & fiscal problems of the state govt
funding for rehabilitation programs is "cut to the bone", money is spent on more guards, more walls etc first, rehabilitation, education comes a distant last in funding priority.

second, that on present trends, soon, the state will spend more on prisons than it will on Tertiary Education.

What's the "Tea Party's" solution to that problem ?

"with ma Bible in one hand and ma shotgun in t'other,
we're gittin' tougher on Law or Norder,
Ah'm gonna pot me some of them wetbacks,
comin' across our border,
Though Dick Cheney's in the shootin' party,
& it could git a little nasty,
when his pellets come flyin' past me.
we'll lock up all thim criminals & throw away the key,
and we'll all be safe in armoured bunkers,
watchin' Christian TV.

Bon chance, mon ami.

Aye Major Mitchell, Ted Baillieu is cutting TAFE spending and building new prisons and fitting out new riot/'public order' squads.

TAFE, Technical & Further Education is essential to improving productivity.

What an absolutely moronic thing to do, cut TAFE funding.
We have a "skills demand crisis" according to Industry,
the baby boomers are all coming to retirement ages in next 10 to15 years,
we need to have the best skilled, trained working population possible and TAFE
is a key part of the Tertiary Education system.

Economics 01: spend $20 million on education or $80 million on police, courts & jails ?
Dopey Ted, duh, I'll blow the $80 million of taxpayers money on a police state.

well done Ted, you'll make good in a conservative party.

How about Peter Costello, still a sore loser.
He should have negotiated a better individual work contract with his Boss,
John Howard, both are, after all, the supposed experts on IR.
What's that Peter ? Your Boss shafted you, gee whiz, imagine that happening.

Remember, working class kids deserve to be in jail, not in school or work.

Lol about Peter Costello, Work Choices coming back to haunt him.

"I offer an alternative explanation for our debt - we have so much because we are the reserve currency and have no realistic short- or medium- term reason not to borrow, so we do. Any why wouldn't we? We are trying to spend our way out of decline, a perfectly natural reaction."

We're in decline? And again, shelling out trillions to blow up random Third World countries is going to spend us out of decline? Letting entitlement spending balloon like it has is going to spend us out of decline? It may be a natural reaction to go "Oh shit, things aren't as good as they used to be, let's try to buy it back!" but I don't see how the way we've spent it makes any sense or will somehow bring us out of decline.

Hell, what does it even *mean* to be "in decline"? Are we talking economic or financial decline, as though having the world's largest GDP, reserve currency and financial capital are indicators of decline? Military decline, as though having literally the mightiest military in the known history of the universe indicates decline? Sure, in the short term, say the past 5-10 years, we've embarrassed ourselves with silly military escapades and timidity in tackling financial crises, but I'm having trouble assessing how in the long term America still isn't one of the best places in the world to be or how that's going to change.

"Sitting around trying to blame anyone for a problem larger than a certain level is usually never going to get you anywhere. In the rare cases where history agrees and assigned most blame to a single person, even then there is a case to be made that it is not that one person's fault alone.

For instance - are you really going to try to tell me that Hitler is totally personally responsible for WWII in Europe? We may feel that way in our gut, he may symbolize that, and as victors who wrote the history there may even be a consensus about it, but if you are honest with yourself you really can't possibly believe it was all him."

So you, Nigee, and I assume orathaic are all taking up the position that there's something in free-market capitalism that led to $16 trillion in debt that's directly the fault of free-market capitalism. Or, at least, your responses to my objections to Nigee's statement that this is the fault of free-market capitalism would indicate that you're defending his statement, if not directly swearing to it yourselves.

But so far I'm just seeing very abstract statements like "No one thing is at fault" or "It's the fault of the system," without a single shred of concrete point to corroborate it. I'm not asking you to narrow it down to one thing. I'm asking you to name some of the many things that demonstrate it's the fault of free-market capitalism that we ended up with $16 trillion in debt. My singling out some items, like entitlement spending growth and foreign quagmires, isn't me saying "All our problems are due to these"; as I've said before, some degree of debt is acceptable and perhaps even a good thing if it means that the spending which incurred the debt leads to greater profit (whether strictly monetary profit or more broadly, societal gain). Largely-pointless wars and unchecked entitlements, on the other hand, most definitely are to blame, in part, for accruing such an absurd amount of debt that's actually caused us issues.

as for economics 01, do I get the choice to spend neither?