National Debt

[Traveler]

Just some thoughts. I really love the concept of tithing. I love the idea that everyone pays the same % if they are rich or poor. I love the idea that everyone is invested and everyone contributes.

I also believe that the poor should be helped. I believe that the best method to achieve both is through the concepts of a negative income tax combined with the idea of taxing everybody - which is in essence that those that fall below a poverty line are given graduated assistance to help get them above the poverty level - how far above the poverty level that they are able to rise is according to their efforts to earn whatever income they can.

So that whenever a person works and earns money they will always end up with more money than if they did not work and relied on assistance.

I think our country will only solve our economic crises (long term or short term in a sustainable manner) and narrow the gap between the very rich and the very poor - as well as maintain the best possible mobility for obtaining higher levels of individual economy - only if we all share and contribute - both for ourselves as well as others. The greatest indication that our services are failing is the fact that over 50% do not contribute towards the greater good for all and that even more do not think there is anything what-so-ever wrong with that.

The Traveler

[Guest]

Yes but if the Federal Government issues a consumption tax, does that mean States will have to get rid of their sales taxes? If not, then a consumption tax would be a huge burden on the Middle Class depending on what State you live in. In Tennessee the State sales tax is 7% and the average local sales tax is 2.45%, so most of us are paying 9.25% sales tax on everything we buy. I think the tax on food is a little lower, but not much. Of course we don't have a State personal income tax, although the State keeps threatening to tax income also.

I guess that's why I didn't like the idea of the "FAIR Tax".

I agree with the Traveler, a strong country depends on a strong Middle Class, and ours is getting weaker. I think the Middle Class has to share in the blame, because look at how many people are living off of credit and have no money saved up. A pretty high percentage of us are one pay check away from being homeless, and I don't think that is all the Feds' fault.

SpringGirl... you're not looking at the whole picture. Yes, the Fair Tax is just for Federal Tax - State Tax remains the same. Of course, a State can also implement the Fair Tax model (States like Florida and Texas are already on consumption tax, not income tax) but they are separate from the Federal Tax.

Okay, so, like in Florida - you already pay 7% Sales Tax to the State. If we go to the Fair Tax on the Federal level, then 23% will be added to that which puts the over-all sales tax to 30%.

So you're saying - it hurts the middle class. NO. Not at all! Why? Because your income tax is GONE! So, look at your paycheck and look at the difference between your Gross Pay to your Net Pay. That difference is what you pay NOW. Think about getting your paycheck where your Net Pay is the same number as your Gross Pay - no SS deductions, no FICA deductions, no Medicare Deductions, no Federal Tax deductions. See how much money you have now? That money would be the same, if not less, than the 23% tax that you pay on anything you buy. And the awesome thing is - YOU control how much tax you're going to pay by simply changing your consumption habits.

So, middle class, lower class, higher class - all of them will be MUCH STRONGER. Because the power now rests on the people. So you're going to say, but - the Federal Government can always just raise the percentage of tax from 23% upwards to 50% to raise my taxes! Well, in the income tax model where the money gets deducted from your paycheck before you see it - you don't really feel the difference when the taxes are raised because - "Yippee! I got a refund!!!". But, in the consumption model, every single time you buy something you are reminded of how much tax you pay. So that, if the Feds try to raise taxes, the people will FEEL it immediately and they would be more pro-active in getting involved in Congressional moves to change tax law...

It really is so much better.

Edited September 7, 2012 by anatess

[yjacket]

'll jump into the forray here as this is a topic that I love to study and is one that is fairly complex and mostly hidden from most people. Sorry for the long post ahead of time.

To tackle this problem it is very important to understand the nature of the system that we have. First off, all of our current present day money is loaned into existence. By it's very nature, a US dollar is debt. If all loans were paid back there would be no US dollars in existence. The current monetary system we have has only existed since 1971. So while it is can be useful to compare our situation to situations prior to 1971, it doesn't really provide a guidemap since we are dealing with different monetary systems.

For a quick and dirty:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter- 7-money-creation

US dollars are created via two seperate but related processes.

1) US Government sell Treasury bills and via an indirect method-setting interest rates- (and recently not so indirectly, QE) the Federal Reserve buys Treasury Bills and sells US dollars (Federal Reserve Notes). Obviously not all the dollars used to buy Treasuries are newly created . . . but a lot of them are.

2) Fractional Reserve Lending: when commercial or local banks lend money they do not actually have those US dollars. When Joe Blow gets a loan for 200k, the bank is only legally required to have 20k of actual US dollars, a 10% reserve ratio. However over the past decade in practice this ends up being close to a 0% reserve ratio.

So how does this all relate. Well, GDP isn't a measure of the amount of dollars but a measure of the turnover or productivity. I know it is GDP = C + I + G (X-M), but it is really trying to measure the activity of an economy.

So there is a lot of talk of the National Debt. An important measurement is debt to GDP (currently national debt-GDP is ~100%) ,to break down debt to GDP what it is capturing is how much activity/productivity/etc. an economy is generating vs. how much debt there is. For a simple contrived example, a low debt/GDP ratio means that say in a localized economy Company A took out 100k in loans, yet produced 300k worth of goods in a year. i.e. even though they had 100k in loans the money turned over many times and they produced a vast amount product compared to the loans. A high debt/GDP ratio means the reverse. 100k in loans and only 100k of stuff.

So it is absolutely pointless to compare any other country's debt/GDP to our debt/GDP. It's more a measure of how effective their economy is at using debt rather than a measure of how good their economy is. A low debt/GDP just means they are getting more bang for their buck.

It is also important to distinguish between public debt (16T) and total debt. Total US debt is ~350% of GDP.

Now for broader implications. I believe we have too much debt relative to what we produce. People can debate this . . . Do we now have too much debt, or is too much debt at 500%, 1000?? What that level is I'm not sure, but the implication is quite clear. At some point we have too much loans for what we produce, and we will need to get rid of the debt.

There are only 3 ways to get rid of debt.

1) Inflate (soft default), 2) Default (hard default) 3) pay it off (austerity).

I'll start with #3. This is what Greece is doing and failing miserably at. Money basically goes out of existence when loans are paid off. So you enter into a cunnundrum: you have to get more productive with the money you have and pay off loans. Paying off loans shrinks the money supply, which eventually will cause prices to fall, which makes paying off loans harder.

#2) Hard default. Basically tell the banks to shove it. The money is already loaned into existence so by telling the banks you won't pay them back you ensure that the money supply won't shrink. But by defaulting you ensure immediately much higher interest rates so the rate that loans are created will probably drop drammatically. This can socially be really bad as really screwy things will end up happening with a hard default. See Argentina 2001. Greece initially was going to hard default last year (and did to some extent), but backed away from that ledge.

#3) Inflate-soft default. The way this occurs is through monetization of debt. Basically the Federal Reserve buys up bad debt in exchange for printing more US dollars. This ends up lowering the amount of debt per actual US dollar available.

This episode (the 2008 credit crisis and ongoing after effects) has been building since 1971 when we basically become a credit based monetary system. Big picture wise, the build-up of credit has lead to the massive stock market bubble of 2001 and the housing bubble of 2008. Given a stable (i.e. non-increasing) monetary supply the natural market reaction is for gentle downward sloping deflation in prices. Basically productivity increases as society grows causing things to be cheaper. We have seen massive amounts of productivity gains in the past 20 years, yet very little actual price deflation. This is because the monetary supply has increased many, many times relative to production. The natural reaction to our massive credit build-up would be massive price deflation. And we have seen that to some extent . . . especially in housing, no wage increases, etc.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve is hell-bent on preventing actual deflation. Thus they are trying to counter-act the natural credit bubble busting by buying more assets and buying bad debt. The Federal Gov. is also acting somewhat to prevent actual deflation by running larger and larger deficiets. There are 3 ways to pay off debt, we are choosing #1.

So where does that leave us. Well, I guess it really depends on your level of confidence in whether the Federal Reserve and the Fed. Gov. can do what they say they want to do to.

Sure interest rates are 3% now, but the old saying goes "markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent". Me personally, I think the best case scenario is something along the lines of Japan. 20 year of no asset gains, no stock market gains, relatively stable prices. At some point Japan will blow up, but 20 years is pretty good. Average person in Japan, things are pretty good. Worst case scenario is the Fed. loses the handle, interest rates skyrocket and can't control inflation and we get huge inflation (a doubling of prices relatively quickly, but no hyperinflation) a la Argentina 2001. We will not get a Greece episode because our debt is in dollars, whereas Greece's debt is in Euros and they don't control the presses.

This isn't an easy problem and no one really knows exactly what will happen. Added to the whole problem is that the US dollar is the reserve currency. Basically in order for any other country in the world to inflate their way out of their credit problems, they have to buy US dollars (this is one reason why we have and will always have, until we are not the reserve currency, a trade deficit). We sell our dollars to the world for their stuff so they can inflate.

My guess is that what we are seeing is the beginning of the end of the dollar hegemoney (US reserve currency), what comes afterwards is a ??. I would say what people should buy are assets, hard assets. Great time to buy land, gold, silver, commodities, etc. I also believe we are on the cusp of a sea change in interest rates. Rates have fallen for 30 years, bonds have been in one of the longest bull markets in history. That will change, when is the big questions, but it will change. I have considered shorting 30 year bonds. Sure it might go from 3 to 1.5 but considering we are at the lowest point in the last 100 years, chances are pretty darn good that sometime in the next 30 years it will be a lot higher than 3.

Edited September 8, 2012 by yjacket

[yjacket]

I would also add that comparing taxes to tithing is completely inappropriate as there is one big difference.

I don't pay tithing and nothing happens to me (except I don't get to go to the temple, if I'm honest).

I don't pay taxes and I go to jail, my property is seized and my life destroyed.

We have 2 separate but related issues. 1) Debt, 2) Federal budget. As a society, we are seeing more and more people demand more from government. I personally subscribe to the saying

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

My home county is a perfect example of the largess of government. We have massively failing schools, the superintendent has a 200k+ salary that he is receiving in full while he waits to go on trail for racketeering, bribery and embezzlement. The school board "surprisingly" found a 60M budget deficit the week their budget was to be passed. I could go on with the list of junk in my county. Yet, instead of reigning in the out-of-control system, the school board passed a 1 mil increase in property taxes. Stupidly enough, my county voted many of the same bums back into office. Because our children's education is "too important" everyone is willing to just throw more money at the problem instead of actually looking for the problems and solving them.

We don't like the unemployment numbers, hey lets throw more money at the problem, we don't like housing numbers, throw more money at the problem. Spend, spend, spend. No one ever looks at the hard truth. Unemployment is labor mismatch. There are plenty of companies out there willing to hire, but not finding qualified labor or people willing to take the pay. A huge chunk of the jobs lost were in construction. Those jobs are not coming back, so those folks need to find a new line of work. Housing, well home prices were too high and were well out of wack with normal income/housing ratios. So we throw more money at both problems, lower interest rates to try and force some fix on the system. Let it adjust naturally . . . eventually people will realize they need to change their line of work, retrain, etc. Eventually homes will reach normal levels again. Extremely frustrating.

[Guest]

I have not tuned into news stations/sites this week. I just cannot believe the economic ignorance that is pervading the news these past few days. Yjacket, you seem very well versed on economics, how have you fared this week?

[yjacket]

I have not tuned into news stations/sites this week. I just cannot believe the economic ignorance that is pervading the news these past few days. Yjacket, you seem very well versed on economics, how have you fared this week?

I don't know about this last week, but I'd done fairly well over the past month. I'd prefer it not be that way though. For me, everything is relative. For example, the Dow is at 13.3k, great, but gas is close to $4. If you look at an oil/dow ratio the Dow looks very unimpressive:

charles hugh smith-Reader's Journal and Dow-Oil Ratio

I remember buying 68 cents/gallon gas in 1998, it's quadrupled since then while the Dow is ~30-40% higher. So I really try to look at value investing rather than price investing. What is over/under valued compared to everything else. I also look at big cycles, as everything goes in cycles. The major investments are Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, Commodities.

Stocks still suck-12 year bear market (although I'd say sometime in the next 5-10 years will prob. be a great time to be in stocks). I'll prob. buy some stocks the next crash that comes around.

Bonds have been in a 30 year bull market, I wouldn't touch bonds with a 10 foot pole. That is an accident waiting to happen. I'd like to short bonds and at some point might do so.

Real Estate in some areas is a steal. Las Vegas, Florida, etc. I'd seriously like to buy some more real estate/land where I live, I just don't want the hassle of being a landlord. I was the biggest of housing bubbleheads, but in many places it is now a steal of a lifetime. In many areas not so much, it really depends. I bought my house at below mid 80s pricing (not-inflation adjusted). Shoot, I read an article recently about a single mother buying a 2000+ sqft home built in the mid-2000s for ~45k. Ridiculous.

Commodities are probably mid-way through their cycle. I'm waiting for a blow-off top here sometime in the next 5-10 years.

Personally though, I'd rather just be able to save my money without having to worry about trying to beat inflation. The bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve system and in order to not get squashed by inflation you've got to find a way to beat it.

Everything comes back to our monetary system and the Federal Reserve, one of the most dishonest, corrupt, evil institutions ever created by man. Presidents and Congress can do a lot to influence our economy, but no one has more influence or control than the Federal Reserve. If you ever want to learn more about this corrupt private institution, just read

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin: 9780912986210: Amazon.com: Books

[Guest]

I don't know about this last week, but I'd done fairly well over the past month. I'd prefer it not be that way though. For me, everything is relative. For example, the Dow is at 13.3k, great, but gas is close to $4. If you look at an oil/dow ratio the Dow looks very unimpressive:

charles hugh smith-Reader's Journal and Dow-Oil Ratio

I remember buying 68 cents/gallon gas in 1998, it's quadrupled since then while the Dow is ~30-40% higher. So I really try to look at value investing rather than price investing. What is over/under valued compared to everything else. I also look at big cycles, as everything goes in cycles. The major investments are Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, Commodities.

Stocks still suck-12 year bear market (although I'd say sometime in the next 5-10 years will prob. be a great time to be in stocks). I'll prob. buy some stocks the next crash that comes around.

Bonds have been in a 30 year bull market, I wouldn't touch bonds with a 10 foot pole. That is an accident waiting to happen. I'd like to short bonds and at some point might do so.

Real Estate in some areas is a steal. Las Vegas, Florida, etc. I'd seriously like to buy some more real estate/land where I live, I just don't want the hassle of being a landlord. I was the biggest of housing bubbleheads, but in many places it is now a steal of a lifetime. In many areas not so much, it really depends. I bought my house at below mid 80s pricing (not-inflation adjusted). Shoot, I read an article recently about a single mother buying a 2000+ sqft home built in the mid-2000s for ~45k. Ridiculous.

Commodities are probably mid-way through their cycle. I'm waiting for a blow-off top here sometime in the next 5-10 years.

Personally though, I'd rather just be able to save my money without having to worry about trying to beat inflation. The bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve system and in order to not get squashed by inflation you've got to find a way to beat it.

Everything comes back to our monetary system and the Federal Reserve, one of the most dishonest, corrupt, evil institutions ever created by man. Presidents and Congress can do a lot to influence our economy, but no one has more influence or control than the Federal Reserve. If you ever want to learn more about this corrupt private institution, just read

The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin: 9780912986210: Amazon.com: Books

I wasn't talking about the DOW. I was talking about a display of economic ignorance pervading the country. It's tough to straighten out the Federal Reserve when seemingly a majority of the population don't even know where money comes from. A glaring example is this quote in answer to the question of - what is your solution to the problem of joblessnes in this country: "I want money in the pockets of the people". The problem is - the person saying it has no idea where that money that she wants to put in the pockets of the people is going to be coming from.

I am quite surprised that you said this -

Personally though, I'd rather just be able to save my money without having to worry about trying to beat inflation. The bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve system and in order to not get squashed by inflation you've got to find a way to beat it.

A bubble is just another necessary market adjustment. So, if you're cognizant of the intrinsic value of goods, then you'll know how to avoid the bubbles.

Savings in form of cash dollars will always be dependent on the rates paid by the money market. Savings in the form of precious metals is a good inflation hedge but only because it is not a dollar.

Savings that is a lot more protected from inflation is relatively simple. Put your money on something that everybody will always need through time immemorial. A farm, real estate, an energy source. Or do what my dad does - play in the foreign currency exchange market by investing in non-dollar equities.

[yjacket]

I wasn't talking about the DOW. I was talking about a display of economic ignorance pervading the country. It's tough to straighten out the Federal Reserve when seemingly a majority of the population don't even know where money comes from. A glaring example is this quote in answer to the question of - what is your solution to the problem of joblessnes in this country: "I want money in the pockets of the people". The problem is - the person saying it has no idea where that money that she wants to put in the pockets of the people is going to be coming from.

My bad, I misunderstood. I agree. Economic ignorance is very high in this country, mostly because no one ever teaches it to them. It is one of those things that appears boring, yet will have the most impact on one's life.

I am quite surprised that you said this -

Personally though, I'd rather just be able to save my money without having to worry about trying to beat inflation. The bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve system and in order to not get squashed by inflation you've got to find a way to beat it.

A bubble is just another necessary market adjustment. So, if you're cognizant of the intrinsic value of goods, then you'll know how to avoid the bubbles.

I agree that the correction to the bubble is a market adjustment. Bubbles themselves cannot and do not form without government intervention or banking intervention. Every single bubble I can think of in the last 100 years was caused by government intervention into the free market. Either by manipulating laws or by inflating the money supply.

South Seas bubble - private/public partnership in government debt

Stock market bubble 1929 - Federal Reserve inflated money supply for several years prior.

Naz 1999 - free flowing Fed. Reserve money from the mid-90s.

Housing 2005 - free flowing money from lowered interest rates after Naz bust.

There will be markets that increase and decrease but were it not for the Fed. the massive bubbles we've had in the last 20 years would not occur. And inflation is a non-uniform event. The high-powered money gets injected into the locations that will return the highest rates (markets that are already increasing). It will power those markets into bubbles.

Savings in form of cash dollars will always be dependent on the rates paid by the money market. Savings in the form of precious metals is a good inflation hedge but only because it is not a dollar.

Price Inflation is not tied to rates in the money market. The price of any good and all goods in general are tied to 4 factors. Supply/demand of the good and supply/demand of money. In fact, the Federal Reserve specifically sets market rates below price inflation. This is supposed to persuade people to put money into other things besides savings.

Savings that is a lot more protected from inflation is relatively simple. Put your money on something that everybody will always need through time immemorial. A farm, real estate, an energy source. Or do what my dad does - play in the foreign currency exchange market by investing in non-dollar equities.

If only it were that simple. Sure over the long-haul and over averages that might be the case. But we don't live averages. Most people thought real estate was a great inflation hedge and it was . . . until it wasn't and crashed. Like I mentioned I bought my house below mid 80s pricing. Inflation adjusted I bought at 50% what it was worth in 1985. So if someone used a similar house as an inflation hedge they would have lost 50% of the value of their money over 25 years. How's that for an inflation hedge?

We live in a bubble economy, thanks Fed., if one does not learn to ride the bubble waves they will be crush when the wave crashes.

It's how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich ride the waves, the middle class and poor continually jump in just before it crashes and get crushed.

[norah63]

Johnson created a 'war on poverty', yet Jesus said the poor you will have with you always.

You can't create a war on the Word and have a healthy economy. O. Hatch once mentioned a

sin tax. Well try to get our society to give a definition of that word today.

The churches struggle with that word also.

Government is supporting sin at many levels. Unless and until waste and fraud is dealt with our spending is always going out of bounds.

[Traveler]

Johnson created a 'war on poverty', yet Jesus said the poor you will have with you always.

You can't create a war on the Word and have a healthy economy. O. Hatch once mentioned a

sin tax. Well try to get our society to give a definition of that word today.

The churches struggle with that word also.

Government is supporting sin at many levels. Unless and until waste and fraud is dealt with our spending is always going out of bounds.

Something you may have missed concerning the "war on poverty". The reason was the 1960 census that created the idea that by transferring 2% of the GNP to the poor we could completely eliminate poverty.

There are several things that should be understood:

1. This effort marked the beginning of the decline of the middle class in the USA.

2. Because of this effort - currently we are transferring 6 times what is necessary to end poverty for nothing more than to pay the debt on the money borrowed for these programs since the beginning of the "war on poverty" to end poverty.

3. Poverty has increased.

The crazy thing that has happened in parallel is that because of abortion (note that abortion is most likely among the economic and moral class most likely to raise children with a much higher than average amount of poverty and crime) during this same time period that possible greater increases in poverty and crime has been substantially reduced - skewing the actual results compared to history so much that we have, for some time, avoided economic collapse. (See the book Freakonomics)

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

except with 60 million more (unaborted) Americans, we would have a larger tax base, more people paying into Social Security and Medicare. We would have less selfishness, as more people would be raising children, rather than skipping responsibility. Remember, before the war on poverty, most black families included a father and mother. Now we have hurt them by ripping the fathers out of the home, leaving boys to be raised by their gang peers. While blacks make up about 20% of the population, they make up 1/2 the people incarcerated. The war on poverty is a major reason for this.

Among those 60 million abortions could have been the persons to find a cure for cancer, discover great technologies to feed the hungry, or end wars. Instead of having a great number of educated people here to continue America's advancing technological power, we are an aging people with fewer kids to take our place. China and India are replacing us.

[Guest]

Among those 60 million abortions could have been the persons to find a cure for cancer, discover great technologies to feed the hungry, or end wars.

I understand what you're trying to say Rame, but this logic always gets me... and I hope people stop using it. Because... for every possibility of a person finding a cure for cancer exists the possiblity of a person growing up to be the next Hitler.

[rameumptom]

Anatess, in a large group/set of Americans, there are very few Hitlers born. There is a great chance of having many great people born. These are children of God, with innate potential from their Father and Mother in heaven. Your point suggests we should wipe out the human race, simply because an occasional Hitler rises up. My point is, in America, we have very few Hitlers rise to power, and more likely to have wonderful people doing amazing things. So, no, I won't stop using it. My point is straight on, while your point points out anomalies of nature.

[Guest]

Anatess, in a large group/set of Americans, there are very few Hitlers born. There is a great chance of having many great people born. These are children of God, with innate potential from their Father and Mother in heaven. Your point suggests we should wipe out the human race, simply because an occasional Hitler rises up. My point is, in America, we have very few Hitlers rise to power, and more likely to have wonderful people doing amazing things. So, no, I won't stop using it. My point is straight on, while your point points out anomalies of nature.

That's not my point at all.

My point is - we should not hang our pro-life principles on the chance that the baby we abort gets to cure cancer. Instead, we should hang our pro-life principles on the one and only reason that is valid - and that is, each and every one of these fetuses have the potential to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man and bring him joy. Because it doesn't matter if the baby is born genius or stupid. He still deserves a chance at life. One human life is not worth more than another. Whether he be Hitler or Isaac Newton.

[NeuroTypical]

Also, if abortion were not as legal, it's probable that no, there would not be 60 million more babies born. Because some folks use abortion as a method of birth control, and would have used some method to prevent conception in the absence of the abortion option.

[Just_A_Guy]

Also, if abortion were not as legal, it's probable that no, there would not be 60 million more babies born. Because some folks use abortion as a method of birth control, and would have used some method to prevent conception in the absence of the abortion option.

I wonder how prevalent this really is. It strikes me that both the cost and physical inconvenience of an abortion would significantly outweigh a typical barrier contraception device.

[NeuroTypical]

How prevalent is using abortion as a method of birth control? I wonder too. I'd guess it has to do with levels of ignorance, immaturity, sheltered sense of entitlement, lack of character, available role models, and cultural pressure to do dumb things and disregard consequences. With a bunch of hormones thrown into the mix. Any/all of these work to get folks to disregard the very valid issues of cost and physical inconvenience, not to mention any moral implications which would otherwise give folks pause. I dunno - you tell me. How is our nation doing on all that?

I suppose the growing acceptance of emergency contraception (morning after pills) cuts down on the phenomenon a bit, but that's been a factor for what, half a dozen years or so?

[Traveler]

It is my understanding that there are areas (states) in the USA where there are more abortions than there are live births.

One of the arguments offered by pro-choice is that by allowing so many abortions we reduce the number of unwanted children that are statistically more prone to criminal behaviors and poverty. It is also argued that abortion is a far cheaper than paying out welfare and correctional costs of criminal behaviors that are much more prevalent with unwanted children.

I would go one step farther - that the breakup of the family through such legislation as no fault divorce has contributed as much or more to individuals requiring government assistance - especially among the class of citizens that are not old or physically or mentally impaired.

However, it is interesting that prior to 1960 and the initiations of the so called entitlement programs that children in poverty was, as a percentage of poverty, was much less than it is today. Also poverty among children is the fastest demographic of poverty in the USA - so much so that several economists are predicting that if we do not alter this course that we will not solve the debt problem. I am inclined to agree.

I do not believe any nation can achieve or maintain greatness and allow families to disintegrate as we have in the USA.

It is predicted that over 50% of children born in the USA currently will end up living in a broken home before they reach adulthood.

It is predicted that if trends do not change that the majority of children born will be born to single mothers.

And as it stands many areas of the USA there are more abortions than live births.

The USA cannot remain economically stable unless as a society respect for moral behavior and core families is increased.

The Traveler

Edited September 19, 2012 by Traveler