National Debt May Be Paid Off . . . In 400 Million Years

Yeah. The economy is great. Tell me more.

Thanks to Simon Black at Sovereign Man for suggesting we start measuring the national debt in what he calls “work years.” As the name suggests, work years means how many years it would take to pay off the debt if every American man, woman, and child worked a job paying the average salary and the government took 100% of everyone’s earnings and used it to pay down the national debt.

According to Mr. Black, it would take more than 398 million years to pay off the current national debt! Excerpts from the article below, you can (and should!) read the whole article here:

So let’s see—the Social Security Administration just released data for the average yearly salary in the US in fiscal year that just ended. It stands at $44,888.16.

The current debt level of over $17.9 trillion would thus take more than 398 million years of working at the average wage to pay off.

This means that even if every man, woman and child in the United States would work for one year just to help pay off the debt the government has piled on in their name, it still wouldn’t be enough.

Mind you that this means contributing everything you earn, without taking anything for your basic needs—which equates to slavery.

Now, rather than saying that the national debt is reaching $18 trillion, which means nothing to most people, you could say that the debt would currently take almost 400 million work-years to pay off. Wow.

When accounting for unfunded liabilities, the work-years necessary to pay off the debt amount to astonishing 2.38 BILLION work-years…

And the years of slavery required are only growing.

As an amount alone the debt is meaningless, but in terms of your future enslavement it can be better understood.

To put this in perspective even further—what was the situation like previously?

At the end of the year 2000, the national debt was at $5.7 trillion, while the average yearly income was $32,154. That’s 177 million work-years.

Again—wow.

So just from the turn of the century, we’ve seen the time it would take to pay off the national debt more than double. That means that more than twice as many future generations have been indebted to the system in just 14 years.

Of course, a growing national debt means higher unemployment and lower wages, which means a lower average wage. So the work years is going to expand unless Congress gets serious about cutting spending. A good place to start might be to stop spending our money giving rabbits Swedish massages and putting lions, monkeys, rats, and cows on treadmills.

Ozombies don't like to hear about this "little pyramid scheme" ...

None of us will have to worry about it, and if the repub's get in there will be more wars to pay for.

None of us will have to worry about it, and if the repub's get in there will be more wars to pay for. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Fuck, just keep printing the shit

None of us will have to worry about it, and if the repub's get in there will be more wars to pay for. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

How does the debt work?
do people/companies do work for the USA and then they send us a bill, and we just toss the pill in the TO PAY LATER pile?

so why would anyone do work for the USA if we don't pay anyone?

If I tried to build up any kind of debt, I'd never get a loan or credit again, so I could just print money, well, then why arent I gonna use this money to pay off the bills I owe?

Maybe having a debt is a good thing?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/...ernment-report

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...ew_on_debt.pdf

Having debt is a good thing, he says. *sigh*

You have no clue, do you?

Having debt is a good thing, he says. *sigh*

You have no clue, do you? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

are you talking to me?

I can't tell due to your passive post. I did ask if a debt was good, to get some insights into it because, like I said,, how does this work?

*face palm*
dementia sucks,eh?

Having debt is a good thing, he says. *sigh*

You have no clue, do you? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was good enough for Bush it should be good enough for us dull knife. Obie agreed then did his part.

Good thing we have those peace loving, fiscally sound liberal democrats in office once in a while. You know like Woodrow Wilson (World War I), Franklin Roosevelt (World War II), Harry Truman (Korea), John F. Kennedy (Vietnam), Jimmy Carter (Afghanistan and the Muslim War on Terror), Bill Clinton (Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan), and Barack Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria). They would never let a war happen on their watch. More later...

Good thing we have those peace loving, fiscally sound liberal democrats in office once in a while. You know like Woodrow Wilson (World War I), Franklin Roosevelt (World War II), Harry Truman (Korea), John F. Kennedy & LBJ (Vietnam) ... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

+1

It would be wrong to say those presidents "led" the U.S. into war since they actually tripped-over backwards into war: just like Odumbo has been doing in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Chad, Nigeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.. Pretending, as Odumbo and too many dim-retards do, that the U.S. can exist in the world without playing an active role in shaping its geopolitics is stupidly naive.

"None so blind as those [in this case: dim-retards] that will not see," Matthew Henry.

Good thing we have those peace loving, fiscally sound liberal democrats in office once in a while. You know like Woodrow Wilson (World War I), Franklin Roosevelt (World War II), Harry Truman (Korea), John F. Kennedy (Vietnam), Jimmy Carter (Afghanistan and the Muslim War on Terror), Bill Clinton (Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan), and Barack Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria). They would never let a war happen on their watch. More later... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are the most myopic SOB on the board.

+1

that the U.S. can exist in the world without playing an active role in shaping its geopolitics is stupidly naive.

"None so blind as those [in this case: dim-retards] that will not see," Matthew Henry.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bush was right to go to Ag. He was wrong to go to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Spending 2 trillion and having 4 thousands soldiers die to find corroded weapons from the 1980's that did not work, was the wrong move. In case you forgot, the republicans were all in for the surge to Ag that Obama wanted.

Bush was right to go to Ag. He was wrong to go to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Spending 2 trillion and having 4 thousands soldiers die to find corroded weapons from the 1980's that did not work, was the wrong move. In case you forgot, the republicans were all in for the surge to Ag that Obama wanted. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Once again, flighty, you are myopically focused on only one aspect of why Bush43 increased the tempo of military operations in Iraq: WMD. Hence, you disingenuously deflect from and ignore the fact that the U.S. was already at war with Saddam's regime, flighty, and you disingenuously deflect from and ignore how Saddam had violated the terms of that war's armistice -- the cease fire -- multiple times. Thus, you disingenuously deflect from and ignore how Bush43's justification for increasing the tempo of hostile military action in Iraq was exactly the same as Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for launching Operation Desert Fox, flighty.

you disingenuously deflect from and ignore how Bush43's justification for increasing the tempo of hostile military action in Iraq was exactly the same as Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator's justification for launching Operation Desert Fox, flighty.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Bush43's justification for Invading Iraq was that Saddam had new WMD's capable of MASS DESTRUCTION. That was the sales pitch to the American people. Why did he have Colin Powell do a Powerpoint presentation before the United Nations stating there were warehouses full of them? JD provided that link from the New York times, that proves all they found were Corroded Weapons from the 1980's that did not work. FYI, The New York times was for Mitt in the last presidential election. One more time, Bush WASTED tax payer money and needlessly had 4 thousand soldiers make the ultimate sacrifice. If you are going to go to battle, do it for the right reasons. Why do you think Bush left office with an approval rating of 20 percent?

It was good enough for Bush it should be good enough for us dull knife. Obie agreed then did his part. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Good enough for us? Spoken like a true "independent" - who always sides with the left.

Who said it was ok for Bush? A number of Presidents and their Congress have contributed to this forthcoming disaster. It's not for anyone, especially us! Some debt is fine, as long as you can pay it off in a reasonable length of time. 400 work years is well beyond reasonable. It's insane.

We are facing a disaster of biblical proportions. Placing blame helps no one. There is blame enough to go around. It needs to be fixed. NOW!