The CERTAIN Destruction Of Our Nation
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.


Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in securities or firms mentioned and have no duty to disclose same.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2016-10-15 06:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 5364 references Ignore this thread
The CERTAIN Destruction Of Our Nation *
[Comments enabled]
Category thumbnail

Go back and read this Ticker, and the link in it on the actual budget deficit we ran last year (no, it's not the nice number you see at the top of the MTS.)

The budget deficit was in fact $1.4 trillion -- not the claimed $587 billion (which is bad enough, incidentally.)

Last year the Federal Government spent $1,417 billion dollars out of $3,854 billion, or 37% of every dollar it spent, on Medicare and Medicaid.  This was a 9.3% increase over last year's expenditure of $1,296,731 (million), all-in.

But inside this figure are even-more damning numbers.

Payments to the health care trust funds were up 13.4% (!)

Spending on CHIP, the plan for poor kids, rose last year by an astounding 56%.  While the total spent was only $14.3 billion that rate of rise is utterly astronomical by anyone's measure.

Don't believe for a second that administrative expenses are under control, which is a claim often made for Medicare and Medicaid: They were up 32% last year for the primary hospital insurance trust fund.  No, that's not a misprint.

Hospital benefit payments for Medicare?  Up 8.4% -- the bright spot, believe it or not.

Medicare Part "D" (drugs)?  Sit down: Up 26.2% to a total of $95.2 billion.

Folks, at this rate of change within the next four years Medicare and Medicaid will consume just over $2,000 billion a year, or $2 trillion -- an increase of $600 billion a year in spending.  

Let me remind you that last year taxes (receipts) rose by a paltry 0.55%, and at this rate of increase over the next four years government revenue will absorb only $72.9 billion of that $600 billion in additional spending -- and this assumes that absolutely nothing else in the budget increases in cost at the same time, an utterly fanciful notion.

In other words there will be at least another $500 billion of additional annual deficit, and likely far more than the $600 billion denoted here, bringing the total to more than $2 trillion in actual deficit being run per year.

If this pattern were to continue for 10 years then Medicare and Medicaid would rise to $3,448 billion, or for all intents and purposes all of the $3,854 billion the government spends now!  Worse, increased tax revenue would absorb only $184 billion of that additional cost -- for all intents and purposes ZERO.

For those politicians and others who claim Social Security is going to blow at roughly the same time, no it won't.  Social Security payments (for retirees and disability) rose 3.2% last year while for both retiree and disability tax receipts rose at a 5.2% rate.  Yes, on a cash basis Social Security ran a deficit last year but the rate of increased tax revenue was higher than the rate of spending growth and Social Security has a $2.8 trillion dollar Treasury security cache it can redeem to cover the shortfall.  At present rates Social Security may have issues in the future, but for right now it is stable.


We will not manage to get through the next 10 years at this rate and in fact will not get through the next President's term.  If we do not put a stop to this right now the stock market will collapse and lose up to 90% of its value, all pensions will collapse and at best be able to pay 50% of what was promised (are you a teacher, firefighter or police officer?  Bend over because law or no law you are screwed.)  The bond market will collapse as the spiral of debt will be clear to everyone and nobody will be willing to buy a bond from anyone at any reasonable interest rate, which will instantly destroy the value of all outstanding long-term Treasury debt by as much as 50-70%, government entitlements will collapse (to put that in plain language they will go to zero or effectively so) and real estate values will collapse as demanded interest rates on mortgages will make the 1980s look like a Girl Scout Party.

And by the way it is not possible to tax our way out of this and certainly we cannot do so by "taxing the rich", as is often claimed.  If you confiscated all of the money made by those who make more than $500,000 a year you would not even close the deficit gap for one year.  Of course if you did that the amount of money those who make over $500,000 a year would choose to make next year, and thus be subject to said tax, would be no more than $499,999, and thus you'd get zero in tax from them via this approach in year #2.  Anyone running a "pay your fair share" claim is lying and they know it; again, that's the math.

We must -- and can -- stop this crap with existing law.  Specifically, by applying 15 USC Chapter 1 to all parts of the health care industry.  This will collapse the cost of care for both the government and private parties by as much as 80% and permanently end and reverse the budget problems it is causing -- for the federal government, for state and local pensions, and for private firms and individuals.

I have been writing and speaking on this since I ran MCSNet in the 1990s.  It has been a focus of this column since it was formed in 2007, including in this column written in 2012.  We have willfully and intentionally, as a nation, ignored this issue for the last decade and we are now facing the destruction of our economy, our markets, our government, our society and our way of life if we do not put a stop to the pillaging of our economy and people NOW.

Go to responses (registration required to post)

Comments on The CERTAIN Destruction Of Our Nation
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Redjack 2k posts, incept 2018-01-29
2024-02-04 08:42:21

There is now way out of this.
Tsherry 15k posts, incept 2008-12-09
2024-02-04 11:14:56

Nope. No way out.

IQ plus a promethean mindset matters.-Eleua

1 Thessalonians 4:11 Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that
Tickerguy 202k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2024-02-04 11:15:14

Sure there is.

You just don't like it.

"Perhaps you can keep things together and advance playing DIE games.
Or perhaps the truth is that white men w/IQs >= 115 or so built all of it and without us it will collapse."
Raven 17k posts, incept 2017-06-27
2024-02-04 12:05:15

There are many ways out from most of our problems which people do not like.

"No way out," is an inaction excuse.

All great wrongs begin with a lie.
Tickerguy 202k posts, incept 2007-06-26
2024-02-04 12:05:44

"The way out" is to BLACKBALL anyone -- and their entire family -- who uses such an excuse. Make THEM and their CHILDREN pay for it personally.

"Perhaps you can keep things together and advance playing DIE games.
Or perhaps the truth is that white men w/IQs >= 115 or so built all of it and without us it will collapse."

Raven 17k posts, incept 2017-06-27
2024-02-04 14:00:37

Yep Karl, both of us have discussed this at length here, and sadly I have come to the conclusion that it is not going to happen. Why?

It must start in the home and with those closest to us then go from there.

In essence the problem finds its roots in parenting, and not the harsh disciplinarian kind either. It is that parents, in particular fathers, do not express a notion of a moral order and standards for family comportment and invite, notice not force, their children to be a part of it. Sometimes it is as simple as saying that there are certain activities in which one's children will not participate for even the most innocuous reason which is counter to family values, AND here is the important part, providing an alternative interaction or activity.

A big part of the above is that parents, most notably fathers, have no standards and even when present do not discuss as being non-negotiable when selling themselves for a potential mate. It goes way far back to early life courting and recreational dating, compounded when colleges became the way for young to meet mates and removed people from their communities. The true problem here is that one could not effectively survey from where one's potential mate originated and the status and character of this person's people. Sadly a variety of factors forced people into this situation long before our generations.

It all starts with having a moral sense and the commitment to say, "no," when one wants something or someone very badly.

In another thread here, people were saying that women are the civilizing force on men. I doubt that and took part in many debates many years ago which are too much to rehash here. Think of it this way. Men created the great society concept we have today and risked everything for it because of their own vision of Morals and Values as applied. Men are the ones who endeavor in the vast majority of Moral and Cultural shifts and campaigns. We are the ones who discuss said to a vastly higher participation percentage than women, simply look here. And, when women are interested in said, they overall tend to cite loyalty and inspiration from, you guessed it, men.

Men are the civilizing force on women as an extension of the societies we create for our own reasons, not to please or attract women. When women disappoint us it is merely that we consider them not living up to OUR Moral Standards as created by us or some other man with whom we align.

In closing, this issue is one of men not standing for things and generations back, very much during the Post War era while definitely before, going along to get along in the new "Salesman" age where one wanted to be popular to get the job, the contract, the girl, make the sale and have the fruits of a booming time. Men who stood for things got a lot less and often worse.

The first act of a child's autonomy is saying, "No." We need to start from point zero in male redevelopment.

Men need to start saying, "no," to what they have been expected to tolerate for far too long.

The problem is that many see this as a futile game...and a lonely one.

All great wrongs begin with a lie.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ