It is argued that a lot of debt becomes too much debt for a country when government debt rises above 90% above national gross domestic product.  Two economists, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart argue this in their publication American Economic Review and present us with some interesting facts.

They looked at data which was recorded over the course of 200 years and from 44 countries and concluded that at ratios of debt to GDP up to 90%, there’s not much correlation between government debt and economic growth.

Above 90%, however, median economic growth rates fall by one percentage point and average economic growth rates fall by about four percentage points.  That makes the 90% level a kind of make-or-break point for countries that are hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution to reducing that debt.  Above the 90% level, governments serious about reducing their debt load have to increasingly rely on “solutions” such as reducing wages and depreciating their currencies, which might over time increase global economic competitiveness enough to give a boost to national economic growth. In the short to medium term, these “solutions” inflict real pain on the citizens of the countries since they reduce standards of living.  According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) The United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%. On current trend, the United States will finish 2010 at 94% and 2011 at 98%.The United Kingdom was slightly further away from the cutoff when the International Monetary Fund last updated its numbers in October. At that point, current trends saw the country finishing 2009 at a 69% debt ratio and ending 2011 at 89%. The economic and financial condition of the UK has deteriorated since then, however. The most recent figures show the country finishing 2009 at a debt-to-GDP ratio of 72% and breaking the 90% barrier in 2011.  The two biggest continental economies are in surprisingly similar shape, according to the IMF’s October calculations. France ended 2009 at a 77% debt-to-GDP ratio, according to the International Monetary Fund, and on current trend, will hit an 87% ratio in 2011. Germany ended 2009 at 79% and will end 2011 at 88%.

It is a common dilemma when one must decide if they should stop funding their retirement to focus on paying off debt.  There are very few circumstances where high interest or interest of 9%-12% debt shouldn’t be top priority.  Double digit interest is very difficult to deal with.  If you are dealing with high interest debt, it’s most likely because you haven’t been living within your means.

If we are able to get our interest rate down in to the single digits, we must decide if it is a good time to make retirement a priority or not.  If you decide to fund retirement, you stay in debt longer and pay more interest.

There are a couple other situations where investing may make sense. Consider the following:

First, you only have a specific limit per year that you can contribute to a Roth IRA. (This is currently $5,000 per year — $6,000 per year if you’re 50 or older.) Once you miss the window of availability, you’re out of luck. Your new contributions go toward the current year’s limit. You can’t go back and make up contributions you missed for the past two years once you are out of debt.

Second, if you don’t have the discipline to actually apply any new money to accelerate your progress on debt, then don’t halt your retirement. Decreasing your contributions only to spend the difference at *your vice of choice* may be the single dumbest financial move you can make.

There’s no single answer to this dilemma.

Everyone’s situation is different.  Consider all your options. Don’t continue making a certain decision just because it’s what you’re doing right now.

Start from a blank slate. Could you benefit from a singular focus? Are you willing to make further lifestyle cuts to increase you current contributions?  Examine your options and consider the choices.

When will this madness stop?

Just to recap, let’s look at how much we have already spent in little over one year under a Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

$141 billion in TARP funds (if Barack Obama decides he would like to spend the $200 billion dollars of TARP money that has been leftover—as he has indicated that he would like to do—the actual cost would increase to $341 billion … so much for trying to reduce the national debt)

$30 billion to bailout auto manufacturers

$410 billion for the first omnibus spending bill of 2009

$787 billion for the Obama stimulus (some economists put the potential 10 year cost of this stimulus at $3.27 trillion)

$3 billion for “cash for clunkers” (or $24,000 per car)

And there’s more to come. If Congress passes health care reform, it will likely cost taxpayers at leastanother $849 billion.

The amount of spending going on in Washington is staggering. So much so that it is easy to become numb to another $100 billion here or another $1 trillion there. But we must remember all of this spending will have consequences. Even if all of this spending provides a short term boost to our economy, it will almost certainly have long term consequences that will be disastrous—at least for our children and grandchildren, who will be stuck paying our tab.

With our elected officials in Washington again asleep at the wheel, it is up to the American people to alter the course of the nation before we are all driven off of a cliff. Buckle up for a bumpy ride.

source: http://www.examiner.com/x-28541-Kissimmee-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d13-Runaway-spending-continues-as-Congress-raises-debt-ceiling-to-almost-14-trillion

WASHINGTON – The stress from deepening debt is becoming a major pain in the neck — and the back and the head and the stomach — for millions of Americans.

When people are dealing with mountains of debt, they’re much more likely to report health problems, too, according to an Associated Press-AOL Health poll. And not just little stuff; this means ulcers, severe depression, even heart attacks.

Take Edward Driscoll, 38, of Braintree, Mass. He blames debt — $10,000 worth — for contributing to his ulcers and his wife Kimberly’s panic attacks. “Just worrying, worrying, worrying, you know, where the next payment of this is going to come from,” he says.

Although most people appear to be managing their debts all right, perhaps 10 million to 16 million are “suffering terribly due to their debts, and their health is likely to be negatively impacted,” says Paul J. Lavrakas, a research psychologist and AP consultant who analyzed the results of the survey. Those are people who reported high levels of debt stress and suffered from at least three stress-related illnesses, he says.

That finding is supported by medical research that has linked chronic stress to a wide range of ailments.

And the current tough economic times and rising costs of living seem to be leading to increasing debt stress, 14 percent higher this year than in 2004, according to an index tied to the AP-AOL survey.

Among the people reporting high debt stress in the new poll:

• 27 percent had ulcers or digestive tract problems, compared with 8 percent of those with low levels of debt stress.
• 44 percent had migraines or other headaches, compared with 15 percent.
• 29 percent suffered severe anxiety, compared with 4 percent.
• 23 percent had severe depression, compared with 4 percent.
• 6 percent reported heart attacks, double the rate for those with low debt stress.
• More than half, 51 percent, had muscle tension, including pain in the lower back. That compared with 31 percent of those with low levels of debt stress.

People who reported high stress also were much more likely to have trouble concentrating and sleeping and were more prone to getting upset for no good reason.

When their construction business went under four years ago, Pamela Crouch, 61, and her husband, who had retired from General Motors, found themselves struggling under IOUs totaling $30,000.

“We just kind of felt desperate. We just really didn’t have enough to live on to pay what we had to pay,” recalls Crouch of Eaton, Ind. She remembers having trouble sleeping and concentrating. “We ended up paying a lot of our bills just on the credit card,” says Crouch, a medical assistant in a nursing home. “We were stressed and depressed. … It was really rough.”

Their son, a manager of a construction supply company, recently helped them out with their debt problems. “Things are doing much better,” she says. “It made a world of difference in how we feel.”

‘Fight-or-flight’
It isn’t known for certain whether such stress is causing health problems, says Lavrakas, who while at Ohio State University in the late 1990s helped to develop an index to measure the extent to which people are stressed from financial debts.

Source – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25060719/

Americans have a long, sordid history with borrowed money. In Collateral Damaged: The Marketing of Consumer Debt to America, Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College, takes us through the centuries to explain how we wound up at our most recent — and spectacular — credit bubble. TIME’s Barbara Kiviat spoke with him

Which makes our most recent downturn worse?
Yes, absolutely. We’re out of proportion with our amount of personal debt. A good number of people are in debt to the point where they may not ever be able to pay their way out.

Why didn’t lenders better capitalize on our speculative bent sooner?
Our banking system was never national. In fact, it wasn’t even retail in the 19th or early 20th century. The banks that were capable of doing the most lending to individuals didn’t actually do it. We had to wait until Bank of America, for instance, got into business and a lot of the companies like Household Finance that started making consumer loans for this thing to actually warm up.

So going forward, how do we strike the right balance between the “democratization of credit” and the overextension of debt?
We have to go back to the notion of credit basics. In other words, to buy a house, you can’t borrow more than, let’s say, 2½ times your gross salary. We know the financial institutions are retrenching themselves right now. The question is, Has the consuming public learned anything from this? That’s the more difficult issue.

How do you think the new regulations for credit-card companies will change things?
Well, they’re going to tighten up some of the shoddy practices the credit-card companies have pulled off in the past. They seem to be taking notice of the GAO’s periodic reports about the credit-card companies’ practices — you know, misleading statements, using different font types, billing practices, hidden fees. It’s going to address most of those issues. My problem with it is it still doesn’t address the matter of interest rates. There’s got to be a cap, as far as I’m concerned.

You actually assign a lot of blame for our recent troubles on a lack of interest-rate caps — that is, on the absence of strict usury laws. Why?
Almost every state had usury laws in the 1920s, and they were circumvented one by one. Prohibitions against excessive interest started to disappear [South Dakota, for instance, loosened its laws in 1980], and once they did, the credit-card companies recognized a wonderful opportunity. They could charge as much as the market would bear, claiming that they had to charge more for bad credit risks. You can argue that’s the democratization of credit, but it’s in the interest of credit-card companies to keep people under the yoke. We’ve just swapped loan sharks for legitimate loan sharks.

So maybe there are some people who just shouldn’t have access to credit?
I think everyone should have access to credit in a very strict proportion to their income — not a future projection of their income, which is what we’ve been doing. It’s been, “I’m now making $50,000, but in a few years I’ll be making $150,000, so no big deal, let’s go buy an expensive house now.” This whole business of giving more credit than a person can service is not only foolish, but if you tried to do that 200 or 300 years ago, it would have been considered immoral as well. We don’t think that way anymore, but essentially it is, because that person is going to be in debt forever.

You talk about the need for a financial-products safety commission. What do you think of the proposal the Obama Administration has put out there?
In the outline form we’ve seen so far, it looks like a good idea. But as I say in the book, if the thing is created, it’s going to be barraged by new financial products from up above on Wall Street. They won’t know what hit them. So I think unless there is some sort of regulatory body that is going to play chess with Wall Street, a complimentary body that filters this stuff on the wholesale level before it becomes the consumer stuff, whoever is on that consumer-safety commission is going to get completely swamped.

A lot of your book is about the history of borrowing money. Any favorite episodes?
Well, it’s been a long road. During the Roman Empire, the first anti-usury law — and I think this says it all — was found in the Council of Nicea in the 4th century. It states that no clergyman could practice usury, so you can get a pretty good idea of what was going on then — lending to the flock. The odd part is, the Council of Nicea was also the council that confirmed the concept of the Trinity. Those are probably two of the most unlikely pieces of legislation you could find in the same piece of canon law.

Article from http://www.time.com

Consumers are simply overwhelmed by the financial straits in which many find themselves in and cannot make an informed decision. Many of you have had this experience. Panic begins to set in and you say, “Help I’m in debt. What can I do?” This is when you realize that you owe too much money to too many people and you might not be able to pay it all back. Assuming that you have found the strength to start solving your debt problems, what can be done? In fact, there are many avenues for resolving an uncomfortable financial situation. How you proceed depends on the details.

The Bar associations in almost every state provide some great information to get you started. For example, good attorneys and debt counselors will tell you that, if you are in a serious debt situation, creditors and collection agencies are only able to contact in the early stages. Eventually, the law will force them to stop calling you on the telephone. From that point they will probably be contacting you by mail to let you know they are escalating the situation to include possible legal action.

This means that they may try to recoup some of the losses through either a collection agency arrangement or through a court-mandated settlement. Why is this important information? Because many times, people in debt will make quick emotional decisions that do not solve the problem at hand and which do not protect their own interests. These consumers often feel harassed and hurried by creditors and collection agencies to the point that they just want to end the phone calls and letters altogether, regardless of the consequences to their financial health. In reality though, this may be a good time to take a few deep breaths, talk with family or financial advisers you trust, and start using the tools of the debt system to work for you.

One of these tools that many people have neglected for years is the credit report. If you are in a situation that may require debt consolidation or debt management and counseling, it is imperative you have a full understanding of your credit history. Just knowing the facts contained on your credit report can be a great comfort when creditors and merchants start asking what you intend to do about your debt obligations. Credit reports are issued by credit-reporting agencies that get their information from your creditors. The reports are made available to other creditors, employers and landlords and to you upon request.

According to the California Bar Association, a “credit report includes such information as whether you pay your bills on time, have had a foreclosure, owe money as the result of a lawsuit or were convicted of a crime. Each piece of information stays in the report for a certain number of years. For example, a bankruptcy usually will be listed for 10 years.”

Debt negotiation may be another option. If you shop carefully and work with a company that makes you feel comfortable, a counselor or professional manager may be able to handle your debt stress with a good plan.

Experience has taught many of us that late-fees and back payments can be stopped when you undertake a serious debt settlement plan with a reputable specialist. Then, and only then, can you move forward with your life and get out of debt completely.

The origin of the word budget is the Latin bulga which is a little pouch or knapsack, which may have come from a Gaulish source that’s related to the Irish bolg, “bag”.

The word turned up in English in the fifteenth century, having traveled via the French bougette, a diminutive form of bouge, “leather bag”.

Its first meaning in English was “pouch, wallet, bag”, and followed its French original in usually implying something made of leather.
So the great traveler Thomas Coryate could write in 1611, “A certain peddler, having a budget of small wares”, and Aphra Behn had the character Hellena say in her play The Rover in 1677: “And was it your Man Friend, that had more Darts in his Eyes than Cupid carries in a whole Budget of Arrows?”.

At the end of the sixteenth century, the word could refer to the contents of one’s budget as well as to the container itself. People used this in the figurative sense of a bundle of news, or of a long letter full of news, and the word formed part of the name of several defunct British newspapers, such as the Pall Mall Budget. This was the sense that Washington Irving used in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow in 1820: “From his half itinerant life, also, he was a kind of traveling gazette, carrying the whole budget of local gossip from house to house; so that his appearance was always greeted with satisfaction” and which Thomas Jefferson meant in a letter he wrote in 1785: “I receive by Mr. Short a budget of London papers. They teem with every horror of which human nature is capable”.

The connection with finance did not appear until 1733, as the result of a scurrilous pamphlet entitled The Budget Opened, an attack directed at Sir Robert Walpole: “And how is this to be done? Why by an Alteration only of the present Method of collecting the publick Revenues … The Budget is opened; and our State Emperick hath dispensed his packets by his Zany Couriers through all Parts of the Kingdom” (the anonymous writer is using zany in the sense of the comical assistant of a fairground quack medicine salesman or mountebank, a decidedly unflattering comparison). The allusion was that the government minister responsible for financial affairs opened his budget, or wallet, to reveal his proposals. It probably also echoed the idiom to open one’s budget, “to speak one’s mind”, which was current then and continued to be so down into Victorian times (it turns up in Trollope, for example).
If he survived a few years, the pamphlet writer must have been chagrined to see his intended victims expropriate his satirical term and turn it into political jargon. By the 1760s, it was clearly well established, and has been the standard term ever since. But it was only in the 1880s that it began to be used as a verb in the sense of planning one’s expenditure, and the attributive meaning of “inexpensive; suitable for someone of limited means” is first recorded only in 1958.

There are two other closely-related words in English. One is bulge, which at first had the same meaning of a bag, but soon came to refer to an irregular swelling, lump, or protuberance, not a surprising change if you think of the often irregular shapes of old leather containers. The other is bilge, the lowest part of a ship’s hull. Because foul odors collected there, the word was used figuratively to mean nonsense or rubbish, a bit of British public-school slang current in the early years of this century, especially in the phrase “he talks the most utter bilge”.

So if an honorable member in the House of Commons should lose his cool and refer to the Chancellor’s budget speech as bilge he’s committing an etymological tautology as well as showing how out of touch he is.

Before a new law of reforms becomes effective in February of 2010, Credit card companies are raising interest rates, penalties and fees. As of July, interest rates spiked an average of 20% across the board from December 2008 with some issuers raising the interest rates 30 and even 50 percent. When the Pew Health Group examined credit cards offered by the twelve largest banks, they found :

99.7 percent of bank cards allowed the issuer to raise interest rates on outstanding balances by changing the account agreement unilaterally – up from 93 percent in December 2008.

95 percent of bank cards allowed issuers to apply payments in a manner that the Federal Reserve found likely to cause substantial monetary injury to consumers.

90 percent of bank cards had penalty interest rates that could be triggered by late payments or overlimit transactions. All but 10 percent of these cards had penalty repricing terms that would qualify as “hair trigger” under Federal Reserve guidelines – triggers of one or two late payments in 12 months

99 percent of bank cards included a late fee – median $39.

80 percent of bank cards included an overlimit fee – median $39.

The median bank penalty interest rate was 28.99 percent. Most – 90 percent – penalty rate increases could continue indefinitely even if the cardholder resumes.

The total liabilities of the United States government, including future social security and medicare payments that the U.S. government is already committed to pay out, now exceed 65 trillion dollars, which is more than the entire GDP of the whole world.

According to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government, an official United States government report, the U.S. actually had a budget deficit of 5.1 trillion dollars in 2008.

So why did the Congressional Budget Office report that the federal budget deficit was only 455 billion dollars (which is certainly a total disaster) in 2008?

The difference lies in accounting. The CBO’s figures are based on cash accounting, while the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government is based on GAAP accounting. GAAP accounting is what is used by all the major firms on Wall Street and it is regarded as a much more accurate reflection of financial reality.

So why is there such a big difference?

Well, what the Congressional Budget Office does is some really bad accounting. When you pay social security taxes, the federal government takes that money and instead of putting it away to pay your social security benefits in the future, it takes that money and spends it however it wants.

So what about the future social security and medicare benefits that the government owes you?

There is no money there for those payments.

The government is using that money right now to make the budget look better.

That’s right, you have been conned.

And as bad as the numbers from 2008 look, they do not reflect any significant money from the monstrous financial bailouts that Congress has passed.

So 2009 is going to look MUCH worse.

Pretty picture, eh?

The reality is the the United States of America is a total financial disaster.

Already, 13 banks have already failed in 2009. All of the bailouts certainly don’t seem to be helping much yet.

But that doesn’t mean that the federal government is going to give up trying to help. It seems a new “bailout” or a new “stimulus” is being passed almost weekly now.

Instead of accepting the fact that we must adopt a lower standard of living and deal with the reality of our massive debt, the politicians are trying to crank up the debt spiral one more time.

All of this government spending will help the economy in the short term, but it will make the long term problems of the U.S. government far worse.

Who is going to buy all of this new government debt? China has doubts about who is going to buy all of America’s new debt. The reality is that the only way that the government can “bailout” anyone or pay for any “stimulus” bill is to borrow.

America borrows and borrows and borrows.

If your personal finances were like that, how do you think it would end?

Ah, you are starting to get the picture…..

The “American Dream” is becoming the “American Nightmare” and the politicians don’t have a clue.

What are you going to do when the economy collapses and everything you ever worked for starts coming apart?

It’s time for all of us to start thinking about what is truly important…..

Here’s a statistic that should give us all pause: The average credit card debt of seniors grew by 26% between 2005 and 2008, CreditCards.com reports. For the rest of us, the increase was a comparatively modest 3%.

Also, according to a study released in July 2009 by New York City-based Demos, a public policy group, consumers 65 and older carried $10,235 in average card debt last year. That is a lot.

that’s very troubling now that so many retirees are living on Social Security and no other savings, and face medical expenses despite government-run Medicare. The dreaded “doughnut hole” is just a drop in the bucket compared with the other potential health care-related demands on their money.

Many older folks are stretched thin. That’s true in better times, but now, because retirement savings for lots of people have shrunk, they’re turning to credit.

Medical expenses are a burden. The Demos study says, “Older households, those 65 and over, reported the highest amount of credit card debt due to medical expenses: $3,988.”
They’re victimized. Consider how vulnerable people who didn’t grow up in the computer age are to phishing and other forms of identity theft. Scammers love seniors. And then there’s all the “free” stuff that’s advertised as a way for unscrupulous companies to start billing your credit card.
What to do? Be on the lookout for signs that seniors you know are struggling. Yes, this is difficult. If you don’t have a close relationship that allows discussion of such things, you’re going to have to be very observant.

Are your parents suddenly living beyond their means?
Are their bills piling up on the kitchen table — unopened?
Are they using a credit card to purchase things they used to pay for with cash, like groceries?
How to proceed? If you can have a frank, respectful discussion, do so. If the topic would be unwelcome, enlist help from other family members or friends.