Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 16 2019, @09:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-joke-son dept.

Denmark Offers to Buy U.S.

COPENHAGEN (The Borowitz Report)—After rebuffing Donald J. Trump's hypothetical proposal to purchase Greenland, the government of Denmark has announced that it would be interested in buying the United States instead.

"As we have stated, Greenland is not for sale," a spokesperson for the Danish government said on Friday. "We have noted, however, that during the Trump regime, pretty much everything in the United States, including its government, has most definitely been for sale."

"Denmark would be interested in purchasing the United States in its entirety, with the exception of its government," the spokesperson added.

A key provision of the purchase offer, the spokesperson said, would be the relocation of Donald Trump to another country "to be determined," with Russia and North Korea cited as possible destinations.

If Denmark's bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. "We believe that by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a vast land mass into a great nation," the spokesperson said.

Attention Denmark: at least our politicians are for sale, regardless of party affiliation, to purchasers both foreign and domestic.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @10:52PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @10:52PM (#881332)

    The size of the debt isn't that big, we could pay it off, the problem is that it's mostly the result of irresponsible spending on tax breaks for the rich and defense. The US GDP is something like 20tn as of last year. The US debt is roughly 22tn right now.

    Families commonly go 6 to 7x their annual income in debt to buy a house. The US isn't anywhere near that leveraged at the present.

    In practice, we wouldn't want to pay it all off as there would be negative consequences, but we could pay it off within 10 years if we wanted to. And probably quicker if we really wanted to.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @11:14PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @11:14PM (#881338)

    Sure... meanwhile governments are being forced to sell off their assets, etc and it is still never enough to even prevent growth of the debt. The US is very near undeniable ponzi territory where all new debt is used to pay interest on the old debt.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @10:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @10:46PM (#881584)

      incorrect. New debt is used to reduce taxes on the highest earners. The old debt keeps increasing.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @01:29AM (8 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 17 2019, @01:29AM (#881382) Journal

    is that it's mostly the result of irresponsible spending on tax breaks for the rich and defense.

    And entitlements. 40% roughly of US spending is on that as opposed to about 20% for military spending.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 17 2019, @04:23AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 17 2019, @04:23AM (#881432) Journal
      Actually more like 50-60%. I forgot that Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare were about 40% by themselves.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by barbara hudson on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:35PM (1 child)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:35PM (#881540) Journal
        People paid into social security, and the government borrowed from the fund and now don't want to acknowledge the debt. It's not an entitlement if you paid for it.
        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @12:30PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 18 2019, @12:30PM (#881719) Journal

          People paid into social security

          People paid into all kinds of things. For example, people are currently paying so that Chinese military can threaten Hong Kong and perhaps massacre some of the same people who are paying for "social stability" in the near future.

          and the government borrowed from the fund and now don't want to acknowledge the debt

          Meaning it wasn't a fund in the first place. Just look at the dynamics of the past 80 years. Part of the money is spent on payouts. The rest is dumped into the general fund of the US government and vanishes - no questions asked. It's always been a pay-as-you-go program. Now, that revenue is less than payouts, we're starting to see a huge sucking on that general fund.

          It's not an entitlement if you paid for it.

          Let us note that present day beneficiaries are getting out more than they put in. The program won't stabilize without a large cut in benefits - which you didn't pay for. And every entitlement is paid by someone whether it's a good idea or not.

          Finally, let's remember who made those promises. Voters did. Government is not some neutral party, it's us. Now, you expect young generations to pay for your promises to yourself? You're not going to be around for them to honor those extravagant promises, so why should they be around for you?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @10:48PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @10:48PM (#881586)

        One day they will start calling your 401k an "entitlement" and take it away to pay for tax cuts. Then you'll get it.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:05AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:05AM (#881620) Journal

          One day they will start calling your 401k an "entitlement" and take it away to pay for tax cuts.

          More likely to pay for Social Security and other out of control entitlements.

          You're not going to find tax cuts that amount to 50% (and growing!) share of federal spending.

    • (Score: 2) by drussell on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:39PM

      by drussell (2678) on Saturday August 17 2019, @03:39PM (#881541) Journal

      Yes, that money is spent to actually run those programs, but it is also primarily paid for directly by the collection of premiums to those "insurance" programs as payroll withholdings.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @11:07PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 17 2019, @11:07PM (#881590)

      "entitlements"

      Get fucked, the vast majority of welfare recipients are NOT fraudulent.

      If you don't understand why social services are important for the poor and disadvantaged then you should really go get a degree in world history. Or you can just look at all the 1st world countries that spend less and have better outcomes, that should be a nice clue bat to reboot your head.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:30AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 18 2019, @01:30AM (#881625) Journal

        If you don't understand why social services are important for the poor and disadvantaged

        I also get why curbing those services is essential to a functioning society.

        Or you can just look at all the 1st world countries that spend less and have better outcomes

        Well, perhaps we ought to look into that rather than pointlessly accuse me of nonsense when you just made a very important point for my argument? Yes, there are countries (and for that matter, US states) that manage to do much more with less. People seem strangely incurious about that other than to mention it in passing as some sort of imaginary rebuttal.