Hi Maurice- to try and answer your question, no, I don't have any exact idea how many anonymous posters there have been, but I do skim through most posts, and it's my definite impression that there really have not all been all that many. You make an excellent point with regard to the acceptance of a wide variety of financial ideas. That's one of the reasons that I find this group to be so attractive- exposure to such a wide variety of perspectives.
With respect to the privacy issue, I agree with you on that also.
Regards- OJ

Reply to @kevindow: Would have put this under Ted's post, but from what I can see, he stopped short of invoking Fund Alarm, though might well agree with the sentiment. I must respectfully disagree. Many, many of the 35% labeled "off topic" at MFO would have passed mustard with RW and been allowed to stand. Guarantee it. Perhaps he'll weigh in. At FA often discussed were: ETFs, market trends, bonds, gold, oil, money managers outside the MF realm, Fed policy, annuities, investment tax implications, retirement planning, and to some extent financial education & media. Heck, you can't make intelligent decisions about funds without the background all that other stuff provides. Not to say David hasn't allowed more latitude. He has and that's his call. But let's not presume all these "OT" posts would have been wiped clean from the FA board - just ain't so.

Hello … Sheeter here …
I have posted some time under the handle Skeeter and used this handle over at fund alarm. I chose it because it was the name of a dearly loved departed family pet.
Moving on … Someone booted one of my post to the front of the message board that was deep down in the stack with some words that were not so kind. They in effect said … They were tired of losing customers and if I wanted to remain vertical and not be put horizontal I needed to watch myself.
For information purposes … I am not a financial advisor, financial planner etc. My profession is that of an administrator. I earned a BA in Economics.
If indeed the person that made the comment is a financial planner … and, he is losing clients because of post that appear on this board … Well, perhaps it is more because of the advice he has rendered and not from the post that appear on the board.
From my perspective, this site is all about helping other fellow investors down the path of investing. I write for my past experience and thoughts I have on various subjects. My comments are not ment to be financial advice for others to follow ... It is about what I am doing that others might find interest in. And, I enjoy being a small part of the board.
Due to the nature of the beast ... I felt a comment from me was both justified and warranted.
Good Investing,
Skeeter

Morn'in hank,
As Mr. Buffet has a very different ability for deals, versus the other 99.3% of investors, including the largest hedge funds and many investment banks, it is difficult to associate what is prudent for an individual investor vs Mr. Buffet.
How many folks got a call from the Fed/Treasury looking for some help in the dark days in the fall of 2008? I recall a recent story by "x" (don't recall the name); but the story was one of those written about how one may invest and prosper like Mr. Buffet. Portions of the story were well positioned as to where and what to invest in; but the fact remains that Bershire will have deals and/or propositons for assistance and/or investments that will never find there way to the common investor.
His viewpoint will not and can be the same.
A few thoughts from this regular person of the investment world:
>>>> It appears the Berkshire holdings are about 1/3 in a mix of bonds. I will assume this is a ready cash holding; to be dumped when something else that is equity related is a better use of the money. This part is not unlike our cash holdings being of the bond type, versus plain cash.
>>>>> The Forbes article notes the word "currency" several times. I have not read the shareholder report; but my outside take on this, is that Mr. B. does see currency risk, as in the continued devaluation of the dollar and/or inflation; the lose of purchasing power which may be best trumped by holding equities. I can not and will not argue against this. This is part of our rational for some of our equity holdings. While our bond holdings are a larger percent of the total, the sectors are very diverse; although still subject to "hits"; not unlike the equity markets.
>>>>> One item I did not find in the Forbes story is Mr. Buffet's remark about missing the correction in the real estate markets. He admits to missing what was taking place. I think he is still missing what is taking place. I name this as a "seperate reality"; of which, all of us have problems in defining, dependent upon who and what we are, as well as our circumstances in life. Our house does not want to lose 10% of our portfolio value, although we are more well positioned than the vast majority of the common folk, of whom we are part of; but someone with a $10 million portfolio would still be able to survive with a 10% loss of net worth. This is part of the disconnect that exists in what is or is not real; in the real world of the citizens of the country. Our house shops and observes with all of the common folk. I listen to their comments at the gas station or the $ stores. I sure as heck wonder how a young or old couple, even if they are fortunate enough to each have a minimum wage job may make ends meet. Their gross income is about $32K/year. The net income after taxes does not go far.
A recent comment from a highly paid sports figure, who seems to nominally be a real down to earth person; noted how surprised he was to find out how much a package of disposal diapers cost for a newborn child. He also noted that this continues on for some time......yup, about 3 years, give or take.
>>>>> I will also note regarding Bershire and its insurance company(s) holdings; and there exposure to the bond world. I will suspect that Mr. Buffet is also concerned with the long term ability of some insurance companies to maintain into the future a payout model that has some basis in the ability to make payouts based upon investments in various bonds. If he is worried about bonds, he is worried about the insurance companies, too. NOTE: I have no clue as to the type or number of insurance companies within Berkshire.
As to bonds and bubbles; well, there are bubbles everywhere, I do believe. I am skeptic of many areas of the equity markets, too. As to equities, I will have to agree with some; that one perhaps should favor the large global companies that will likely survive better in our topsy-turvey world. As I have noted before, bonds are the cash of the world; and in some cases, weak cash. I wrote in Funds Boat sometime last year about Treasury's, at the time; as being "just" the best turd pile at the time. This is still the case. But, there are too many bonds being issued by central banks and others (private equity, too). I find nothing much has changed that caused the melt in 2008; as to risk in any sector. The EuroZone, in my opinion; is still playing with fire with all of the machinations of moving money around in the four pockets of the financial pants being worn. The scary exception is that they have come to the Monopoly board game carrying Monopoly money to add to the game that was not part of the original amount of money that was originally intended to be used based upon the rules of the game. The value of "Park Place" or "Boardwalk" have become perverted and distorted.
Mr. Buffet is not wrong to consider that bonds or at least some bonds are to be considered a "head scratching" investment and to take consideration when buying and/or holding them. However, I think this same thought should be broadly applied to many investment sectors. We are all investing in the full faith and credit mode that nothing bad is going to happen again. Let us hope.
Lastly, I recall; in the fall/winter of 2008 viewing some of the share prices for some very large companies and thinking that the prices were the same and lower than the cost of a value meal at McD's. Some were the same price as were the items on the $ menu at McD's. Sadly, I had very little time to do more than maintain our very conservative portfolio at the time; as my father passed away a few days before the Lehman Bros. melt and I indeed was in a "separate reality" mode for several months after.
Really lastly...........if the overall bond markets take a hit for whatever reason; those who are not paying attention, and who may have had their butts whacked with the equity melt 3 years ago, and now get a bond butt kick besides........well, forget about that segment of investor coming back into the market place; period.
Also, I read the story Sunday night; which Ted has posted this morning with a link. A must read in my opinion........the Arnott post.
Well, I have blabbed enough; and likely without saying much.
ADDED: 11:30am, book; The Fourth Turning....this is the Amazon link also available as Kindle format. A short overview is at this page link, too...scroll down a bit.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0767900464/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=5783380377&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=871014614985566275&hvpone=12.23&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_16xh9g2k89_b
Take care of yourselves up there; and remain safe moving all of the snow.
Catch

Reply to @catch22: Financial Engine provides a comprehensive picture using Monte Carlo simulation. It allows quite a few inputs including social security, retirement pension plan, tax-deferred accounts, properties, taxable accounts, expected return... Similar to what you provide above, it gives you the probability to reaching your goal.
Vanguard used to offer Financial Engine as free tool in retirement planning, but I can't located it right now. I wonder if they have eliminated it for cost saving.

Reply to @Anonymous:
Thanks Anonymous (aka Skeeter),
I agree that present valuations make the equity side of this financial plan much more dicey right now. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Keeping or growing principal while taking a stream of income would be my ultimate goal so thanks for the encouragement towards that end. I appreciate your suggestions and the weekend homework assignment.

Hi Bee, Skeeter here …
I have thought about your post. Drawing form my own holdings here are five funds that I own that might be considered as they seem to meet the distribution yield you seek. In addition, they have a good chance to maintain principal if bought during a pull back even perhaps grow it along with meeting their distribution objective, form my thoughts and my experience thus far. I would not be a buyer of these funds at current market valuations. I would wait for at least a ten percent correction in the market before investing any money in most anything considering the current investment climate. I have recently been a seller of equities; and, I will have to wait till I feel there is better value to be had before I become a buyer again. Usually equities go soft during the summer months. You might wish to reference Morningstar’s Market Valuation Graph that I have linked below and follow it along. I only buy when I feel a good discount prevails. According to this graph, this is not presently the case.
http://www.morningstar.com/market-valuation/market-fair-value-graph.aspx
The first fund is AZNAX, Allianz NACM Income & Growth Fund A, it kicks off a monthly distribution and has a distribution yield of about eight and one half percent annually. Its fact sheet is linked below.
http://www.allianzinvestors.com/ShareholderCommunications/External Documents/allianz_agic_income_and_growth_af106.pdf?sc-pid=A-244
The second fund is PGBAX, Principal Global Diversified Income A, it kicks off a monthly distribution yield that totals about five and one third percent annually. Its fact sheet is linked below.
http://www.principal.com/allweb/docs/RIS/investments/factsheet/PGBAX.pdf
The third fund is IGPAX, ING Target Payment Fund A, it kicks off a monthly planned distribution that totals better than six percent annually. Its fact sheet is linked below.
http://www.ingfunds.com/idc/groups/public/documents/products/fundspace_ffk-gtpf4.pdf
The fourth funds is PASAX, Pimco All Asset Fund A, it kicks off a quarterly distribution that totals better than six percent annually. Its fact sheet is linked below.
http://investments.pimco.com/ShareholderCommunications/External Documents/pimco_all_asset_PF4018.pdf
The fith fund is JCRAX, Jefferies Commodity Strategy Fund A, it kicks off a quarterly distribution yield that totals about eight percent annually. Its fund card is linked below.
https://www.jamfunds.com/pdfs/JCR_FundCard.pdf
I would make sure you perform due diligence on these funds before investing any money; and, even perhaps meet with a financial advisor or planner for their take and ideas that you might also pursue. Perhaps a mix of these might just be the ticket you are looking for.
Good Luck with you mandate … and, Good Investing,
Skeeter

What you are looking is Monte-Carlo simulation to evaluate portfolio survivability.
If you have an account at Fidelity, Fidelity provides a Retirement Income Calculator which does Monte Carlo simulations.
A better alternative is to use Financial Engines. It is available free from a number of Retirement Plans. You can also have a trial access at:
https://www.financialengines.com/FeContent?act=presswelcome

Hey Catch, how is this calculator differs from Financial Engine?
Also where is the input for annual inflation? Not sure if 3% historical value is suitable?

Hey - thanks for the publicity.
I also recommend my blog, which provides unique insights from my analysis of the financial footnote in annual reports.
My latest call is here: http://blog.newconstructs.com/2012/02/28/smoking-out-the-truth-buy-mo/

>>>>>Keep abreast of Euro central bank money outlays this mid-week; previously scheduled for Feb. 29. The below is via the WSJ/Reuters.
MEXICO CITY—Officials from the world's leading economies deferred for months key decisions on international aid for Europe as they awaited more euro-zone action to fight the Continent's debt crisis.
Timothy Geithner, said Europe must continue its crisis efforts.
Finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 advanced and developing economies, after a two-day meeting here, indicated they anticipate an agreement to expand Europe's rescue fund next month.
That move "will provide an essential input in our ongoing consideration to mobilize resources" to the International Monetary Fund, the G-20 officials said in a joint statement Sunday.
The lack of significant progress effectively punts further discussion of new international support until the G-20 ministers' next gathering in April. Officials hoped that could lead to a final, confidence-boosting agreement at a summit of world leaders in June.
G-20 officials acknowledged a long list of potential obstacles ahead. Greece must meet numerous conditions for its latest bailout within weeks. European officials recognized German reluctance to quickly raise the capacity of a euro-zone financial firewall—a rescue fund large enough to reassure markets that other troubled euro-zone economies will be able to manage their debts. The G-20 set that expansion as a condition for increasing IMF resources to support Europe. At the same time, officials noted that surging oil prices, partly due to tensions with Iran, threatened to depress a global recovery already weakened by European turmoil.
G-20 officials encouraged European leaders to move quickly even as improved market conditions relaxed pressure on the euro zone. Over the past two years, European leaders have routinely slowed their efforts once markets improved.
"It would be a mistake to take too much comfort from the cumulative impact" of efforts to date, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said. "Part of the progress we've seen with confidence in markets is based on the expectation, that Europeans have created themselves, that they have more to come."
Euro Crisis: Germany Leaves G-20 Watchers Guessing
European leaders this week plan to discuss combining money left in a temporary bailout fund with a permanent facility launching this summer, to create a combined €750 billion ($1 trillion) fund that could support struggling economies such as Italy and Spain. But Germany's reluctance is likely to push that decision later into March, or further into the spring.
At the same time, the IMF wants to expand its lending capacity by $500 billion to almost $1 trillion by raising money from its member nations. Together, the European and IMF funds could provide $2 trillion in rescue capacity to guard against further global turmoil.
"The global economy is not out of the danger zone," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said. "There are still major economic and financial vulnerabilities."
The European crisis has left the G-20, which serves as a board of directors for the world economy, pushing off other debates about longer-term problems. Officials here touched on other concerns such as currency volatility and imbalances between advanced and developing nations. But worries about growth in the short run make nations reluctant to make longer-term moves.
"There's a vicious circle here where each is waiting for the other to do the right thing," Bank of Canada Gov. Mark Carney said at a conference for the Institute of International Finance, a banking group, alongside the G-20 meeting.
Former Mexican central banker Guillermo Ortiz said Europe's short-term problems had "hijacked" longer-run concerns, and called Europe's bailout of Greece "badly conceived, badly designed and badly implemented."
Euro-zone officials are trying to implement Greece's latest rescue deal in the coming weeks. German lawmakers will debate the controversial plan on Monday, and Greece also must complete other steps, including a debt restructuring with private-sector bondholders.
European Union economics chief Olli Rehn said Greece's deal still faces "implementation risks" due to "lack of political unity and weak administrative capacity." He said the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, would be installing its own officials at Greek ministries to provide technical assistance and monitoring on a permanent basis on the ground in Athens.
At the G20 meeting in Mexico City, Colombian Finance Minister Juan Carlos Echeverry discusses the conditions asked of the European countries for more IMF resources, inflation in Colombia and the risk of further appreciation of the peso.
Talks were continuing with the IMF to share the burden of the Greek bailout. The fund had contributed roughly one-third of Greece's first €110 billion bailout, but it has signaled that its participation will be lower in the second €130 billion rescue. Its contribution was said to be roughly 10%, or €13 billion, with the matter expected to be discussed March 13 by the Fund's executive board.
Ms. Lagarde said Tuesday the IMF wouldn't decide the amount of its financing for Greece until the second week of March, after euro-zone leaders discuss whether to strengthen their emergency rescue funds—an effort seen as the IMF trying to pressure Europe to build a bigger firewall.
Nations outside the euro zone are holding back firm commitments to the IMF until Europe expands its firewall.
Officials said the amounts "being circulated" at the meeting are that China would contribute around $100 billion, and Japan would contribute around $50 billion. Chinese and Japanese officials and a spokesman for the IMF declined to comment.

Andrew Lo is a respected Professor of Finance at MIT and the Founder and Chief Scientific Officer at the AlphaSimplex Group. I just watched his interview on this week's WealthTrack (2/24/2012). Unfortunately, his academic expertise has not translated in to real world financial expertise at his Natixis ASG Funds: DSFYX (8/3/2009 inception, $419M AUM, 1.45% ER), GAFYX (9/30/2008 inception, $1.5B AUM, 1.35% ER), AGMYX (10/21/2011 inception, $26M AUM, 1.45% ER), and ASFYX (7/30/2010 inception, $805M AUM, 1.45% ER). All of these funds have had truly underwhelming performances since inception. These funds may outperform going forward, but I will want to see more impressive track records before I will buy.
Kevin

"Mary Schapiro may not know it, but her money-market crusade asks one of the financial market’s great questions."
She absolutely does "know it", and this question absolutely does need to be asked and answered. This article is right on.
It's all well and good to say something like "if investors want safety, they should use a FDIC insured bank account", but this completely ignores the problem of moving assets in and out of tax-sheltered mutual funds. If, because of unacceptable levels of market turmoil, someone wants to move assets from an equity fund or a bond fund into relatively stable cash, where is that money supposed to go?
If we can't move mutual fund assets to a "safe-haven", then the entire concept of mutual funds comes under extreme stress.
I agree with Ms Shapiro, with respect to taxpayer exposure. Perhaps mutual funds need to realize that the MM funds cannot be looked at in isolation, but as an essential component of their entire fund operation, and spread the MM fund safety/insurance costs across the entire fund industry.
If some withdrawal restrictions during periods of market turmoil are required as proposed, it seems to me that's a reasonable price to pay for safety. I need to know that the MM funds are relatively safe, even if I can't get at the entire balance on a moment's notice. Something's got to give here. It's called "compromise", and I do understand that that's become a very dirty word in some quarters.
For those investors who prefer total mobility to safety, perhaps mutual fund families could offer both: a "safe" version, with lower return and some withdrawal restrictions, and a "take your chances" version, with higher return, no restrictions, and absolutely no attempt to support the "sacred $1.00" share value. "You can withdraw 100% of your account at any time you want, but be advised that 100% of your account may be only 95% of what you deposited there!"

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1370177/000137017712000004/rnf497.htm
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund
(Class I Ticker Symbol: RNSIX)
(Class R Ticker Symbol: RNDLX)
SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUSES DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Effective after March 30, 2012, the RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund (the "Fund") is closed to new investors. Unless you fit into one of the investor categories described below, you may not invest in the Fund.
You may purchase Fund shares through your existing Fund account and reinvest dividends and capital gains in the Fund if you are:
·
A current Fund shareholder as of March 30, 2012;
·
An investor who has previously entered into a letter of intent with the Fund or RiverNorth Capital Management, LLC prior to March 30, 2012;
·
A participant in a qualified defined contribution retirement plan that offers the Fund as an investment option as of March 30, 2012;
·
A wrap fee program or financial advisory firm charging asset-based fees with existing accounts as of March 30, 2012 purchasing shares on behalf of new and existing clients; or
·
A client who maintains a managed account with RiverNorth Capital Management, LLC
Except as otherwise noted, these restrictions apply to investments made directly with the RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund through its Transfer Agent and investments made through financial institutions and/or intermediaries. Once an account is closed, additional investments will not be accepted unless you are one of the investors listed above. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to purchase shares of the Fund before an investment is accepted. Management reserves the right to (i) make additional exceptions that, in its judgment, do not adversely affect its ability to manage the Fund, (ii) reject any investment or refuse any exception, including those detailed above, that it believes will adversely affect its ability to manage the Fund, and (iii) close and re-open the Fund to new or existing shareholders at any time.
In addition, it should be noted on page 8 of the current prospectus, that because of different class level expenses, the returns for the Class R shares are lower than the returns of the Class I shares which is shown in the prospectus.
Dated: February 23, 2012
RIVERNORTH FUNDS
c/o ALPS Fund Services, Inc.
1290 Broadway, Suite 1100
1-888-848-7569
Please retain this supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.

Reply to @hank: ". What have the "ultra affluent" got to fear?
"
As for the ultra-affluent, this did get some discussion a while ago:
http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html
From the above link - "Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth."
-------------------------
As for the political nature of this thread, I'm not going to even get into it.

Howdy Anonymous OD,
I must state that I appreciate the discussion. We may or may not agree on some points; but I am always open to learning, too.
Note: >>>>> = my reply
First of all if you read Rodriguez's speech, you would know that the specific "entitlements" he and I are referring to are Social Security and Medicare. He states as much. Second, I would be willing to bet a decent sum that you or someone in your family or some of your friends or their families have received such entitlement benefits as Social Security and Medicare in the past or are receiving them today. Are they a waste of taxpayer dollars? I don't think so. They keep elderly people alive. And yet they account for a huge portion of government spending.
>>>>> Yes, I know of numerous folks who have or are using SS or Medicare. And I agree that these monies do indeed generate many other jobs and the monies do flow back into the economy. I will be in the Medicare camp this year; and if I play the investment cards properly, won't be using SS until age 70.
So how can your thesis that government spending is all wasteful and inefficient be true? As for economic stimulus goes, you say if more tax dollars are collected the government will just waste it and that it will stymie economic growth.
>>>>>I believe I stated along the lines of there being too much government spending that has been and is wasteful and very inefficient. I stated that there are items better suited to some government levels. Quick examples would be EMS, police, fire and related.
Since you are on this board, I will presume you have heard of the economic term called "the multiplier effect." Anyone familiar with the multiplier effect knows that this neocon canard that "the government can't create jobs" and "can't stimulate economic growth" is bogus. If the government collects taxes to pay for programs such as Medicare and Social Security well those Medicare and Social Security dollars are injected back into the economy and are economically stimulative. Elderly people collect their Social Security checks and buy groceries, etc. and that stimulates the economy. In fact, if the government takes tax dollars and uses it to build a road that is far better than say just allowing some wealthy person to keep his assets via a lower tax rate because building the road is definitely investing money in America.
Fully agree with projects such as upgrading the existing interstate highway system. I was a young boy when I-75 came in place in Michigan and I watched the big D-8 cats flatten a wonderful wild strawberry patch....another story. On the other hand, does the state of Florida need a high speed rail system between the cities of Tampa and Orlando? I don't think this is wise spending of monies.
Meanwhile, a wealthy person who keeps his assets might just use that money to buy a foreign made Mercedes or buy a villa in Italy or abscond with the money to the Cayman Islands. There's no guarantee that the money will be circulated back in the U.S. economy.
>>>>>I won't disagree with this. 'Course they may also buy a "beemer" made in the Carolina's. But, yes; there has been and continues to be the funny and cute little things that the ultra wealthy do; that are beyond our abilities.
As for waste and inefficiency, you seem so eager to point to waste in the public government sector, but make no mention of waste in the private sector. If you think the government is such a big destroyer of capital, what do you think of Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, Countrywide, etc. Need I go on?
>>>>>I've worked for very small and very large public and private businesses over my years. The ones that are operated in an efficient manner are far and few. Sadly, with one organization of which I have long employment; the last president of the company who really cared, and really knew and wanted to know what was going on in the company beyond his office door, was in 1990. He would travel to all states and have meetings with the regular folks. That is all gone now, of course. It is a wonder some companies make a decent profit.
In fact, most would argue that we wouldn't be in this current economic mess were not for the misdeeds of certain elements in the private banking sector.
Won't disagree with this. Should already be many more prosecutions for misdeeds.
But finally and most important, none of what you're saying actually addresses my initial point--that analyzing the U.S.'s financial condition based on a debt to GDP ratio is shoddy incomplete financial analysis, that it's like looking at a companies revenue and total debt without considering the company's assets, interest payments as opposed to total debt or the maturities and nature of the debt. Nor does analyze the company's abilities to increase revenues to pay down the debt--in this case the ability to raise taxes on ample assets. If an analyst at FPA working for Rodriguez gave such a shoddy incomplete analysis of an individual company's financial condition, he would be raked over the coals. But because such an analysis serves Rodriguez's political and rhetorical ends, it is acceptable to him it seems. Why not really look at the debt as deeply as he does for companies?
>>>>> I did not address this area with your original write. I was most short of time earlier today. As I am not formally schooled in economics, I can not provide a likely, proper answer for the debt/GDP view. I would expect, however; than any number of skilled economists may have varied opinions about this topic. As to the measurement, I will suspect that for some economists, is the ability of a growing GDP to have the ability to continue to pay the debt the may be expanding faster than the GDP. This would apply in this case, as to the interest due now and growing. Greece would be a primary example of the likely inability of the country to have anythling more than an orderly default; as one may have a difficult task of finding their GDP growing at a rate to pay only the interest upon the debt.
As to the taxes upon estates and related in your original note; I find no faith or will in the current federal government actions to become efficient. Per the current "debt-clock", the debt burden per person is about $140K. I don't find how higher taxes will relieve any fiscal situations; other than the transfer of wealth via taxes to remove the discretionary spending of the citizen. I will note that current tax laws are out of whack, in my opinion; and favorable tax policies do exist that cause some serious misalignments.
Am ultimate tax package could set a 10% tax on all wages, capital gains/dividends and related; no hidden accounts.... blah, blah, blah. The tax would be adjusted for inflation via the CPI or 1.5% annually, which ever is lower. Eventually, the tax rate would rise to such a high level, that spending would stop; deflation would take place and all would be happy. Federal and state spending could not rise above 10% from a preset earlier level; without legislative language for a fix and reduction. If this could not be performed, the matter would have to be voted upon with a general, national election upon the matter.
Well, that is my "tongue in cheek" view of the tax jungle.
Take care,
Catch

Follow the money...First, thank you Kenster1 for the link. It's not my intent to disparage Mr. Rodriguez or his financial prowess, knowing his investment credentials to be solid. Did, however, wonder why I'd never received a solicitation from IPI. Guessing most of us probably haven't:
"In 2011 IPI was acquired by Campden Media, which serves ultra-affluent business-owning and fnancial families worldwide."
https://www.memberlink.net/about-ipi
... Rodriguez starts off slow and subtle - like a walk through the park. Along the way, however, come the inevitable comparisons to Europe and Japan - followed by admonitions we better cut Social Security, Medicare and other social welfare programs lest we wind up just like them rascals. Nothin about how he'd help the near third of families living in or close to poverty, the disappearing middle-class, seniors whose pensions been gutted, or kids that can't afford college. Or, for that matter, the outrageous disparity of wealth - where half resides in the hands of the upper 2 or 3%.
By way of perspective: (1) Parallels to Japan and Europe are easy to make rhetorically, but an awful big leap in terms of culture, resources, history, institutions and other. Having lived through the 70s and 80s, recall similar rhetoric (invariably from the party out of power) that we weren't doing enough to emulate Japan - and would surely be left behind in their dust. (2) If he wants to insist on those dire projections, then, speaking to a group of affluent investors, why not focus on how to protect and grow their already enormous wealth? Which assets or companies will do well under the future he envisions? Knowing the proclivity of politicians to bite the bullet tough on fiscal matters, I'd guess he's already stashed his $$ in them safe havens - whatever he identifies them to be. (3) His "slash and burn" rhetoric may have received a generous ovation. What have the "ultra affluent" got to fear? For Aunt Millie struggling to subside in retirement or the neighbor without work, it's likely a whole different ball game.
The board ain't for politics and social change. But when a money manager invokes it under the guise of investing, than fair enough. Now, budgets consist of income and outflow. Did he mention any reductions in defense spending? If so, I missed it. He talks of a more equitable tax system, but that's pretty vague. How about the Buffet proposal wherein millionaires would have to pay at least 30% in taxes each year? My social security's currently taxed at around 20%. But a big name millionaire running for President paid 16% last year. Didn't hear Rodriguez mention that. My budget's in balance. Yours probably is. Truth is this country's budget's rarely been balanced since at least Hoover's time.* We done pretty well from 1940s to 2008 - and that included a world war, a space race, and several smaller wars. You'll find a fair number of economists who don't think it should be balanced. I don't know, just saying beware solutions put forth in forums devoted to the super rich.
*Recent Presidents who submitted balanced budgets:
Eisenhower 3
Nixon 1
Clinton 1

Catch,
First of all if you read Rodriguez's speech, you would know that the specific "entitlements" he and I are referring to are Social Security and Medicare. He states as much. Second, I would be willing to bet a decent sum that you or someone in your family or some of your friends or their families have received such entitlement benefits as Social Security and Medicare in the past or are receiving them today. Are they a waste of taxpayer dollars? I don't think so. They keep elderly people alive. And yet they account for a huge portion of government spending. So how can your thesis that government spending is all wasteful and inefficient be true? As for economic stimulus goes, you say if more tax dollars are collected the government will just waste it and that it will stymie economic growth. Since you are on this board, I will presume you have heard of the economic term called "the multiplier effect." Anyone familiar with the multiplier effect knows that this neocon canard that "the government can't create jobs" and "can't stimulate economic growth" is bogus. If the government collects taxes to pay for programs such as Medicare and Social Security well those Medicare and Social Security dollars are injected back into the economy and are economically stimulative. Elderly people collect their Social Security checks and buy groceries, etc. and that stimulates the economy. In fact, if the government takes tax dollars and uses it to build a road that is far better than say just allowing some wealthy person to keep his assets via a lower tax rate because building the road is definitely investing money in America. Meanwhile, a wealthy person who keeps his assets might just use that money to buy a foreign made Mercedes or buy a villa in Italy or abscond with the money to the Cayman Islands. There's no guarantee that the money will be circulated back in the U.S. economy. As for waste and inefficiency, you seem so eager to point to waste in the public government sector, but make no mention of waste in the private sector. If you think the government is such a big destroyer of capital, what do you think of Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, Countrywide, etc. Need I go on? In fact, most would argue that we wouldn't be in this current economic mess were not for the misdeeds of certain elements in the private banking sector. But finally and most important, none of what you're saying actually addresses my initial point--that analyzing the U.S.'s financial condition based on a debt to GDP ratio is shoddy incomplete financial analysis, that it's like looking at a companies revenue and total debt without considering the company's assets, interest payments as opposed to total debt or the maturities and nature of the debt. Nor does analyze the company's abilities to increase revenues to pay down the debt--in this case the ability to raise taxes on ample assets. If an analyst at FPA working for Rodriguez gave such a shoddy incomplete analysis of an individual company's financial condition, he would be raked over the coals. But because such an analysis serves Rodriguez's political and rhetorical ends, it is acceptable to him it seems. Why not really look at the debt as deeply as he does for companies?

Again, a very good read.
More excerpts from the OP speech:
***
The final member of this trio of fiscal misfits is our own United States. Exhibit 5 below shows that U.S. total debt to GDP is nearly 350%, and this is before taking into account off balance sheet entitlement liabilities and guarantees that would bring it to more than 500%.
{...}
I have been highly critical of our nation's fiscal policies and budgetary trends for years. Both political parties disgust me because of their incredible fiscal ineptitude and unwillingness to be truthful with the American people. A chaotic future will be the result if our representatives continue to fail at their fiscal restructuring responsibilities. It is easy for me to speak of Europe and Japan in cold clinical terms, but not the U.S.; this is home and our nation's fiscal mess is like a life threatening cancer that is not being treated.
{...}
I believe 2013 is the most crucial year, of the past 80 years, for fiscal budgetary reform and the potential of new health entitlements makes a grand bargain more difficult to attain. Success or failure in this process will determine this nation's economic stability in the next decade.
{...}
Finally, tax reform is desperately needed. The following exhibit demonstrates, in a quantitative fashion, how the U.S. tax code has grown and become totally bazaar at nearly 72,000 pages and has nearly tripled since 1984.
{...}
If credible and material fiscal reforms are not implemented by the end of 2013, I fear that, between 2014 and 2016, this nation will confront a crisis similar to that of Europe. Time is running out because, starting in 2018 and continuing through 2024, various entitlement trust funds will be either depleted or beginning the process of liquidation. Budgetary financial pressures will explode.
{...}
Every additional year wasted beyond 2013 will increase the size and scope of the necessary fiscal response; furthermore, negative capital market reactions are more likely. Congress and the president should not become complacent, given today's low Treasury yields. Without reform, this is only a temporary calm before a much larger storm.
{...}
My bond market view is worse. Exhibit 8 on the next page demonstrates how much risk, and little return, there is if interest rates rise by 100 basis points in one year for the Barclays Aggregate Index.
{...}
Without a material improvement in the fiscal outlook, these low rates should prove to be unsustainable. Remember the suddenness and magnitude of the interest rate rise for Italian and Spanish ten-year sovereign bond yields this past year. Over the next decade, I expect low single-digit to negative total returns for intermediate and long-term bonds.
{...}
In stocks, we are cautious -- defensive but opportunistic.

Why do doomsayers like Rodriguez always focus on debt to GDP as a primary ratio to measure financial strength or weakness? That's like looking at a company's revenue and it's total debt and assuming that the principal has to be paid back tomorrow instead of just interest. It also ignores the company's assets on the balance sheet in favor of just cash flow. It seems like a facile analysis. Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze the ratio of GDP to interest payments on the debt to see if revenue is covering interest? And then look at the total assets of the nation relative to the total debt. A debt to GDP analysis ignores the fact that while the liability side of America's balance sheet has grown enormous so have its assets. There is immense wealth in America--well over $60 trillion--part of which could be used to pay down that debt gradually over time if capital gains, income and estate taxes weren't close to as low as they ever have been in the last 70 years. Rodriguez completely ignores this fact to attack entitlements and say they must be cut to save the nation. He never even mentions that maybe taxes should go up.