Notty, a debt is a good thing because it spreads expeditureas out over time but at a the continued rate of growth it becomes a negative. We are not there yet.
Notty, a debt is a good thing because it spreads expeditureas out over time but at a the continued rate of growth it becomes a negative. We are not there yet.
It's not silly and here's why: Romney is from the same party as Bush. A lot of the people in Congress that he will be working with are the same that were there when Bush was there, and many of those who are different have the same mindset. And he would still have to battle the Democrats in the Senate to get anything done, and he would still have to work within the same framework of rules to get things done. Republicans were so critical about "that hopey-changy thing" after '08. Well, voting Romney in and hoping he's going to change the way it's always been done in the past is no different.Originally Posted by Marcala12
maybe people don't think you're worth the time. 20 trillion in debt and you don't see the harm???? you do understand that we have to pay that s**t back right? you do understand that we have to pay interest on that debt and that interest rates will eventually go up? you do understand that at some point China will stop lending to us right? You do understand that when we have to print money to pay off debt we fry the dollar right?. Do you think it will be fun to pyay $20 for a box of cereal or $250 at the pump? This type of massive and uncontrollable debt causes massive inflation to cost of living while actual pay wages stay the same.
You only have all of history to see what happens when a person, company, or country spends money they don't have endlessly until it hits the fan. There's a reason why 100's in other countries currencies are worth dollars in ours; they fried their currency. That is what we're doing now. You're a fan boy of a president who accumulated as much debt in 4 years as Bush did in 8 and you accuse Bush of being the worst president in history. Then you say well Obama inherited those deficits; he had every opportunity to cut them, but he didn't and he added to them.
noto nobody gives you explanations to things because you're here on a very liberal board and you're a HUGE OBAMA FAN who won't admit any of his short comings. There are some liberals on this board who have a favorable opinion of Obama but would never go as far as calling him a great president as you have. You lose all credibility there. Again you're not a supporter, you're a fan boy.
The debt will eventually cripple our dollar's spending power; you're insane not to understand that
I think the debt level becomes a huge problem when china or any other creditor starts to say we have reached our credit limit and refuses to lend us any more. Whether its 20 trillion or 30. When it hits we will either cut. To the bone or print cash...
Either way we will have riots like Greece..
Question for you?. Is there a debt amount that you would consider a problem? 50 or 100 trillion too much?
Remember big brother is always watching....
...
no it really is silly; in 08' OBama said it was unAmerican of Bush to let the debt swell as much as it did under his watch. then he came in and didn't cut squat and the debt exploded at a much faster rate than ever before. Romney insists all along that he'll cut spending in his campaign and hand picks a VP who is chiefly known for his spending cuts bill which Romney fully supported and which Obama didn't even give the time of day. Romney does not = Bush. Romney was a moderate in his time as a governor. Your doing a guilt by association that is silly because it's your guy in there that has let the Bush BS go on and on. We dont' know if Romney would have succeeded in slashing spending; but he and Ryan were pretty adamant about it in their campaign - there was at least a chance that would have happened. with obama we already know it won't happen because we've seen what he does.
Did you ever read Ryan's crazy-ass spending cuts?
It's not guilt by association. It's the reality of the system. Guys always say they're going to do something, then once they get in, they either can't or won't. Bush didn't run on racking up the national debt. Neither did Obama, as you pointed out. Yet they both did it when they got in there. Stop and think about why. Stop and think about why you think there is a chance that Romney would be different. You know Romney and Ryan aren't going to raise taxes. You know the Democrats in the Senate aren't going to let Romney and Ryan make all the cuts that they would want. And you know with re-election in 4 years, Romney and Ryan aren't just going to sit there in gridlock. They're going to get something done the only way politicians know how: borrowing money to throw at the problem.
Marcala12 (11-07-2012)
Others disagreed and the fact that unemployment went higher than predicted by the people above - despite stimulus packages being used means they really weren't in touch with how severe the situation was. But even if you don't think we would have entered a depression, that still doesn't take away from the extreme SEVERITY of the situation we were in:
_______________________________________________
Top Economists Agree 2009 Worst Financial Crisis Since Great Depression
Three Top Economists Agree 2009 Worst Financial Crisis Since Great Depression; Risks Increase if Right Steps are Not Taken
.
.
.
Roubini, also chairman of RGE Monitor, said: “Even if we have positive growth next year, say one percent, it’s going to feel like a recession even if we’re out of it. If we don’t get the monetary part right, the fiscal policy right, if we don’t fix the banking system the right way, if we don’t deal with the debt burden of the household sector I see a one-third possibility of (an extended) L-shaped Japanese stagnation.”
Behravesh disagreed. “This is the Great Recession, not the Great Depression 2.0 and not Japan in the last decade,” he said. “We’re seeing a different policy response than what we saw during the Depression and Japan in the 1990s. It took Japan seven years to deal with its banking crisis. The U.S. has moved in a matter of months and it’s had some fiscal effect. Our fiscal stimulus may not be enough or the right kind, but it’s much different than the Depression or Japan.”
.
.
.
All three agreed that the economic stimulus plan is needed, but it alone will not fix the nation’s economic problems. “If there is not an increase in government spending then the contraction will be more severe,” Roubini said. “However, tax cuts will not make a difference. Last year’s tax cuts were mostly saved. Infrastructure spending will take a long time as there are few projects ‘shovel ready’ so the overall impact of the stimulus may be smaller.
“People worry about the housing bust and the drop in consumption,” he added, “but the biggest story is the drop in capital spending. Corporations are concerned about whether they will survive so we’re seeing a global collapse of (capital) spending. That’s why something must be done on the stimulus side to diminish the contraction of economic activity.”
http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/...at-depression/
But you asserted a depression was averted which is exaggerating a bit. That was why I posted what I did.
I believe that. But I'll concede that it is my belief. Regardless the situation was dire and a severe recession still does not change the aftermath much.
I googled this when ebntering "where did the 2009 stimulus money go"
http://media.hoover.org/sites/defaul...ary-1-2011.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickschu...lus-program/2/
Really, Sukie? A conservative think tank (Nick Schultz) said the stimulus wasn't effective? What a shock...
__________________________________________________
93% of Economists Agree Obama Stimulus Helped Economyhttp://www.classwarfareexists.com/93-of-economists-agree-obama-stimulus-helped-economy/#axzz2BZBkeTST
gebobs (11-08-2012)
How about reading it pretending it was Ed Shultz writing it and look at the content
YardRat (11-07-2012)
Most of this stimulus that the Republicans love to cry about were tax cuts. Tax cuts for the workers with the Making Work Pay tax credit. Tax cuts for small businesses along with other tax credits for businesses when they hired workers who were unemployed.
A good chunk of that change were tax breaks which I thought the Republicans were never against? That's right it's not a good tax break and it's considered reckless spending if it helps the average business or worker.
Just like with the payroll tax cut. The Republicans and Faux News says that the 2% tax cut is nothing and it's just reckless spending. If you proposed a 2% tax break for the top tax bracket it would be a great idea though or if you attempted to raise the taxes on that bracket by 2% it would be called class warfare. Hypocrisy at it's best there.
That 2% tax cut on the 100k+ worth of income may be nothing for somebody in the 1% but for the average worker that extra $500-$2,000(depending on income) a year means a lot.
Whatchu talking about Willis?
gebobs (11-08-2012)
Based on these, my projection is that the National Debt will be less than it would have been if McCain and/or Romney were elected in 2008 or 2012.
-Bill
Last edited by BLeonard; 11-07-2012 at 06:57 PM.
gebobs (11-08-2012)
Come on man. Don't confuse these guys with facts. You know only Faux News had a "Fair and Balanced" approach to reporting and you should only go by what they say along with all of the other Republican talking points.
Based on these, my projection is that the National Debt will be less than it would have been if McCain and/or Romney were elected in 2008 or 2012.
-Bill
7 dollars.
BATFLIP!
Just shy of 20, around 19.5.
Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be.
I can't stand any of those guys...Randi Rhodes makes me want to puke...
No. They just don't like getting their asses kicked. If you want to have a discussion with me, you better come to the table with more than bull**** and partisan GOP talking points. Let's see if you can.
Right off the bat, it's not looking good. Todays federal debt is $16 trillion, not $20 trillion. That puts you off by a whopping 25%. If you want to have a discussion, you have to deal with facts.20 trillion in debt and you don't see the harm????
So what? Irrelevant to the discussion whether the debt hurts the overall economy. You are thinking that the federal government acts like a small business or, worse yet, like your household budget. It doesn't. Not when you print the money.you do understand that we have to pay that s**t back right?
You do realize that the federal government has always held debt. Alexander Hamilton pushed for a young America to purposely incur debt because he knew that it would add credibility to us on the world stage of trade.
Debt, in and of itself, is not bad, or good. During slower growth times, debt should go up. During good times, debt should go down. One of the biggest problems of the past 30 years is that the tax rates have no bearing on what the government spends. That is mainly, a GOP caused problem.
After WWII, the country had a HUGE debt problem. What did they do? Raise taxes to pay it down. A vibrant economy raised federal income even more so that the debt went down even more.
This is 100% opposite of the policy prescriptions coming out of the Republican party today. When you get that through your head, and you start talking an objective look at history and basic macro economics, you will calm down.
Again, so what? Irrelevant to the discussion.you do understand that we have to pay interest on that debt
Now we re starting to get to the crux of the problem. The key word in your sentence is "eventually". We have been hearing from the "chicken little" cabal that 'any day now you'll see interest rates skyrocket and hyper inflation consume us'.and that interest rates will eventually go up?
NONSENSE!!!!
Interest rates are at historic lows. Do you realize that the federal government is borrowing money at .73% even on a 5 year T-bill. You don't get over 1% until a 10 year maturity...1.74% on a 10 year T-bill.
That means that investors are PAYING THE GOVERNMENT to borrow money (when you take into consideration low 1% to 2% inflation)
Yes, THE harm that high debt will EVENTUALLY bring to the economy is high interest rates and high inflation.
Right now, in today's economy, we have neither. THIS is the time to borrow to help spur the economy. The GOP is dead against it which is why the recover is slower than it should be.
Basic macro economics.
BTW...when the appetite for federal debt subsides, interest rates will start to go up. Basic supply and demand. it's not even CLOSE to happening...yet. Which is why we have to plan to get out of this mess...in the future.
Your first GOP talking point. How sad. Sorry, but China only holds 8% of our total federal debt. They are a bit player. Save your GOP talking point for brain dead Republican Teabaggers. The biggest holder of debt, and buyer of debt, is us...Americans. Social Security, Medicare.you do understand that at some point China will stop lending to us right?
Additionally, the "at some point" is irrelevant to today's market. You are worrying about a problem that is not yet even on the horizon.
Nonsense. Eventually, maybe. The dollar has been sliding for more than a decade. Mostly during Bush's presidency. It helps exports.You do understand that when we have to print money to pay off debt we fry the dollar right?.
Again, irrelevant to the question.
Now you are getting hysterical. THERE IS NO INFLATION!!!! GET IT THOUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!!!!!! In a deleveraging economy that we have now, inflation is the LEAST of our worries.Do you think it will be fun to pyay $20 for a box of cereal or $250 at the pump? This type of massive and uncontrollable debt causes massive inflation to cost of living while actual pay wages stay the same.
The debt is NOT "uncontrollable" There are very common ways to reduce the increase in debt. Pay attention. Keep your eye on the ball for TODAY'S market....not some scary partisan bull**** story.
Ask yourself....why were the GOP not concerned with this when they wed wrecking the federal budget between 2001 and 2006??? Partisanship. And the reality that the GOP does not give two ****s about federal debt. To them. it's just an election talking point. Debt is bad when they are out of power and good when they are in power. I don;t care who is in power, my ideas are based on facts and math.
Nonsense. Give me an example of an economy that is even close to as large and dynamic as America's and is in the kind of "chicken little" trouble you describe.You only have all of history to see what happens when a person, company, or country spends money they don't have endlessly until it hits the fan. There's a reason why 100's in other countries currencies are worth dollars in ours; they fried their currency.
Don't give me the "Greece" bull****. That is a product of that country not being able to control their own currency. Yes, look at history. Our debt was HUGE after WWII. The problem is that the GOP has decided to NEVER raise taxes for ANY reason. TAXES HAVE TO GO UP, while rate of spending increases come down.
EXACTLY what was done during the 90's...which resulted in the first balanced budget in decades.
Of Jesus. Here we go. Partisan GOP talking points. Give it rest!You're a fan boy of a president who accumulated as much debt in 4 years as Bush did in 8 and you accuse Bush of being the worst president in history. Then you say well Obama inherited those deficits; he had every opportunity to cut them, but he didn't and he added to them.
Sorry, I'm a "fanboy" of math, reality and basic economics.
Do you know why the debt increased during Obama's term??? Because of Bush policies. There are no Bush fiscal polices (that I can think of) that Obama changed. ALL the Bush tax cuts are still in place. Defense spending is higher than Bush's. Medicare Part D is still in place.
During a recession, and we had a very deep and dangerous one, coupled with a financial crisis, federal debt will GO UP!!! Period.
Every single other country, that has tried to reduce their debt during the past 4 years, their GDP growth is much worse than the US. Why? Because the GOP was not 100% successful in getting us into the "austerity" trap that they would like to.
There are certain policy solutions that are proven to work, to bring growth back, which in turn spurs higher tax revenue, which reduces debt.
You are too young to remember the 1992 election campaign. Ross Perot garnered third party support (but he never won even one state) because of his scary debt stories. His policy solutions were nowhere to be found. All bluster (just like Romney).
Bill Clinton's plan was simple. Raise taxes only on the top 2%...reduce the rate of spending increases....add a small increase to federal gas tax. Cut taxes (mainly by expansion of the earned income tax credit) on lower class. Not ONE GOP Congressperson voted for it.
They ALL said that his plan would cause a "depression"...the economy would tank. Inflation and high interest rates would consume us!!!
They were all wrong. Aided by a strong stock market (spurred in part by Clinton's plan), the economy grew at a higher rate than anything Reagan saw. By the late 90's we had a balanced budget. By 2000 there was a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years, and Greenspan was warning about paying off the federal debt too quickly.
Then Bush came along and ****ed up the whole thing. He not only reduced taxes, mainly on the wealthy, he cut them for everyone. The small amount for each lower class individual did not matter for each household that much, but, it helped decimate the federal budget.
Then he started heaping on the spending. Medicare part D, but did not pay for it. Trillion $ war, but did not pay for it. We are still suffering from his policies. Deregulation that helped caused the credit crisis. It's complicated.
But, all you want to do is look at how much the debt went up and assign blame...no matter what the explanation is.
No....my policy solutions have nothing to do with who is president. They are based on math and economics,. Once you get that partisan crap out of your head, you could think it though more clearly.
Nonsense. When Obama does something that I don't like, I'll criticize him. On the economy, I have criticized him many times for being too timid on his stimulus program. It should have been twice as large as it was.noto nobody gives you explanations to things because you're here on a very liberal board and you're a HUGE OBAMA FAN who won't admit any of his short comings. There are some liberals on this board who have a favorable opinion of Obama but would never go as far as calling him a great president as you have. You lose all credibility there. Again you're not a supporter, you're a fan boy.
The debt will eventually cripple our dollar's spending power; you're insane not to understand that
The difference between me and most partisan GOP sycophants, is that I look at the facts, and form my opinion with reality. Two of the writers I resect and get much of my information from are Republicans. David Frum, Bush's speech writer, and Bruce Bartlett, Reagan Budget Advisor.
Yes, this is a liberal leaning board. So what??? I've had the same discussion on the Range, which is now a very conservative board, and I have been on other conservative boards, and the arguments I get about economics are inane. Why?? Because the average person does not have the first clue what they are talking about, and throw around talking points they get from jerks like Limbaugh or Fox news like they know what they are talking about.
They have no idea what the talking points mean, not the basis for economics.
You have fallen into the same trap. Your arguments are shallow and irrelevant to the situation we find ourselves in TODAY.
"Eventually" is NOT an argument.
The solution is simple.
Raise taxes NOW on the wealthy. Start talking about a widespread tax, like on energy. Slowly raise taxes on everyone via reform by talking away or limiting deductions. Reform the way business determines taxable income, while lowering business tax rates. Slow the growth of federal spending....mainly in the years after the economy has recovered but get it in place so that investors know what's coming.
Increase Social Security taxes by both increasing rates...very slowly, and increasing the cap on income subject to taxation. Slowly increase Medicare tax rate. Tax capital gains closer to the rate as on earned income. Slowly reduce growth of Social Security and Medicare (Obamacare starts this for Medicare but the GOP has decided to demagogue it).
Slowly reduce (not just the rate of growth but actual speeding) on defense.
This agenda is not based on partisan politics, nor what Obama wants or subscribes. I suspect that something like this may come to pass. We will see.
But, please stop you "fanboy" bull****. It's meaningless and irrelevant. I have policy solutions that mean something, and they are based on math and reality....not partisan politics.
Bellowing4DaBills (11-09-2012),denverboz (11-08-2012),Ed (11-08-2012),jdaltroy5 (11-13-2012),jimmifli (11-08-2012),mysticsoto (11-08-2012)
The debt is already in the process of shrinking.
And if we get average Americans to buy into healthcare, that will cover the insane 17% of GDP we already spend on healthcare.
Don't forget, the two biggest reasons our debt grew under Obama were Bush carryover policies like the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. Eliminate both of those by 2014 and you've got a recipe for debt reduction.
denverboz (11-08-2012),gebobs (11-08-2012),mysticsoto (11-08-2012)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
