EPTThe US debt (proper debate) - Page 27
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:42 aristarchus wrote: Countries aren't in debt to other countries. They're in debt to private individuals/businesses. That's what happens when people buy treasury bonds. So, those private individuals/businesses aren't ruled by their countries or what ? If the whole country is in dept to some group of people inside the country. What prevent the country from hard taxing them for the good of all ? Why do those individuals/businesses matter much more than millions of citizen ? | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
| ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:46 BestZergOnEast wrote: Not only would returning to a gold standard not cause a depression, it would actually help prevent future depressions. aristarchus, no one mentions it because it's already happening. Look at the price of food and gas. The federal reserve creates money by buying government bonds. They do this all the time. It is ongoing. The government MUST debase the currency (that is to say, rob everyone who holds money) in order to pay for the wars. You don't measure inflation by looking at the price for food and gas. Those prices are so volatile that economists frequently exclude them when trying to figure out the actual trend in inflation. Try looking here for actual data. Inflation is not unusually high. There are real economic reasons why food and gas in particular are getting more expensive. They are not representative of prices overall. | ||
|
LiquidSlick
United States33 Posts
1.) We should cut spending, and NOT raise taxes. Taxing people who create jobs (or anyone else in a bad economy) does more harm than good. We need fundamental reform of how the government handles our money. 2.) We need to raise taxes to create "revenues". Spending isn't a big deal. Raising the debt limit should be routine. A "balanced approach" needs to be used (which means cuts to defense and increases in taxes). Republicans support the first one. Democrats support the second one. Its that simple. I personally agree with the first one. The government has WASTED our money. I will essentially pay into Social Security all my life and it will still go bankrupt and I will not see a dime. (And the same is true for your if your my age). Moody's and Standard and Poor's have stated that the most conservative policy "Cut, Cap, and Balance" is the only policy presented that will not cause a downgrade in the US credit rating. BUT Obama has stated he will veto it. Democrats have not offered a bill that actually cuts anything and republicans won't raise taxes on people that this economy depends on. Thus the stalemate. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:48 Diks wrote: So, those private individuals/businesses aren't ruled by their countries or what ? If the whole country is in dept to some group of people inside the country. What prevent the country from hard taxing them for the good of all ? Why do those individuals/businesses matter much more than millions of citizen ? There are two types of debt. Private and State debt. Greece owes a lot of money to private investors not to other countries. The same happens to the usa. Everyone can buy American bonds if they have the money. | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:47 BestZergOnEast wrote: Obama is not directly printing money. Ben Bernanke is. Inflation is bad, you don't need it. The problem with inflation is that the access to this new money is uneven, so it initially spends at a higher value. So people close to the state benefit, the people who get the new money first. "Ben Bernanke is printing money" is a completely different statement from "Obama is printing money." So you were wrong before. And Bernanke is not printing money at an unusually high rate. (source) | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
LiquidSlick : You are sadly mistaken if you think the GOP wants to cut spending. Many Republican voters may, but the Republican establishment is every bit as big spending as the Democratic establishment. It is an illusion that there is any real difference between those two political parties - they are simply different heads of the same hydra. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:49 LiquidSlick wrote: The debate is really between two ideologies. 1.) We should cut spending, and NOT raise taxes. Taxing people who create jobs (or anyone else in a bad economy) does more harm than good. We need fundamental reform of how the government handles our money. 2.) We need to raise taxes to create "revenues". Spending isn't a big deal. Raising the debt limit should be routine. A "balanced approach" needs to be used (which means cuts to defense and increases in taxes). Republicans support the first one. Democrats support the second one. Its that simple. I personally agree with the first one. The government has WASTED our money. I will essentially pay into Social Security all my life and it will still go bankrupt and I will not see a dime. (And the same is true for your if your my age). Moody's and Standard and Poor's have stated that the most conservative policy "Cut, Cap, and Balance" is the only policy presented that will not cause a downgrade in the US credit rating. BUT Obama has stated he will veto it. Democrats have not offered a bill that actually cuts anything and republicans won't raise taxes on people that this economy depends on. Thus the stalemate. I agree with the first one, too, but I think the Obama-blame-athon is getting out of control. Things like Boehner going on national television and just straight-up outright knowingly LYING about how the Obama administration has increased the debt more than any other makes me want the Democrats to win, just out of spite alone. Obama came into office in one of the most collossally fucked up economic situations in US history, and he gets all of the flak for somehow being the cause of it after he merely continued the policies that his predecessor had already set up before he left? The fuck? It's really hard to get on board with the ideology of the Republican side when they don't even speak with their head screwed on properly. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:49 LiquidSlick wrote: The debate is really between two ideologies. 1.) We should cut spending, and NOT raise taxes. Taxing people who create jobs (or anyone else in a bad economy) does more harm than good. We need fundamental reform of how the government handles our money. 2.) We need to raise taxes to create "revenues". Spending isn't a big deal. Raising the debt limit should be routine. A "balanced approach" needs to be used (which means cuts to defense and increases in taxes). Republicans support the first one. Democrats support the second one. Its that simple. I personally agree with the first one. The government has WASTED our money. I will essentially pay into Social Security all my life and it will still go bankrupt and I will not see a dime. (And the same is true for your if your my age). Moody's and Standard and Poor's have stated that the most conservative policy "Cut, Cap, and Balance" is the only policy presented that will not cause a downgrade in the US credit rating. BUT Obama has stated he will veto it. Democrats have not offered a bill that actually cuts anything and republicans won't raise taxes on people that this economy depends on. Thus the stalemate. Let's not discuss the value of Moody's & S&P. Those are the guys that helped greece into the Euro haha. The Goverment did not waste a lot of money. The whole financial crisis was a crisis created by the market themselves. During the 50s and 60s the richer were taxated with an 80% and 70% revenue tax and it was the Golden Age of american industrial capitalism. The problem with cuts is that it will not benefit the majority of the population in any way. It will make the average folk poorer. Some cuts must be done, but they should be done in key areas such as military, and they should taxate the rich as they used to. The "Job creators" as some right winged folks like to call themselves are not creating ANY employment, and banking record proffits.  | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:53 BestZergOnEast wrote: aristarchus : yes, the government recently rigged inflation figures so you don't take into account the shit that actually matters. Gas and food are very important. The government routinely under reports inflation. And I never said Obama was printing money, so you are strawmanning me. LiquidSlick : You are sadly mistaken if you think the GOP wants to cut spending. Many Republican voters may, but the Republican establishment is every bit as big spending as the Democratic establishment. It is an illusion that there is any real difference between those two political parties - they are simply different heads of the same hydra. I don't know what you've been reading, but you need to stop. These are crazy conspiracy theories, not reasonable positions. The government isn't rigging anything. They report both the overall inflation number and the "core" inflation number that excludes food and energy. Economists and traders on Wall Street pay more attention to the "core" number because they think that's the more telling number. And none of this matters anyway. Even if you include food and energy, inflation is not unusually high. Only if you look only at food and energy do you get a worrying picture. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:55 Bibdy wrote: I agree with the first one, too, but I think the Obama-blame-athon is getting out of control. Things like Boehner going on national television and just straight-up outright knowingly LYING about how the Obama administration has increased the debt more than any other makes me want the Democrats to win, just out of spite alone. Obama came into office in one of the most collossally fucked up economic situations in US history, and he gets all of the flak for somehow being the cause of it after he merely continued the policies that his predecessor had already set up before he left? The fuck? Obama is indeed stuck in a swamp created by previous administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton & Bush jr.). If you just taxed the rich to finance the reforms would be great for every american. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:53 BestZergOnEast wrote: aristarchus : yes, the government recently rigged inflation figures so you don't take into account the shit that actually matters. Gas and food are very important. The government routinely under reports inflation. And I never said Obama was printing money, so you are strawmanning me. LiquidSlick : You are sadly mistaken if you think the GOP wants to cut spending. Many Republican voters may, but the Republican establishment is every bit as big spending as the Democratic establishment. It is an illusion that there is any real difference between those two political parties - they are simply different heads of the same hydra. Oh they want to cut spending, but only when the Democrats are in power. The moment they get their hands on the White House again, suddenly, "big bad government spending" becomes "a future investment to ensure economic growth" and "evil, naughty, bad tax increases" become "a necessary burden the current generation, who lived beyond their means, must suffer to provide for our children, and our children's children!". | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
Obama is indeed stuck in a swamp created by previous administrations (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton & Bush jr.). If you just taxed the rich to finance the reforms would be great for every american. Raising taxes is never the answer. Personally I don't villianze the rich. I'm not an envious man. I was born into a family that was very poor. My mother raised me on welfare, alone. But I don't hate the rich. I don't want to use state violence to take their money from them. All I want is freedom. I want people to treat each other decently, not try to use state coercion to redistribute wealth for themselves. Wealth is either created or stolen; I think if you create it you deserve to keep 100%, and if you steal it you are a thief, worthy only of contempt and hatred. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 28 2011 07:49 LiquidSlick wrote: The debate is really between two ideologies. 1.) We should cut spending, and NOT raise taxes. Taxing people who create jobs (or anyone else in a bad economy) does more harm than good. We need fundamental reform of how the government handles our money. 2.) We need to raise taxes to create "revenues". Spending isn't a big deal. Raising the debt limit should be routine. A "balanced approach" needs to be used (which means cuts to defense and increases in taxes). Republicans support the first one. Democrats support the second one. Its that simple. I personally agree with the first one. The government has WASTED our money. I will essentially pay into Social Security all my life and it will still go bankrupt and I will not see a dime. (And the same is true for your if your my age). Moody's and Standard and Poor's have stated that the most conservative policy "Cut, Cap, and Balance" is the only policy presented that will not cause a downgrade in the US credit rating. BUT Obama has stated he will veto it. Democrats have not offered a bill that actually cuts anything and republicans won't raise taxes on people that this economy depends on. Thus the stalemate. No, you're spreading disinformation, Moody's and S&P declined to say what plans would cause a downgrade. "Both Deven Sharma, president of Standard & Poor's, and Michael Rowan, global managing director at Moody's Investors Service, said their companies won't analyze political "plans or policies," unless they become the law of the land." http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/27/news/economy/rating_agency/ @xdaunt: thanks for the extensive reply, I don't agree with everything you said but as I already derailed this thread with an obscure historical debate once, I am going to decline to derail it with a legal debate. (Which I would probably lose) | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
On July 28 2011 08:01 BestZergOnEast wrote: Cutting governmen spending only makes bureaucrats poorer, it makes everyone else, people who pay taxes, worse off. It's funny how some people have absolutely no understanding of how the world works, like the only way they can imagine something being done is if the government does it. This is the result of being educated in those oh so great government schools. Allow me to retort! In the first place, I studied at private british college and after I graduated, I went to college where I obtained my degree. I think my education is quite above average and in the second place, a progressive distribution of taxation is universally recognized by all economic schools to be superior. (except by ultra-liberalism). Finally : Ad-hominem | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
Conspiracy theories about a "New World Order" would honestly make more sense than the incoherent, corrupt chaos that is the United States Government and wealthy American Corporations. | ||
| ||
