EPThttp://www.usdebtclock.org/
The US debt (proper debate) - Page 45
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ | ||
|
GrimReefer
United States442 Posts
why? because we already spent the money. what the tea party is doing right now is looking at their credit card bill from last year and trying not to pay it. they money has already been spent on all kinds of crap from military to stimulus to who-the-fuck-knows, but you can't get the bill and then try to unspend. The republicans are against raising taxes b/c most of them are supported by Super Pacs like Carl Rove's American Crossroads. which are funded by millionaires and billionaires who don't want to pay higher taxes. So the republicans, not wanting to against their financial base (b/c the american campaign finance system is a fucking joke and the most money almost always gets the most votes) all agree that the Bush tax cuts are the only thing creating more jobs and to end them would crush the economy. even though the bush tax cuts started this whole cluster fuck....hmmmmm lower taxes and wonder why we can't pay for stuff...really???? raise taxes on people making more than a million, AND cut spending. BUT first raise the debt ceiling!!! and yes, i would not be surprised at all if america lost it's AAA credit score. If you cannot count on the government to honor it's debts, they shouldn't have a AAA rating. It should never have come to this, Obama should've gotten the ceiling raised when he extended the bush cuts. but instead he caved in every way back then, and the republicans expect him to cave now. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:17 LaLLsc2 wrote: You are one of them, let the status quo continue. Tax a little more, ignore the wars that are a direct result of political lobbying. I'm glad you mentioned foreign policy, but its shocking to me that the wars are not the first place someone would go when talking about how to save money / strengthen our national security. ![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/hppromo_costofwar.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/447280185v4_480x480_Front_Color-White_padToSquare-true.jpg) So you're going to continue with the sloganeering and pictures in lieu of actual rebuttals. I would love to be a Republican knowing I could count on having millions of mindless thralls that would devour whatever bullshit I spew. | ||
|
LaLLsc2
United States502 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:28 Fleebenworth wrote: So you're going to continue with the sloganeering and pictures in lieu of actual rebuttals. I would love to be a Republican knowing I could count on having millions of mindless thralls that would devour whatever bullshit I spew. Not sure what you're talking about. You say tax the rich, increase government spending before touching the war issue. That's absolutely not right, I say end the war first because it has cost us $4 trillion and over 200,000 human lives. Explain how that constitutes BS please. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
darlhet
Italy548 Posts
| ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:32 LaLLsc2 wrote: Not sure what you're talking about. You say tax the rich, increase government spending before touching the war issue. That's absolutely not right, I say end the war first because it has cost us $4 trillion and over 200,000 human lives. Explain how that constitutes BS please. Obviously Iraq is the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nations history and we would be much better off were it to end tomorrow. That is not going to happen - we COULD raise the marginal tax rate on those earning obscene amounts of money tomorrow. The war(s) have cost many many times over 200k lives btw. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 31 2011 03:38 Fleebenworth wrote: The debt-ceiling/deficit issue is a manufactured crisis. It's a joke. With an economy that is stalling because of decreased government spending and interest rates that are at historical lows, we should be borrowing MORE money and spending MORE money, not undoing crucial parts of the New Deal in a thinly veiled effort to undo one of the greatest social contracts on Earth. Problem is if you try to spend your way out of the recession and for some reason it doesn't work, you'll end up with debts you might not be able to repay at all. Actually, the debt situation is probably already at a point where trying to stimulate the economy through increased spending is no longer an option. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:40 hypercube wrote: Problem is if you try to spend your way out of the recession and for some reason it doesn't work, you'll end up with debts you might not be able to repay at all. Actually, the debt situation is probably already at a point where trying to stimulate the economy through increased spending is no longer an option. Problem for whom? The 20% unemployed or bankers? | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:43 Fleebenworth wrote: Problem for whom? The 20% unemployed or bankers? Well, if investors don't believe the US can pay back it's debts they'll stop lending money. You can't argue against reality on moral grounds. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:57 hypercube wrote: Well, if investors don't believe the US can pay back it's debts they'll stop lending money. You can't argue against reality on moral grounds. Your position != reality. | ||
|
LaLLsc2
United States502 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:57 hypercube wrote: Well, if investors don't believe the US can pay back it's debts they'll stop lending money. You can't argue against reality on moral grounds. The United states has a serious case of denial. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 31 2011 05:16 LaLLsc2 wrote: The United states has a serious case of denial. ...says the guy who thinks stimulus policies and obama's healthcare reform are hurting the economy, and who swallows the Republicans' rhetoric about the Bush tax cuts. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
My position is that investors won't finance current levels of deficit, let alone an increase as Fleebenworth is suggesting. How is that not reality? You might not like the consequences of it but you cannot seriously deny it's true. Sure, increasing taxes and keeping spending, or even increasing spending and increasing taxes by a lot is an option. I don't think it's politically viable and it does have it's own economic consequences but at least it's a possibility. Unlike expecting people to give up their money voluntarily with little hope of ever seeing it again. | ||
|
Fleebenworth
463 Posts
On July 31 2011 04:57 hypercube wrote: Well, if investors don't believe the US can pay back it's debts they'll stop lending money. You can't argue against reality on moral grounds. Yeah I totally agree! Except that were not even close to that situation right now, people are lining up to lend the US money. Our economy is suffering from a lack of demand, as evidenced by the fact that our growth is slowing down as the stimulus wanes. We have an unemployment problem, not debt. My position is that investors won't finance current levels of deficit, let alone an increase as Fleebenworth is suggesting. How is that not reality? You might not like the consequences of it but you cannot seriously deny it's true. I actually can and do deny this, please provide a source for your statements. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
 | ||
|
zimz
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
zimz
United States510 Posts
| ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On July 31 2011 05:45 hypercube wrote: My position is that investors won't finance current levels of deficit, let alone an increase as Fleebenworth is suggesting. How is that not reality? You might not like the consequences of it but you cannot seriously deny it's true. Sure, increasing taxes and keeping spending, or even increasing spending and increasing taxes by a lot is an option. I don't think it's politically viable and it does have it's own economic consequences but at least it's a possibility. Unlike expecting people to give up their money voluntarily with little hope of ever seeing it again. Sorry to jump in but this is wrong. As long as the United States continues to run a huge trade deficit and certain countries (China/Germany/Japan/Korea/Oil countries) continue to run major trade surpluses that are in large part formed by specific policy rather than economic realities investment into US debt is automatic. If the Chinese want to maintain their peg with the US dollar they will automatically recycle, no matter what they say, their surplus back into treasuries. Are they 'losing money'? Yes, but you cant think of countries as individuals, you have to realize they are representations of various interests. In the case of China, the people who win from the peg are powerful exporters who depend on the dollar-yuan link. The people who lose are the average Chinese citizens who are forced to subsidize exporters. The same can be said for places like Saudi Arabia. By pricing oil in dollars and failing to diversify out of oil/investing into their own people the Oil monarchies have evolved into elaborate welfare states weer locals dont do any work and the trade surplus is recycled into buying American debt/other fixed investments [look at all that crap that was built up in Dubai, who do you think paid for that?]. Tomorrow all these countries could wake up and start pursuing policies that benefit average citizens, which would automatically shrink the demand for US treasuries, cause a rise in the interest rates and a fall in the USD. But everyone would win here because the crippling unemployment in the US would subside, the trade deficit would automatically shrink, and the probability that the US would repay its debt would actually increase since the recession and the subsequent collapse of tax revenue is one of the main reasons for the budget deficit. We can see the automatic increase in demand for the treasuries by foreigners in the yield on treasuries [how much interest rate the US pays to foreigners on its debt]. The yield on a 30 year treasury is 4.2%. In 2000 it was 5.8%. That means over the course of the last 10 years the United States had to pay less for its debt/investors were prepared to be paid way less even as the United State went from a 250 billion Clinton surplus to a 1 trillion Bush deficit. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 31 2011 05:45 hypercube wrote: My position is that investors won't finance current levels of deficit, let alone an increase as Fleebenworth is suggesting. How is that not reality? You might not like the consequences of it but you cannot seriously deny it's true. Sure, increasing taxes and keeping spending, or even increasing spending and increasing taxes by a lot is an option. I don't think it's politically viable and it does have it's own economic consequences but at least it's a possibility. Unlike expecting people to give up their money voluntarily with little hope of ever seeing it again. Sure I can deny it's true. Investors will continue to lend money to the US, because they're making a profit by doing so. If interest rates go higher, it means they get paid even more. Everyone knows the US is not going to erase its debt/go into a long-term default. Investors lending money to the US is therefore not the problem. The problem is making sure that the deficits and the debt are kept under control without hurting the economy because unemployment is high. In order to do this, it is painfully apparent to any serious economist that taxes have to be raised. Now before anyone starts shouting BUT GOOGLE "LAFFER CURVE", let me point out that taxes are at an historic low and that the extreme majority of economists believe that we have certainly not reached the tip of the curve. Read this, for example. The answer is therefore to reduce spending without hurting the economy (do this by reforming programs like Medicare - not by reducing access to it but by making it more efficient) and raise taxes - on the wealthiest first then on everyone when the economy is in a better shape (not by too much - Clinton levels would be fine). Of course, there's also the question of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the military budget. The truth is that to really improve the economy and unemployment levels, the government should probably have spent even more. The people saying that government spending is hurting the economy do not have a clue, simple as. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/lnmkuu-b78815616z120110630154612000gqp10cf7f1.jpg)
