|
On July 31 2011 08:44 uiCk wrote:i don't really understand the purpose of visualizing how much paper is needed to print 100 trillion dollars. This is sensationalism at its best.
That's what I was thinking. What point are they trying to prove "This is the total amount of money the U.S. will have to pay due to future debt"?
And goodness, you don't need to read the whole thread jayjay, but at least read the most recent page. That has already been posted ON THE SAME PAGE
|
On July 31 2011 09:24 vertigo1 wrote:
personally i think some perspective is welcome
I found this to be a very good tool to quickly get perspective of the situation: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsroom/debt-interactive--countdown-to-the-default-deadline.html.
Scroll the timeline back to Dec 3. 2010, then go through the other tabs, and enjoy.
What became really clear to me is that the last thing we need to do is raise the debt limit; and the first things we need to do is raise taxes and cut benefits across the board.
Adding more debt just raises our interest liabilities. AAA bond rating means that we could survive a recession - obviously we can't if we need to borrow more money to pay back our borrowed money. Downgrade is happening regardless.
Leaving taxes as is means that we default on the promises made to and paid by Americans into America. The damage done here will be significant in loyalty, morale, and faith in the federal government's role.
Not cutting enough from spending means nothing will change. We'll continue to throw money at a problem instead of fixing the glaring inefficiencies and corruption that exist.
|
So you want to raise taxes and cut spending, delivering a double punch to demand in an economic where demand is non existent. Herebert Hoover did that too, really helped out with the economy.
|
|
|
It's gonna be ok guys. Help is on the way. The crisis will finally be solved.
WASHINGTON—With lawmakers still at an impasse over increasing the debt ceiling, a special team of 40 eighth-grade civics teachers was air-dropped into Washington earlier today in a last-ditch effort to teach congressional leaders how the government’s legislative process works. “We started them off with the basics, like the difference between a senator and a representative, and then moved on to more complex concepts, like what a resolution is,” Bozeman, MT social studies teacher Heidi Rossmiller told reporters as all 535 members of Congress copied down the definition of “checks and balances” from a whiteboard in the House chamber. “It’s been a bit of an uphill battle, since most of them seemed to have no real sense of how or why a bill is passed, and Sen. [Harry] Reid [D-NV] had to come up to me during a break and ask, ‘Ms. Rossmiller, what happens if Congress can’t reach a compromise?’ But hopefully it will all start to sink in soon.” At press time, an unruly House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) had noisily stormed out of a lecture on bipartisan cooperation, claiming it was “too hard.
- BBC
|
On July 31 2011 10:07 _Major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 09:24 vertigo1 wrote:
personally i think some perspective is welcome What became really clear to me is that the last thing we need to do is raise the debt limit; and the first things we need to do is raise taxes and cut benefits across the board.
This is a good example of someone who is not very familiar with economics but still thinks that "common sense" will somehow allow him to find the perfect solution.
The debt ceiling HAS to be raised.
|
|
|
Honestly what it boils down to is the average americans responsibility to assume control over their country instead of letting private bankers make the decision, keeping money in the hands of the rich and effectively leaving the poor and down trotted homeless on the lands their fore fathers conqoured. Everyone in Obamas administration and has close ties to wall street. We need a new revolution. The answer to our debt? 1776. God Bless America.
|
"It is good that most people don't understand our banking and financial system. For if they did there would be a revolution by morning."
Henry Ford
The day the governments gave the printing of money out of their hands was the worst day for societies. The focus shifted from the good for the society to private profits. And since money is nothing else than pure power in the hands of a few the fitting sentence of Lord Acton really fits once again in history:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Privatizations is nothing else than robbing a society. "privare" in its' true form in latin means nothing else than "to rob". Extracting some service/product/possession out of the society for pure private measures.
|
On July 31 2011 18:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 10:07 _Major wrote:On July 31 2011 09:24 vertigo1 wrote:
personally i think some perspective is welcome What became really clear to me is that the last thing we need to do is raise the debt limit; and the first things we need to do is raise taxes and cut benefits across the board. This is a good example of someone who is not very familiar with economics but still thinks that "common sense" will somehow allow him to find the perfect solution. The debt ceiling HAS to be raised.
You are another example of someone who naysays but presents no reasoning or substance to back them up. Oh wait, my bad, you capitalized 'HAS', so it must be true. /fail
It's funny how people that are supposed to be experts on what's best for our economy have either allowed us to get into this position or have been saying the same things I just did for years.
"Over the next decade, without major changes in federal policies, persistent and
possibly growing deficits, along with the ongoing growth in the debt holdings of
government accounts, would increase substantially the amount of federal debt subject
to limit. Unless federal policies change, Congress would repeatedly face demands
to raise the debt limit to accommodate the growing federal debt in order to provide
the government with the means to meet its financial obligations." - Report requested by Congress to understand the debt situation in 2008
You've already seen the deficit spending, here's how tax rates were applied historically.
![[image loading]](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/img/historical_tax_rates2.jpg)
They have to write it as objectively as they can, but major changes that separate us from other periods prior to the huge shifts in federal policy that came with the 80s:
1) stop losing so much money
2) reverse the rate of change of top tax rates
|
On July 31 2011 18:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 10:07 _Major wrote:On July 31 2011 09:24 vertigo1 wrote:
personally i think some perspective is welcome What became really clear to me is that the last thing we need to do is raise the debt limit; and the first things we need to do is raise taxes and cut benefits across the board. This is a good example of someone who is not very familiar with economics but still thinks that "common sense" will somehow allow him to find the perfect solution. The debt ceiling HAS to be raised.
Maybe, but countries with higher tax still has better economy. I am very happy that I live in Norway.
What sickens me is that, as far as I know, the rich private companies in the US isn't very much willing to help a little. Instead they will cut funding for the public schools used by poor people.
|
@ _Major
What about me? I have consistently demonstrated time and again in this thread why the debt ceiling must be raised, what we need to do to get our long term debt in order and many differing solutions to this problem. We have already hit many of the problems of this thread. So please before you post learn about the various alternatives to solving the problem, the rationale for each and then add your own opinion. Saying "we cannot raise the debt ceiling" shows a complete lack of respect to many people in this thread who have presented compelling evidence to the contrary.
For everyone else if you do not really understand the situation, please look it up. Do some research. Read some of the good articles on the Economist or CNN. Further, you are also able to read through the many pages of this thread and gain a firm understanding rather quickly. However, do not simply post ideas and suggestions that have already been critiqued earlier.
|
On August 01 2011 02:16 cfoy3 wrote:
@ _Major
What about me? I have consistently demonstrated time and again in this thread why the debt ceiling must be raised, what we need to do to get our long term debt in order and many differing solutions to this problem. We have already hit many of the problems of this thread. So please before you post learn about the various alternatives to solving the problem, the rationale for each and then add your own opinion. Saying "we cannot raise the debt ceiling" shows a complete lack of respect to many people in this thread who have presented compelling evidence to the contrary.
For everyone else if you do not really understand the situation, please look it up. Do some research. Read some of the good articles on the Economist or CNN. Further, you are also able to read through the many pages of this thread and gain a firm understanding rather quickly. However, do not simply post ideas and suggestions that have already been critiqued earlier.
cfoy3, you are entitled to your opinion. I did not reply to your thread and say you were wrong. I offered someone that was appreciating a sense of perspective a place to go for a more detailed perspective as well as my opinions of our current situation.
But since you have engaged me, and in a polite manner I will say how I feel about what you've said. And this is not because I don't respect you, it's because I don't agree with you.
Our AAA status is a fraud - we do not have 'extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments'. By us being in a position where we have to raise the debt ceiling to afford regular bills, and having a recent history with so much negative earnings, the confidence in us being able to survive a recession is already shaken. A downgrade is going to happen regardless.
We're admitting that most of the reason we've been able to keep it bottled up thus far is because of our extremely favorable interest rates, and our cavalier attitude towards borrowing more and more to pay for mandatory spending. This is on top of the lack of confidence that the American people have in its own government to pay back the trust funds, which account for almost as much money as public debt.
|
On July 31 2011 19:36 Ghost Reportin wrote:
Honestly what it boils down to is the average americans responsibility to assume control over their country instead of letting private bankers make the decision, keeping money in the hands of the rich and effectively leaving the poor and down trotted homeless on the lands their fore fathers conqoured. Everyone in Obamas administration and has close ties to wall street. We need a new revolution. The answer to our debt? 1776. God Bless America.
I bet you will give this answer to every domestic issue ranging from taxes to debt to healthcare to social security to the elections to foreign policy.
I'm sorry but simple and dumb sensational garbage opinions like this is precisely why it's hard for anybody to get anything done in our government.
|
|
|
That would be relevant if this issue was about the bailouts.
But it isn't.
|
@ _Major
I disagree with your premise that we should loose our AAA rating. American is the biggest economy (I think as of today, China may soon eclipse), has unprecedented ability to generate income and has worldwide recognition and trust. All of your arguments are why we should get our long term fiscal policy in order. Not why we should default on the full faith and credit of the United States. There is nothing wrong with advocating that we need to reign in spending and get our deficit under control. This is a sensible conviction. However, your approach of stating the US should default does not do justice to the myriad of alternatives. We do not need such a drastic reduction in the size of the government, which ironically would do more to harm our ability to pay off our debt than help. Every time you cut government spending that is someone who loses a job. Now while I agree that does need to happen eventually, right now would be a horrible time. Look to Japan, their government did exactly what you are suggesting-drastically reduce the size of the government during a recession and they still haven't recovered. Politicians should be up front and truthful-we cannot afford the time of government that we currently have.
|
|
|
On August 01 2011 01:42 _Major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 18:31 kwizach wrote:On July 31 2011 10:07 _Major wrote:On July 31 2011 09:24 vertigo1 wrote:
personally i think some perspective is welcome What became really clear to me is that the last thing we need to do is raise the debt limit; and the first things we need to do is raise taxes and cut benefits across the board. This is a good example of someone who is not very familiar with economics but still thinks that "common sense" will somehow allow him to find the perfect solution. The debt ceiling HAS to be raised. You are another example of someone who naysays but presents no reasoning or substance to back them up. Oh wait, my bad, you capitalized 'HAS', so it must be true. /fail It's funny how people that are supposed to be experts on what's best for our economy have either allowed us to get into this position or have been saying the same things I just did for years. "Over the next decade, without major changes in federal policies, persistent and possibly growing deficits, along with the ongoing growth in the debt holdings of government accounts, would increase substantially the amount of federal debt subject to limit. Unless federal policies change, Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit to accommodate the growing federal debt in order to provide the government with the means to meet its financial obligations." - Report requested by Congress to understand the debt situation in 2008You've already seen the deficit spending, here's how tax rates were applied historically. They have to write it as objectively as they can, but major changes that separate us from other periods prior to the huge shifts in federal policy that came with the 80s: 1) stop losing so much money 2) reverse the rate of change of top tax rates
You do realize that none of what you just posted contradicts in any way what I said, right? I already posted that I thought tax rates had to be raised. My post wasn't about the tax rates but about the debt ceiling, which also has to be raised. If you disagree, it means you are not familiar enough with economics and I do not feel like giving you a lesson, that's all.
|
@ Senorcuidado
I do not think they will be rewarded with it long term. The democrats and Obama will push this issue hard next election. They also probably lost the senior vote. Ultimately they only get rewarded if you decide to cast your vote for them next election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.stocktrendinvesting.com/sites/default/files/US%20Federal%20Debt%20as%20Percentage%20of%20GDP.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_full.png)
