US government shutdown - Page 54

On October 06 2013 04:00 Yergidy wrote:
Dunno if anyone has seen it, but this is pretty ridiculous:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/05/Feds-Try-to-Close-the-OCEAN-Because-of-Shutdown

On October 06 2013 04:17 Kaitlin wrote:


Is there a chart with the same graphic, but with Congress instead of Presidencies ? I remember Republicans took over Congress after Clinton's first couple of years, exactly when the trend downward begins. Contract with America, Newt Gingrich, government shutdown. Those aren't highlighted in the graph, but they are predecessors to the downward trend in debt as a % of GDP...

On October 06 2013 04:19 mahrgell wrote:


look again... this chart has it...

On October 06 2013 04:23 Kaitlin wrote:


Yeah, I see it now. It appears everytime a Democrat President gets credit for a reduction in debt as % of GDP, there is a Republican Congress in charge. In fact, the only time I notice an increase with Republican Congress is with Bush 2, which was the wars.

On October 06 2013 04:57 freetgy wrote:


anyone also adding the total debts?
% doesn't tell you whether the total dept has decreased as well
which is it?
a) real debt reduction
b) averaged out, by economic growth

On October 06 2013 04:47 Kaitlin wrote:
On another note, does anyone even consider the inter-generational games these politicians play to make themselves look better ? Take for example the Roth IRA conversions back in the 1990's. People had a one-year window to convert their entire IRA balance into a Roth IRA and spread the tax out over the next four years. For those that don't know, Roth IRAs are completely taxfree upon withdrawal. The effect of this was to bring all the tax dollars that all of these retirement accounts would generate out of future generations to be taxed immediately and never again. This made revenues in the 1990's abnormally high at the expense of the future. This is just one example. Is it really honest to give those in charge in the 1990's credit for simply taking tax revenue away from future generations to make themselves look better ?

On October 06 2013 03:26 Sub40APM wrote:

Most sophisticated governments have been borrowing for hundreds of years. In fact, the English have a form of government borrowing that was forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consol_(bond)

On October 06 2013 03:21 packrat386 wrote:

We can always pay it because all US debt is owed in dollars. The USFG can print dollars. Therefore there will never be a case that the US has a debt that they can't pay.

On October 06 2013 06:08 Jisall wrote:


Consols existed in the U.S. as well. The deal with consols is you never pay back the initial amount, and the interest is a pure dollar amount, so eventually the interest is a non-factor because of inflation. Consols were used in the U.S. railroad industry.

So you don't have "debt", you have a money payment you pay forever. You don't owe any money, you are just obligated to pay money every month like a pension.



Then you devalue your currency and the world gets on your shit because your frauding them out of money. Also you would cause inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Interest is meant to be rent on money, so if your printing money until your inflation is higher then your interest, then other countries are paying you to give you money. That's not good, that means they are pissed. Thats not how you conduct business. What you are suggesting would mean that no body would loan us money. So it would not matter if we had a debt ceiling, because no one would give us money.

You can't just print money with no consequences.

On October 06 2013 06:13 Kaitlin wrote:


When you say the UN is on China's ass about that right now, how is the UN actually accomplishing anything. Are they just crying about it ? Or is there an actual demonstrable consequence ?

I'm out for a few hours.

On October 06 2013 05:05 D10 wrote:
Such are the woes of having a two party system.

Its harder to form a coalition to profit from oposing the looneys

On October 06 2013 06:08 Jisall wrote:



Then you devalue your currency and the world gets on your shit because your frauding them out of money. Also you would cause inflation, possibly hyperinflation. Interest is meant to be rent on money, so if your printing money until your inflation is higher then your interest, then other countries are paying you to give you money. That's not good, that means they are pissed. Thats not how you conduct business. What you are suggesting would mean that no body would loan us money. So it would not matter if we had a debt ceiling, because no one would give us money.

You can't just print money with no consequences.

On October 06 2013 15:22 micronesia wrote:

If the debt became too massive, or assets too limited for the country to avoid defaulting on their loan, how does defaulting compare to intentional inflation to reduce the debt burden? It seems like both are very damaging, but I don't know how to compare the two.

On October 06 2013 15:42 Whitewing wrote:


Both are disastrous but defaulting is the lesser of the two. Defaulting can cause a sustained recession or depression, depending on the extend and how well the government handles damage control, but the hyper inflation caused by printing money to just pay all debt would be catastrophic for everyone's savings: everyone but the excessively rich would be flat out broke almost instantly and not able to afford basic necessities. The recession/depression is bad but actually harms fewer people.

That said, the government would still technically have the option of passing a bill stating that all debts it owes to itself are forgiven, without increasing the M1 money supply. This would have horrendous results as well, but it would likely be lesser than defaulting or the hyperinflation caused by printing, because it would still allow for the government to pay back debt it owes overseas (the overwhelming majority of our government's debt is debt it owes to itself).

On October 06 2013 15:22 micronesia wrote:

If the debt became too massive, or assets too limited for the country to avoid defaulting on their loan, how does defaulting compare to intentional inflation to reduce the debt burden? It seems like both are very damaging, but I don't know how to compare the two.

On October 07 2013 03:33 Sbrubbles wrote:
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/ownership.html

According to this, a good part of the american debt is held by the americans themselves (more than half if you consider government entities, including SS funds). Defaulting wouldn't just make international investors weary, it would piss off domestic investors (not only Wall Street itself but everyone who has money in a fund). Of course, this is in relation to a minor default. It's hard to fathom what a real default would do for the american economy, but it would centainly start by sinking the whole financial sector.

Also, about inflation, "surprise hyperinflation" doesn't exist, especially when you're stuck at almost 0% inflation. If there was even a hint of it, the US would no longer be able to sell long term treasuries at fixed interest rates (which are currently at less than 4% per year!). It's quite telling that those who are putting their money where their mouth is expect at most 3% inflation per year over the next 20 years.