America's Debt: Shame on Them

[WillowTree]

I still have yet to see any GOP "Leaders" explain why our having debt is a bad thing. So bad, that we need to risk default in order to stop it.

Don't Be Stupid.

 

[Trajan]

wasn't this posted in another thread?

and in 3 weeks they will not go into default, they will shuffle the revenue 'ins' to pay the interest 'outs' on debt., and start cutting down on sending checks out to or funding operating budgets.

From the opening paragraph:

IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

exactly....so?

 

[code1211]

It was money spent IN the house, not ON the house.

Any money spend by the government IN the country is money spent ON the country. That's a big part that many people fail to see.

You're wrong.

Money spent to improve infrastructure that leads to increased business would fit your description. Money spent to augment the cash flow in states that are running a deficit in order to maintain jobs and spending at levels no longer affordable is pissing in the wind.

So, let's get down to cases: If the Trillion dollars had been spent to "improve the house", what might that have entailed? Subsidizing the pay of teachers in Wisconsin? Not so much. What if, instead, it was spent to subsidize the building of an oil pipeline from Alaska to Houston along with the drilling of 100 new wells in the Alaskan Arctic?

That would have put tens of thousands to work immediately. Those folks would have paid taxes and those taxes would have helped to support the infrastructures of the states between Alaska and Texas and would also have lent itself nicely to the harvesting and transport of oil from the Canadian Oil Sands.

Following that initial positive jolt to the economy, there would be the ongoing tax revenues from the oil drilling and the profits of the oil companies, the oil company employees and the 4 jobs to every one oil job that jobs like these support. The oil companies would have subcontracted numerous jobs to numerous other companies and those companies would have purchased vehicles, equipment, insurance, land buildings and every other thing needed to do business.

Oh, yeah, and there would have been all that additional oil on the world market to help keep the prices down instead of having them double since the Big 0 decided to actively work against the production of oil.

Anyway, that's what a recovery looks like.

A depression looks like 1000 Wisconsin teachers cussing out a 16 year old little girl who asks why they deserve a raise when her dad is out of work.

The Big 0 and his crew went in the direction they did because they:
1. Don't know how an economy works.
2. Are beholding to special interests that won't allow them to act intelligetnly.
3. Probably don't understand the difference between investing and pissing away money.
4. Pay offs and graft are the "Chicago Way".

You know the beauty of allowing the oil companies to drill in Alaska and jump start the recovery? We don't pay them. THEY US US TO DO IT. We could have kept the Trillion dollars of Failed Stimulus, collecting the Fees to buy the rights and then just sat back and allowed the cash to come in.

All the work and expense we went to to avoid success. It's amazing.

 

[code1211]

Are you saying that the deal being offered includes no tax increases, has a dollar of spending reduction for every dollar of increased debt limit and the Ryan Budget is adopted?

This is the only place that I've heard of this offer.

If you bothered to read the article, you would know what I'm talking about. But I guess something that doesn't jive with your opinion is not reader friendly.

I was responding to what you said, not to the article. You said that what was being offered by the Dems is what the Republicans waned.

It is not. My questions on the substance of what was being offered are a direct response to the misleading statement that you made. If the Dems offer has merit, then state the merit of the offer. By mischaracterizing the offer as something that it is not, you imply that a swindle is underway.

If your point is not made by your implications, perhaps you should more clearly make your point.

 

[Modbert]

I was responding to what you said, not to the article. You said that what was being offered by the Dems is what the Republicans waned.

It is not. My questions on the substance of what was being offered are a direct response to the misleading statement that you made. If the Dems offer has merit, then state the merit of the offer. By mischaracterizing the offer as something that it is not, you imply that a swindle is underway.

If your point is not made by your implications, perhaps you should more clearly make your point.

Except what I said is in relation to the article. In fact I'll repost it again since I guess you can't or don't want to read it.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

 

[code1211]

What, in your opinion bert, is it going to take to teach Washington a lesson? What is it going to take to get them to spend within their means?

Default sounds good to me.

Playing russian roulette with a full chamber is not a good way to teach anyone a lesson. You seem to have no idea of the implications of what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling. Washington wouldn't suffer, average Americans like you and me would.

Conceeding the point that default would be a bad thing, how often do you propose we raise the debt ceiling and to what level must it rise before it becomes a problem and spending should be reduced?

Is there any circimstance under which you feel that it might be good to reduce the spending and to stop increasing the debt?

 

[code1211]

If I quit paying, yes, I would default and my credit rating would take a hit. That's not in question. However, if I'm asking the bank that provides my cc to continuously raise my debt limit from $1000 to eventually $500,000.....I'll never be able to pay it off. The responsible thing to do is pay off the debt and put a cap on the debt limit. Continuously raising it to service interest is completely asinine. It does not compute. I've built up and sold two companies and am working on a third. If I operated at which the federal govt operates I would have been living under a bridge years ago.

Before I address the however, let me continue my line of question. And what happens when your credit rating takes a hit? Is it not more difficult to get any sort of loans in the future? Do your interest rates not rise, making it more difficult for you to pay back your current and future loans?

Letting the same thing happen here would be akin to shooting ourselves in the face.

What we need to do is hammer out a deal, and the President has offered up more than a fair deal to the GOP. Raise the debt ceiling, and then handle more cuts from there. Dealing with it in zero hour because Congress is irresponsible is no reason to punish our creditors or the American people.

Are you high? if the debt cieling is raised, there is no incentive for the Big 0 to seriously debate the topic.

It's the same as giving the adict his heroine.

Right now, the Reps have his attention. The budget he turned in that got 0 votes from his own party reflects the depth of his complete luacy on the topic. He doesn't think there's a problem.

Now is the time to do something. If he wants to make a deal and the Big Deal is not available, then he can make a small deal. Raise the Debt Cieling by, oh, 100 Billion dollars and reduce spending by the same, then start over because that gives us about one month to figure out something else.

100 Billion in one month. That should reveal something even to you.

 

[DontBeStupid]

What is that now? 5 posts in this thread attacking me and yet none explaining why our current debt is bad.

Interesting.

 

[code1211]

It's due in part to BOTH parties and their spending. However, the spending that has gone on in the last two and half years under your messiah and the libs has made a bad situation ten times worse than it should be.

That's a fact, period, end of story. Shame on EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY obama and the dems for doing what they did TO MAKE IT WORSE.

Again, how? Why? You keep making claims about our situation being worse because of our growing debt, but you never say HOW it's worse or WHY it's worse.

Merely making a claim about something being bad doesn't make it bad.

About 30% of the National Debt has been applied in about 2% of the life of the Republic and that is why and how it is worse.

The Rate of increase in the debt is aubmented by the accelerated growth of Government in the face of the decelerating flow of revenues. The guys in charge do not know what they are doing.

They are making it worse by collecting less and spending more and planning to spend more and more and more.

 

[Modbert]

Conceeding the point that default would be a bad thing, how often do you propose we raise the debt ceiling and to what level must it rise before it becomes a problem and spending should be reduced?

Is there any circimstance under which you feel that it might be good to reduce the spending and to stop increasing the debt?

Or we can just raise the debt ceiling and continue the spending cuts talks that are currently going on.

We raised the Debt ceiling seven times during the Bush Administration, don't suddenly act like you all care now.

 

[DontBeStupid]

About 30% of the National Debt has been applied in about 2% of the life of the Republic and that is why and how it is worse.

Inflation means the most recent increases are always the biggest and quickest. So what? Are you saying that twenty years from now if the debt goes up $2T in one year that is terrible, regardless of any other circumstances?

 

[Modbert]

Are you high? if the debt cieling is raised, there is no incentive for the Big 0 to seriously debate the topic.

It's the same as giving the adict his heroine.

Right now, the Reps have his attention. The budget he turned in that got 0 votes from his own party reflects the depth of his complete luacy on the topic. He doesn't think there's a problem.

Now is the time to do something. If he wants to make a deal and the Big Deal is not available, then he can make a small deal. Raise the Debt Cieling by, oh, 100 Billion dollars and reduce spending by the same, then start over because that gives us about one month to figure out something else.

100 Billion in one month. That should reveal something even to you.

I guess you missed the little thing called the election next year. So yes, the President has incentive to seriously debate this topic.

Deciding that the only way to deal with spending is by playing russian roulette with the economy through the debt ceiling is both childish and insane.

 

[Trajan]

heres some interesting take on whats whirling around-


snip-

The target is now said to be $4 trillion over 10 years, though that's far less important than the details, which are still murky.

But we're told that the essence of the deal is that Mr. Obama is willing to put larger cuts in Medicare and Social Security and the promise of tax reform on the table, if Mr. Boehner agrees to let the current tax rates on capital gains, dividends and the top two tax brackets expire after 2012.

We can't fault Mr. Boehner for trying, and his arguments for doing so carry some weight. The thinking is that cuts in entitlements must be done on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Obama has incentive to deal to shed his big-spending reputation, and even if Republicans win Congress and the White House in 2012 they won't be able to do much against united Democrats. The Speaker thinks that if he can get Mr. Obama's consent now to put spending on a downward path to 19% of GDP over time (from 24% or so), it is worth moving on taxes.

We trust Mr. Boehner also realizes this is a high-risk game for the economy and his House majority. Especially risky is his willingness to "decouple" the Bush tax rates for the middle class and upper incomes. The White House is insisting that as part of any deal the current tax rates on the middle class—the child tax credit, etc.—would be made permanent, while the lower rates on capital gains, dividends and the higher income brackets would expire after 2012. Taken by itself this would be a tax increase pure and simple and violate the GOP's campaign pledge.

But here's what we're told is Mr. Boehner's political kicker: The proposed deal would also include some kind of "trigger" device, so far undefined, that would compel House and Senate negotiators to complete tax reform discussions over the next several months. We're told the White House has said it is open in principle to a top rate of 35% on individuals and something like 26% or 27% on corporations—in return for closing various loopholes.

More troubling than these details is the staggered timing. Republicans would be putting their fingerprints on a tax increase in return for spending cuts as a first order of business, which would raise the dividend and top income tax rates to 39.6% (from 35%), or 41% if you include the phase-out of deductions. (Plus the 3.8% payroll tax hike baked into ObamaCare.) Only then would Mr. Obama and the Democrats negotiate the details of tax reform and lower overall rates.

But why at that point would Democrats want tax reform? They'd have achieved their main political goals of a huge debt-reduction deal, getting GOP cover for a tax increase, and putting Republicans cross-wise with the tea party. Raising tax rates first also makes the math of tax reform that much harder to negotiate on both revenue and income-distribution grounds. Under the Beltway's scoring rules, cutting rates would look like an even bigger gain for higher-income folks and an even bigger revenue loss for the Treasury.

more at-
Review & Outlook: Boehner's Obama Gamble - WSJ.com



I don't trust them to do so, no way, no how.

 

[WillowTree]

What is that now? 5 posts in this thread attacking me and yet none explaining why our current debt is bad.
Interesting.

Here. I'll do it.. You obviously don't work or have to manage money in any way.. So here's the truth. Can you handle it????





WE HAVE NO MONEY, WE ARE BROKE, UNEMPLOYMENT IS THROUGH THE ROOF.. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY AND YOU ARE ALREADY IN DEBT AND YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB DON'T FUCKING GO OUT AND BORROW MORE MONEY YOUR SORRY ASS CAN'T PAY BACK. nOW dON'T BE STUPID, STUPID.

 

[Modbert]

I don't trust them to do so, no way, no how.

The only big corporations paying 35% are suckers with bad accountants.

 

[code1211]

You're right. Relying on people who have proven they are incapable with plans that are inadequate and programs that are misguided and misdirected is just plain stupid.

Hoping they will correct fiscal problems with plans that we all know won't work before the liars and theives even try to say they are what they are not is simply an exercise in hope triumphing over experience.

Are you seriously trying to make us believe that the folks in Washington will cut spending if they are not forced to do so?

On what do you base this conclusion?

Do you plan on making on partaking in the discussion or are you just going to have a conversation with yourself?

The folks in Washington would cut spending if the people who vote for them say to do so. Otherwise they would be voted out. I don't think playing russian roulette with a full chamber when it comes to the economy is the smartest way of cutting spending. All you have is people acting irrational by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling.

Did you happen to hear about the last election? I think it was on all the news shows. A bunch of people who promised to spend less got elected.

When is the best time to try to fix the problems with the budget... Whoops, check that, there is no budget. The Dems prefer to spend without a budget. They have no plan, they activly work to avoid having a plan and they attack anyone who tries to promote a plan.

Since there is no budget, we cannot compare spending to budget. We can compare it to revenues. It's too much.

You are arguing to continue spending too much.

Is there a time or a set of circumstances in which you think that reducing spending might be a good thing? Maybe that's a good place to start for me to be able to understand your argument.

 

[WillowTree]

You're right. Relying on people who have proven they are incapable with plans that are inadequate and programs that are misguided and misdirected is just plain stupid.

Hoping they will correct fiscal problems with plans that we all know won't work before the liars and theives even try to say they are what they are not is simply an exercise in hope triumphing over experience.

Are you seriously trying to make us believe that the folks in Washington will cut spending if they are not forced to do so?

On what do you base this conclusion?

Do you plan on making on partaking in the discussion or are you just going to have a conversation with yourself?

The folks in Washington would cut spending if the people who vote for them say to do so. Otherwise they would be voted out. I don't think playing russian roulette with a full chamber when it comes to the economy is the smartest way of cutting spending. All you have is people acting irrational by saying we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling.

Did you happen to hear about the last election? I think it was on all the news shows. People who promised to spend less got elected.

When is the best time to try to fix the problems with the budget... Whoops, check that, there is no budget. The Dems prefer to spend without a budget. They have no plan, they activly work to avoid having a plan and they attack anyone who tries to promote a plan.

Since there is no budget, we cannot compare spending to budget. We can compare it to revenues. It's to much.

You are arguing to continue spending too much.

Is there a time in or a set of circumstances in which you think that reducing spending might be a good thing? Maybe that's a good place to start for me to be able to understand your argument.

Don'tMind MODMORON,, if you hang around here much you will find him to be the most partisan, dishonest hack you will ever meet.

 

[code1211]

You should have given this a thought BEFORE you voted for obiedoodle. He told you he was spend money out his wazoooo but you voted for him anyway


He tooka bad situation and made it worse by ten fold. Unemployment 9.2% and climbing..

Except I didn't vote for Obama. Insert another quarter and try again.

Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?

 

[Modbert]

Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?

I don't agree with the President on many issues, so insert another quarter and try again. Also, why are you calling the President a robot?

 

[WillowTree]

You should have given this a thought BEFORE you voted for obiedoodle. He told you he was spend money out his wazoooo but you voted for him anyway


He tooka bad situation and made it worse by ten fold. Unemployment 9.2% and climbing..

Except I didn't vote for Obama. Insert another quarter and try again.

Assuming you voted, does this mean you've been won over to the Big 0's camp by his enlightened leadership?

He lies, He's been an obiedoodle ass licker since day one.