Five Reasons Why A National Balanced Budget Amendment Is Lunacy

[boedicca]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

 

[Dovahkiin]

Where did I act like the federal government was a separate entity from the people?

Now substitute Federal Government for Person A and Private Sector for Person B. Whenever the governments spends more than it earns, WE EARN MORE THAN WE SPEND!

WE are Person A and Person B.

If you frame it like that, sure. He's talking about the private sector earning though, y'know, the thing you guys love.

He's talking Keynesian idiocy and it doesn't work. It runs up massive debt.

We've got to get our spending under control in order to pay down our debt. The government isn't going to voluntarily do that. A Balanced Budget Amendment is like daddy cutting up the credit card. You're going to have to learn to live within your means. We cannot continue with the liberal pie in the sky dreams of free everything... it's insane. We cannot continue with crony corporatist republicans dancing around on the head of a pin explaining how the debt is no big deal... it's stupid. We need a way to force them to make the hard choices that have to be made. The time for lollygagging around and doing nothing is over. We can't continue adding a trillion dollars a year to our debt... it's not sustainable. Pretty soon, there won't even be enough private sector earning to pay the interest, much less the principle.

Keynesian idiocy doesn't work? Yeah, that's why virtually every country has been using Keynesian like policies for decades, actually, you know recessions have been shorter since we adopted keynesian recovery methods? Shocking, I know. Nothing wrong with running up debt during a recession or when wages have been stuck for decades/we're not at full employment/infrastructure is collapsing.. Our spending is fine, crying and pretending public debt is like credit card debt is the only reason you act like this. It's sad and makes me laugh. I enjoy that.

Pretty soon, there won't even be enough private sector earning to pay the interest, much less the principle

Silly. We have so much potential untapped tax revenue, and even if we somehow fall short, we can always print.

 

[Dovahkiin]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, that's why virtually every country has been...

What in the living FUCK is wrong with you people and this "other countries" crap? It's all the hell you ever spew these days and it's about to drive me up the goddamn wall... I am not kidding!

The United States of America is the greatest and most powerful nation to ever grace this planet and they accomplished this in less than 200 years. No other country even come remotely close in terms of technological advancement, prosperity, individual liberty and property rights... across the board in every aspect, we lead the rest of the fucking world... and all you morons can blather is "but in da other countries" FUCK the other countries!

 

[Dovahkiin]

Yeah, that's why virtually every country has been...

What in the living FUCK is wrong with you people and this "other countries" crap? It's all the hell you ever spew these days and it's about to drive me up the goddamn wall... I am not kidding!

The United States of America is the greatest and most powerful nation to ever grace this planet and they accomplished this in less than 200 years. No other country even come remotely close in terms of technological advancement, prosperity, individual liberty and property rights... across the board in every aspect, we lead the rest of the fucking world... and all you morons can blather is "but in da other countries" FUCK the other countries!

It's very important to realize the success of keynesian policy, in our country, and in others. Compared to austerity, it's clear that keynesian policy is more successful. You don't want to talk about other countries because you have some strange obsession with america, might need to get some help with that. Please don't drive up the wall, I just painted it.
Yeah, the united states is a pretty great country, but saying a "country is the best" is subjective. Fuck other countries? Err, ok, thanks Trump.

 

[Boss]

No, Keynesian policy is stupid and ignorant. It doesn't work. You're a fucking moron.

 

[Dovahkiin]

No, Keynesian policy is stupid and ignorant. It doesn't work. You're a fucking moron.

The Truth About Keynesian Economics -- It works
You are truly stupid.
Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Post Keynesian Perspective: Germany: The Success of Global Keynesianism and State Intervention
(More examples, but I won't engage with someone who refuses to actually refute anything and instead goes on childish rants.)

 

[boedicca]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

 

[Dovahkiin]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

 

[boedicca]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

 

[Dovahkiin]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

 

[boedicca]

The OP is a load of rubbish.

1. The U.S. can never be forced to default on debt denominated in dollars/

The government collects plenty of money to service the interest on the debt.

2.) Deficit spending alone cannot cause inflation, crowding out or capture of resources.

Deflection. The issue with deficit spending and increasing debt is that it is a tax on future generations. It is highly immoral to create such burdens.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:357

"Ought not then the right of each successive generation to be guaranteed against the dissipations and corruptions of those preceding, by a fundamental provision in our Constitution? And if that has not been made, does it exist the less, there being between generation and generation as between nation and nation no other law than that of nature? And is it the less dishonest to do what is wrong because not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy, and that in instituting the system of finance to be hereafter pursued we shall adopt the only safe, the only lawful and honest one, of borrowing on such short terms of reimbursement of interest and principal as will fall within the accomplishment of our own lives." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:360

3.) The economic expansion of the 1990s caused the budget surplus and not the other way around

If you believe that, then you should wish to see the economy free to grow, which requires less of the GDP going to government programs and more to investment in private enterprises.

4.) Unbalanced budgets serve as economic stabilizers

Utterly craptastic. Unbalanced budgets are like unhinged minds (hence the appeal ot you).

Here's a lesson regarding what excessive debt does to any organization:

The End of a 1,400-Year-Old Business - Businessweek

5.) The government’s deficit is our surplus

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

 

[Dovahkiin]

You call it a load of rubbish and respond with actual rubbish. Now that's funny!
Let's talk about #1:
Your response does not do anything to disprove/challenge the statement, we literally cannot be forced to default on the debt, it's never going to happen, economists know this. You should to.
2.) Not a deflection, a fact. A tax on future generations? So reagan's massive deficit during the boom was a 'tax on future generations?" I doubt that.
I don't care about a jefferson quote.
3.) The economy grows in relation to deficit spending.
Government is Good - The Deficit Scare: Myth vs. Reality
4.) Your refusal to refute the point is noted, typical of one who is not interested in actual discussion.
5.) You refuse to discuss this. Let me make it simple: If the government has a surplus, they are literally SITTING ON REVENUE. Not using it for infrastructure, etc.. Deficit spending is a reflection of the government doing things for us, or helping the private sector.

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

 

[boedicca]

Poppycock.

If the government has a surplus, it has reserves for future emergencies and liabilities.

You also are neglecting the fact that the government doesn't use Proper Accounting. If Feds used proper GAAP type accounting for accrued liabilities, the U.S. would be declared technically bankrupt.

The Treasury Department does prepare such a report. I suggest you read it and get back to use on how healthy the economy is with such high levels of debt and UNFUNDED LIABILITIES.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

In its first 150 years, the government periodically undertook systematic multi-year reductions in the national debt by taking in more revenues than it spent.

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

There have been no such multiyear budget surpluses and debt reductions since World War II and, significantly, no major new depression. The record suggests that reducing the debt never sustained prosperity, even when the debt was virtually wiped out by 1836. The highest deficits were those of world War II, ranging from 20 to 31 percent of Gross National Product. For a few years following the war, the debt was greater than GNP, the only such case in history. The wartime borrowing and spending actually ended the Great Depression.

Post-World War II

Both political parties pledge to balance the budget by 2002, and all budget-balancers hope ultimately to reduce the national debt. In the meantime, the nine recessions of the depression-free postwar decades have each followed reductions in the annual deficits relative to GDP.

Using data developed by Warren B. Mosler, economic analyst for a Florida investment firm, I suggest how some of the recent recessions have been politically significant:

· Deficit reductions, 1971-74, led to the recession that began at the end of 1973; a slow recovery did not help Gerald Ford in 1976.

· Deficit reductions, 1977-80, gave way to a recession in 1980 that damaged Jimmy Carter’s re-election hopes.

· Deficit reductions, 1987-89, were followed by the 1990-91 recession that harmed George Bush.

Meanwhile, the longest period without a recession was from November, 1982 to July, 1990.

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

Oh, I see. You speak English as a Second Language and moral concepts are above your pay grade.

I'm saying that it is immoral to saddle future generations with debt. Period.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Whenever the government runs an extended surplus, things tend to go bad. This is money being kept out of the economy for virtually no reason. "Proper GAAP type accounting." Ah, more childish bullshit. News flash: The fed doesn't, and shouldn't use this type of accounting. The reason we have a "funding problem" is that we have people stuck with the absurd idea that federal spending is somehow constrained by taxing or borrowing.
Think big deficits cause recessions

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

Oh, I see. You speak English as a Second Language and moral concepts are above your pay grade.

I'm saying that it is immoral to saddle future generations with debt. Period.

I'm not putting much thought into my responses to you since you're clearly a foolish deficit hawk that doesn't understand the basics of the debt, I mean, you brought up fucking credit cards. That tells me all I need to know.
"Immoral?" What do you mean? You do know what the debt is, right? Actually, I want to hear this. Tell me what YOU think the debt is. I'll be waiting.

 

[boedicca]

^^^ Yet another Economic Illiterate On Parade ^^^

I bet you are a Credit Card Millionaire.

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

Oh, I see. You speak English as a Second Language and moral concepts are above your pay grade.

I'm saying that it is immoral to saddle future generations with debt. Period.

I'm not putting much thought into my responses to you since you're clearly a foolish deficit hawk that doesn't understand the basics of the debt, I mean, you brought up fucking credit cards. That tells me all I need to know.
"Immoral?" What do you mean? You do know what the debt is, right? Actually, I want to hear this. Tell me what YOU think the debt is. I'll be waiting.

Much thought? Not ANY thought. You are just spewing Progressive Pablum.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

Oh, I see. You speak English as a Second Language and moral concepts are above your pay grade.

I'm saying that it is immoral to saddle future generations with debt. Period.

I'm not putting much thought into my responses to you since you're clearly a foolish deficit hawk that doesn't understand the basics of the debt, I mean, you brought up fucking credit cards. That tells me all I need to know.
"Immoral?" What do you mean? You do know what the debt is, right? Actually, I want to hear this. Tell me what YOU think the debt is. I'll be waiting.

Much thought? Not ANY thought. You are just spewing Progressive Pablum.

Err, I think reagan was a good president. Still waiting for an answer to my question.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Your refusal to actually discuss anything I've posted is noted. LOL. You prove you know nothing about the debt, it's nothing like credit card debt.
Why public debt is not like credit card debt

I'll give you Ten Points for Consistency. Congratulations on your persistent commitment to remaining ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the national debt and credit card debt...? LOL.

Most important, this credit-card metaphor is a totally false analogy because, unlike a consumer on a spending spree who later has to pay the piper, government’s borrowing strategy directly affects economic growth. When deficit spending helps increase growth, that, in turn, makes the debt less burdensome. The Federal Reserve also has the power to buy public debt ‑ a prerogative not available to consumers.

The U.S. economy has vast productive potential that remains idle in a deep recession. When everyone who wants a job has one, and people use their purchasing power to buy goods and services, the economy is maximizing that potential.

Oh, I see. You speak English as a Second Language and moral concepts are above your pay grade.

I'm saying that it is immoral to saddle future generations with debt. Period.

I'm not putting much thought into my responses to you since you're clearly a foolish deficit hawk that doesn't understand the basics of the debt, I mean, you brought up fucking credit cards. That tells me all I need to know.
"Immoral?" What do you mean? You do know what the debt is, right? Actually, I want to hear this. Tell me what YOU think the debt is. I'll be waiting.

Much thought? Not ANY thought. You are just spewing Progressive Pablum.

Still waiting. You and others resort to juvenile partisan attacks, never bother to actually refute anything I say, and then run away.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I'm convinced that the original poster is completely right. We can continue to fund the federal government on borrowed money. Why not fund the entire federal budget on borrowed money this way we won't have to tax people anymore. Complete print and spend with zero taxation. I think the average citizen should be happy with this since they are not going to be taxed.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The OP and the blind-sheep liberal replies are just surreal, bizarre. Do you realize that our interest payment on the national debt is now our sixth largest budget item? Think about that: The sixth most expensive budget item is the interest that we're paying on our debt. National debt interest exceeds the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, for the Department of Education, for the Department of Agriculture, for HUD, for DHS, and for others. That is mind boggling, and absurd.

Our bloated, dangerous debt is the reason the Federal Reserve has felt compelled to keep interest rates so artificially low. If interest rates were allowed to rise to a normal, natural level, our interest payment on the debt would increase dramatically. These unnaturally low interest rates have killed seniors who were counting on savings interest as part of their retirement portfolio (my own parents saw their retirement income drop by about $700 because of low interest rates).