I've become a one issue voter (national debt)

[CaughtInTheMid]

Over the years (I'm older) I've become a one issue voter (reducing out national debt). So, of those that have a realistic chance of being elected, who do I vote for (President and Congress)?

Okay, I know that any President that is elected is going to massively add to our national debt. I just wanted to ask this question so that those of you who are gonna vote for specific candidates take ownership in the fact that they will add massively to our national debt. It's not on me, it's on you.

 

[Jackson]

Reducung the National Debt should be uppermost in every citizen's mind this election. ABO.

 

[G.T.]

Over the years (I'm older) I've become a one issue voter (reducing out national debt). So, of those that have a realistic chance of being elected, who do I vote for (President and Congress)?

Okay, I know that any President that is elected is going to massively add to our national debt. I just wanted to ask this question so that those of you who are gonna vote for specific candidates take ownership in the fact that they will add massively to our national debt. It's not on me, it's on you.

No President reduces the National Debt. Not since like the 1950's.

The National Debt issue, thus, cannot be taken seriously. The National debt must be a phony fuckin' prop. It grows every year steadily for over 60-years and people still vote on the debt rhetoric? How many votes, to date, has this fooled people who vote the Nat'l Debt on? Someone do the math.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but I can sure as hell understand your concern. And I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, as I'm not convinced that either party has (or, more importantly, would follow through on) the right plan.

.

 

[FireFly]

The big debt spenders are way ahead in the polls. Obama, Romney & Santorum all believe in massive debt.

Gingrich is the only one to broker a budget that reduced debt. Ron Paul is anti debt.

Debt, redistribution & money creation are winning with voters. The only fight is over which groups get the new money.

 

[G.T.]

.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but I can sure as hell understand your concern. And I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, as I'm not convinced that either party has (or, more importantly, would follow through on) the right plan.

.

And no President will, from here forward. This all leads me to believe that the National Debt is a smokescreen, a fake issue.

We're supposed to believe that other Countries and the Fed are indebting us to become the strongest Military in the Universe? What if we don't pay? Are they going to send someone to break our knee caps? It's all bullshit.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but I can sure as hell understand your concern. And I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, as I'm not convinced that either party has (or, more importantly, would follow through on) the right plan.

.

And no President will, from here forward. This all leads me to believe that the National Debt is a smokescreen, a fake issue.

We're supposed to believe that other Countries and the Fed are indebting us to become the strongest Military in the Universe? What if we don't pay? Are they going to send someone to break our knee caps? It's all bullshit.

The big debt spenders are way ahead in the polls. Obama, Romney & Santorum all believe in massive debt.

Debt, redistribution & money creation are winning with voters. The only fight is over which groups get the new money.

x2.

.

 

[FireFly]

.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but I can sure as hell understand your concern. And I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, as I'm not convinced that either party has (or, more importantly, would follow through on) the right plan.

.

And no President will, from here forward. This all leads me to believe that the National Debt is a smokescreen, a fake issue.

We're supposed to believe that other Countries and the Fed are indebting us to become the strongest Military in the Universe? What if we don't pay? Are they going to send someone to break our knee caps? It's all bullshit.

The main leverage they have over our debt is commodities prices mainly oil. This is why we are using the debt to fund the military to force them to keep the price down.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm with you IntheMiddle. Foreign policy and national debt/deficit spending.

GT, that has to be the most economically inept thought I've seen on this board yet.

A smoke screen? Really?

We're at over 100% debt to GDP, had a credit downgrade, deficit spend in the trillions and have over 15 trillion in debt. Right now, China has backed off buying our monetized debt. Japan and the UK, the two most indebted countries in the world are keeping us afloat and we run a major trade deficit with China.

People better wake up to the reality of our nations financial troubles at least enough to prepare themselves should we not find a correction in the very near future.

 

[G.T.]

.

I'm not a one-issue voter, but I can sure as hell understand your concern. And I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, as I'm not convinced that either party has (or, more importantly, would follow through on) the right plan.

.

And no President will, from here forward. This all leads me to believe that the National Debt is a smokescreen, a fake issue.

We're supposed to believe that other Countries and the Fed are indebting us to become the strongest Military in the Universe? What if we don't pay? Are they going to send someone to break our knee caps? It's all bullshit.

The main leverage they have over our debt is commodities prices mainly oil. This is why we are using the debt to fund the military to force them to keep the price down.

^ Which means it's one big circle jerk, which means it's a smokescreen issue.

The debt is irrelevant so long as we keep our Military Budget propped up higher than the next 20 Countries Combined. Next time I worry about the National Debt will be either when A: there becomes a one world Government or B: when they figure out how to download brains into computer chips, I live forever, and take over the world myself.

B is so unlikely to happen that I'm caught really not giving a ho0t.

 

[G.T.]

I'm with you IntheMiddle. Foreign policy and national debt/deficit spending.

GT, that has to be the most economically inept thought I've seen on this board yet.

A smoke screen? Really?

We're at over 100% debt to GDP, had a credit downgrade, deficit spend in the trillions and have over 15 trillion in debt. Right now, China has backed off buying our monetized debt. Japan and the UK, the two most indebted countries in the world are keeping us afloat and we run a major trade deficit with China.

People better wake up to the reality of our nations financial troubles at least enough to prepare themselves should we not find a correction in the very near future.

We've been in an increasing National Debt environment for over 60-years. Oh tell me when to worry so I can get my helmet on.

 

[G.T.]

For perspective, 60 years is about 85% of a lifetime.

 

[G.T.]

"Generations have come and gone. The debt direction stayed the same. Go outside." - G.T.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This is not something I'll discuss in "the real world", especially not others in the financial industry, but my inner guess is that our fiscal/monetary/cultural behavior will ultimately lead to a reduced standard of living across the board. Obviously, in that scenario, those in the lower strata would be effected the most, those in the higher strata the least.

The question to me is not whether we'll see this happen, it's to what degree. If it means a 42" big screen in every home instead of a 60" big screen, I'm not convinced that would mean the end of "America". If it means something else, we'll all know to look towards D.C. (and our own voting habits and lifestyle behaviors) for the culprits.

.

 

[G.T.]

.

This is not something I'll discuss in "the real world", especially not others in the financial industry, but my inner guess is that our fiscal/monetary/cultural behavior will ultimately lead to a reduced standard of living across the board. Obviously, in that scenario, those in the lower strata would be effected the most, those in the higher strata the least.

The question to me is not whether we'll see this happen, it's to what degree. If it means a 42" big screen in every home instead of a 60" big screen, I'm not convinced that would mean the end of "America". If it means something else, we'll all know to look towards D.C. (and our own voting habits and lifestyle behaviors) for the culprits.

.

"The masses" cannot "get responsible" as a unit, and never will be able to. It's human nature, it's sad, and more importantly - it's where an uber "poor-friendly" society leads, even *if* it's the right thing to do, or the only thing that can be done.

All we can do is live our lives the best that we can as individuals, and shrug and stay positive when we hear that so many won't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Over the years (I'm older) I've become a one issue voter (reducing out national debt). So, of those that have a realistic chance of being elected, who do I vote for (President and Congress)?

Okay, I know that any President that is elected is going to massively add to our national debt. I just wanted to ask this question so that those of you who are gonna vote for specific candidates take ownership in the fact that they will add massively to our national debt. It's not on me, it's on you.

No President reduces the National Debt. Not since like the 1950's.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh?

You've gotta understand his reading-acumen has much the same "depth" as Sister Sarah's.

September 27, 2000

Record Budget $urplu$

 

[G.T.]

Over the years (I'm older) I've become a one issue voter (reducing out national debt). So, of those that have a realistic chance of being elected, who do I vote for (President and Congress)?

Okay, I know that any President that is elected is going to massively add to our national debt. I just wanted to ask this question so that those of you who are gonna vote for specific candidates take ownership in the fact that they will add massively to our national debt. It's not on me, it's on you.

No President reduces the National Debt. Not since like the 1950's.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh?

You've gotta understand his reading-acumen has much the same "depth" as Sister Sarah's.

September 27, 2000

Record Budget $urplu$

Was the surplus used to reduce the debt?

No, it wasn't.

 

[KissMy]

And no President will, from here forward. This all leads me to believe that the National Debt is a smokescreen, a fake issue.

We're supposed to believe that other Countries and the Fed are indebting us to become the strongest Military in the Universe? What if we don't pay? Are they going to send someone to break our knee caps? It's all bullshit.

The main leverage they have over our debt is commodities prices mainly oil. This is why we are using the debt to fund the military to force them to keep the price down.

^ Which means it's one big circle jerk, which means it's a smokescreen issue.

The debt is irrelevant so long as we keep our Military Budget propped up higher than the next 20 Countries Combined. Next time I worry about the National Debt will be either when A: there becomes a one world Government or B: when they figure out how to download brains into computer chips, I live forever, and take over the world myself.

B is so unlikely to happen that I'm caught really not giving a ho0t.

We can get away with it as long as we don't run short on innovation & commodities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The big debt spenders are way ahead in the polls. Obama, Romney & Santorum all believe in massive debt.

Gingrich is the only one to broker a budget that reduced debt. Ron Paul is anti debt.

Debt, redistribution & money creation are winning with voters. The only fight is over which groups get the new money.

Gingrich's economic plan is the biggest budget buster of all the candidates.

Google

 

[editec]

The theory that the national debt is a problem is refuted by the fact that the worlds BIG CAPITAL keeps buying our national debt.

If they imagined the end of America by debt like YOU DO, they wouldn't be investing their savings in US TBILLS.

And FWIW, I suspect that those guys understand the national blance sheet one hell of lot better than iether you or I do, too.

They're betting TRILLIONS on America's continued solvency.