Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[LordBrownTrout]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

I can see that you haven't looked back at history and observed the many nations that have collapsed due to massive inflation caused by frivolous behavior. You actually think that we'll just hum along forever by continually raising the debt ceiling, printing endless dollars, and failing to back up our currency by something tangible. That type thinking just astounds me.

Like mainly the GOP causing World depressions in 1929 and 2008...

derp derp derp derp derp derp

 

[francoHFW]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

I can see that you haven't looked back at history and observed the many nations that have collapsed due to massive inflation caused by frivolous behavior. You actually think that we'll just hum along forever by continually raising the debt ceiling, printing endless dollars, and failing to back up our currency by something tangible. That type thinking just astounds me.

Like mainly the GOP causing World depressions in 1929 and 2008...

derp derp derp derp derp derp

Typical clever GOP voter commentary...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments.

"Could"? Well, I could end up marrying Carla Gugino. The Browns could win a Super Bowl. Aliens could reveal that Donald Trump is just a reptilian in a bad skin suit.

The government isn't like an individual when it comes to debt. For one, individuals don't have the bargaining power of the world's currency reserve behind them, the US government does. And higher interest rates on the Public Debt are counteracted by shifting that to Intragovernmental Debt, which is what Clinton did. So this is a completely unfounded fear you appear to have devised right off the top of your head. Furthermore, the risk for lenders is of an individual dying and not repaying their debt increases each day (hence higher interest rates). Since the United States isn't a person that can die, the debts the US government owes aren't ones that have a time limit on them. There is no one, singular date by which all our debt has to be repaid. Thinking there is fundamentally misunderstands government debt.

They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid.

Why wouldn't they be repaid? What is the risk of them not getting repaid by people? Death and bankruptcy (and even then bankruptcy doesn't erase all debt). Can the US "die" or "go bankrupt" like Trump? No. So your fears are unfounded.

Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

Why would demand for US treasuries diminish? The only way that would be the case is if we defaulted on our debt. Now, who are the ones who threaten to never raise the debt ceiling? Oh right, the same ones who are now telling me that there could be diminished demand for T-Bills. But that's only the case if we don't raise our debt ceiling, causing defaults on our loans. Otherwise, raising the debt ceiling means we pay the loans that are due. So the only way that wouldn't happen is if you refused to raise the debt ceiling.

I mean, you get that, right?

I can see that you haven't looked back at history and observed the many nations that have collapsed due to massive inflation caused by frivolous behavior. You actually think that we'll just hum along forever by continually raising the debt ceiling, printing endless dollars, and failing to back up our currency by something tangible. That type thinking just astounds me.

Like mainly the GOP causing World depressions in 1929 and 2008...

derp derp derp derp derp derp

Typical clever GOP voter commentary...

derp derp derp derp

 

[hadit]

Republicans are deficit/debt hypocrites - only outraged when Democrats are in power. Just imagine the deficit/debt when Trump leaves office.

The deficit is the annual difference between government spending and government revenue.

The debt is the total amount of money the U.S. government owes. It representsthe accumulation of past deficits, minus surpluses.

Debt vs. Deficits: What's the Difference?

We need the Gingrich Congress back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

 

[Lakhota]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

Check out the old thread below:

How much new debt did Obama create that wasn't a direct/indirect result of Bush actions/policies?

 

[francoHFW]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

It adverted another GOP full-blown depression and assisted the victims, 800 billion a year down to about 300 billion a year now, all unemployment and Welfare that was already built into the system...

 

[francoHFW]

Republicans are deficit/debt hypocrites - only outraged when Democrats are in power. Just imagine the deficit/debt when Trump leaves office.

The deficit is the annual difference between government spending and government revenue.

The debt is the total amount of money the U.S. government owes. It representsthe accumulation of past deficits, minus surpluses.

Debt vs. Deficits: What's the Difference?

We need the Gingrich Congress back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What we really need is a Democratic president and Congress to fix the last 40 years of bought off GOP corruption and Pander to the rich taxes and policy.

 

[eddiew37]

Republicans are deficit/debt hypocrites - only outraged when Democrats are in power. Just imagine the deficit/debt when Trump leaves office.

The deficit is the annual difference between government spending and government revenue.

The debt is the total amount of money the U.S. government owes. It representsthe accumulation of past deficits, minus surpluses.

Debt vs. Deficits: What's the Difference?

We need the Gingrich Congress back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

just like we need cancer

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

It adverted another GOP full-blown depression and assisted the victims, 800 billion a year down to about 300 billion a year now, all unemployment and Welfare that was already built into the system...

And it only cost $10 Trillion in new Federal Debt and $4 Trillion owed to the Federal Reserve. What a deal!

 

[francoHFW]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

It adverted another GOP full-blown depression and assisted the victims, 800 billion a year down to about 300 billion a year now, all unemployment and Welfare that was already built into the system...

And it only cost $10 Trillion in new Federal Debt and $4 Trillion owed to the Federal Reserve. What a deal!

A hell of a lot better than another full-blown GOP depression, dupe. Great job, GOP! And the dupes don't even know it happened ridiculous and a disgrace....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

It adverted another GOP full-blown depression and assisted the victims, 800 billion a year down to about 300 billion a year now, all unemployment and Welfare that was already built into the system...

Hey, remember this guy?

 

[francoHFW]

Some people lack the ability to consider cost benefits and cost deficits and the consequences of action both intended and not intended. Post #2 is an excellent example of this lack of thinking.

So Obama debt was good because ....?

It adverted another GOP full-blown depression and assisted the victims, 800 billion a year down to about 300 billion a year now, all unemployment and Welfare that was already built into the system...

Hey, remember this guy?

And W did that in supposedly Good Times. Obama's debt was bailouts to avert a full-blown depression and mainly already existing welfare and unemployment law. Dupes like you believe he passed laws to do it, idiocy from the right wing. All the solutions he wanted were blocked by your lying cheating GOP.

 

[Spare_change]

All too much. Any surplus after expenditures are made is supposed to pay down our national debt. If our national debt was O and revenus exceeded expenditures after govt was funded after the fiscal year ended in september, there would a real surplus.

So you're using the term "surplus" incorrectly.

A budget surplus occurs when we take in more revenue than we spend. You can't have a debt surplus, you can only have 0 debt.

Now here's the big question: why does debt concern you so much?

Currently, the debt to GDP ration is about 75 percent. As the debt to GDP ratio increases, debt holders could demand larger interest payments. They want compensation for an increasing risk they won't be repaid. Diminished demand for US treasurys would further increase and likely crash the dollar. As the dollar falls, foreign holders get paid back in currency that is worth less. That further decreases demand. This has happened numerous times but everyone just thinks the gravy train will continue to roll.

There was a proposal at a recent international conference (no, I don't remember which one) that suggested that all international loans be collateralized. Imagine, if you will, a trillion dollar loan guaranteed by the deed to Montana. It was much discussed, finally rejected, but, clearly, it isn't a proposal that is going to go away.

 

[AntonToo]

Spending money you don't have for something like a WAR or a GIANT natural disaster is understandable.

Deficit spending of roughly $1 trillion per year....every single year....is NOT SUSTAINABLE and STUPID.

Just look at Greece and Puerto Rico. That's what happens when corrupt liberals are in charge of taxing and spending.

Ok, so can you explain why you were/are supporting trillions in tax-cuts while we are spending trillons on Afg/Iraq wars?

How about NOT doing tax cuts and simply paying for those wars? Nuh, CRAZY.

 

[Spare_change]

You do realize that for the past 8 years we increased the spending and increased the taxes also? it is about time to lower the taxes and cut the fucking spending.

And during Obama the deficit was reduced by more than 2/3 from where Bush the Dumber and Conservatives left it.

Take a look at this...this is Kansas' budget. They too had trickle-down tax cuts in 2013, and as a result, had massive deficits, credit downgrades (two of them!), and job/GDP growth below the national average. Notice how the repeal of the tax cuts (SB 30) makes the deficits disappear and surpluses appear! And notice how spending wasn't touched at all. So KS achieved a balanced budget/surplus without cutting spending, just by repealing tax cuts.

So if it worked in KS, why wouldn't repealing low taxes for the rich work nationally?

"Lowering the deficit" is like saying "I only cheated on my wife twice this year."

Creating a deficit is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility. We create a new deficit every year. There is no reason that it can't stop immediately.

 

[Spare_change]

10 trillion added under Obama.

Thanks to Bush Jr.

... which, of course, is simplicity personified. Refusing to take your share of the responsibility, much?

 

[Spare_change]

Most of that was debt from prior administrations. Obama's policies and initiative added about a quarter of that.

OH GOODY - THAT OL' LIE...AGAIN!


"Obama 'inherited' all that debt and those economic / financial problems!"


Yes, Barak Obama DID 'inherit' a lot of that debt and those economic / financial problems ... FROM HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS!


As we have gone through before - and as the snowflakes keep denying over and over:

Barry attacked Bush over the debt, calling him 'Un-Patriotic' for adding $4 Trillion in new debt in only 8 years. But let's break that down:

• During Bush's 1st 6 years as President- which included 9/11/01, the economic aftermath (closing of Wall Street, etc) after 9/11/01, and 2 on-going wars AND WITH A GOP-CONTROLLED CONGRESS - ONLY $2.5 Trillion in new debt was added IN 6 YEARS.

• Democrats took over a nearly-Super Majority Control of congress at the beginning of bush's last 2 years in office ... which means DURING BUSH'S LAST 2 YEARS IN OFFICE DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE ECONOMY & THE 'PURSE STRINGS' - SPENDING! Democrats held that Near Super Majority Control of Congress - control of the Economy and Spending until the end of Obama's 2nd year in office .... which means IF BARRY INHERITED ANYTHING, IT WAS FROM HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS!

'Interestingly' enough, in Bush's last 2 years during which time DEMOCRATS controlled the Budget / the Economy / Spending, DEMOCRATS added $1.5 TRILLION in only 2 years, only $1 Trillion less than the Bush GOP-controlled Congress had in 6 years!


So, again, what snowflakes claim Obama 'inherited', he 'inherited' from his fellow DEMOCRATS who had a near super majority control of Congress the previous 2 years.

Almost immediately Barry acted to 'create Jobs' & 'help the economy'. His big idea was the FAILED nearly $1 TRILLION 'Stimulus Bill...that contained over 7,000 pieces of DNC-ONLY self/party-serving PORK, all at tax payer expense.

In the end as the US IG reported, the Stimulus failed to keep unemployment under 9% as promised, and the cost to tax payers for each job created was approx. $742,000! (Of course, Obama claimed to have created / saved more jobs than he actually did, according to the CBO.)

Obama took advantage of the Democrats having a near super majority of Congress for the next 2 years, and at the end of his 1st term - after 4 years - HE and his fellow Democrats had racked up almost $7 Trillion in new debt.

Of course, ever since then, like you, snowflakes have been trying to re-write history.

Method 3. How Obama's Policies Increased the Debt
Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. That is because the recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase.

The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program. The CBO found that the largest contributor to the debt was the Obama tax cuts, which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts. They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.

The next largest was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It added $787 billion between 2009 and 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits, and funded job-creating public works projects. Like the Obama tax cuts, the ARRA was an attempt to stimulate the economy after the 2008 financial crisis

Obama increased military spending to an average of $800 billion a year. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record.

In FY 2013, he requested $851 billion. That happened even though he withdrew troops from Iraq in 2012 and eliminated the threat from Osama bin Laden in 2011. Obama spent $857 billion in contingency funds during his administration. That was more than the $850 billion Bush devoted to the War on Terror.

What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term. That's because most of its costs began in 2014. That's when it set up health insurance exchanges and extended coverage to more low-income people. In fact, tax increases offset costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010 and 2019. For more, see Obamacare Costs.

Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. They cut the deficit by a small percent. When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. (Source: Ezra Klein, "Doing the Math on Obama's Deficits," The Wall Street Journal, January 31, 2014.) Find out whether Trump or Obama Is Better for the Economy.

How Much Did Obama Add to the Nation's Debt?

What adds to the debt is the OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING OF MONEY THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE.

I'm all for a balanced budget amendment. Term limits for Congress critters too.

Conservatives ARE NOT FOR BALANCED BUDGETS....not really anyway.

First priority for them is tax-cut religion which pretty much guarantees that we will never collect the revenues required for ANY spending at all.

They want (and get) a tax-cut rain or shine, in war or peace, in prosperity or poverty, in surpluses or deficits as far as the eye can see.

No one is for balanced budgets - except those who have to pay for it.

 

[AntonToo]

10 trillion added under Obama.

Thanks to Bush Jr.

... which, of course, is simplicity personified. Refusing to take your share of the responsibility, much?

I'm just curious, did you ever take a look at Obama policy contribution to debt?

 

[Spare_change]

Would the Medicaid program be needed if everyone had a job? Would anyone need medicare or social security, if more people were allowed to save more of their own money to invest, instead of being FORCED to contribute to the ponsi schemes?

Most people on Medicaid are already employed. They qualify for Medicaid because their employers pay them shit wages. If you want fewer people on Medicaid, raise wages starting with the Minimum Wage. It really is that fucking simple.

Do you honestly believe that someone making the median income of $53K can save for retirement?!?!? Do you also realize that only 50% of workers in this country have a 401k, and of those people, most don't have and won't have enough for retirement? What fantasy world do you live in?

No --- you misspoke.

It is REALLY that fucking stupid.

How would you like it if I showed you how a 19 year old, making $25,000 a year (investing $100/month), could earn enough IN 12 YEARS to retire as a millionaire (actually, a millionaire and a half - $1.5 million) at age 65? Then, show you how - at age 31 (19 +12) create an environment that will convert that million dollars into $3.6 million in his retirement portfolio?

So, all your whining about not enough to save, and not enough to pay for healthcare, not enough for this, not enough for that is simply three things - 1) fiscal ignorance, 2) a lack of commitment to your responsibilities, and 3) begging for more and more of somebody else's money.