Why The National Debt Is Good For The Country

[saveliberty]

We are not borrowing from our grandchildren. We're borrowing from each other.

Our grandchildren will not pay us back. Whatever money the pay on the debt, they will pay to each other.

Do you imagine the people of the future will open up our caskets and put money inside?

Seriously, I'd actually really like an answer to that question.

You have been given the right answer several times. Your one of the most dense or willfully ignorant people on this board.

The people who ultimately will have to pay back this loan will be future generations of Americans. If we continue at the present rate, we will not even be able to pay the interest, let alone the principle.

Maybe your just one of those people who thinks you can payoff a credit card with a home equity loan indefinitely.

 

[Stashman]

Our money is not backed by anything. Not gold, not silver, or anything else.

Our money is backed by Treasury bonds. Gold and silver, on the other hand, are backed by nothing.

We use a fiat system of currency which is the act of printing money out of thin air.

Modern money is created by issuing debt. It is the most successful monetary system in the history.



Virtually every country in the world uses this system, and all of them are surviving.

Gold and gold-backed systems, on the other hand, have not survived anywhere on the planet.



You don't understand money, or debt, or how money is created.

Had we not of gone into the Federal Reserve System than our dollar today would have the purchasing power of $22.00, instead it is worth 4 cents as compared to its value in 1913.

In 1913 the average salary was around $750 per year.

In 1913 ordinary people didn't have cars, running water, or electricity.

You really want to go back to that?

It doesn't take a scholar to figure this out. The Fed is the elephant in the room, and there is NOTHING hurting our nations economically as bad as it is.

Every bank loans out more money than it has. That's how the system works. The banks go to the Fed for a loan, the Fed prints the money, loans it to the banks which loan it to us. All with interest. That Interest gets kicked back to the Fed. All for doing nothing but running a printing press. Wouldn't it be better for that money to go back into our economy?

This paragraph is economic gibberish.

The Fed pays most of its revenue to the government. It doesn't leave the economy.

You are a blind and brainwashed fool. The Federal Reserve system is a corrupt ponzi scheme, and AGAINST our Constitution. Anyone, thing, or organization that opposes the U.S. Constitution is not American and should be removed from it.

Below you will find some videos that might just educate you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc&feature=related]‪Criminal Rothschilds‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndgCnflfjoQ&feature=related]‪Secrets of the Federal Reserve pt.1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Animus]

Sundial,

Are you seriously serious w/ that post?

If we eliminate the FED tomorrow, there would still be running water and electricity for most homes. Back then there wasn't the technology that we have today. The FED, IMF are the elephants in the room here. Their inflationary ponzi scheme is essentially a tax that makes the bankers richer.

Our money is not backed by anything. Not gold, not silver, or anything else.

Our money is backed by Treasury bonds. Gold and silver, on the other hand, are backed by nothing.

We use a fiat system of currency which is the act of printing money out of thin air.

Modern money is created by issuing debt. It is the most successful monetary system in the history.



Virtually every country in the world uses this system, and all of them are surviving.

Gold and gold-backed systems, on the other hand, have not survived anywhere on the planet.



You don't understand money, or debt, or how money is created.

Had we not of gone into the Federal Reserve System than our dollar today would have the purchasing power of $22.00, instead it is worth 4 cents as compared to its value in 1913.

In 1913 the average salary was around $750 per year.

In 1913 ordinary people didn't have cars, running water, or electricity.

You really want to go back to that?

It doesn't take a scholar to figure this out. The Fed is the elephant in the room, and there is NOTHING hurting our nations economically as bad as it is.

Every bank loans out more money than it has. That's how the system works. The banks go to the Fed for a loan, the Fed prints the money, loans it to the banks which loan it to us. All with interest. That Interest gets kicked back to the Fed. All for doing nothing but running a printing press. Wouldn't it be better for that money to go back into our economy?

This paragraph is economic gibberish.

The Fed pays most of its revenue to the government. It doesn't leave the economy.

 

[Sundial]

The people who ultimately will have to pay back this loan will be future generations of Americans.

And they'll pay it to...?

 

[bripat9643]

The people who ultimately will have to pay back this loan will be future generations of Americans.

And they'll pay it to...?

What difference to them does it make who they pay it to?

 

[saveliberty]

The people who ultimately will have to pay back this loan will be future generations of Americans.

And they'll pay it to...?

Increasingly to foreign nationals and governments. Take a remedial economics class.

 

[bripat9643]

And they'll pay it to...?

Increasingly to foreign nationals and governments. Take a remedial economics class.

Most of it will go to rich fat cats who own treasury bonds. Somehow that is supposed to make future generations working like borrowed mules to pay it feel better.

 

[Sundial]

And they'll pay it to...?

Increasingly to foreign nationals and governments. Take a remedial economics class.

Most of it will go to rich fat cats who own treasury bonds. Someone that is supposed to make future generations working like borrowed mules to pay it feel better.

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

 

[saveliberty]

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

The dollar is a world currency and is used to buy things around the planet sundial. The amount of US debt held by the rest of the world has been going up quite a bit. Where is the corresponding increase in US jobs your theory says will occur? Fail.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well now there is a grand total of two mental cases who think the debt is good for the country. The k00k who authored this thread and the mental case at the New York Times, Krugman.

 

[bripat9643]

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

What you seem oblivious to is the fact that your grandchildren will be paying the interest and the principle. How will they benefit from the debt we incur today? Not only do they not benefit, we do not benefit. 90% of that money goes swirling down the welfare sewer.

 

[Sundial]

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

The dollar is a world currency and is used to buy things around the planet sundial. The amount of US debt held by the rest of the world has been going up quite a bit. Where is the corresponding increase in US jobs your theory says will occur? Fail.

Imagine you could write out an IOU and buy something. But instead of coming back to you for payment, the guy trades it to someone else, who trades it to someone else, etc. And it never comes back to you. That's a pretty good deal. You're getting something for nothing.

If foreigners trade dollars with each other, forever, without ever buying US goods and services, that's what they'd be doing.

At some point, however, foreigners, collectively, are more likely to decide they've got enough US dollars, and they'll want to turn them in for payment.

A dollar is an IOU for American goods and services. When a foreigner turns a dollar in for payment that's what he gets. American goods and services.

Ultimately the only use for dollars is to buy stuff from us. They don't have to buy stuff from us. They can keep the dollars instead. But if they want to get any use out of them - other than trading them with each other - that's all they can do.

And just like we create jobs in China (or wherever) when we use dollars to buy stuff from them, they will create jobs in the US when they use dollars to buy stuff from us.

 

[saveliberty]

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

The dollar is a world currency and is used to buy things around the planet sundial. The amount of US debt held by the rest of the world has been going up quite a bit. Where is the corresponding increase in US jobs your theory says will occur? Fail.

Imagine you could write out an IOU and buy something. But instead of coming back to you for payment, the guy trades it to someone else, who trades it to someone else, etc. And it never comes back to you. That's a pretty good deal. You're getting something for nothing.

If foreigners trade dollars with each other, forever, without ever buying US goods and services, that's what they'd be doing.

At some point, however, foreigners, collectively, are more likely to decide they've got enough US dollars, and they'll want to turn them in for payment.

A dollar is an IOU for American goods and services. When a foreigner turns a dollar in for payment that's what he gets. American goods and services.

Ultimately the only use for dollars is to buy stuff from us. They don't have to buy stuff from us. They can keep the dollars instead. But if they want to get any use out of them - other than trading them with each other - that's all they can do.

And just like we create jobs in China (or wherever) when we use dollars to buy stuff from them, they will create jobs in the US when they use dollars to buy stuff from us.

Those IOUs. They cause inflation, as the dollars become worth less, foreigners rush to get rid of them. It costs us more to buy from them. That hurts us and is far from free.

 

[Meister]

I don't know I would say debt is good but there's a lot of truth in what you say. Running a business or the government of a cash basis means you bypass a lot a lot of good things, like the putting a man on moon and the interstate highway system. However, when you consistently grow debt faster than GDP growth, you will have problem. Interest will become such a large expense that it threatens your ability to continue borrowing and your credit standing with your lenders.

There is a point where debt becomes a problem. But we're not there. Japan has twice the debt that we do, as a ratio to GDP, and interest rates even lower than ours. Our interest rates are at historic lows, and the amount of interest we're paying is manageable.

Reducing unemployment, on the other hand, would improve the governments situation, because it would bring in more income in the long run.

You want to use Japan as a reference point in your debate?

Twenty years of economic stagnation and you want to use Japan? Please read this and get back to us, okay?
http://pzacad.pitzer.edu/~lyamane/hoshi1.pdf

 

[KissMy]

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

You seem to be stuck in the era of "Petro Dollar Recycling". That is when the US & others could only pay OPEC for oil in US Dollars Only. Those days were great because the only place OPEC could spend those US Dollars was to buy goods from the USA.

Now 3/4 of our US currency circulates outside of the US boarders. That means OPEC can buy from China directly now instead of going through the USA. Conversely China can buy oil from OPEC directly now instead of going through the USA. So the "Petro Dollar Recycling" model is broken.

Also the more debt we have & the more interest we pay goes to foreigners who used their US Dollars to buy our bonds.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think it has to do with whether the country can afford to make the payments, not any particular ratio to GDP. Japan's ratio is over 200%, and their interest rate is lower than ours. Interest on the debt is something like 6% of the budget in the US. It's not that much.

The debt is not the problem right now; unemployment is.

The only part of the Republican argument about the debt that's right is that we can't run large deficits indefinitely or forever. But that's not what economists like Krugman are arguing. They're arguing for temporary deficits - larger than what we have now - until the recovery is secure.

Obama's "stimulus" shows the problem with that theory. It was sold as a temporary jump in spending to prevent unemployment. However, all the additional spending was incorporated into the baseline, so the spending increases were actually permanent.

So-called "temporary deficits" always turn into permanent spending increases. When did any government agency ever have it's budget cut in real terms? the answer is "never."

Anyone arguing for "temporary deficits" is a con artist trying to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers.

This is an inherent flaw in the thinking or the left. You can use temporary spending increases tp deal with temporary unemployment problems during time of economic recession. The THEORY is quite sound. The failure is in the execution. Politicians do not give money back and those ‘temporoary’ positions never go away. There are stark problems in the actual execution of such an idea. It simply does not work.

Sun points to unemployment as our problem and not spending. I would like to know where that employment is after spending trillions of dollars? It is not here simply because the idea that the government is creating employment through this spending is a complete myth. More so, none of this is temporary. The budget arguments highlight it well. After all the bickering there are virtually no cuts anywhere and we have gone through this TWICE!

Our money is backed by Treasury bonds. Gold and silver, on the other hand, are backed by nothing.

Did you really just utter this!! That is absolutely insane. Essentially, our money is backed by… our money! And you feel that is a more secure and sure backing then gold which is backed by its inherent rarity and value? Sure, should the entire system collapse then gold and silver will be worthless but so would dollars. Food would be the only commodity worth anything at that point. Gold will always hold value far better than a fiat currency. Your currency is only valuable as long as the government is able to make it that way. At some point, if we continue on this asinine road, the government will no longer be able to float that. I can’t say that I would prefer an actual gold backed system like we had before only because that is a far more complicated matter but to say our currency has is backed by bonds but gold is backed by nothing is plain dumb.

It's true the rich benefit most from interest that's paid on the debt. On the other hand, they pay more taxes, so it evens out.

As for the foreign nationals, they can only either keep their dollars forever, or use them to buy stuff from us. If they keep them forever, great. If they buy stuff, that's not the end of the world either. It creates jobs in the US.

The dollar is a world currency and is used to buy things around the planet sundial. The amount of US debt held by the rest of the world has been going up quite a bit. Where is the corresponding increase in US jobs your theory says will occur? Fail.

Imagine you could write out an IOU and buy something. But instead of coming back to you for payment, the guy trades it to someone else, who trades it to someone else, etc. And it never comes back to you. That's a pretty good deal. You're getting something for nothing.

If foreigners trade dollars with each other, forever, without ever buying US goods and services, that's what they'd be doing.

At some point, however, foreigners, collectively, are more likely to decide they've got enough US dollars, and they'll want to turn them in for payment.

A dollar is an IOU for American goods and services. When a foreigner turns a dollar in for payment that's what he gets. American goods and services.

Ultimately the only use for dollars is to buy stuff from us. They don't have to buy stuff from us. They can keep the dollars instead. But if they want to get any use out of them - other than trading them with each other - that's all they can do.

And just like we create jobs in China (or wherever) when we use dollars to buy stuff from them, they will create jobs in the US when they use dollars to buy stuff from us.

That is absolutely ridiculous. Where do you get the idea that a dollar has any connection to American goods and services? They are not connected at all. Dollars are a form of currency and that’s that. It does not matter whether it is dollars or denarii, they can be spent in virtually any part of the world or converted to another currency that is.

If the US Government was a family, their current financial status would look like this:

They make $58,000 per year, but spend $75,000 per year, and they have $327,000 in credit card debt.

Now liberals, please twist this to some how explain this is "good". This should be fun to watch them trip over themselves trying to explain how this kind of irresponsible, reckless spending is "good".

The US government is not a family.

Sure, but the principal is the same. How is owing almost a decade worth of earnings in debt and still growing be a benefit in any way. The situation WILL become untenable. There is no way to avoid the simple fact that you cannot have ever increasing debt and ever increasing interest payments. That simply does not work.

You are mistaking actual loans with government debt that is created from nothing. There are no dollars before the debt is created, no value. You cannot get something from nothing. When the government creates that debt it takes from the value of the overall system in the same way that printing cash does. At some point the debt will grow to a proportion that will cause the monetary system to crash. The point that there is no ability to actually pay back the debt that has been promised. We are not that far of fof that point either. The overall problem is not simply in the 14 trillion that we owe. While that is a monumental amount of money it is not that grate a sum in the larger scale we are dealing with. The problem is we are facing a 14 trillion debt that can and will double in the next decade as it has done in the decade previous. The debt is growing so fast that soon it cannot be addressed. What we have to face is the fact that that money IS owed. It is owed to Americans, foreigners and people all around the globe. In order for it to have value there has to be a way to pay it back without simply printing what we owe. If we cannot, people[le will no longer value dollars anymore and the entire system will collapse.

 

[Steelplate]

OK... we have 10 pages of this thread that I am not willing to go through to decipher the ins and outs of the exchange...

Here's what I have to say on the matter... Debt is not all that good, or not all that bad.

It's not good in the fact that we can't keep adding to it in a willy nilly fashion. It's not bad if you look at the current debt in a long term fashion.

I will try to explain the best that I can....

First off.. Health Care is one our biggest pain in the ASS areas of our economy. Whether Conservatives like it or not... the bottom line is we are #1 in the WORLD in expense and #38 in quality of care.... no matter how you slice it... that's fucked up. Even the most ignorant of you Tea Partiers should be able to understand that.

Second of all... We spend more than 8X our next LEADING competitor in the area of Military and defense spending. WTF??? Are we afraid that McDonnell Douglass or Boeing is going to sell to the Chinese? Is that what this is all about? That we have to keep them happy so they don't sell to the commies or the Muslim terrorists? I really don't get it... so someone who is in the know, explain it to me. Or is it just taxpayer welfare to keep otherwise unsustainable businesses afloat?

Help me to understand why we should keep on giving welfare to Insurance companies and Defense Contractors while our weakest citizens struggle to survive...

 

[Meister]

OK... we have 10 pages of this thread that I am not willing to go through to decipher the ins and outs of the exchange...

Here's what I have to say on the matter... Debt is not all that good, or not all that bad.

It's not good in the fact that we can't keep adding to it in a willy nilly fashion. It's not bad if you look at the current debt in a long term fashion.

I will try to explain the best that I can....

First off.. Health Care is one our biggest pain in the ASS areas of our economy. Whether Conservatives like it or not... the bottom line is we are #1 in the WORLD in expense and #38 in quality of care.... no matter how you slice it... that's fucked up. Even the most ignorant of you Tea Partiers should be able to understand that.Second of all... We spend more than 8X our next LEADING competitor in the area of Military and defense spending. WTF??? Are we afraid that McDonnell Douglass or Boeing is going to sell to the Chinese? Is that what this is all about? That we have to keep them happy so they don't sell to the commies or the Muslim terrorists? I really don't get it... so someone who is in the know, explain it to me. Or is it just taxpayer welfare to keep otherwise unsustainable businesses afloat?

Help me to understand why we should keep on giving welfare to Insurance companies and Defense Contractors while our weakest citizens struggle to survive...

Drink some more of that Kool-Aid and get back to your echo chamber

 

[Steelplate]

OK... we have 10 pages of this thread that I am not willing to go through to decipher the ins and outs of the exchange...

Here's what I have to say on the matter... Debt is not all that good, or not all that bad.

It's not good in the fact that we can't keep adding to it in a willy nilly fashion. It's not bad if you look at the current debt in a long term fashion.

I will try to explain the best that I can....

First off.. Health Care is one our biggest pain in the ASS areas of our economy. Whether Conservatives like it or not... the bottom line is we are #1 in the WORLD in expense and #38 in quality of care.... no matter how you slice it... that's fucked up. Even the most ignorant of you Tea Partiers should be able to understand that.Second of all... We spend more than 8X our next LEADING competitor in the area of Military and defense spending. WTF??? Are we afraid that McDonnell Douglass or Boeing is going to sell to the Chinese? Is that what this is all about? That we have to keep them happy so they don't sell to the commies or the Muslim terrorists? I really don't get it... so someone who is in the know, explain it to me. Or is it just taxpayer welfare to keep otherwise unsustainable businesses afloat?

Help me to understand why we should keep on giving welfare to Insurance companies and Defense Contractors while our weakest citizens struggle to survive...

Drink some more of that Kool-Aid and get back to your echo chamber

Hey... you give a one line response... and I'll give you one back... FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

Ok... look at my reason for going beyond the one line.....

Those numbers come from The World Health Organization... BTW..... I was wrong... I was pulling the 38th number from memory.... after researching.. you were right... I was drinking the kool aid.... it's 37th(sue me).... right behind Costa Rica and right behind Slovenia. Keep drinking YOUR kool aid motherfucker.

 

[Full-Auto]

OK... we have 10 pages of this thread that I am not willing to go through to decipher the ins and outs of the exchange...

Here's what I have to say on the matter... Debt is not all that good, or not all that bad.

It's not good in the fact that we can't keep adding to it in a willy nilly fashion. It's not bad if you look at the current debt in a long term fashion.

I will try to explain the best that I can....

First off.. Health Care is one our biggest pain in the ASS areas of our economy. Whether Conservatives like it or not... the bottom line is we are #1 in the WORLD in expense and #38 in quality of care.... no matter how you slice it... that's fucked up. Even the most ignorant of you Tea Partiers should be able to understand that.Second of all... We spend more than 8X our next LEADING competitor in the area of Military and defense spending. WTF??? Are we afraid that McDonnell Douglass or Boeing is going to sell to the Chinese? Is that what this is all about? That we have to keep them happy so they don't sell to the commies or the Muslim terrorists? I really don't get it... so someone who is in the know, explain it to me. Or is it just taxpayer welfare to keep otherwise unsustainable businesses afloat?

Help me to understand why we should keep on giving welfare to Insurance companies and Defense Contractors while our weakest citizens struggle to survive...

Drink some more of that Kool-Aid and get back to your echo chamber

Hey... you give a one line response... and I'll give you one back... FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!