Will you be a patriot?

[Sail Away]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

 

[B. Kidd]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, but then again I fail to see how supporting the same things that are leading this county to ruin by funding them myself is patriotic. Change is not going to come in that manner.

 

[uscitizen]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

These are the same "experts" that got blindsided by the finiancial fall?

 

[Sail Away]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

I'm not implying war bonds! The government sell bonds to finance debt. As the US accumulate more and more debt and shows less and less fiscal discipline, international bond buyers will eventually lose interest or interest rates will grow. Hence, the government will turn to the public asking them to buy it's debt (beggar's bonds). The government will use words like "honor" "allegence" "duty" "patriot" and other words an marketing terms, attempting to get you to buy.

If you you don't buy? - sovereign default, internal currency devaluation, mass austerity.

 

[Sail Away]

No, but then again I fail to see how supporting the same things that are leading this county to ruin by funding them myself is patriotic. Change is not going to come in that manner.

How might you think that change will occur?

 

[Sail Away]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

These are the same "experts" that got blindsided by the finiancial fall?

Actually, Libsky (IMF), Siglitz (WB) and Roubini (IMF) foresaw the collapse. Roubini actually had the timing correct. Rajan, rarely makes such predictions. Clinton had to have seen it coming.

 

[B. Kidd]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

I'm not implying war bonds! The government sell bonds to finance debt. As the US accumulate more and more debt and shows less and less fiscal discipline, international bond buyers will eventually lose interest or interest rates will grow. Hence, the government will turn to the public asking them to buy it's debt (beggar's bonds). The government will use words like "honor" "allegence" "duty" "patriot" and other words an marketing terms, attempting to get you to buy.

If you you don't buy? - sovereign default, internal currency devaluation, mass austerity.

Okay. Forget war bonds, me bad.

The government does not need to turn to the public to buy debt nor need to use patriotic catchphrases to hypothetically market bonds to the public to finance debt. Why? Because government already is using some of the public's money to already finance debt. It's called taxes!
For example, the government has already been buying at least 1/3rd of California's state bonds to finance California's debt whether or not you live in California. And I don't remember the government marketing to me, a non-Californian, to buy California bonds for not only the good of California, but the Union as a whole. I bought, you bought, and we bought, basically, not because we were marketed 'beggar's bonds'; we bought because we had no choice.

 

[JFK_USA]

If being a patroit means to be a complete idiot like US Army Retired, count me out.

 

[JBeukema]

Will you be a patriot?

It's improbable, seeing as I'm not a nationalist by nature.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

Would "debt bonds to get us out from under China's thumb" be a more appropriate title?

How's about "bonds to clean up the mess Bush Jr. left"?

Either one is true.

 

[mdn2000]

Will we all just take whatever is left after paying thousands in taxes, hundreds to register are vehicles, whatever is left after paying 5$ a lb for hamburger, after paying 2$ for eggs and another 3$ for milk, whatever is left after you pay 4$ for a gallon of gas, after you pay your 300$ electric bill, can you not be patriotic and buy bonds after California has bought useless Wind Turbines (sounds better than wind mill) that drove up all these prices.

Patriotic, the title of this thread should replace Patriotic with Moronic.

 

[HUGGY]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

To compare the sense of unity of purpose of WWII and our reaction to the events of 9/11 it is an exercise that has a half life of about five minutes. The harder one looks at it the values, comparison get embarrassing. WWII was an actual war. We were attacked by an actual sovereign enemy with the other components of the Axis waiting in the wings. Our choice was clear at the moment of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Fight or perish. As hard as Bush, Cheney and the black traitor that gave the song and dance at the UN with the stick figure evidence of WMD's tried to whip us into a war mentality and as violent and senseless the attacks were we had no country to declare war on. They were in fact crimes. Terrorist absolutely on a scale not yet seen on that level. There was no need for an invasion. We could have cleaned up Al Kaida with special ops and good intelligence. We had the whole world on our side for that moment and co operation would have been forthcoming.

That said asking the American people to rally up and spend good money after bad and categorize it as "patriotic" is insulting.

Our way of life and survival is not and never was on the line. If you ask me Haliburton should have paid for the wars as the cost of doing business.

 

[Rozman]

I suppose, 'Afghanistan War Bonds' would be a hard sell.
I consider myself to be patriotic, BUT I'M NOT A TOTAL FUCKIN' IDIOT!
In fact, it would be patriotic NOT to buy them, if they were ever offered.

Would "debt bonds to get us out from under China's thumb" be a more appropriate title?

How's about "bonds to clean up the mess Bush Jr. left"?

Either one is true.

Or they could be called "The democrat controlled Congress since 2006 till 2011 and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage to people who couldn't pay them back Bonds"

 

[editec]

The military and HSA are immune to cuts this round.

And I should buy dubiously valued BONDS to support that crap?

I don't think so.

 

[Dr.Drock]

40-45% of money earned by individuals and companies goes back to government one way or another.

The OP says our government can't responsibly spend/save that enormous amount of money and his conclusion is to give them more money and expect them to be able to fix the problem they created.

 

[Jackson]

You know what's interesting? Someone mentioned buying a California bond and no one would do that. It's all a matter of confidence, but suddenly I thought I would buy a bond for New Jersy. That's how much confidence I have for Chris Christi.

 

[Vanquish]

You know this thread actually has illuminated a pretty important point.

If you get taxed to do the right thing (pay off debt) it's evil.
If you buy bonds of your own free will to do the right thing (pay off debt) suddenly it's ok.

I guess we Americans just dont like to be forced to do anything. Damn colonial streak.

The crazy thing is...it would be highly progressive as the poor would buy less and the rich buy more.

 

[California Girl]

I've watching WEF interviews with with some of the most credible economists in in the world. These folks maintain their credibility as the have "no ax to grind" or no alterior motive to their opinions. The economic conscientious, of the economists, is that the US government is: "weak leadership", "populist directives", "inability to act", "misdirected", "short sighted", "ineffective" e.g.

These valuations are obvious due to congress's (recently displayed) inability cut military/security spending, alleviate earmark spending, rejection of the US Debt Commission's plan, inability to instill voluntary austerity, escalation in annual budget, continued corporate welfare e.g.

So the question is WHEN (I don't believe it is any longer a case on "if") the US starts to have trouble selling it bonds, will YOU step up and help by "buying stock in America". This was the strategy during during WWII and Japan's current debt crisis and it's going to happen again.

These are the same "experts" that got blindsided by the finiancial fall?

Actually, Libsky (IMF), Siglitz (WB) and Roubini (IMF) foresaw the collapse. Roubini actually had the timing correct. Rajan, rarely makes such predictions. Clinton had to have seen it coming.

Many economists predicted the collapse. Governments chose not to listen. Now that it's happened, people looking for the easy answer attribute blame to anyone they can, economists, Bush, one particular political party, etc. They do this, despite the wealth of evidence that proves them wrong.

 

[California Girl]

Being a patriotic conservative, I would invest in my country's debt by buying bonds. Even if I lost money on them.