Math Lesson for the Feeble Minded

[Freemason9]

So? **** the future generations. Who cares about those yet to be born? We're ENTITLED to live this way.

Maybe that's why liberals are all pro abortion. They refuse to burden their children with their debt. Liberal thinking say's burden YOUR children, not their own.

I asked this question earlier, but I haven't had a response--why do you believe we have to "pay back" this debt? Because as I see it, the federal debt is a reflection of our expanding money supply, and it is a response to the demands of economic growth.

What happens if we don't pay it back? And, if we do pay it back, who gets the money? Since it is public debt, don't we owe it to ourselves?

I think the federal debt is really just an accounting issue. It's not like consumer debt, you know.

 

[ilia25]

Certainly, increasing tax rates helped France generate the revenue they need, right? And when the UK did it, they saw an increase in tax revenue, didn't they? How about California's recent tax rate hike? Did their revenues increase or decrease?

The new French tax rates are only scheduled to kick in in 2013, genius. As for the UK, the tax revenues drops during the recession, particularly in the top brackets. So it proves nothing.

And already the rich are fleeing France...and tax revenues are down. Any chance the recession in the UK is being exacerbated by their higher tax rates? Naw, couldn't be!

But you just keep telling us that higher tax rates will fix our spending problem.

Sure I keep telling that -- and you can't argue. All you do is asking stupid question like "maybe higher taxes for the rich can cause a recession?..."

You really think that asking me if I could be wrong proves that I am?

 

[WillowTree]

OK. Let's get real about spending cuts and taxes. Reinstate the whole of the Clinton Tax Schedule. Add 5% on those making more than a million, and make that on all income from whatever source. Cut Defensed spending by half. Adopt the Japanese Health Care System, and halve the cost of Health Care, with great improvements in results. Also takes the burden off of businesses, so small businesses are on equal footing with big business as far as health care is concerned. You want to play with Social Security? Then let's means test the upper end. And make the 6.2% tax that I pay go all the way up the scale on all income.

The suggestions I have made would go far to balance the budget. But would never be adopted by any party.

Just raising the top tax rate to 70% -- the rates we lived with during decades before Reagan was elected -- will be enough to bring the deficits down to sustainable levels.

Just do away with the voodoo economics that were forced on us by Republicans 30 years ago, and we will be fine.

You're such a ******* idiot.

 

[PaulS1950]

The simple fact is that our representative government has been and is spending 1/3 more money than they collect in taxes. BOTH PARTIES are guilty of this. This is not about deficit spending it is about a debt that, if not paid, will be the end of the USA. At this point in time it is nearly useless to even consider paying that debt off. It would take over a 50% reduction in or national budget and thousands of years to pay off the debt. I don't see any polititian tackling that task and I don't see the people of the USA even considering that. What that leaves us with is the ruination of the USA. It doesn't matter whether you are liberal, socialist, republican or fascist. The place you live is going to be a hell on earth when it finally collapses in the next twenty years. You will be alive to see it and your children will be alive to see it. Whom ever has the most power when the collapse occurs will for whatever will replace the USA and its constitution.
The only proactive solution is to disolve the representative form of government that we have and institute a new constitution that ensures the rights and freedoms of the individuals who are citizens. We will need to educate people to do their own voting rather than leaving it up to some representative that they can later blame for what goes wrong.
The constitution will have to be protected by a court that determines the constitutionality of each law before it is passed. That way no majority can subvert or bypass the constitution to pass laws that do not reflect its integrity. Although we need a representative that can meet with other world leaders, that representative should have no power of law. The military will be under the direct control of the people through the joint chiefs of staff and a citizen vote.

But why do we have to pay off the debt? SERIOUSLY. And, who do we pay it to? Ourselves?

What happens if we don't worry about it? Anything? Because nothing's happened so far.

The debt is owed to other countries - like China and the countries in the middle east. If we default our fuel prices double - that will make prices on everything we have go up because it is all shipped all over the world and US. Defaulting on the debt will cause at least double digit inflation and likely triple digit inflation. You will make less money value than it takes to pay for the necessities of life and each day it will be worth less and less. It would make the great depression look like a holiday picnic. The government won't be able to pay your social security, tax refund or health care. You won't be able to get your "Obama phone". You will lose your home because you can't pay for it. China owns a lot of US businesses and land - they could try to plant their flag on it and without money the military will have no way to prevent it. At the same time we will all be completely disarmed by then and the populace won't be able to stop it either.
Start learning to speak chinese!

 

[cutter]

So? **** the future generations. Who cares about those yet to be born? We're ENTITLED to live this way.

Maybe that's why liberals are all pro abortion. They refuse to burden their children with their debt. Liberal thinking say's burden YOUR children, not their own.

I asked this question earlier, but I haven't had a response--why do you believe we have to "pay back" this debt? Because as I see it, the federal debt is a reflection of our expanding money supply, and it is a response to the demands of economic growth.

What happens if we don't pay it back? And, if we do pay it back, who gets the money? Since it is public debt, don't we owe it to ourselves?

I think the federal debt is really just an accounting issue. It's not like consumer debt, you know.

It probably doesn't matter unless your pension plan is invested in federal bonds or any mutual funds you own have invested in federal bonds.

 

[ilia25]

So? **** the future generations. Who cares about those yet to be born? We're ENTITLED to live this way.

Maybe that's why liberals are all pro abortion. They refuse to burden their children with their debt. Liberal thinking say's burden YOUR children, not their own.

I asked this question earlier, but I haven't had a response--why do you believe we have to "pay back" this debt? Because as I see it, the federal debt is a reflection of our expanding money supply, and it is a response to the demands of economic growth.

What happens if we don't pay it back? And, if we do pay it back, who gets the money? Since it is public debt, don't we owe it to ourselves?

I think the federal debt is really just an accounting issue. It's not like consumer debt, you know.

The government debt is not really an accounting issue. If the debt will keep growing faster than GDP we will suffer the consequences.

That said, it is a problem very different from what you hear from the usual suspects.

First, we can service much higher level of debt -- at least twice as high (Japan is good example of that, and there were other examples in the past).
Second, current large deficits are not a problem either -- they are a side effect of a depressed economy, and they are shrinking as the economy slowly recovers (down to 1 trillion now from the peak of 1.5).

That means we do not have to worry about the debt in the next 20 years at least.

Long term there could be problems. We don't know what the economy will look like in 20 years. It is entirely possible that the long term economic growth will pick up again tanks to new technologies and discoveries, and then we will worry about the current debt no more that about the WWII debt (which was never paid down) .

But then again, it is possible that long term the debt will keep growing too fast. Then what will happen if we keep ignoring it for too long?

Well we can tell what can't happen for sure -- the US government cannot go bankrupt. Its debt is in dollars and it can print the stuff. So the worst case scenario is a too high inflation. And still, it could only happen in a very distant future -- after at least 20 more years of doing nothing about our fiscal situation.

And trying to fix the debt now, beyond rising taxes on the rich, will be counter-productive. Remember that the current deficits are the result of a depressed economy, pure and simple. And cutting government spending would only prolong depression -- and the high deficits.

 

[HUGGY]

At the end of Obama's second term, the U.S. National Debt will be $20 trillion. Annual interest on this debt will be:

1% = $200 billion

2% = $400 billion

3% = $600 billion

4% = $800 billion

5% = $1 trillion (1/4 of federal budget)

Do you think the rest of the world is going to loan us all the money we want at zero per cent interest forever? Where are U.S. businesses going to get loans for expansion if the federal government soaks up all available credit? When will this bubble burst?

Are you Obama supporters OK with this? Do you even care?

Typical fear mongering. The cost of the current added debt is at around 1%. Screaming about 1%? You are an idiot. Stop spending SS income receipts on other things and "owing" SS a debt.

 

[Dragonlady]

He is the President, the one promoting a budget that will surpass $20 trillion of debt. What the **** would be the point of bitching about how much past presidents/Congresses contributed to that debt? We either deal with the situation we face today or we don't. Obama is the face of what we're dealing with today, just as Bush was a decade ago. Do you stand against more debt or not? That's all that matters.

You're whining and complaining about something that hasn't even happened, but what has already happened isn't important? Does that sound sensible or logical to you?

 

[beretta304]

Just one more time for the fear mongers stating to learn Chinese.

lol @ math lesson.

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

Read more: US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to? | Fox News

That's worse. We can say screw you China and pay the price but we can also screw 2/3 of Americans. Doesn't sound good either way.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes, as we know, no Republican Congress or President has ever added to our national debt. It was all Democrats who got us here. Republicans are fiscal conservatives. Just ask them, and they will tell you.


I don't know how I said that with a straight face. There should be an Emmy for internet posting.

Thanks for the fence-sitter opinion.

Finger-pointing and using moral equivalency doesn't excuse the spending in Washington.

 

[chikenwing]

Liberals don't let facts permeate their ideology, but when money comes out of their pockets they turn violent!

Why on earth do you always blame these "Liberals" for the national debt? Hell, Ronald Wilson Reagan began the modern political theme of increasing federal spending and reducing taxes.

Reagan discovered that giving out freebies wins elections!

Don't blame fuckin' liberals. They may be blamed for many other things, but the neocons of the Republican Party started this federal debt debacle. Another name for the federal debt is Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Reagan began the slow destruction of this nation to win his elections.

Which branch controls the money? what party held the house all during Regan's terms??

Befor the house went to the Rebubs in the mid 90's how many years did the Dems hold power??


Both paties are to blame, unwilling to hold current leader's feet to fire is just simple party quackery.

 

[ilia25]

Just one more time for the fear mongers stating to learn Chinese.

lol @ math lesson.

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

Read more: US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to? | Fox News

That's worse. We can say screw you China and pay the price but we can also screw 2/3 of Americans. Doesn't sound good either way.

Default never sounds good.

But if paying down the debt sounds to you like a burden imposed on our children, then you obviously didn't get the memo.

Because that debt will be paid mostly to our children.

 

[beretta304]

Just one more time for the fear mongers stating to learn Chinese.

lol @ math lesson.

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

Read more: US debt tops $16 trillion: So who do we owe most of that money to? | Fox News

That's worse. We can say screw you China and pay the price but we can also screw 2/3 of Americans. Doesn't sound good either way.

Default never sounds good.

But if paying down the debt sounds to you like a burden imposed on our children, then you obviously didn't get the memo.
Because that debt will be paid mostly to our children.

We see how it gets "paid down", don't we.

 

[Seawytch]

It's obvious that nobody is actually serious about controlling debt and deficits since cutting defense spending never seems to be on the table.

 

[ilia25]

Liberals don't let facts permeate their ideology, but when money comes out of their pockets they turn violent!

Why on earth do you always blame these "Liberals" for the national debt? Hell, Ronald Wilson Reagan began the modern political theme of increasing federal spending and reducing taxes.

Reagan discovered that giving out freebies wins elections!

Don't blame fuckin' liberals. They may be blamed for many other things, but the neocons of the Republican Party started this federal debt debacle. Another name for the federal debt is Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Reagan began the slow destruction of this nation to win his elections.

Which branch controls the money? what party held the house all during Regan's terms??

It's not about who was holding the house.

It is about who figured out that they can win the elections by assuring voters that they can have a cake and eat it too.

It was called "voodoo economics" by no other than George H. W. Bush -- a promise that we can make significant tax cuts w/o affecting the tax revenue. That the tax cuts pay for themselves.

That was a lie. But that was the lie the voters wanted to believe in, and it was Reagan who figured out that he could win the elections by telling people things they want to hear, even if those things are untrue.



As for the tax cuts, sure enough they led to deficits, which the same Republicans are now using as a pretext to the benefit cuts.

 

[eflatminor]

He is the President, the one promoting a budget that will surpass $20 trillion of debt. What the **** would be the point of bitching about how much past presidents/Congresses contributed to that debt? We either deal with the situation we face today or we don't. Obama is the face of what we're dealing with today, just as Bush was a decade ago. Do you stand against more debt or not? That's all that matters.

You're whining and complaining about something that hasn't even happened, but what has already happened isn't important? Does that sound sensible or logical to you?

Unsustainable debt has already happened. Fiat money has already happened. A majority of the citizenry reliant upon entitlements has already happened. If you know your economic history, you'd know what comes next. It isn't pretty.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Edmund Burke (1729-1797)