What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Our National Debt, spending addiction and deficit spending is problem 1

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
It would have been easier and more honest of you to simply admit that you cannot (or that you refuse to) define that term.
His term refers to the non-exisitng "right" of the deadwood non-producers to loot the wealth created by others whom work, invest, and produce wealth.

Several years ago when operating a furniture delivery service, my employee/helper often had weeks where his paycheck was larger than mine. I guaranteed him an hourly rate for his "time" even though about 4/5ths was spent riding about looking out the window.

I on the other hand I got my pay via profits, which came after vehicle operating expenses, other overhead, and his pay.

When it came time to shut down that operation, he wasn't eager to have a "debt equality" with the bills I was left to pay.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
The time machine displaying debt runs off the page.
Have you used the scroll function at the bottom of the page to move the screen display?
 
OP
BackAgain

BackAgain

Unobtainium member-seeker & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
3,623
Points
1,903
His term refers to the non-exisitng "right" of the deadwood non-producers to loot the wealth created by others whom work, invest, and produce wealth.

Several years ago when operating a furniture delivery service, my employee/helper often had weeks where his paycheck was larger than mine. I guaranteed him an hourly rate for his "time" even though about 4/5ths was spent riding about looking out the window.

I on the other hand I got my pay via profits, which came after vehicle operating expenses, other overhead, and his pay.

When it came time to shut down that operation, he wasn't eager to have a "debt equality" with the bills I was left to pay.
You are coming dangerously close to underscoring why our pal from Canuckistan is so eager to avoid defining his terms.

in the void he creates by his lack of scholarship and balls, you have deftly managed to show that “income equality” has a flip side. I haven’t seen the term “debt equality” before. Nice turn of phrase!

Often times when I see a strange term like the lib plaything “income inequality,” I try to solidify it by asking what it’s antithesis might be. I thought of “income equality.” That was met with the liberals’ wailing and gnashing of teeth. They did not like that one. Not. One. Little. Bit.

“No. No,” I was told. I just didn’t “grasp” what they were saying. True enough, I suppose. So, I asked. And guess what? Just like the ball-less Donald H, they generally shy away from anything that would demand a simple declarative definition. To many liberals and progressives, words have too much power in their propaganda to ever allow words to be subjected to precise meanings, after all.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
I'm a Canadian and I have no side.
The problem in place is lobbyists paying politicians to support the interests of big corporations and that burns up the money that needs to go into the pie for the working class.

Yes, I and others do want those who attained it to be forced to share it.
Capitalism works wonderfully well! No company, corporation, or corporatist has the right to keep all the money it/he earns. That's an established fact!

The question is then, how much does it/he have to pay back to the country that allows him to operate at a profit.

In one instance none! He can take his corporation to China and they will allow him to keep a bigger portion maybe?
There are also lobbyists operating on behalf on non-profits and NGOs(Non Government Organizations) such and environmental groups, social welfare groups and and other wealth takers/redistributors.

You appear to have flunked Economics 101.

Wealth needs to be created before it can be taken and redistributed.
Wealth creation in free-enterprise/capitalist systems includes risk which can mean business debt and loss.

Workers are paid what they are worth based upon the cost to replace them, and based on their value to the employer. Also not everyone has the same skill sets or value to offer an employer. The person lumping freight on a shipping dock isn't the same value as say a neurosurgeon.

Do you have a right to keep all that you earn?
Assuming you actually work for a living and aren't another deadwood freeloader.

Are you willing to help pay and cover the losses that occur when a business doesn't operate profitably, fails, goes out of operation, but still has debts remaining owed to others?
 
OP
BackAgain

BackAgain

Unobtainium member-seeker & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
3,623
Points
1,903
Have you used the scroll function at the bottom of the page to move the screen display?
No. But I wasn’t concerned about it. I see it’s about $29 TRILLION. The fact that the running tally is too hard to contain in one page is but an obvious consequence of how atrociously large that debt is.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
No. But I wasn’t concerned about it. I see it’s about $29 TRILLION. The fact that the running tally is too hard to contain in one page is but an obvious consequence of how atrociously large that debt is.
There are quite a few charts/tables/running breakdowns to keep within a typical screen size.
The Time machine function would help show the increase of Debt/Deficit over the past forty years.
There is also a page click to show Debt to GDP ration of other nations and many are running much higher than the USA. It's how those "developed" Western Nations can provide so much, charging it on the credit card so to speak.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
You are coming dangerously close to underscoring why our pal from Canuckistan is so eager to avoid defining his terms.

in the void he creates by his lack of scholarship and balls, you have deftly managed to show that “income equality” has a flip side. I haven’t seen the term “debt equality” before. Nice turn of phrase!

Often times when I see a strange term like the lib plaything “income inequality,” I try to solidify it by asking what it’s antithesis might be. I thought of “income equality.” That was met with the liberals’ wailing and gnashing of teeth. They did not like that one. Not. One. Little. Bit.

“No. No,” I was told. I just didn’t “grasp” what they were saying. True enough, I suppose. So, I asked. And guess what? Just like the ball-less Donald H, they generally shy away from anything that would demand a simple declarative definition. To many liberals and progressives, words have too much power in their propaganda to ever allow words to be subjected to precise meanings, after all.
Probably should have been "debt inequality" or more correctly "risk inequality".

Anyone with experience in doing a business start-up will understand that there are no guarantees of business/customer traffic that will generate enough income/revenue to cover costs and overhead and produce profits. There is always the RISK that your investment (and debts/loans) may not be covered and repayable, your efforts could fail.

Hence the more valid concept is "risk inequality" which could be a counterpoint to "profit sharing" or the abused canard of "income inequality".

Our recent experience with the Covid "panic-demic" and assorted shutdowns, especially of small to medium size business is a classic example of the economic ignorance rampant in the loonie Leftist mindsets. Many of those operations run on tight margins where lack of revenue/income for even a few weeks~months could lead to default=closure=financial loss of the business and the jobs they provided. Such could also mean a loss to the investors.

Though I'm currently retired, the pension I receive via a former union job is a case where poor management of funds investments has this pension fund on brink of default, with obligations to pay exceeding resources to make those payments. Again, this is an example of the risk factor in free-enterprise/capitalist systems that aren't always covered by guv'mint printing money (inflation) and/or racking up deficit/debt to do "bailouts".
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
57,002
Reaction score
26,426
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Interest payments on the debt would fully fund all the social programs Dems want to fund. Unfortunately politicians spent us into a black hole of debt.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
1,695
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
If inflation turns out to be not as transitory as the democrats tell us, then the Fed may have to raise interest rates 4 or 5 times next year to tamp down inflation, and with every increase the interest on the debt grows larger. As does the democrat spending, when you increase the debt principal and the interest rate at the same time then those interest payments will rise significantly. The Left bitches incessantly about the tax cuts, but it wasn't that much relative to all the spending that has been done and will be done, especially if the democrats can pass their big spending human infrastructure bill that is said to be around $2 trillion but actually is north of $4 trillion over 10 years.

And let's not forget one other thing, every spending bill that passed in Congress had to have some democrat support and they ALWAYS wanted to spend more than the GOP did, a heckuva lot more. So, much of the debt under Trump would have been higher if the repubs hadn't fought hard for less spending.
I don't think you know how debt works. If the government sells a 30 year bond the interest rate on that bond is the same throughout the entire thirty years. If interest rates go up, then the bond prices go down. But that doesn't hurt the government, nor does it increase their cost of servicing their debt. Matter of fact, if bond prices fall significantly the government can buy back those bonds, retire that debt, like Bill Clinton did with will all the 30 year treasuries that were outstanding at the time. Today, right now, the Treasury is paying 1.83% for 30 year notes. Sorry, but AOC, the ex-bartender has it right. At rates like that you borrow all the hell you can get and you invest in things like infrastructure and education spending. Areas where the multiplier is greater than one and you expand the frontier curve. If interest rates climb into the stratosphere, you retire that debt at pennies on the dollar. I mean this is really basic Finance, sad to say that an ex-bartender understands it more than any Republican. Although I strongly suspect most Republicans understand it just as well as AOC and me and are simply playing politics instead of worrying about what is best for the country.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
1,695
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
Interest payments on the debt would fully fund all the social programs Dems want to fund. Unfortunately politicians spent us into a black hole of debt.
So, we can fund all the social programs with just five percent of the federal budget?
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Interest payments on the debt would fully fund all the social programs Dems want to fund. Unfortunately politicians spent us into a black hole of debt.
Again, look at that US Debt Clock page.
Per it, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security total over $3 Trillion of current annual budget expenses. Interest payments on the Federal Debt are only about $419 Billion.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
7,166
Reaction score
2,349
Points
208
Workers are paid what they are worth based upon the cost to replace them, and based on their value to the employer. Also not everyone has the same skill sets or value to offer an employer. The person lumping freight on a shipping dock isn't the same value as say a neurosurgeon.
No, that's not how capitalism works. Mind your manners and show that you can carry on a polite discussion and I'll tell you about it.
Also, you've made a few other mistakes that need correcting.
Your choice.
 

candycorn

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
83,912
Reaction score
22,512
Points
2,180
Of course the man who started all of the runaway deficit spending is Reagan. I know, somehow, congressional democrats will be blamed but in our system, the President signs off on every penny spent unless his veto is over-ridden.

Anyone who becomes President recalls how Reagan's spending is ignored and he is remembered favorably. So there is no political downside to the spending.
 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
5,576
Reaction score
6,296
Points
1,938
the tax cuts did not generate the new revenue Dump and Moscow Mitch promised.
So what? They let Americans keep more of their earnings. That's a fantastic thing. The government can cut spending to levels below revenue.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
58,728
Reaction score
17,905
Points
2,250
50 minutes; explains why Quantum Easing is causing excess speculation and making the wealthy wealthier.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
57,002
Reaction score
26,426
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
So, we can fund all the social programs with just five percent of the federal budget?
Like most libtards you suck at math. The current interest payment on the national debt is a whopping $300 billion but that's with interest rates historically low. If interest rates rise just 1% the interest payment balloons to $525 billion. That's over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Plenty for your social programs.
 

Winston

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
1,695
Points
210
Location
North Carolina
Like most libtards you suck at math. The current interest payment on the national debt is a whopping $300 billion but that's with interest rates historically low. If interest rates rise just 1% the interest payment balloons to $525 billion. That's over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Plenty for your social programs.
Evidently my math is spot on. 300 billion divided by 6 trillion is FIVE PERCENT DUMBASS And Treasury bonds are not sold with variable interest rates. Those rates are fixed, so increases in the interest rate only affect new bond sales, not old ones. Like most Republicans, you are probably hard pressed to balance your checkbook, let alone understand public finance.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
57,002
Reaction score
26,426
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Evidently my math is spot on. 300 billion divided by 6 trillion is FIVE PERCENT DUMBASS And Treasury bonds are not sold with variable interest rates. Those rates are fixed, so increases in the interest rate only affect new bond sales, not old ones. Like most Republicans, you are probably hard pressed to balance your checkbook, let alone understand public finance.
It's 9% moron, stop talking and embarrassing yourself.
 

Stryder50

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
1,059
Points
918
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
There is a current claim, repeated by the media, that our national debt is $28.08 TRILLION.
View attachment 569687
At this point and noting the accelerating rate of deficit spending, the proportion of payment of just interest on the debt to “revenues” is unquestionably going to become much much larger. Like a person who can’t handle their own household budget, the government will “borrow” ever more just to pay interest. Of course, the government will probably in just “print” money but this makes each dollar increasingly less valuable. (And some will tell us that inflation isn’t a big deal.

Now consider, the $28 TRILLION DEBT figure is phony. It doesn’t include unfunded mandates like pensions. Anyone care to take a stab at THAT one?


I know that most liberals and progressives and economic authorities like AOC will dismiss this as pure right wing hysteria, but for reasonable people, I suggest that our addiction to spending and debt and deficit spending is the most urgent problem we face as a nation.
According to this site, which uses OBM=Office of Budget Management figures; it's more like a National(Federal) Debt of just short of $29 Trillion and Unfunded Liabilities of a bit over $161 Trillion.

The problem is much larger than you present!
 
OP
BackAgain

BackAgain

Unobtainium member-seeker & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
2,880
Reaction score
3,623
Points
1,903
According to this site, which uses OBM=Office of Budget Management figures; it's more like a National(Federal) Debt of just short of $29 Trillion and Unfunded Liabilities of a bit over $161 Trillion.

The problem is much larger than you present!
The debt problem is massive. And I believe I already addressed the fact that the quoted debt fails to include the unfunded mandates.

that latter figure is much larger than the one I had seen from just a short time earlier.

and I’m guessing that not only will it jot get better, it will continue to et worse.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top