Reducing the National Debt

[tenthertoo]

I repeat it because it's true. There is no need for us to pay off the national debt.

You know, instead of ignoring my posts and neg repping me every time, you could, just once, try discussing the topic with me. You might learn something.

The magical way of the liberal in dealing with the problem... ignore it and it will go away...

No.... whether you like it or not, debts need to be paid and future budgets have to be trimmed of fat to live with the means... and if the entire citizenry paying an equal share on every dollar earned as income tax, it is more likely to cut government spending than having the upper 50% paying for it all when the other 50% gets shit for free...

Our national debt does not need to be paid back. Period. I have seen no one, ever, on this board, even attempt to show why the national debt needs to be paid back.

Well I postulated the need to reduce it to 70% of GDP and haven't seen anyone propose to pay it off in full.

So let's leave that one aside. OK?

 

[Wiseacre]

He is. He's also not putting a timetable on it. Not that I've seen. If he wants that in place tomorrow or this year, I would object. If he wants it in place in 10 or 20 years, then that's a different conversation.

And yes, I did say that. Now show me where I said I wanted $17.50/hour implemented tomorrow.

C'mon man, I think everyone believes he ain't talking about 10 or 20 years, he's talking about right now. Since you didn't specify an amount or a timeframe, I assumed you were supporting his contention. In any event, we're quibbling about numbers instead of the point I was trying to make.

Which is: putting more people to work AND paying them a higher wage (much higher) is mutually exclusive. There's no getting around it, if you significantly raise the minimum wage, you get less new jobs and fewer new businesses. No doubt the number of fewer jobs is influenced by the economic conditions we're living in (boom or bust), and by how much you raise the rate, but make no mistake, you can't expect to grow the economy with that kind of minimum wage. In fact, you could expect a pretty bad depression IMHO.

Higher wages leads to more disposable income leads to higher consumer consumption leads to more job growth.

Econ 101. Increase demand and the jobs will follow.

Okay, so we raise the minimum wage to what, $17.50 like Merrill wants? Boom, instant high wages, happy days are here again. But wait, right there your chain of logic gets broken, cuz you just ain't going to get more disposable income. Why? Because about half or more of those people that are working now at a wage below $17.50 are going to get laid off. Why? Because the businesses they work for will close up or reduce their employees, and you ain't going to get many startups going if the labor costs are nearly doubled.

Let me tell you about Econ 101. At it's most basic, if businesses have to pay more in costs then they have to pass it on to the customer, you get that right? Or go out of business, so if you raise the cost of labor then the price of the product has to go up. If the price gets too high, guess what? Fewer customers, that's what. You do realize that demand is a function of price, right?

We've been losing businesses to overseas competition, so your answer is to raise our labor costs to be even greater than they are now compared to the rest of the world? How many US companies would leave the US for foreign countries who would be only too glad to get new jobs there instead of here?

And BTW, the idea that people on the low side of the income ladder will go out and spend every extra dollar they get in higher wages is flawed. Some of that money is going to get saved for the next downturn, or the next recession.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The magical way of the liberal in dealing with the problem... ignore it and it will go away...

No.... whether you like it or not, debts need to be paid and future budgets have to be trimmed of fat to live with the means... and if the entire citizenry paying an equal share on every dollar earned as income tax, it is more likely to cut government spending than having the upper 50% paying for it all when the other 50% gets shit for free...

Our national debt does not need to be paid back. Period. I have seen no one, ever, on this board, even attempt to show why the national debt needs to be paid back.

Well I postulated the need to reduce it to 70% of GDP and haven't seen anyone propose to pay it off in full.

So let's leave that one aside. OK?

No.

You claimed "Many believe that the ND should be no more than 70% of GDP." and then proceeded to show exactly no one who believed that. Who believes that? Also, you're referring to total ND. Why? Intragovernmental holdings is money the government owes itself. That counts as both a debt AND an asset so it offsets. Yet you want to count it solely as debt. Why?

And then of course, the big one, you never say how getting to this magical 70% will help us. How will it help us?

 

[merrill]

C'mon man, I think everyone believes he ain't talking about 10 or 20 years, he's talking about right now. Since you didn't specify an amount or a timeframe, I assumed you were supporting his contention. In any event, we're quibbling about numbers instead of the point I was trying to make.

Which is: putting more people to work AND paying them a higher wage (much higher) is mutually exclusive. There's no getting around it, if you significantly raise the minimum wage, you get less new jobs and fewer new businesses. No doubt the number of fewer jobs is influenced by the economic conditions we're living in (boom or bust), and by how much you raise the rate, but make no mistake, you can't expect to grow the economy with that kind of minimum wage. In fact, you could expect a pretty bad depression IMHO.

Higher wages leads to more disposable income leads to higher consumer consumption leads to more job growth.

Econ 101. Increase demand and the jobs will follow.

Okay, so we raise the minimum wage to what, $17.50 like Merrill wants? Boom, instant high wages, happy days are here again. But wait, right there your chain of logic gets broken, cuz you just ain't going to get more disposable income. Why? Because about half or more of those people that are working now at a wage below $17.50 are going to get laid off. Why? Because the businesses they work for will close up or reduce their employees, and you ain't going to get many startups going if the labor costs are nearly doubled.

Let me tell you about Econ 101. At it's most basic, if businesses have to pay more in costs then they have to pass it on to the customer, you get that right? Or go out of business, so if you raise the cost of labor then the price of the product has to go up. If the price gets too high, guess what? Fewer customers, that's what. You do realize that demand is a function of price, right?

We've been losing businesses to overseas competition, so your answer is to raise our labor costs to be even greater than they are now compared to the rest of the world? How many US companies would leave the US for foreign countries who would be only too glad to get new jobs there instead of here?

And BTW, the idea that people on the low side of the income ladder will go out and spend every extra dollar they get in higher wages is flawed. Some of that money is going to get saved for the next downturn, or the next recession.

"Okay, so we raise the minimum wage to what, $17.50 like Merrill wants?"

I did not suggest that.

But 25 million unemployed workers deserve $17.50 per hour after all these folks are experienced. Some I'm sure will take a hit on wages at 17.50 per hour.

Starting wages in the USA for say students or such at about $10.50 per hour. It does cost plenty to live in the USA.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Let me tell you about Econ 101. At it's most basic, if businesses have to pay more in costs then they have to pass it on to the customer, you get that right? Or go out of business, so if you raise the cost of labor then the price of the product has to go up. If the price gets too high, guess what? Fewer customers, that's what. You do realize that demand is a function of price, right?

Not exactly sure what you were trying to say here, but I do believe your understanding of Demand is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't changed based on a price change.

Oh, and there's a third option for businesses. Give it time and you'll come up with it.

 

[merrill]

I asked you to define "family".
Well?

You can say that, but w/o any substance to back it...

Family=one or more living and sharing all of the responsibilities of a home.

So, a family of 2 aduts and 2 kids = $72,800 yr.
That's 3.25x poverty level, and exceeds the average US household income.

But, according to YOU, these people do not make a lot of money, cannot keep their standard of living up with those who live off on entitlements, and cannot sustain themselves on anything less.

Conclusion:
You're full of horsepuckey.

You are assuming two parents will be working I was not necessarily. In the old days $72,800 could be made by one bread winner. Anyway someone needs to be home to parent the children.

Unless things change dramatically Medical insurance will need to be paid for which can easily reduce the net income by $15,000-$18,000 plus maybe a co-pay.

There you have it. In reality neither 36,400 nor 72,800 is a lot of money once insurance,groceries,cars,taxes and clothing are figured in the equation.

Medical insurance is wayyyyyyyyy over priced in the USA = cost of living increase across the board

 

[merrill]

Rule of thumb:

The more people make the more they spend = more profit and more demand for jobs

 

[merrill]

Jobs Jobs Jobs is the key

Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs is the key to new economic growth,new wealth for the nation as a whole and to reasonable debt reduction.

A variety of avenues need to be put in place... YES!


Go To: Healthcare-NOW! - HR 676
====================================================
National Health Insurance For All = Jobs Jobs Jobs like our competing industrialized nations offer.
====================================================
The nations ability to attract or develop new industry is at stake. We're talking jobs jobs jobs. We’re talking about the need for a new strong economy for 8 million or more jobs lost. Perhaps as many as 15 million new jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Is the most expensive medical insurance in the world good for business? No it is anti business.

HR 676 National Health Insurance For All is key to recovery. Medicare Insurance for All is fiscally responsible.

Smart medical insurance improves our quality of life and our wallets!

City government,small and large business would be money ahead with National Health Insurance/HR 676. Taxpayers would be money ahead.

National Health Insurance does not remove competition from the actual health care industry. It will be alive and well. Profits will be based on customer service and clinic performance based on the clients experience. This is my perception of competition.

I love competition but maintenance of someone's good health should not be based on competition. It should be based on immediate availability not on how much one can afford to spend with an insurance corporation.

The thing I love about National Health Insurance is that it allows MY tax dollars to provide health care to my family.

AND it brings MY tax dollars back home.

AND it allows anyone to choose which doctor or clinic they choose. No booklet of of choices would be necessary ever again.

AND National Health Insurance would be there 365 days a year,24 hours a day and 7 days a week no matter what.

AND no more deductibles and co pays that in reality relieve the insurance industry of their responsibility.

National Health Insurance would make the USA far more attractive to new industry. Perhaps it would bring some american jobs back to the USA aka home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Higher wages leads to more disposable income leads to higher consumer consumption leads to more job growth.

Econ 101. Increase demand and the jobs will follow.

Okay, so we raise the minimum wage to what, $17.50 like Merrill wants? Boom, instant high wages, happy days are here again. But wait, right there your chain of logic gets broken, cuz you just ain't going to get more disposable income. Why? Because about half or more of those people that are working now at a wage below $17.50 are going to get laid off. Why? Because the businesses they work for will close up or reduce their employees, and you ain't going to get many startups going if the labor costs are nearly doubled.

Let me tell you about Econ 101. At it's most basic, if businesses have to pay more in costs then they have to pass it on to the customer, you get that right? Or go out of business, so if you raise the cost of labor then the price of the product has to go up. If the price gets too high, guess what? Fewer customers, that's what. You do realize that demand is a function of price, right?

We've been losing businesses to overseas competition, so your answer is to raise our labor costs to be even greater than they are now compared to the rest of the world? How many US companies would leave the US for foreign countries who would be only too glad to get new jobs there instead of here?

And BTW, the idea that people on the low side of the income ladder will go out and spend every extra dollar they get in higher wages is flawed. Some of that money is going to get saved for the next downturn, or the next recession.

"Okay, so we raise the minimum wage to what, $17.50 like Merrill wants?"

I did not suggest that.

But 25 million unemployed workers deserve $17.50 per hour after all these folks are experienced. Some I'm sure will take a hit on wages at 17.50 per hour.

More horsepuckey.
Think these people --deserve-- 17.50/.hr?
Start a company. Hire them. Pay them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Family=one or more living and sharing all of the responsibilities of a home.

So, a family of 2 aduts and 2 kids = $72,800 yr.
That's 3.25x poverty level, and exceeds the average US household income.

But, according to YOU, these people do not make a lot of money, cannot keep their standard of living up with those who live off on entitlements, and cannot sustain themselves on anything less.

Conclusion:
You're full of horsepuckey.

You are assuming two parents will be working I was not necessarily.

Oh... so you dont figure that both unemployed parents want/need a job?

There you have it. In reality neither 36,400 nor 72,800 is a lot of money once insurance,groceries,cars,taxes and clothing are figured in the equation.

I see that you are not only full of horsepucky, you're also devoid of real-world experience.

 

[tenthertoo]

Our national debt does not need to be paid back. Period. I have seen no one, ever, on this board, even attempt to show why the national debt needs to be paid back.

Well I postulated the need to reduce it to 70% of GDP and haven't seen anyone propose to pay it off in full.

So let's leave that one aside. OK?

No.

You claimed "Many believe that the ND should be no more than 70% of GDP." and then proceeded to show exactly no one who believed that. Who believes that? Also, you're referring to total ND. Why? Intragovernmental holdings is money the government owes itself. That counts as both a debt AND an asset so it offsets. Yet you want to count it solely as debt. Why?

And then of course, the big one, you never say how getting to this magical 70% will help us. How will it help us?

I didn't say there was anything magical about 70% merely used it as a starting point. But it seems you don't care what the debt/gdp ratio is.

I do. But won't argue with you about it as neither of us will change our beliefs.

 

[tenthertoo]

Well I postulated the need to reduce it to 70% of GDP and haven't seen anyone propose to pay it off in full.

So let's leave that one aside. OK?

No.

You claimed "Many believe that the ND should be no more than 70% of GDP." and then proceeded to show exactly no one who believed that. Who believes that? Also, you're referring to total ND. Why? Intragovernmental holdings is money the government owes itself. That counts as both a debt AND an asset so it offsets. Yet you want to count it solely as debt. Why?

And then of course, the big one, you never say how getting to this magical 70% will help us. How will it help us?

A short perusal of google gave me the opion that a 60% ratio is ideal - says
Anis Chowdhury and Iyanatul Islam (for example) I have no doubt a little reseach will produce many who believe a ratio higher than 70% would be bad.

Also found "This is the real danger posed by debt: once debt becomes a significant fraction of GDP, and its growth rate substantially exceeds that of GDP, the economy will suffer a recession even if the debt to GDP ratio merely stabilizes."

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Our national debt does not need to be paid back. Period. I have seen no one, ever, on this board, even attempt to show why the national debt needs to be paid back.

Because having a high national debt devalues the dollar, which hurts the middle class. Because there is a very real possibility of losing our AAA rating from more than just S&P, which would end our ability to sell our debt, and that would destroy us. Because some of the countries that own a substantial amount of our debt are turning out to be less than friendly (ie. China).

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well I postulated the need to reduce it to 70% of GDP and haven't seen anyone propose to pay it off in full.

So let's leave that one aside. OK?

No.

You claimed "Many believe that the ND should be no more than 70% of GDP." and then proceeded to show exactly no one who believed that. Who believes that? Also, you're referring to total ND. Why? Intragovernmental holdings is money the government owes itself. That counts as both a debt AND an asset so it offsets. Yet you want to count it solely as debt. Why?

And then of course, the big one, you never say how getting to this magical 70% will help us. How will it help us?

I didn't say there was anything magical about 70% merely used it as a starting point. But it seems you don't care what the debt/gdp ratio is.

I do. But won't argue with you about it as neither of us will change our beliefs.

I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I'm trying to get you, or anyone else in this thread, to simply tell us WHY you believe the way you do. Why do you think the debt needs to be reduced? Why 70%? What are the benefits you believe will happen?

Is it really your belief if you can't even say why you believe it?

 

[tenthertoo]

Is it really your belief if you can't even say why you believe it?

Sure, folks like you and me (and everyone else) do it all the time. But I did say why in my next post.

 

[tenthertoo]

Sure, folks like you and me (and everyone else) do it all the time. But I did say why in my next post.

"This is the real danger posed by debt: once debt becomes a significant fraction of GDP, and its growth rate substantially exceeds that of GDP, the economy will suffer a recession even if the debt to GDP ratio merely stabilizes." Steven Keene - Why the Debt to GDP Ratio matters http://www.incrediblecharts.com/economy/keen_debt_gdp.php

 

[DontBeStupid]

"This is the real danger posed by debt: once debt becomes a significant fraction of GDP, and its growth rate substantially exceeds that of GDP, the economy will suffer a recession even if the debt to GDP ratio merely stabilizes." Steven Keene - Why the Debt to GDP Ratio matters Incredible Charts: Why the Debt to GDP Ratio matters

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you understand the difference between the National Debt and privately held debt.

 

[tenthertoo]

"This is the real danger posed by debt: once debt becomes a significant fraction of GDP, and its growth rate substantially exceeds that of GDP, the economy will suffer a recession even if the debt to GDP ratio merely stabilizes." Steven Keene - Why the Debt to GDP Ratio matters Incredible Charts: Why the Debt to GDP Ratio matters

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you understand the difference between the National Debt and privately held debt.

Yeah, I'm joking - but, you're quibbling and I've had enough of it. So quibble with someone else.

 

[Wiseacre]

Let me tell you about Econ 101. At it's most basic, if businesses have to pay more in costs then they have to pass it on to the customer, you get that right? Or go out of business, so if you raise the cost of labor then the price of the product has to go up. If the price gets too high, guess what? Fewer customers, that's what. You do realize that demand is a function of price, right?

Not exactly sure what you were trying to say here, but I do believe your understanding of Demand is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't changed based on a price change.

Oh, and there's a third option for businesses. Give it time and you'll come up with it.

Really? Demand doesn't change with an increase in price? Surely you know that is not true. Netflix? Banks raising debit fees? When you raise the price, you lose customers, simple as that.

No idea what your 3rd option is, not going to spend much time on it either. What I'm trying to point out is, wages are set based on what the market will bear. You can't mess prices, putting artificial price ceilings or floors is a fool's bargain, there are always consequences. If you increase the cost of labor, the price has to go up. No ifs, ands, or buts, the price goes up and the business fails or at a minimum cuts jobs. Foreign products begin to look a lot better, hardly something we want to see.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Really? Demand doesn't change with an increase in price?

Nope.

Surely you know that is not true.

It is true. And don't call me Shirley.

Netflix? Banks raising debit fees? When you raise the price, you lose customers, simple as that.

Ah. See, that's what I thought. You don't know what the Demand for a good means. It means a variety of quantities of that good over a variety of prices. This is why it's expressed as a curved line. You're fixating on the quantity at one price. That's different.

No idea what your 3rd option is, not going to spend much time on it either.

Didn't think you would.

If you increase the cost of labor, the price has to go up. No ifs, ands, or buts

False.

the price goes up and the business fails or at a minimum cuts jobs.

OR ....

Profits go down.

Last year was a record year for many corporations. The idea that if they suddenly paid workers a couple bucks more per hour it would cause them to go out of business, is just ludicrous and untrue. Companies in the U.S. have $1.9T in cash they are sitting on, while average salaries have grown in the past two years by 1%.

Wages could go up. Profits could go down. Consumption would go up. Things would be better.