nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 The interest alone costs $1000 per CITIZEN annually and is rising every year. Look around the room at your house. If there are two other people living there, your share of the interest on the national debt THIS year is $3000. Think you could find something to spend that on? 124841[/snapback] I could use that to pay my state taxes! (I don't want to hear any remarks out of you AD on that subject!)
GG Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 (I only snipped your post because it was long- not trying to take the above line out of context.) Let me axe you this. What disturbs me is not so much that we have a debt, but that we must pay a huge HUGE amount of money to pay the interest in said debt. So, at the end of the day, I have LESS money - a lot less money- in my pocket because of the interest we pay on the debt. Frankly, that's money I want back. And it seems that the only way for me to get that back is to minimize the debt, not keep it at a steady percentage of the GDP. 124824[/snapback] Don't forget to factor the interest rates into the equation. One of the reasons there isn't as much concern about the absolute debt, are the record low interest rates, meaning yiu can carry more debt while paying the same amount of interest. It is the bet that the Fed took to drive up the debt in a very low interest rate environment that will lead to economic growth to repay that debt when tax revenues rise. So far, it's a right bet.
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 It is the bet that the Fed took to drive up the debt in a very low interest rate environment that will lead to economic growth to repay that debt when tax revenues rise. Where's this economic growth? (not including government jobs in the equation) More jobs at less pay kinda evens out the growth. Even WalMart will reach a saturation point.
Dave in VA Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Two key questions with regard to debt: 1-Who is going to keep buying it? How long before the Japanese and Chinese stop buying our notes? 2-What's it doing to the value of the dollar? We've seen the answer to that question this week.
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Two key questions with regard to debt:1-Who is going to keep buying it? How long before the Japanese and Chinese stop buying our notes? 2-What's it doing to the value of the dollar? We've seen the answer to that question this week. 124881[/snapback] Luckily - the Asian countries like china, korea, etc. keep their currencies stable to the US dollar so their goods don't cost more to import. Because of this the trade deficit will not be decreased.
Mickey Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Absolutely nothing apparently, especially when it's approaching 75% of our annual GDP plus the $300,000,000,000.00 taxpayers are paying annually in interest to service it. Or, 3/4ths of the entire DoD budget. The third largest liability on the books. Nothing to see here as long as the politicians we identify with promise to do better, huh Rich? 123830[/snapback] AD, there is probably not a single issue where our views are any closer than this one. If that is not an indication that this crap really is out of control, I don't know what is. I don't blame the politicians strictly on this. The American voter is the real drunken sailor here. Just try and cut the "reward my constituents with pork" program in Congressman Pig's district and watch those constituents raise holy hell. Typical mentality: Pork=any program of the government that fills the pockets of the other guy. Vital National Security Program=Any program that fills my pockets.
John Adams Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 AD, there is probably not a single issue where our views are any closer than this one. If that is not an indication that this crap really is out of control, I don't know what is. I don't blame the politicians strictly on this. The American voter is the real drunken sailor here. Just try and cut the "reward my constituents with pork" program in Congressman Pig's district and watch those constituents raise holy hell. Typical mentality: Pork=any program of the government that fills the pockets of the other guy. Vital National Security Program=Any program that fills my pockets. 125010[/snapback] Amen to all of that. And worse, lame duck season is the season for pork. Watch all the spending that happens in the next two months.
CoachChuckDickerson Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 The interest alone costs $1000 per CITIZEN annually and is rising every year. Look around the room at your house. If there are two other people living there, your share of the interest on the national debt THIS year is $3000. Think you could find something to spend that on? 124841[/snapback] But Bush gave me and my redneck buddies $300 cold hard cash. What is this def-ee-cite you keep talkin bout?
nobody Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 But Bush gave me and my redneck buddies $300 cold hard cash. What is this def-ee-cite you keep talkin bout? 125122[/snapback] Would anyone take out a loan with those figures? You get a loan for 300 and pay 1000 in interest.
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Author Posted November 19, 2004 But Bush gave me and my redneck buddies $300 cold hard cash. What is this def-ee-cite you keep talkin bout? 125122[/snapback] I would argue that they didn't go far enough with cutting taxes. In reality, the only way to reduce federal spending is to give the federal government less money to spend. ALOT less. Until people understand that federal government programs are significantly more expensive than the return that is given, this spiral will gain momentum. Neither party has any fiscal responsibility, regardless of the posturing.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 I would argue that they didn't go far enough with cutting taxes. In reality, the only way to reduce federal spending is to give the federal government less money to spend. ALOT less. Until people understand that federal government programs are significantly more expensive than the return that is given, this spiral will gain momentum. Neither party has any fiscal responsibility, regardless of the posturing. 125275[/snapback] Would a balanced budget amendment do any good?
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Author Posted November 19, 2004 Would a balanced budget amendment do any good? 125287[/snapback] Probably not because they would caveat it and hide behind that. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. It's the details that'd screw us.
John Adams Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Would a balanced budget amendment do any good? 125287[/snapback] Being able to incur debt is important, so the BB amendment would have to be riddled with so many exceptions that it would be meaningless. The point though, is that we shouldn't need a GD Constitutional Amendment to make this happen; the current supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans should fix this damn thing now, starting with shrinking the size of government. I wouldn't be so upset with paying money towards the debt if it wasn't continuing to grow. Hell, if we were paying down our debt on the way to wiping it out, I would be TOTALLY on board with it. Better that we take care of this nightmare than leaving it for our children. We're already saddled with the Social Security problem. I'd like the challenge of being in the group of 20-40 year olds that must deal with the nightmare left by the ME-generation baby-boomers. Let us fix our financial woes so the 0-20 year olds don't have to.
Mickey Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 I would argue that they didn't go far enough with cutting taxes. In reality, the only way to reduce federal spending is to give the federal government less money to spend. ALOT less. Until people understand that federal government programs are significantly more expensive than the return that is given, this spiral will gain momentum. Neither party has any fiscal responsibility, regardless of the posturing. 125275[/snapback] It doesn't result in any reductions, they just borrow the money. Now, if they had to pay for it, if they couldn't borrow the money, they would have to raise taxes through the roof and then people would sure sit up and take notice. Then they might demand reductions, even in programs that benefit them. Why should they if they can have the programs and the tax cuts at the same time? Get rid of the borrowing and then people would be forced into making the responsible choice of paying for what they take or doing without. ...or, you could just raise the debt ceiling and continue the fantasy of lower taxes without lower spending through the magic of borrowing.
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Author Posted November 19, 2004 It doesn't result in any reductions, they just borrow the money. Now, if they had to pay for it, if they couldn't borrow the money, they would have to raise taxes through the roof and then people would sure sit up and take notice. Then they might demand reductions, even in programs that benefit them. Why should they if they can have the programs and the tax cuts at the same time? Get rid of the borrowing and then people would be forced into making the responsible choice of paying for what they take or doing without. ...or, you could just raise the debt ceiling and continue the fantasy of lower taxes without lower spending through the magic of borrowing. 125450[/snapback] I'm sorry, I can't hear you. "Oprah's" coming on. She's sure to tell me something I actually need to know.
GG Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Where's this economic growth? (not including government jobs in the equation) More jobs at less pay kinda evens out the growth. Even WalMart will reach a saturation point. 124880[/snapback] Sorry, I use universally accepted measurements of economic growth, such as GDP gains, etc. You may use a ouija board if you'd like.
GG Posted November 19, 2004 Posted November 19, 2004 Being able to incur debt is important, so the BB amendment would have to be riddled with so many exceptions that it would be meaningless. The point though, is that we shouldn't need a GD Constitutional Amendment to make this happen; the current supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans should fix this damn thing now, starting with shrinking the size of government. I wouldn't be so upset with paying money towards the debt if it wasn't continuing to grow. Hell, if we were paying down our debt on the way to wiping it out, I would be TOTALLY on board with it. Better that we take care of this nightmare than leaving it for our children. We're already saddled with the Social Security problem. I'd like the challenge of being in the group of 20-40 year olds that must deal with the nightmare left by the ME-generation baby-boomers. Let us fix our financial woes so the 0-20 year olds don't have to. 125417[/snapback] Again, don't mix the two deficits. There should always be some form of government debt, and deficit financing is not as evil as people make it outr to be. Historically, 2-2.5% of GDP is a very reasonable figure to manage. The long term deficit of the off the books financing is the truly scary picture, and that needs fixing.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Don't forget to factor the interest rates into the equation. One of the reasons there isn't as much concern about the absolute debt, are the record low interest rates, meaning yiu can carry more debt while paying the same amount of interest. It is the bet that the Fed took to drive up the debt in a very low interest rate environment that will lead to economic growth to repay that debt when tax revenues rise. So far, it's a right bet. 124865[/snapback] You a banker GG?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Would anyone take out a loan with those figures? You get a loan for 300 and pay 1000 in interest. 125136[/snapback] Go into the "hood"... A lot of "payday" loan stores there...
Wham Rocks Posted November 20, 2004 Posted November 20, 2004 Are you f'ing kidding me?If there were a Democrat in the White House, this issue would have you throwing a hissy-fit that would put a 2yrold to shame. That's the problem with you tiny-minded entrenched idiots. You are utterly incapable of examining a problem on it's own merits. Instead you act like a pack of simple-minded cheerleaders, prancing around, screeching and waving your pompoms for your side, no matter how egregiously stupid and corrupt they continue to show themselves to be. Congratulations on your mindless self-assurance. It must be a wonderfully comfortable existence to lack the capacity for critical or original thought. Is it true that accumulated drool gives your keyboard a beautiful luster? 124216[/snapback] LOL! Like lemmings off a cliff. Good stuff.
Recommended Posts