• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176:468]

Expenditures < Revenue

The level of the debt is of no consequence.

Wow, this is the sort of thinking that got us in this mess. You do realise (maybe you don't) that debt payments (with interest) eventually will take up such a significant part of those expenditures that revenue will never be more than expenditures. I know, folks of this economic belief think all we need to do is to print more money. But when you need a wheelbarrow full just to buy a cup of coffee you'll understand the idiocy of that route.
 
Expenditures < Revenue

The level of the debt is of no consequence.

I hope you didn't type that with a straight face. We are spending more on net interest ( interest paid on publicly held debt) then we are spending on many federal departments, including Education and Labor.
 
Wow, this is the sort of thinking that got us in this mess. You do realise (maybe you don't) that debt payments (with interest) eventually will take up such a significant part of those expenditures that revenue will never be more than expenditures. I know, folks of this economic belief think all we need to do is to print more money. But when you need a wheelbarrow full just to buy a cup of coffee you'll understand the idiocy of that route.

What these financial wizards ignore is that the current debt service is being charged artificially low interest rates and when inflation kicks in and interest rates rise, the debt service is going to stop being number four on the budget line item list but move up as high as number two and will surpass Defense eventually. Wonder what these feel good liberals think we get out of debt service?
 
Wow, this is the sort of thinking that got us in this mess. You do realise (maybe you don't) that debt payments (with interest) eventually will take up such a significant part of those expenditures that revenue will never be more than expenditures. I know, folks of this economic belief think all we need to do is to print more money. But when you need a wheelbarrow full just to buy a cup of coffee you'll understand the idiocy of that route.

Wow, it is this sort of thinking that limits ones ability to make rational financial decisions. You do realize, (maybe you don't) that interest payments are fixed (along with principal) which allows borrowers to repay with less and less purchasing power.

For example, in 1944 the U.S. ran an annual budget deficit of roughly $47 billion!!!! Which is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. spent between January 1, 2009 and January 15, 2009.

I know, some folks are illiterate when it comes to economics.
 
when inflation kicks in and interest rates rise, the debt service is going to stop being number four on the budget line item list but move up as high as number two and will surpass Defense eventually.

When inflation kicks in, growth in U.S. output will be at levels necessary to support any upticks in debt service, as a percentage of GDP.

You cannot have inflation without (exceeding) economic growth given that inflation expectations are anchored to lows not seen since before 1945.
 
I hope you didn't type that with a straight face. We are spending more on net interest ( interest paid on publicly held debt) then we are spending on many federal departments, including Education and Labor.

Where does the net interest end up?
 

Here is the latest Government Shutdown poll 4 Oct 2013

Interesting polling on the government shutdown I heard on the radio on my way home as to whom the people are blaming for the shutdown.
25% blame republican congressional leaders
24% blame President Obama
20% blame everybody, both parties
17% blame the tea party
8% blame democratic congressional leaders

I suppose if you add republican congressional leaders, the tea party and everybody together you have 62% coming down hard on all Republicans. If you add President Obama, everybody and democratic congressional leaders you have 52% coming down hard on the democrats

My conclusion is Republicans get more of the blame by 10 points, not a huge difference. But the majority of Americans are saying it is a pox on both parties.
 
How do we pay interest?

Inflation occurs when output grows faster than productivity.

Interest counts as revenue/income for the private sector.
 
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

That one is still almost a year old. We are now 70 months into this current recession. That '81 recession was only 26 months and half as deep.

Why do you liberals thing such intellectual misinformation wins any points with anyone?

Also, how do you blame the '81 recession on Reagan when:

1) He had a democrat congress.

2) The recession started very shortly after he took office. This was on Carter's last budget that this happened in.

3) The '07 recession happened after democrats had budget control.
I don't "blame the '81 recession on Reagan". That's not why I pasted the graph.

Some idiot in here said that the 81 recession was worse than this one, Which, obviously (if someone took 5 seconds to look at the graph), it was not.

The argument was that Reagan tripled the debt to pull us out of a short and shallow recession. So, why gripe when Obama wants to increase the debt a fraction of that in order to pull us out of a much deeper and longer lasting recession, one which is almost as bad as the Great Depression.
 
Last edited:
So tell me the money that the Treasury owes the trust fund isn't an obligation in your world and thus not a debt? Try that in your personal finances taking money from your tax account, accrue the expense, and then not be able to pay the bill. Of course you cannot print money.

For some reason you want to believe Bill Clinton had surplus yet the debt grew each year. How is that possible. Talk about being duped by an ideology. Let's assume that you are right, Bill Clinton had a surplus, do you think he signed budgets that were greater or less than he proposed? Do you think he shut down the govt. because the GOP Congress gave him more than he requested?

Do you understand that the debt is created by deficits? If there is no deficit there is no debt. If there is a surplus the debt is reduced. Please show me where the debt was reduced to the U.S. Taxpayers? No matter how many times you post this bs it doesn't make it true nor is it relevant to the mess Obama has created. I know this is hard for you to accept because you have so much emotional capital invested in your failed ideology but Bill Clinton was a master politician. I guess the recession he left us with and of course 9/11 which happened had nothing to do with the increase in the debt. Those obviously were GW Bush's fault just like the economic numbers today are still Bush's fault? Do you or any other liberal accept any responsibility for personal or ideological failures?

I had a feeling that even the simplest explanation of the Clinton surplus would go over your head. You can't grasp the concept that the Govt. could owe money to ITSELF. The "debt" figures you quote as proof reflects that money too. When the trust funds cash in those T bills they bought with excess revenue the debt will go down.
The depth of your partisan lunacy is reflected in blaming Clinton for 911 when clearly it was Bush that dropped the ball and ignored multiple warnings with thr infantile explanation that he thought Sadaam Hussein was "tricking us" and they weren't real Alqeada leaks. The depth of that stupidity could only be matched by minds like yours. You are like peas in a pod.
So besides starting a war with a lie for the justification, dropping the ball on 911 and Katrina and bankrupting us with a lopsided tax cut for the wealthiest leading to the highest deficits ever in our history, Bush also presided and encouraged a real estate bubble that resulted in a worldwide financial meltdown and a 6 Trillion dollar loss in home equity of every American along with the worse recession since the 1930's. How any sane person can call that a successful Administration is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Re: CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame [W:176]

I don't "blame the '81 recession on Reagan". That's not why I pasted the graph.

Some idiot in here said that the 81 recession was worse than this one, Which, obviously (if someone took 5 seconds to look at the graph), it was not.

That idiot would be me and I have called much worse by the real idiots in this thread who have no concept of leadership and understanding of personal pain and suffering from a period of time when they probably weren't even born. I don't put a lot of faith in much that you say because you simply do not have any concept of how recessions affect individuals especially a recession compounded by high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates. You see, you have no understanding how economic policy affects those areas and thus it is easy for you to look at the 07-09 recession as worse because we are still experiencing the effects of that recession due to zero Presidential leadership.

Continue to buy what the left elites tell you and ignore the actual economic policies and leadership that led us out of the 81-82 recession compared to the lack of leadership today because that doesn't suit your ideology and political beliefs. You want badly to believe that totally incompetent President we have today who somehow believes that bigger govt. and massive dependence somehow creates economic prosperity. A President that believes the private sector will continue to create jobs and economic growth by penalizing it with increased costs and regulations. You are part of the problem and never will be part of the solution because quite simply you live in a liberal dream world that simply doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
I had a feeling that even the simplest explanation of the Clinton surplus would go over your head. You can't grasp the concept that the Govt. could owe money to ITSELF. The "debt" figures you quote as proof reflects that money too. When the trust funds cash in those T bills they bought with excess revenue the debt will go down.

Wow. Really? The government owes itself money and can just print more and more with no consequence, right? Lol...

Also, take SS, for example... SS is not funded by ordinary T bills, but by special Treasury issues that cannot be sold as securities. Think about that... Learn about that and then consider whether or not intergovernmental dent is unimportant.
 
I had a feeling that even the simplest explanation of the Clinton surplus would go over your head. You can't grasp the concept that the Govt. could owe money to ITSELF. The "debt" figures you quote as proof reflects that money too. When the trust funds cash in those T bills they bought with excess revenue the debt will go down.
The depth of your partisan lunacy is reflected in blaming Clinton for 911 when clearly it was Bush that dropped the ball and ignored multiple warnings with thr infantile explanation that he thought Sadaam Hussein was "tricking us" and they weren't real Alqeada leaks. The depth of that stupidity could only be matched by minds like yours. You are like peas in a pod.

I don't know what it is about you and your obsession with what you perceive as the Clinton surplus yet you will not answer the basic question. IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS WHY DID THE DEBT GO UP EACH YEAR OF THE CLINTON YEARS! Don't you think that a 200 plus billion surplus would reduce the debt? The depth of your partisanship prevents you from using logic and common sense.

The govt. doesn't owe itself a dime, it is owed to the taxpayers. Where do you get this bs information? All this is nothing more than an attempt to divert from Obama's poor economic performance. One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours and hopefully it isn't too late.

I really feel sorry for people like you, guess there is liberalism in all of us. You simply aren't mature enough to admit you are wrong on any issue. It is liberals that always place blame and never accept responsibility. Now answer the question
 
Inflation occurs when output grows faster than productivity.

Interest counts as revenue/income for the private sector.


But where does that money come from when that bond is paid? Is it pinned to productivity? Nope. It is purely an inflationary pressure. It is purely an increase in currency.

That doesn't mean that inflation happens when a bond is paid, but in means that the central bank is forced to push deflationary measures to counter it.
 
I don't know what it is about you and your obsession with what you perceive as the Clinton surplus yet you will not answer the basic question. IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS WHY DID THE DEBT GO UP EACH YEAR OF THE CLINTON YEARS! Don't you think that a 200 plus billion surplus would reduce the debt? The depth of your partisanship prevents you from using logic and common sense.

The govt. doesn't owe itself a dime, it is owed to the taxpayers. Where do you get this bs information? All this is nothing more than an attempt to divert from Obama's poor economic performance. One of these days that light bulb is going to go off in that head of yours and hopefully it isn't too late.

I really feel sorry for people like you, guess there is liberalism in all of us. You simply aren't mature enough to admit you are wrong on any issue. It is liberals that always place blame and never accept responsibility. Now answer the question

I''ll say this one more time. The debt did not go up, only those figures did. When a trust fund (look that up) buys T-bills with their excess revenue so they may earn interest, it is added to the debt figures you are so fond of. But it is not real debt is it? It is excess REVENUE. When those t bills are cashed in the debt goes down. Your hoaxers are using a table that counts excess revenue of the trust funds (and there are many) as debt and that's how they are fooling you.
The figures from the CBO are the correct ones. You've been hoaxed and I can't believe it is the only time. Partisans are such easy marks.
 
Last edited:
I had a feeling that even the simplest explanation of the Clinton surplus would go over your head. You can't grasp the concept that the Govt. could owe money to ITSELF. The "debt" figures you quote as proof reflects that money too. When the trust funds cash in those T bills they bought with excess revenue the debt will go down.
The depth of your partisan lunacy is reflected in blaming Clinton for 911 when clearly it was Bush that dropped the ball and ignored multiple warnings with thr infantile explanation that he thought Sadaam Hussein was "tricking us" and they weren't real Alqeada leaks. The depth of that stupidity could only be matched by minds like yours. You are like peas in a pod.
So besides starting a war with a lie for the justification, dropping the ball on 911 and Katrina and bankrupting us with a lopsided tax cut for the wealthiest leading to the highest deficits ever in our history, Bush also presided and encouraged a real estate bubble that resulted in a worldwide financial meltdown and a 6 Trillion dollar loss in home equity of every American along with the worse recession since the 1930's. How any sane person can call that a successful Administration is beyond me.

You've achieved a sort of immortality with that post. I've never seen so many errors of fact jammed together in such a short space..
 
Wow. Really? The government owes itself money and can just print more and more with no consequence, right? Lol...

Also, take SS, for example... SS is not funded by ordinary T bills, but by special Treasury issues that cannot be sold as securities. Think about that... Learn about that and then consider whether or not intergovernmental dent is unimportant.

And when they buy those "special issues" with their excess revenue it is added to the debt in the chart you are using. But it is not debt it is revenues and when those bills are cashed in the debt will go down. How does it feel to be hoaxed?
 
You've achieved a sort of immortality with that post. I've never seen so many errors of fact jammed together in such a short space..

That would be the way you would HAVE to see it, wouldn't it? Facts have such a liberal bias after all.
 
Inflation occurs when output grows faster than productivity.

Interest counts as revenue/income for the private sector.

How can output outpace productivity when productivity is output per individual? The only way output can grow faster than productivity is if you also increase participation, which has no effect on inflation.
 
I''ll say this one more time. The debt did not go up, only those figures did. When a trust fund (look that up) buys T-bills with their excess revenue so they may earn interest, it is added to the debt figures you are so fond of. But it is not real debt is it? It is excess REVENUE. When those t bills are cashed in the debt goes down. Your hoaxers are using a table that counts excess revenue of the trust funds (and there are many) as debt and that's how they are fooling you.
The figures from the CBO are the correct ones. You've been hoaxed and I can't believe it is the only time. Partisans are such easy marks.


Oh, Good Lord, You really are hopeless. I am done with you, not worth it at all, The numbers don't lie, only liberals. Tell your bank that your statement is wrong for that is what you are saying about Treasury numbers.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012
 
But where does that money come from when that bond is paid? Is it pinned to productivity? Nope. It is purely an inflationary pressure. It is purely an increase in currency.

That doesn't mean that inflation happens when a bond is paid, but in means that the central bank is forced to push deflationary measures to counter it.

What Actually Causes Inflation (and who gains from it) - Forbes

Increased monetary supply doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is caused when producers can get away with charging more for a wide variety of goods, either due to an increase in demand or a reduction/control of supply.
 
What Actually Causes Inflation (and who gains from it) - Forbes

Increased monetary supply doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is caused when producers can get away with charging more for a wide variety of goods, either due to an increase in demand or a reduction/control of supply.

I recently had a good debate with my mother and other family members at a gathering a week or so ago.... My mother blames imports (given our excessive outsourcing) as a significant role for inflation.... That wasn't the only factor cited but the main factor... That is an interesting outlook, however I would accept that idea to play a roll, however it's more complicated than that. I believe the FED and the fact it costs more than a dollar to spend a dollar through the idea of stimulus plays a major role in this horrible economy.

I found that idea rather interesting..
 
Back
Top Bottom