• 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]

Your comments about the debt are absurd and ignorant. No matter how you parse it out - accruing debt incurs additional costs and those costs have to be paid for with either more revenue or more debt. SS debt cannot be sold to investors, so it must be paid with general fund revenues. We current ly don't have a surplus, therefore, paying SS requires borrowing for other expenditures. What do you not get about this?

The US only incurs debt because of law. Any country that issues its own currency is only constrained by the perceived value of that currency to others (productivity) versus the amount in circulation (inflation)...
 
The Fed owns more debt than China, and it returns 95% of the earned interest back to the Treasury...

But doesn't all that equate to the public debt owed by each individual?

All this mounting spending will only add to the already huge levels of federal debt.

Debt held by the public from what I can gather was $11 trillion in 2012 but if things don't change will be around $19 trillion by 2023, a 73 percent increase. We will reach the debt limit again shortly a matter of days. The debt limit includes both publicly held debt and debt owed to federal trust funds such as Social Security.
 
But doesn't all that equate to the public debt owed by each individual?

All this mounting spending will only add to the already huge levels of federal debt.

Debt held by the public from what I can gather was $11 trillion in 2012 but if things don't change will be around $19 trillion by 2023, a 73 percent increase. We will reach the debt limit again shortly a matter of days. The debt limit includes both publicly held debt and debt owed to federal trust funds such as Social Security.

The debt limit is a stupid place to negotiate. Only spending creates debt, and it's the resultant increase/decrease in GDP relative to the amount spent that lets one know whether or not the spending was wise...
 
The "leadership' that led us out of the 82 recession (mild by 2008 standards, really) was massive government spending... mostly on defense.

We dont have that kind of leadership in todays Congress because its run by teabaggers, who view government spending and debt wrongly as contributing to recessions. So Obama has basically had to do it without government hel (except for his stimulus, which was enough to stave off total disaster) . and government jobs have been plummeting since the end of the stimulus.

Your opinion noted, tell that to the millions who lost their homes, millions who were unemployed, millions who declared bankruptcy. Yes, your expertise about the 81-82 recession mirrors your expertise on just about every other issue. You know absolutely nothing and the fact that it was so short makes it appear that this one was worse but what happened was positive Presidential leadership that you wouldn't understand. Continue to buy the media and Obama rhetoric while you hold Obama to a different standard than Republicans.
 
The debt limit is a stupid place to negotiate. Only spending creates debt, and it's the resultant increase/decrease in GDP relative to the amount spent that lets one know whether or not the spending was wise...

GDP growth dependent on govt. spending has been the problem in the European nations which is what Obama wants here. We have a private sector economy which is more insulated from economic collapse than say a country like Greece. Govt spending does indeed cause debt and contributes very little to the U.S. economy. It isn't the largest component of GDP like it is in Europe but it is a growing component thanks to liberalism
 
Re: Most would blame Republicans

Every hospital has a death panel and has for decades. Ever since emergency and medical care was required whether a person can pay for it or not. They don't call them death panels, of course. Rather, they claim to calculate the percentage of likely benefit. So, for example, if the odds are only 40% you would live with a heart transplant? You don't get one. Age also does factor in.

And just think of it, under Obamacare, enforced by the IRS, one can expect ones political views to be included along with an assessment of one's remaining economic worth as a slave belonging to the state.
 
The debt limit is a stupid place to negotiate. Only spending creates debt, and it's the resultant increase/decrease in GDP relative to the amount spent that lets one know whether or not the spending was wise...

Well then everyone should be in agreement then that increasing spending is a f'ing bad idea at this time. But that doesn't seem to be the case. And when facing another friggin debt ceiling raising affair in Congress, no better time to start demanding accountability.
 
Your comments about the debt are absurd and ignorant. No matter how you parse it out - accruing debt incurs additional costs and those costs have to be paid for with either more revenue or more debt. SS debt cannot be sold to investors, so it must be paid with general fund revenues. We current ly don't have a surplus, therefore, paying SS requires borrowing for other expenditures. What do you not get about this?

I believe we got off the subject of the Clinton surplus somehow? My post was responding to that. I certainly don't want to discuss another settled law issue like SS. It is beyond pointless. The House might as well add ending SS to their CR too for all the good it will do. We are on to to your game and its ON.
 
Well then everyone should be in agreement then that increasing spending is an f'ing bad idea at this time. But that doesn't seem to be the case. And when facing another friggin debt ceiling raising affair in Congress, no better time to start demanding accountability.

You're right, and that's why we have elections. The issue that the country now faces is the amount of recipients versus payers into the system, and that is not boding well for the payers at the moment...
 
Last edited:
Your right, and that's why we have elections. The issue that the country now faces is the amount of recipients versus payers into the system, and that is not boding well for the payers at the moment...

Good afternoon, AP.:2wave:

I've had some unexpected free time, so more posting during the day.:peace
 
Good afternoon, AP.:2wave:

I've had some unexpected free time, so more posting during the day.:peace

What's up 2m. Have you been caught in the furlough dragnet?
 
This is everyone who is an elected official in DC's fault. This is a failed system.
 
What's up 2m. Have you been caught in the furlough dragnet?

Yup. I'm "non-emergency." Quite OK by me; I'm among the fortunate who can enjoy the unexpected time off (and great weather) without financial worries.:peace
 
Yup. I'm "non-emergency." Quite OK by me; I'm among the fortunate who can enjoy the unexpected time off (and great weather) without financial worries.:peace

We're still able to work funded contracts off-site and on-site where the CORs are deemed to be essential. Fortunately, that includes the vast majority of our business...
 
Your opinion noted, tell that to the millions who lost their homes, millions who were unemployed, millions who declared bankruptcy. Yes, your expertise about the 81-82 recession mirrors your expertise on just about every other issue. You know absolutely nothing and the fact that it was so short makes it appear that this one was worse but what happened was positive Presidential leadership that you wouldn't understand. Continue to buy the media and Obama rhetoric while you hold Obama to a different standard than Republicans.

Your opinion noted, and summarily dismissed as uninformed, as usual.

But thanks for making sure you actually wrote multiple lines with no new content.
 
We're still able to work funded contracts off-site and on-site where the CORs are deemed to be essential. Fortunately, that includes the vast majority of our business...

I describe my current role as: "historian, storyteller and corrupter of young minds." Since the young minds were furloughed . . .
 
Your opinion noted, and summarily dismissed as uninformed, as usual.

But thanks for making sure you actually wrote multiple lines with no new content.

Love dealing with arrogant Chicago Street thugs like Obama and his supporters
 
I think they are confused by the fact that the House seems incapable of even the most basic jobs in Govt. KEEPING IT OPEN. Incompetence is not a crime though so maybe we should just take this job out of the Houses hands if it is too difficult for them to handle. I would bet there would be a lot of support from the people for that right about now.

Their job is to follow the Constitution, not keep the government open. Funny, you don't see the Senate & president's refusal to negotiate as not doing their jobs! Ironically, what you suggest is unconstitutional. God, the left is so messed up!
 
I believe we got off the subject of the Clinton surplus somehow? My post was responding to that. I certainly don't want to discuss another settled law issue like SS. It is beyond pointless. The House might as well add ending SS to their CR too for all the good it will do. We are on to to your game and its ON.

Pathetic.

I brought up SS because it demonstrates just how spectacularly wrong you are about the debt.

I agree that you should abandon this subject now.
 
A good portion of the interest is paid to creditor nations like China.

Less than 1/3 of all interest is paid to foreign holders of U.S. Treasuries. On the aggregate, all money earned by foreign entities does not (typically) flow outside of the U.S.; instead, it is reinvested in U.S. dollar denominated assets.

First, high levels of debt mean that too many of our taxpayer dollars are wasted on paying interest.

Qualitative statement lacking substance.

This is money that could have been better spent elsewhere, by letting us all keep more of our hard-earned money or by better funding national priorities such a defense and infrastructure .

To a degree, i agree! However, during a financial recession and the drawn out recovery that follows, increased deficits are necessary to minimizing output gaps. At such times it is insanely beneficial for increases in deficits to flow into infrastructure investment projects; not tax breaks, as these types of expenditures yield the least amount of additional economic activity.

Second, when debt gets high enough or rises fast enough, capital markets do take notice and interest rates will rise. As history has shown in the past this can happen quickly with a dramatic twist. Interest rates on mortgages, car loans and credit cards would go through the roof.

More complicated than that! See our current situation for an empirical example.

Third, inflation could become a problem. As debt rises, the Federal Reserve could turn to an age-old, but dangerous tactic: printing money. This would reduce the value of the debt, but it would also usher in a new age of inflation. OMG all these months of Bernanke propping up the market with all that QE well, at some point is is going all come crashing down.

This comment does not even make sense. If inflation becomes a problem, why the **** would the Fed engage in expansionary monetary policy? You then go back to discuss inflation, only to again change course and make a deterministic statement with respects to a market crash.

By the sounds of it, you have bitten off more than you can chew. It would be best to focus on one topic at a time, as you clearly lack the familiarity with these concepts necessary to properly engage in its discourse.

Fourth, high levels of debt usually translate to much lower levels of economic growth.

Ehh, kind of. Countries that have sustained growth in public debt, in an environment that exceeds nominal growth in output, will eventually face growth constraints as more and more of their respective economies are composed of rent-orientated income generation. Investment in production of goods and services takes second fiddle, which is damaging to long term productivity growth. However, this is not generally the case with the U.S. as our debt issues have stemmed from the financial fallout of two financial bubbles and multiple wars, as this graphic clearly depicts.

We have certainly been experiencing that these past 4 years.

That is what happens when the country experiences a net-wealth loss equivalent to roughly an entire year of economic growth. We have still not recovered from greatest level of wealth lost since the 1930's.

fredgraph.png
 
Well then everyone should be in agreement then that increasing spending is a f'ing bad idea at this time.

If only you had any idea how wrong you are. Had the Federal government increased spending to levels necessary to supplement a most expansionary monetary policy initiative, we wouldn't have 7.3% unemployment.
 
If only you had any idea how wrong you are. Had the Federal government increased spending to levels necessary to supplement a most expansionary monetary policy initiative, we wouldn't have 7.3% unemployment.

Yes, we would because current benefits are nearly equivalent to "holding out" for a better outcome. Spending only works when there is a credible return on the investment, and in today's environment, spending is dictated by politics, not ROI. We could greatly expand the economy be declaring the country energy independent within five years at little to no cost ot the government, but once again, politics gets in the way of doing so...
 
Inflation occurs when nominal GDP growth is higher than productivity growth; it's not even up for debate.

A less-wonkish explanation of the concept can be found here.

The author is likely to be our next Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Interesting, but I don't really buy the assertion that inflation is caused by differences in rate changes of GDP and productivity.

The problem is in how both are computed. GDP is computed by one of three ways, Production, Income, or Expenditure. (Gross domestic product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). On the other hand, productivity is most commonly measured by GDP per hour worked.

That gives us a simple equation Productivity = GBP / #WorkHours. So if we say that inflation is an increase in GDP without a corresponding increase in Productivity then we're saying that inflation is a decrease in hours worked for the same end.. which isn't at all the case.

Now you might be able to do something clever using one method to compute GDP for productivity, and another to compute the GDP to compare against, but then you're essentially just obfuscating the actual relationship.

Ffirst we need to differentiate between methods of measuring inflation and inflationary causes. There isn't 100% agreement on the causes of inflation, but the measured effect is a large swath of producers are able to demand more for goods. Since producers are going to get the highest price they can, inflation is really caused by deflections in the supply/demand curve.

Large monopolies, market speculation, excess consumer buying power, supply shortages/natural disasters, and currency devaluations can all cause inflation.
 
Yes, we would because current benefits are nearly equivalent to "holding out" for a better outcome. Spending only works when there is a credible return on the investment, and in today's environment, spending is dictated by politics, not ROI. We could greatly expand the economy be declaring the country energy independent within five years at little to no cost ot the government, but once again, politics gets in the way of doing so...

I think you missed the point of my comment; i am not claiming deficit spending in and of itself is the most efficient path. In terms of creating jobs, massive federal expenditure in the tune of $500 billion annually targeted exclusively toward infrastructure (which includes a plethora of aspects in energy efficiency) would have created millions upon millions of jobs between 2009 and 2012.

The structural integrity of the steel bridges constructed between 1950 and 1980 are near failing. I know this intrinsically, as i was a structural protective coatings contractor prior to 2010. There were some municipalities that could only afford the most basic repairs necessary to ensure trigger points wouldn't fail, even though a complete overhaul (or new substructure in some cases) would have been by far the cheaper long term option. They just didn't have the money; and this got progressively worse from 2007 - 2009 as the recession continued to diminish revenue across all aspects of government. Such sentiment is echoed in this report.

Deficit spending aimed at counteracting a severe economic downturn needs to be both targeted and temporary.
 
Back
Top Bottom