Matt Foley
Death2Globalists
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,574
- Reaction score
- 641
- Location
- ExecuteTheTraitors
- Political Leaning
- Other
There are two reasons why debt can be bad -
.
I'd imagine it's interest and then more interest.
There are two reasons why debt can be bad -
.
Why would you vote for Romney, a man, who's state was #1 in debt?
Why would you vote for him? If you are voting solely on economic reasons? Just curious as to why?
Factcheck.org said:First, we should note that this is not the same kind of debt we hear about with the federal government. The Massachusetts debt referred to in the ad is long-term debt for capital improvements, bonds to pay for such things as road or bridge repair, to erect new buildings at the University of Massachusetts or to expand courthouses. That’s not the same as piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is. In fact, like most states, Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
FactCheck.org said:But Massachusetts didn’t have far to go to reach the No. 1 spot. Massachusetts ranked second in 2003, the year Romney took office, according to Moody’s. And it was first in 2002.
“Massachusetts has always been a very high-debt state,” Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told us. “That was the case before Romney was governor and it’s been the case since.” (Indeed, Massachusetts ranked second behind Connecticut in 2010, 2011 and 2012.)
In fact, the pace of the state’s rising long-term debt load actually slowed during Romney’s time as governor.
In a comparable length of time before Romney took office — from June 30, 1999, to Jan. 1, 2003 — the long-term debt in Massachusetts went from nearly $12 billion to $16 billion (see A-23), a $4 billion increase. That’s a 34 percent increase, compared with the 16.4 percent increase during Romney’s years.
Widmer put it this way: “He didn’t put his foot on the accelerator any more, or really take it off.”
FactCheck.org said:The ad also rehashes the claim that under Romney, “Massachusetts fell to 47th in job creation, one of the worst economic records in the country.”
But as we wrote when the same claim was made in an earlier Obama campaign ad, it’s a bit misleading to say Massachusetts “fell” to 47th. The state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before Romney took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but the ranking was improving, not declining, when he left.
I'd imagine it's interest and then more interest.
16 trillion in debt and growing and that is a good thing, I would hate to ask when it would be a bad thing.
There's essentially one reason why I won't vote for Romney outside of the fact he has no moral character:
The GOP is pushing the worst form of austerity. Massive cuts and massive tax cuts. What we'll get in recession at the same time as booming deficits and debts. What's the damn point in spending cuts if you can't even reduce the debt?
Honestly the more proposals I hear from Republicans, the more I consider them economically illiterate.
Debt right now is a good thing.
Massive spending and tax cuts? Your use of the word massive is a bit much. Massive would better describe our deficit spending over the last 3.5 years.
So we just hold course with massive deficit spending and no spending cuts until...? I keep hearing that we need to spend until the economy turns around. As if for some magical reason business will start hiring and consumers will start spending and every thing will be all better. The economy has tremendous problems none of which has even begun to be addressed. The idea that if we just keep up deficit spending things will just turn around is childish. All we are presently doing is destroying our grandchildren. Again, the only country in Europe that is on the right track is Germany which passed welfare reform and austerity measures in the early 2000s.
We keep kicking the can down the road and the can keeps getting bigger.
I'd imagine it's interest and then more interest.
[Massive spending and tax cuts? Your use of the word massive is a bit much. Massive would better describe our deficit spending over the last 3.5 years.
So we just hold course with massive deficit spending and no spending cuts until...?
I keep hearing that we need to spend until the economy turns around. As if for some magical reason business will start hiring and consumers will start spending and every thing will be all better. The economy has tremendous problems none of which has even begun to be addressed. The idea that if we just keep up deficit spending things will just turn around is childish. All we are presently doing is destroying our grandchildren. Again, the only country in Europe that is on the right track is Germany which passed welfare reform and austerity measures in the early 2000s.
[
Wrong!
PolitiFact | Lots of heat (and some light) on Obama's spending
And you see the Ryan budget? That's significant spending cuts with significant tax cuts.
We need to engage moderate cuts with light tax increases at the same time as helping out the housing market. Until we get to a decent level of housing deleveraging, we're going to have slow growth period. The idea is to reduce the deficit by hurting everyone enough that it actually causes a positive balance but without changing their spending/savings behaviors dramatically.
Not quite. Spending won't fix the housing market. Which is the real problem. But dramatic cuts in the form that Ryan wants will result in a recession absolutely no question. And Germany's welfare reform has nothing to do with its economic growth. Not to mention that German yields just went up suggesting that Germany isn't as safe as you think it is. If you look at Spain and Ireland, they went into the Crisis with solid financials. The government wasn't the problem there at all in terms of deficits and debts. It was the private sector that tanked their economies. Greece is a basketcase of high spending, massive tax evasion and low exports. Furthermore Germany was able to put the pain on other countries for its banks bad behavior. If German banks have been forced to take their losses early on rather than wide them down, Germany would be in a recession right now. Effectively Germany put the pain of its bad bank decisions on other countries.
I think you have hit on something that is talked about to little. If we are to fix the economy and jobs, we need to fix the housing market. Neither political party has shown any inclination to fix the large overhang of houses and the millions of people who are living in homes they can't afford. There are a number of potential solutions, there will be pain no matter which solution is picked, thus we need some real political leadership to fix this problem.
Too little? How about not at all? Consumer spending is being held down by mortgage debt. Until we get that going it's going to be a slow road. The problem is that many people simply have short memories. The pre-bust boom was built on debt financed consumption, therefore any growth in the period after the bust will be much lower. The sad thing is partisans will use this to score political points and the idiot voters will buy it. Consumer spending will be lower than before simply because we have less debt to finance our consumption on an individual level.
We need to fix housing more than anything else. Or find a new massive industry that can generate growth to compensate for slower consumer spending. What saved us in the Dot Com was housing boom. What saved Clinton was the Dot Com. I don't know what will save us now. If there is anything.
I will put on a helmet and throw out a potential solution to unfreeze the housing market. Allow loans held by Fannie and Freddie to be written down. This would entail giving people a break on their mortgage, with the proviso that when they sell, any proceeds first go to Fannie or Freddie up to the amount of forgiveness. I understand about the moral risk but we have to get this market moving. Once we do this, if people still can't pay their mortgages we have to be able to move the foreclosure process quicker, no longer be a squatter nation.
No candidate could suggest such a thing.
As I understand it, to actually make a difference the write down is going to have to be LARGE. Potentially making both insolvent immediately which would then require a recapitalization from tax dollars. I see where you're going but the costs to actually do it would be immense. I'm not saying this is bad, merely pointing out a problem.
No candidate is going to be honest until after the election.
But right now, the US government is paying almost zero interest.... its literally free (well, nearly free) money.
There are several problems with the housing market as I see it. In too many areas, the price is still beyond what people can afford (without the lending gimmicks which was a vital part in the housing industry meltdown). The other reason why the housing market is unable to rebound is that even in areas which are or would be a buyers market, say Florida for example, Many people are under water from the washout, and the still weak economy without the job security (or jobs for that matter) make the purchase of a home not a good investment at this time.I think you have hit on something that is talked about to little. If we are to fix the economy and jobs, we need to fix the housing market. Neither political party has shown any inclination to fix the large overhang of houses and the millions of people who are living in homes they can't afford. There are a number of potential solutions, there will be pain no matter which solution is picked, thus we need some real political leadership to fix this problem.
Debt right now is a good thing.
Trying to put all of Mass problems on Romney is a bit disingenuous. You would think pointing to the problems of a liberal bastion of a state like Mass or Cal would be taboo on the left.
I'm no fan of Romney but he to looks like the lesser of 2 evils.
I didn't watch the video, as so far most of the Obama campaign video's I've seen are fraught with misinformation and half truths.
But as far as your question goes: We tried Obama, things are NOT BETTER. It's really that simple. We are probably going down the tubes either way, but why continue the failed Obama policies and ideology, thus, I will vote for change (of President).
Why would you vote for Romney, a man, who's state was #1 in debt?
Why would you vote for him? If you are voting solely on economic reasons? Just curious as to why?
There is a video and transcript below explaining the debt in his state and how his state was 47th in job creations.
Obama For America TV Ad: "Number One" - YouTube
[Narrator] When Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts was number one. Number one in state debt. $18 billion dollars in debt. More debt per person than any other state in the country. At the same time Massachusetts fell to 47th in job creation - one of the worst economic records in the country. First in debt, 47th in job creation. That's Romney Economics. It didn't work then. It won't work now.
Now that you have watched the video or either read the transcript. Why would you vote for Romney on a economic reasoning?