• 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!

US Debt Could Double in 25 Years With Current Policies

You had earlier praised FDR on his banking policies, and I only commented that he had done some banking things not worthy of praise as well.

And my response continues to stand: How does a transition period within a crumbling banking sector negate the fact that Glass-Steagall provided stability to the financial system? Do you agree? If not then please explain.
 
jobs.jpg



image.axd




1305319805875.gif




Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg




jobs-now.jpg






How many times can we say it? How many different ways? Jobs should be the primary concern. Only through economic growth can we fix the debt/deficit problem. If we continue contractionary policy, we will double the debt quickly.
 
And my response continues to stand: How does a transition period within a crumbling banking sector negate the fact that Glass-Steagall provided stability to the financial system? Do you agree? If not then please explain.

And my now confirming that you are a liar in this thread stands. I never addressed G-S. Not once. I have now documented it multiple times. Is it so hard for you to admit you made a wrong assumption ?

Is it worth you lying about here ?
 
And my now confirming that you are a liar in this thread stands. I never addressed G-S. Not once. I have now documented it multiple times. Is it so hard for you to admit you made a wrong assumption ?

Is it worth you lying about here ?

I mentioned Glass-Steagall:
Nonsense. Nearly half of all banks in the U.S. failed before 1933, when FDR was sworn into office. One of his firsts initiatives, known as the Banking Act of 1933 actually put in place a regulatory framework that increased confidence in a (at that time) failing banking sector.


to which you respond with:
His actions with the banks when he first took office undermined confidence in them. However, some seem caught up in semantics. My argument is that FDR made things worse.

And yet nothing you have stated substantiates your position. Your argument is incoherent.
 
Except now, with Obama, it starts all the way at the top. His platform is class warfare. He is unfit to command.

Romney, agree or disagree with his politics, is not the assclown Obama is. Neither was W.

Regardless of your personal opinion or who is elected President in November, I do not see the high degree of partisanship in Congress being resolved until our government lets things lapse so much that the American people break out in open revolt. We've seen signs of this with the Tea Party rallies and now we are seeing further signs of it with the Occupy movement. Regardless how much Congress things ignoring things will make them go away, smart people know that the problems facing our nation will only worsen over time. In the end, the American people will riot like they did in the Sixties.
 
Regardless of your personal opinion or who is elected President in November, I do not see the high degree of partisanship in Congress being resolved until our government lets things lapse so much that the American people break out in open revolt. We've seen signs of this with the Tea Party rallies and now we are seeing further signs of it with the Occupy movement. Regardless how much Congress things ignoring things will make them go away, smart people know that the problems facing our nation will only worsen over time. In the end, the American people will riot like they did in the Sixties.

Riots are not necessary to accomplish a change, our debt is mounting, and you would have to have your head in the sand to not understand we are going broke. Hopefully the American people understand this and are willing to do something about it before it's too late. The problem I see is the people love government to provide for them regardless of what it cost the tax payer.
 
Riots are not necessary to accomplish a change, our debt is mounting, and you would have to have your head in the sand to not understand we are going broke. Hopefully the American people understand this and are willing to do something about it before it's too late. The problem I see is the people love government to provide for them regardless of what it cost the tax payer.

Agreed on all points, but history shown that our Congress are slow to act until forced to act. They worry too much about reelection instead of doing the jobs they've taken an oath to do. Rallies and demonstrations may do the trick, but if that does't force our Congress to do what is right, to do their jobs and make the tough decisions, even if their constituents don't like it, then it may very well come down to riots.

Look at Greece. They will be leading the way.
 
No, essentially they're saying they will downgrade if the teabagger Congress continues to refuse to negotiate, indicating that wer're in for at least another two years of ungovernable stupidity.

So you are saying that if Obama sends through another trillion plus deficit for 2013 and years thereafter Fitch will be fine with that?
 
No, essentially they're saying they will downgrade if the teabagger Congress continues to refuse to negotiate, indicating that wer're in for at least another two years of ungovernable stupidity.

I do not believe their report said anything of this kind.
 
So you are saying that if Obama sends through another trillion plus deficit for 2013 and years thereafter Fitch will be fine with that?

I'm saying that Fitch wants to see a long-term plan that addresses structural deficits, and just as importantly, they want to see evidence that our government isn't completely disfunctional. I think they understand that we will have to run significant deficits for the next few years.
 
I'm saying that Fitch wants to see a long-term plan that addresses structural deficits, and just as importantly, they want to see evidence that our government isn't completely disfunctional. I think they understand that we will have to run significant deficits for the next few years.

Let be frank for a second...a Fitch downgrade is not going to serious hamper our ability to borrow cheap money.
 
Apparently conservatives think that government spending - specifically, deficit spending for some unknown reason - is "Keynesian". And that therefore anyone that increases government spending must be "Keynesian".

I don't think they understand what Keynesian economics was about. :roll:

Well, I do.

Definition of 'Keynesian Economics'
An*economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia
 
And i would be correct in that statement. Anyone who is familiar with Keynesian macroeconomic policy understands that the reason in engaging in deficit spending is to minimize the "output gap". By 1933, unemployment was around 20% and real GDP had fallen by 37% from 1929. Therefore it would take an enormous amount of deficit spending to push the economy back to full employment. And it did.

I see you and KC need constant reminders of what Keynesian Economics is.

Okee dokee

Definition of 'Keynesian Economics'
An*economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia


Have a nice day.


Btw - I find it interesting how Keynesian lovers try desperately to distance their beloved Keynesian economic theories from the New Deal.

People like Paul Krugman, for example (what an economic whacko he is - just shows Nobel Prizes don't mean much).
 
Last edited:
No. This is exactly what I said:



At least quote me, or correctly state what I posted, instead of just lying about it, and then criticizing me for something that I did not say.

Here, from an earlier link that I provided:



You are making stuff up.
It's typical Keynesian-lovers ways.

If they cannot prove they are right - they often use misinformation or twist facts to suit their needs.

As the current Keynesian policies fail more and more, you will probably see more and more off this.
 
Not at all. I am just having a discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about.

Wrong.

You cannot know whether someone knows what they are talking about unless you know exactly what information on the subject in question is contained in someone's brain.

Since there is no known way to know this - then there is no possible way for you to ascertain whether this person knows or does not know what they are talking about.

You are simply indulging in blatant inexactitude to try and (probably) insult this person.

Rather simplistic and immature, In my opinion.

And it does not further your cause PLUS it makes you seem more desperate.


Have a nice day.
 
It's typical Keynesian-lovers ways.

If they cannot prove they are right - they often use misinformation or twist facts to suit their needs.

As the current Keynesian policies fail more and more, you will probably see more and more off this.

What Keynesian policies?

060312krugman1-blog480.jpg
 
yeah... until you read the left side of the graph.... ;)

:roll: what Keynesian policies. Both Bush and Obama tried to stimulate the economy by having the government step in to "create demand".
 
DA60 said:
I see you and KC need constant reminders of what Keynesian Economics is.

Okee dokee

Definition of 'Keynesian Economics'
An*economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability.

Read more: Keynesian Economics Definition | Investopedia

LOL that definition is so wrong, why would you quote it?

Keynes' theory was that in times of recession government spending should increase to offset the loss of private capital investment. In other words, it has a particular time (recessions), a particular extent (to fill the gap) and a particular purpose (to offset lost private capital investment). In fact, in times of growth he argued that government spending should decrease to allow for further private capital investment and to increase its coffers for when a recession does hit. In other words, his theory of countercyclical fiscal policies (increased government spending in a recession, increase taxes and/or decreased spending in growth).

It's not just "active government intervention in the marketplace". So you very clearly have no idea what Keynes theorized.
 
Last edited:
LOL that definition is so wrong, why would you quote it?

Keynes' theory was that in times of recession government spending should increase to offset the loss of private capital investment. In other words, it has a particular time (recessions), a particular extent (to fill the gap) and a particular purpose (to offset lost private capital investment). In fact, in times of growth he argued that government spending should decrease to allow for further private capital investment and to increase its coffers for when a recession does hit. In other words, his theory of countercyclical fiscal policies (increased government spending in a recession, increase taxes and/or decreased spending in growth).

It's not just "active government intervention in the marketplace". So you very clearly have no idea what Keynes theorized.

Well...I could either believe the definition of some faceless, nobody, know-it-all on a chat forum?

Or I could believe Investopedia and just about every major unbiased publication on the web?

Hmmmmmm.

I think I'll pick the latter.


And BTW - any idiot knows that Keynes believed in reducing government intervention during times of growth....DUH.

The above obviously refers to times of economic contraction.

Here are some more examples:


'Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability'

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Keynesian-economics.html


'Named for economist John Maynard Keynes. An economic theory which advocates government intervention, or demand-side management of the economy, to achieve full employment and stable prices.'

http://www.investorwords.com/2693/Keynesian_Economics.html


'Relating to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, who believed that, in a recession, the economy can be made to grow and unemployment reduced by increasing government spending and making reductions in interest rates. [1]
Theory based on the ideas of economist John Maynard Keynes that optimum economic performance could be achieved by influencing aggregate demand through government fiscal (public spending and taxation) policy, not through the free market philosophy characterised by the classical and neo-classical schools.'

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=Keynesian-economics
 
Last edited:
Well...I could either believe the definition of some faceless, nobody, know-it-all on a chat forum?

Or you could read his book and actually understand what Keynes was talking about in his own words?

I think I'll pick the latter.

Of course you would, because you have to because you've never studied Keynesian economics so you need to rely on a definition that you looked up in a dictionary.
 
Or you could read his book and actually understand what Keynes was talking about in his own words?



Of course you would, because you have to because you've never studied Keynesian economics so you need to rely on a definition that you looked up in a dictionary.

I provided more definitions above.

One apparently from the Financial Times.


And please try and use common sense...obviously ANY definition will not encompass an entire theory...it is a simplification.

But they show that to call the New Deal NOT a Keynesian-style economic 'device' is utterly ridiculous.

The New Deal and all FDR (and most of Hoover's) Keynesian-style government interventions were horrible failures.

They resulted in an average unemployment rate of over 17% for 9 years AFTER the Great Depression had peaked and resulted in the DOW actually going down from mid-'33 until mid '42.

So naturally, Keynesians want to try and distance themselves from those policies by trying to say that they were not Keynesian-style policies...when CLEARLY they were.


Then as now..Keynesianism does not work for dealing with recessions/depressions.

It is for mooches and theoretical, macro-economic ignoramuses (like Paul Krugman) and does nothing but suppress growth and massively increase national debt.
 
Last edited:
But they show that to call the New Deal NOT a Keynesian-style economic 'device' is utterly ridiculous.

It certainly could be called Keynesian-inspired but it definitely wasn't actually Keynesian in that it was not part of a general governmental economic plan to increase government spending to offset private sector contraction, which is the entire point of Keynesian economics.

But hey, you don't even know what Keynesian economics is so it's understandable that you wouldn't understand this.
 
It certainly could be called Keynesian-inspired but it definitely wasn't actually Keynesian in that it was not part of a general governmental economic plan to increase government spending to offset private sector contraction, which is the entire point of Keynesian economics.

But hey, you don't even know what Keynesian economics is so it's understandable that you wouldn't understand this.

You disagree with definitions from dozens of respected online publications (including the Financial Times, apparently) as to the simplified definition of Keynesian economics.

They are respected (some more then others).

You are not.

Whom should we believe?

You or them?
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that Fitch wants to see a long-term plan that addresses structural deficits, and just as importantly, they want to see evidence that our government isn't completely disfunctional. I think they understand that we will have to run significant deficits for the next few years.

Here is the problem I have with the above. For the last three years we have heard the same speech from Bernanke and the administration. We need to run big deficits in the short term, but in the medium term we need to get the under control. Well many view the medium term as meaning 3-5 years. So when will we ever get to that. Seems like it should have been 2013 if the policies that the administration worked, we would not still need trillion dollar deficits.
 
They downgraded us because we can't set a budget. The Senate refuses to pass a budget. Those are the people you should be targeting. Congress has passed a ton a budgets since it has gotten out of the hands of the Dems. I know...Pelozi couldn't pass a budget because it might hurt the Dems during the 2010 elections. Ooops.

S&P downgraded the U.S. on August 5, 2011 (and rightly in my opinion). Fitch has had the U.S. on negative outlook, but has not downgraded the U.S., yet. How the U.S. handles its "fiscal cliff" issues (2001 and 2003 tax provisions + fiscal commitments agreed in August 2011 to raise the debt ceiling) will determine its next move.

In general, when trying to assess the U.S. credit rating, one must look at all the elements involved:

1. Fiscal: Structural imbalances go back to myriad Tax Code changes and entitlement programs. Costs of dealing with the financial crisis and ensuing recession have also contributed, as have the costs of three conflicts (a component of which will continue even when the conflicts are over e.g., health-related expenses for injured Vets, etc.). No credible medium-term fiscal consolidation strategy (emphasis on medium-term is important) has been enacted. Even the Simpson-Bowles package that would have made a reasonable downpayment toward a larger medium-term fiscal consolidation strategy was not adopted.

2. Political Risk: The process worked badly during the debt ceiling negotiations, narrowly averting a self-inflicted crisis, and resulting in an inadequate fiscal consolidation solution. Now, even as the solution was inadequate, some political leaders are trying to role back the cuts e.g., the sequester involved, without offering concrete and realistic alternatives. The sequester is suboptimal, as it will have a national security impact, but I believe that approach is better than one that involves mainly gimmicks or no solution at all. Indeed, S&P has warned that if those modest cuts do not take place, it could downgrade the U.S. to 'AA' from its current 'AA+' rating.

3. Macroeconomic Risk: The long-term growth rate is likely less than the 3% real annualized figure still assumed by S&P. S&P has not yet accepted that condition, but it would likely lead to an additional downgrade if it were to do so. The long-term growth rate is a combination of the nation's debt overhang (broad domestic nonfinancial debt, led by households and the federal government), structural factors (domestic and international), and public policy. All of those factors interact and the boundaries can be quite ambiguous e.g., public investment choices made in the past can, to some degree, impact structural factors such as workforce quality today.

Specifically, S&P's rationale for the downgrade was:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predicatable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently...

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated soverieng peers...
 
Back
Top Bottom