• 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 National debt is beyond staggering

Critter7r said:
I didn't say or imply that either party wanted anything and the other prevented it. Just that O managed to control spending.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Only because Republicans demanded it.
 
Critter7r said:
Why didnt they demand it while Bush was in office?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So, is that your way of admitting that it was Republicans who forced Obama to cut expenses?
 
Critter7r said:
Sure. Or, said another way, it was Republicans that slowed the recovery for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...

I've been in the business world for decades and I actually favor slow steady growth because it lasts longer. When the economy does too well then it hastens the looming correction. I'm actually fine with 1.6% growth, particularly when we are basically at full employment. We don't need faster growth when everyone is already working. I've never faulted Obama for that. What I do fault him for is letting the higher paying manufacturing jobs leave the country and instituting regulations which hasten this process, causing underemployment, but the left's only solution for that is to raise the minimum wage. Now if we are getting 1.6% growth and have a much higher unemployment rate then that's a different story. Then we would need some form of stimulus but the left's definition of stimulus and the right's definition are two completely different definitions, so don't misconstrue what I said when I used the word stimulus.
 
Critter7r said:
Sure. Or, said another way, it was Republicans that slowed the recovery for absolutely no reason.
Click to expand...

More progress
an admission that Obama was a big spender.
But now changing the goalpost to ' ..but spending is GOOD"

Fine .

I mentioned that a few posts back.
For liberals, government spending is good. Why you trying to say Obama wasn't a big spender. or give 'credit' to him for moderating spending.

If you truly thought he was a spending moderate you should chastising him, not praising him for that. Hey , it slowed recovery, right!

( of course that's errrant, unprovable nonsense, but that's not really the point)
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Beyond the straw, Rumple, a president does not "spend".

You fail macro....and civics.
Click to expand...

And finally the third admsisson that Obama was not a moderate spender.
He had nothing to do with it either way, by your logic.
 
KLATTU said:
And finally the third admsisson that Obama was not a moderate spender.
He had nothing to do with it either way, by your logic.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to matter what anyone writes on the page, yer gonna read what ever you think you see.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It doesn't seem to matter what anyone writes on the page, yer gonna read what ever you think you see.
Click to expand...

You guys are trapped.

First, it's Obama the saver of the economy. But wait, that was because of the Government spending.

But wait, how can he also be Obama the prudent spender if saved the economy by spending???

What a dilemma?

LOL
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It doesn't seem to matter what anyone writes on the page, yer gonna read what ever you think you see.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to matter what anyone writes on the page, yer gonna read what ever you think you see.
 
KLATTU said:
You guys are trapped.

First, it's Obama the saver of the economy. But wait, that was because of the Government spending.

But wait, how can he also be Obama the prudent spender if saved the economy by spending???

What a dilemma?

LOL
Click to expand...

There are enough departments in the government that it would be very easy to say that Obama was a prudent spender that didn't get the stimulus spending that he wanted. That he controlled the spending of the departments, but wanted to fling a big wad of money out to the citizens to lessen the effects of the recession. Which would have still been spending, yes.

Similar to the way that I am personally a frugal shopper and frequently go without things if it's something I won't get a lot of use out of, but I'm not afraid to spend money for quality items when it's related to my favorite hobby, because I know that I'll get use and value out of spending that extra money. But you'll go after the angle that it's still spending money, without regard to the effects of that spending. And that's ok, your point has been made.
 
Visbek said:
Did you just notice this today? :mrgreen:

Conservatives and Republicans have been saying this for like 40 years. And yet, not only does it still go on, they keep doing things to make it worse -- notably slash taxes and increase defense spending. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Revenue is at record high levels (3.2 trillion adjusted for inflation), and Defense spending is at record low levels (14% of spending). So it seems pointless to focus on those two things. Its pretty obvious where the budget problems are:

srfedspendingnumbers2012p12chart1.jpg
 
KLATTU said:
You guys are trapped.

First, it's Obama the saver of the economy. But wait, that was because of the Government spending.
Click to expand...
Um, I wrote that the lack of stimulus caused a slow recovery, I have no idea where you read what you are repeating.

But wait, how can he also be Obama the prudent spender if saved the economy by spending???
Click to expand...
Yer still imaging I said anything like that, as I said, you have a vivid imagination.

What a dilemma?

LOL
Click to expand...
Yer questioning yer own conclusion. A sure sign you don't know what you are saying.
 
jonny5 said:
Revenue is at record high levels (3.2 trillion adjusted for inflation), and Defense spending is at record low levels (14% of spending). So it seems pointless to focus on those two things. Its pretty obvious where the budget problems are:

srfedspendingnumbers2012p12chart1.jpg
Click to expand...
Um, nearly all "entitlements" are FICA, non-discretionary, do not contribute to "debt". "defense" is paid via discretionary/income tax....and this figure cited does not include costs of previous wars, ie, veterans care...nor does it include dept of energy/NASA costs related to the military.
 
Back to the thread...

On whether the debt is "beyond staggering:"

Debt, Diversion, Distraction
So, about that supposed debt crisis: right now we have a more or less stable ratio of debt to GDP, and no hint of a financing problem. So claims that we are facing something terrible rest on the presumption that the budget situation will worsen dramatically over time. How sure are we about that? Less than you may imagine.
Click to expand...

Debt Is Good

Rand Paul said something funny the other day. No, really — although of course it wasn’t intentional. On his Twitter account he decried the irresponsibility of American fiscal policy, declaring, “The last time the United States was debt free was 1835.”

Wags quickly noted that the U.S. economy has, on the whole, done pretty well these past 180 years, suggesting that having the government owe the private sector money might not be all that bad a thing.
...
Click to expand...
 
RE: US National debt is beyond staggering
→ MTAtech, et al,

"DEBT" is neither good nor bad. It is a matter of degree and magnitude.

Many things that are "OK," even poisons, taken in "Moderation." And it is also true that there are things that are critical to life that become lethal when over indulged: Water, Salt, Nitrogen, Chlorine, Phosphorous, etc.

The idea of "debt" is not entirely a poor principle when used responsibly - in moderation. But debt can become toxic when used to excess or when it is out of control.

Can anyone actually say that direct liabilities of the United States Government in the amount of $19 Trillion Dollar Debt is healthy for America?
Screen Shot 2017-05-20 at 8.25.41 AM.jpg​

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RoccoR said:
RE: US National debt is beyond staggering
→ MTAtech, et al,

"DEBT" is neither good nor bad. It is a matter of degree and magnitude.

Many things that are "OK," even poisons, taken in "Moderation." And it is also true that there are things that are critical to life that become lethal when over indulged: Water, Salt, Nitrogen, Chlorine, Phosphorous, etc.

The idea of "debt" is not entirely a poor principle when used responsibly - in moderation. But debt can become toxic when used to excess or when it is out of control.

Can anyone actually say that direct liabilities of the United States Government in the amount of $19 Trillion Dollar Debt is healthy for America?

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...

You may be rhetorically asking what you believe to be a question with an obvious answer of "no". But, except for the fact that 19 trillion is a really large number, can you explain - logically and rationally - why that amount of debt is problematic for the country?
 
RE: US National debt is beyond staggering
→ Critter7r; et al,

While I've already acknowledged that I cannot successfully argue against your superior position, it does not mean I actually accept your postulate; or that I even think that preaching the "Free-Lunch" Theory (endless debt accumulation) is a sound or valid leadership position. We should not play chicken with the National Debt.

Critter7r said:
Screen Shot 2017-05-20 at 4.18.37 PM.jpg
You may be rhetorically asking what you believe to be a question with an obvious answer of "no". But, except for the fact that 19 trillion is a really large number, can you explain - logically and rationally - why that amount of debt is problematic for the country?
Click to expand...
(COMMENT)

I am unconvinced that a National Debt ($19+ Trillion), which exceeds the US GNP ($17+ Trillion), is a health financial position to hold. I am unconvinced that the amount of the Debt held by the public ($14+ Trillion), which is rapidly approaching the GNP is a healthy position to hold.

Screen Shot 2017-05-20 at 4.36.20 PM.jpgScreen Shot 2017-05-20 at 4.15.19 PM.jpg
​

Economists are great at telling you after the fact, what happened. But they are helpless to predict a crisis that is approaching.

I should point-out that (in my opinion) there is a great difference between Debt accumulated in national infrastructure and scientific investment where there is a return on the investment or escrow accumulated, and debt which has no return on investment.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
RoccoR said:
RE: US National debt is beyond staggering
→ Critter7r; et al,

While I've already acknowledged that I cannot successfully argue against your superior position, it does not mean I actually accept your postulate; or that I even think that preaching the "Free-Lunch" Theory (endless debt accumulation) is a sound or valid leadership position. We should not play chicken with the National Debt.


(COMMENT)

I am unconvinced that a National Debt ($19+ Trillion), which exceeds the US GNP ($17+ Trillion), is a health financial position to hold. I am unconvinced that the amount of the Debt held by the public ($14+ Trillion), which is rapidly approaching the GNP is a healthy position to hold.
Click to expand...

but WHY?


Economists are great at telling you after the fact, what happened. But they are helpless to predict a crisis that is approaching.

I should point-out that (in my opinion) there is a great difference between Debt accumulated in national infrastructure and scientific investment where there is a return on the investment or escrow accumulated, and debt which has no return on investment.

Most Respectfully,
R
Click to expand...

How much of our debt is invested in national infrastructure and science? Start with that.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom