• 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!

We Have a Spending Problem

Sometimes you just got to tighten the belt. Let the chips fall where they may.
 
danielpalos said:
The right wing always claims that, and advocate for Tax Economics, so we can no longer blame the Department of Education.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you mean by this. Let me ask this, what has spending to the tune of 20 trillion in debt gotten us? It's time to live within our means.
 
lefty louie said:
I don't really know what you mean by this. Let me ask this, what has spending to the tune of 20 trillion in debt gotten us? It's time to live within our means.
Click to expand...

We should have the finest infrastructure money can buy.

Who's fault is it, the right still has to create "government jobs" to help boost their "tax cut economics growth plan".
 
James972 said:
for some reason Reagan wanted to win the cold war and eliminate the threat of nuclear annilation. Go figure.
. Go figure!
Click to expand...

If it was necessary to raise defense spending during the Reagan administration it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it. By the end of the Second World War the top tax rate was 94%.

From the end of the Second World War to the Reagan administration the national debt declined as a percentage of gross domestic product. It only began to rise during the Reagan administration when the top tax rated declined from 70% to 28%.

Because the Soviet Union was collapsing from within there was no need for a military buildup. The military buildup was dangerously provocative at a time when Soviet leaders felt their country and their power falling apart.
 
danielpalos said:
We should have the finest infrastructure money can buy.

Who's fault is it, the right still has to create "government jobs" to help boost their "tax cut economics growth plan".
Click to expand...


No, we should have the best infrastructure we as a country can afford. Blaming one side and not the other only tells me one thing, you are too prejudiced to have a constructive conversation with.
 
lefty louie said:
No, we should have the best infrastructure we as a country can afford. Blaming one side and not the other only tells me one thing, you are too prejudiced to have a constructive conversation with.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what you mean by this. Let me ask this, what has spending to the tune of 20 trillion in debt gotten us?
 
danielpalos said:
I don't really know what you mean by this. Let me ask this, what has spending to the tune of 20 trillion in debt gotten us?
Click to expand...

We should have the best we can pay for, being 20 trillion in debt means we can't afford what we consume. Cuts need to be made. Or better deals.
 
lefty louie said:
We should have the best we can pay for, being 20 trillion in debt means we can't afford what we consume. Cuts need to be made. Or better deals.
Click to expand...

We should have the finest infrastructure, twenty trillion can buy.

Let's cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.
 
danielpalos said:
We should have the finest infrastructure, twenty trillion can buy.
Click to expand...

so should USSR and Red China but it never works that way when govt monopolist bureaucrats spend other people's money. Do you know why?
 
danielpalos said:
lousy management?
Click to expand...

yes lousy management forever and 120 million slowly starved to death in 132 countries. Liberals want 200 million dead in 150 countries before they give up.
 
James972 said:
yes lousy management forever and 120 million slowly starved to death in 132 countries. Liberals want 200 million dead in 150 countries before they give up.
Click to expand...

Political strife? How much mass destruction is the right wing making a profit on, with our exorbitantly expensive, Peoples' power.
 
danielpalos said:
However, the Chinese have already built entire new cities.
Click to expand...

so then they are really socialist and should switch back to libcommieism to try to kill another 60 million!! Good libcommie thinking Danny!!
 
James972 said:
so then they are really socialist and should switch back to libcommieism to try to kill another 60 million!! Good libcommie thinking Danny!!
Click to expand...

they should have stuck to their Constitution and been better, socialists instead of better Capitalists.

Article 1 The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

Article 2 All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people.

The National People’s Congress and the local people’s congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power.

The people administer State affairs and manage economic and cultural undertakings and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the provisions of law.
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
they should have stuck to their Constitution and been better, socialists instead of better Capitalists.
Click to expand...

there is no better socialism they had already killed 60 million. the instant they switched to Republican capitalism another 60 million were saved from socialist slow starvation. Did you want them to keep trying at socialism until 200 million had been slowly starved to death or simply copy Republican capitalism. How did you hitch your wagon to the most evil idea in human history?? Proud of that?? Next you will become a National Socialist. Did you love Hitler?
 
James972 said:
there is no better socialism they had already killed 60 million. the instant they switched to Republican capitalism another 60 million were saved from socialist slow starvation. Did you want them to keep trying at socialism until 200 million had been slowly starved to death or simply copy Republican capitalism. How did you hitch your wagon to the most evil idea in human history?? Proud of that?? Next you will become a National Socialist. Did you love Hitler?
Click to expand...

What capitalism, they still haven't filled their empty cities. That is not capitalism.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Re the bold section

What do you consider a very high debt to GDP ratio?

Some facts

Sweden's debt to GDP ratio is 42.2%
Denmark's is 37.7%
The Netherlands is 61.8%

The US total federal government debt is 105%
Click to expand...

What does debt to gdp even matter? The longer a country has been using it's current fiscal system, the larger it's debt to gdp is going to tend to be. Debt to GDP is a measurement of time and stability and growth of a nation more than anything else.
 
Koke said:
I don't think most people understand how dire this situation truly is. In 20 - 30 years you're going to see the explosion of the biggest debt bomb in world history and it's going to be very, very bad. It won't be Obama's fault, it won't be Trump's fault, it will be an amalgamation of government and state idiocy that has accumulated over many years. 110 trillion dollars (and growing) worth of unfunded liabilities. 20 trillion dollars (and growing) is what our debt is just generally speaking.

I'm sorry but if anyone has the slightest fantasy that this will ever be paid off in full, you are wrong. This is going to be bad and the past generations which have made a bed is what the unborn will have to sleep in.
Click to expand...

People have been saying that ever since 1792. We've always had a public debt, except for two years. Those two years we went into a deep depression due to a lack of available currency and government spending and over taxation for the spending level that existed. We don't want that to happen again.

Which economy needs more money, your family, or your entire state? The larger the economy, the more money it needs to handle transactions and to create savings and investment and business expansion. Our funny way of creating new money is we lend it into existence. The national debt is nothing more than the total of all money created and spent into the economy, which has yet to be taxed back. It's not a bad thing, and it's not debt in the same way your family might have debt.

Those "unfunded liabilities" you are talking about simply means that we don't currently have enough cash in the treasury to pay them all at one time. Of course they aren't all due at one time either, so it's not an issue. Our government issues dollars, there is no "bill" denominated in US dollars that it can't pay. Bankruptcy for a monetarily sovereign nation is impossible (unless we just chose to stop paying our obligations).
 
James972 said:
best approach is to simply make debt illegal but Democrats won't hear of anything that sounds like fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

then all US dollars would disappear. They are created by debt and backed by debt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom