| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/23/2004 03:43:01 PM · #51 |
Not to worry my friend. The evil rich will foot the bill. You just keep on sucking in the free government money.
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by louddog:
... do you even know what the national debt is? It's not that big of a deal. Paying it off should not be a very big concern ... |
Check the National Debt Clock and divide by US population to see if it's a big deal to pay off or not. Do you have the $25,000+ to pay off your personal share? |
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 05:00:03 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Not to worry my friend. The evil rich will foot the bill. You just keep on sucking in the free government money.
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by louddog:
... do you even know what the national debt is? It's not that big of a deal. Paying it off should not be a very big concern ... |
Check the National Debt Clock and divide by US population to see if it's a big deal to pay off or not. Do you have the $25,000+ to pay off your personal share? |
|
Or maybe you're a family of 4 ... your total is over 100 Grand. Step right up and pay it down.
Or you've got a new family ... just had your first baby. Deduct $25,000 from your net worth (not covered by insurance either.)
And this is just the personal impact. Doesn't take into account macro-economic stuff like international money flow, interest rates, inflation impact, currency valuations, ... When it comes to the national debt, size matters. |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 05:27:10 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
There is a great old joke, two economists are looking at some formula on a black board and one says to the other, “you know I find this model works much better if you leave the people out”. Economist, especially right wing economists, like to say there is a model of rational self interested behavior which defines human life, human desire. But of course what they can’t countenance in that model, is departures, from what they call rational self interest. Which happen all the time. We have to complicate the model there may be other directed actions rather than self directed actions, self sacrifice, minimization of profit for the sake of some other value and so on and so on. And this of course is not news to any human, but it is news to a lot of economists because it is not the way they have conceived the world. You know; we should take some time to notice this discrepancy because it’s the key to rebuilding the picture; such that it’s richer and more human and not so much about profit.
Mark Kingwell –Philosopher |
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 05:40:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by louddog:
... do you even know what the national debt is? It's not that big of a deal. Paying it off should not be a very big concern ... |
Check the National Debt Clock and divide by US population to see if it's a big deal to pay off or not. Do you have the $25,000+ to pay off your personal share? |
Okay, maybe I need to re-ask. Not, how much the national debt is, but what it is. What does it mean? Who owes who money? How do we pay it back? Yes, as a number it is huge and scary, but when you realize what it actually is, it's not something to lose any sleep over.
|
|
|
|
10/23/2004 06:58:27 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
There is a great old joke, two economists are looking at some formula on a black board and one says to the other, “you know I find this model works much better if you leave the people out”. Economist, especially right wing economists, like to say there is a model of rational self interested behavior which defines human life, human desire. But of course what they can’t countenance in that model, is departures, from what they call rational self interest. Which happen all the time. We have to complicate the model there may be other directed actions rather than self directed actions, self sacrifice, minimization of profit for the sake of some other value and so on and so on. And this of course is not news to any human, but it is news to a lot of economists because it is not the way they have conceived the world. You know; we should take some time to notice this discrepancy because it’s the key to rebuilding the picture; such that it’s richer and more human and not so much about profit.
Mark Kingwell –Philosopher |
|
you forgot about that other part of the great old joke in which that is all you do in these forums. you know nothing of what you speak yet you continue to try and sound smart, it's ridiculous. all you do is tell one side of every story, don't start accusing others of it |
|
|
|
10/23/2004 09:13:17 PM · #56 |
| Even the International Monetary Fund thinks that Bush or Kerry, should he get in, raise taxes and lower the national debt. Bush already realizes this and has promised to cut the debt in half within 4 years, but the IMF has said that wouldn't be enough of a cut, especially when the baby boomers start to retire in 5 to 10 years. |
|
|
|
10/24/2004 11:34:20 AM · #57 |
I guess you don't understand what the National Debt actually is.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 11:11:37 AM · #58 |
Fiscally, is the Bush administration all that conservative? The International Monetary Fund has stated publically that they believe that Bush's tax plan is dangerous for our economy. Wasn't it Newt Gingrich in the late 90's who was pushing for an amendment to The Constitution for balancing the budget? Is Bush pushing this country towards bankruptcy.
Who is fronting us the money anyway to fund our wars? Who are we indebted to for funding our huge national deficit anyway? |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:00:26 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Who is fronting us the money anyway to fund our wars? Who are we indebted to for funding our huge national deficit anyway? |
Everyone that owns US bonds. I imagine it's a pretty long list so I'm not going to dig it up and post it.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:48:44 PM · #60 |
I would think that the amount of money coming from US bond holders is pretty small for the billions of dollars that have been spent so far for the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. I was informed that the BBC aired a program that stated that the majority of the money funding the wars and where most of our debt is coming from, is from Japanese banks. The reason?, because they have a great stake in our economy with all the Japanese products we purchase. Eventually, we're not going to be able to pay them back and there may well be a total collapse of our economy. Bankruptcy? I'm not an economist, but I do know that I can't keep borrowing from my credit cards or take out loans from banks without it ruining my life. Same here, as the fiscal policies of the Bush administration will ruin this country economically. Just my opinion.
Are banks like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund loaning money for our wars, or the reconstruction efforts in those devastated countries?
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Who is fronting us the money anyway to fund our wars? Who are we indebted to for funding our huge national deficit anyway? |
Everyone that owns US bonds. I imagine it's a pretty long list so I'm not going to dig it up and post it. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:58:03 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would think that the amount of money coming from US bond holders is pretty small for the billions of dollars that have been spent so far for the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. I was informed that the BBC aired a program that stated that the majority of the money funding the wars and where most of our debt is coming from, is from Japanese banks. The reason?, because they have a great stake in our economy with all the Japanese products we purchase. Eventually, we're not going to be able to pay them back and there may well be a total collapse of our economy. Bankruptcy? I'm not an economist, but I do know that I can't keep borrowing from my credit cards or take out loans from banks without it ruining my life. Same here, as the fiscal policies of the Bush administration will ruin this country economically. Just my opinion.
Are banks like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund loaning money for our wars, or the reconstruction efforts in those devastated countries? |
Obviously you still have no clue what the national debt really is.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:02:02 PM · #62 |
So then explain it. I've asked you to explain it, but you have decided not to for some reason. Is this a basic fact of economics?:
You can't keep spending more than you are taking in. Eventually it's going to catch up with you. No?
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would think that the amount of money coming from US bond holders is pretty small for the billions of dollars that have been spent so far for the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars. I was informed that the BBC aired a program that stated that the majority of the money funding the wars and where most of our debt is coming from, is from Japanese banks. The reason?, because they have a great stake in our economy with all the Japanese products we purchase. Eventually, we're not going to be able to pay them back and there may well be a total collapse of our economy. Bankruptcy? I'm not an economist, but I do know that I can't keep borrowing from my credit cards or take out loans from banks without it ruining my life. Same here, as the fiscal policies of the Bush administration will ruin this country economically. Just my opinion.
Are banks like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund loaning money for our wars, or the reconstruction efforts in those devastated countries? |
Obviously you still have no clue what the national debt really is. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:13:43 PM · #63 |
National Debt = Good thing.
We are paying back our national debt, yes. But to want the entire debt to be wiped clean, to be completely repaid? Well if that were to happen the world would collapse. See, the establishment of a national debt (as first argued by my buddy Hamilton) creates a national credit. People are willing to let us borrow money because other people are trusting their money in us. We're owed (and we owe, but to a lesser extent) large sums of money by many small carribbean and latin american countries. We'll probably never get repaid, however we've helped these nations by being the first to trust money with them. If we trust money to them, others will too, since the dollar is such a strong investment. A national debt also creates interest in seeing our longevity and lastingness as a nation by foreign nationstates who have invested in us. They want their money back eventually, so they're going to protect their assets. This was key post-revolutionary when we were indebted to France and the Netherlands. It stopped a war weary country from being invaded by nearby Spain or some other power. Because at that time, a war with the US meant a war with France and the Netherlands. That timeclock you posted, that was really cute; however the common teague who would not understand what debt is would be misled (as it appears you have been) to think that this debt is a new thing and a serious issue. He would also think that it would be his job to pay it back directly. That statistic, how much each person "owes" to repay the national debt is irrelevant and useless. Never would the government, or any other persons/entities of intellegence, or France, ask the common teague to repay this debt. It's always good to have a debt. A debt is a perpetual thing.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:29:14 PM · #64 |
When the debt can't be paid back because it's so huge then eventually we (United States) become a country that others are not willing to invest in. When the debt can't be paid back the infrastructure of the country may also collapse. When there are no jobs and the GNP drops considerably seems to me there would be economic collapse. when we owe so much money to other countries and are not able to pay them back I would think that there will be economic ripples in those countries as well, and the problem then starts to be a global one. We would be at the mercy of those lending countries, as was Venezuela when they couldn't pay back their huge debt. Their economy collapsed and they have more than 50% unemployment, as well as, and a lot of corruption and instability. Debt maybe a good thing to a certain limit and under good and peaceful times, but that theory may have diminishing returns as the debt increases. We are taking away the future from our children. The government is already crying that the future for social security is dim and they will run out of money, although I'm not sure that's really true.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
National Debt = Good thing.
We are paying back our national debt, yes. But to want the entire debt to be wiped clean, to be completely repaid? Well if that were to happen the world would collapse. See, the establishment of a national debt (as first argued by my buddy Hamilton) creates a national credit. People are willing to let us borrow money because other people are trusting their money in us. We're owed (and we owe, but to a lesser extent) large sums of money by many small carribbean and latin american countries. We'll probably never get repaid, however we've helped these nations by being the first to trust money with them. If we trust money to them, others will too, since the dollar is such a strong investment. A national debt also creates interest in seeing our longevity and lastingness as a nation by foreign nationstates who have invested in us. They want their money back eventually, so they're going to protect their assets. This was key post-revolutionary when we were indebted to France and the Netherlands. It stopped a war weary country from being invaded by nearby Spain or some other power. Because at that time, a war with the US meant a war with France and the Netherlands. That timeclock you posted, that was really cute; however the common teague who would not understand what debt is would be misled (as it appears you have been) to think that this debt is a new thing and a serious issue. He would also think that it would be his job to pay it back directly. That statistic, how much each person "owes" to repay the national debt is irrelevant and useless. Never would the government, or any other persons/entities of intellegence, or France, ask the common teague to repay this debt. It's always good to have a debt. A debt is a perpetual thing. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:36:41 PM · #65 |
| In addition, I don't think that theory really applies here because the money we are borrowing is being used for war...for death and destruction. We are not really getting any kind of return on it. We're not using that money for building better roads. We're not using that money for building more hospitals. We're not using that money to better ourselves in any way. So what do we get for that money? Nothing, because it's not even buying us more security. Eventually, this country is going to go broke and we'll have nothing for it while the people responsible for running up the debt are going to be laughing their way all the way to the bank, just like the crooks of Enron and other corrupt companies. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:37:55 PM · #66 |
Yes, but even at the rate the debt is growing, we've got a good, say, million years before your apocalyptic debt is ever realized. We've established ourselves over the course of our history as the most sound investment in the world. A bigger debt (in the immediate case) means more trust from outside nations and thus leads to more investing. The United States has always, always paid its debts back and always will. Good use of parallelism, though.
Venezuela's corruption and their instability stems from their communist leader, did you know that? Though La Venezuela is my favorite place in the world, it makes me sad to see a man like Hugo Chavez manipulating the vote and dragging the country down so that all are equal, and equal is in the barrios stacked one over another on the rugged mountains and the northern amazon plains.
But that's off topic.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
When the debt can't be paid back because it's so huge then eventually we (United States) become a country that others are not willing to invest in. When the debt can't be paid back the infrastructure of the country may also collapse. When there are no jobs and the GNP drops considerably seems to me there would be economic collapse. when we owe so much money to other countries and are not able to pay them back I would think that there will be economic ripples in those countries as well, and the problem then starts to be a global one. We would be at the mercy of those lending countries, as was Venezuela when they couldn't pay back their huge debt. Their economy collapsed and they have more than 50% unemployment, as well as, and a lot of corruption and instability. Debt maybe a good thing to a certain limit and under good and peaceful times, but that theory may have diminishing returns as the debt increases. We are taking away the future from our children. The government is already crying that the future for social security is dim and they will run out of money, although I'm not sure that's really true. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:54:20 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
We are not really getting any kind of return on it. |
I guess we never should have bank rolled WWII, it just didn't make us enough money! |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:59:39 PM · #68 |
I don't know if you saw my last post, so I'll repeat it here and comment on your reply:
In addition, I don't think that theory really applies here because the money we are borrowing is being used for war...for death and destruction. We are not really getting any kind of return on it. We're not using that money for building better roads. We're not using that money for building more hospitals. We're not using that money to better ourselves in any way. So what do we get for that money? Nothing, because it's not even buying us more security. Eventually, this country is going to go broke and we'll have nothing for it while the people responsible for running up the debt are going to be laughing their way all the way to the bank, just like the crooks of Enron and other corrupt companies.
So why has the International Monetary declared that what the Bush administration is doing fiscally is bad economics? They have stated that the tax cuts during a time of war is bad fiscal policy. Why was there such a push by Newt Gingrich back in the late 90's for a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. This economic policy of Bush seems reckless, as are his other policies. As far as other countries trusting us...we are losing their trust around the globe after the misleading of this administration. As long as they are in power, more and more nations will distrust us, both economically and politically, and will want nothing to do with us. We are becoming the bullies of the world, have been for quite some time now (which is one of the reasons we're in the state we're in with terrorism) and we have become unilateralists, who don't give a damn about anyone else.
Hugo Chavez wants to nationalize the oil there and other industries and that's why he is not on our good side. That was the case with other democratically elected officials from many countries, including Mozadeck (sp?) of Iran, where we put in the puppet government of the Shah, Allende of Chile, where we backed Pinochet. The peoples of the world are getting wise to us.
There may come a time when we won't be able to pay our debt back and the leaders that have gotten us to that place will not be around to be held accountible.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
Yes, but even at the rate the debt is growing, we've got a good, say, million years before your apocalyptic debt is ever realized. We've established ourselves over the course of our history as the most sound investment in the world. A bigger debt (in the immediate case) means more trust from outside nations and thus leads to more investing. The United States has always, always paid its debts back and always will. Good use of parallelism, though.
Venezuela's corruption and their instability stems from their communist leader, did you know that? Though La Venezuela is my favorite place in the world, it makes me sad to see a man like Hugo Chavez manipulating the vote and dragging the country down so that all are equal, and equal is in the barrios stacked one over another on the rugged mountains and the northern amazon plains.
But that's off topic.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
When the debt can't be paid back because it's so huge then eventually we (United States) become a country that others are not willing to invest in. When the debt can't be paid back the infrastructure of the country may also collapse. When there are no jobs and the GNP drops considerably seems to me there would be economic collapse. when we owe so much money to other countries and are not able to pay them back I would think that there will be economic ripples in those countries as well, and the problem then starts to be a global one. We would be at the mercy of those lending countries, as was Venezuela when they couldn't pay back their huge debt. Their economy collapsed and they have more than 50% unemployment, as well as, and a lot of corruption and instability. Debt maybe a good thing to a certain limit and under good and peaceful times, but that theory may have diminishing returns as the debt increases. We are taking away the future from our children. The government is already crying that the future for social security is dim and they will run out of money, although I'm not sure that's really true. |
|
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:15:08 PM · #69 |
| My understanding of what happened in Venezuela is that they were loaned lots of money by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund which requires the country to restructure it's economy. As a result, industries there were deregulated and privatized which allowed them to charge exhorbitant prices for their products and services. Basic utilities such as water and electricty were put in the hands of price gouging businessmen and the people couldn't afford to pay them. This wound up in businesses going under and a huge loss of jobs and a viciuos cycle that the politicians there couldn't get under because those lending institutions woulnd't forgive the debt they had accumulated. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 04:48:59 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
So then explain it. I've asked you to explain it, but you have decided not to for some reason. Is this a basic fact of economics?:
You can't keep spending more than you are taking in. Eventually it's going to catch up with you. No? |
If you asked me to explian it, I apoligize for missing your question.
Read here, it may help //www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Much of the debt (40%) is money the government owes itself. Kind of like borrowing from your retirement account to purchase a new house...
The rest is mostly made up of bonds and securities sold to people, banks, and other countries.
Basically, the 60% that is not owed to itself, is similar to shares of stock sold to raise funds. Much like GE, Boeing or Google does.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 08:58:38 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Wasn't it Newt Gingrich in the late 90's who was pushing for an amendment to The Constitution for balancing the budget? |
And, as I recall, there was an "in times of war" exception, since the most common arguement against it is it would keep us from being able to fight a war. As we're in a time of war, it would not currently apply. Though, it seems, contrary to their spending roots, liberals are for once in the last half century (maybe longer) arguing for a balanced budget, even without the ammendment, perhaps as a means of cripling our resolve in waging that war.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Is Bush pushing this country towards bankruptcy. |
No. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 09:21:08 PM · #72 |
It seems to me that the money that has been squandered in Iraq could have been used elsewhere in our economy, such as developing alternative fuels and the infrastructure needed to deliver those fuels. This would have been the wise thing to do because first of all, a few different industries would have sprouted up and provided many jobs. There are a number of different alternative energy sources that could have been exploited such as, wind, solar, hydrogen and others. This would have put the US well on the way to reduced dependence on Mideast oil. It would have helped the environment, because even if you don't believe in global warming from the use of hydrocarbons, it would have improved the quality of the air and maybe reduced incidences of asthma and other respiratory diseases. It would also have made us more secure, not just from terrorism, but from the coming energy crises. Having a few different sources of energy is a better way to go than just reliant on one.
So what have we gotten from all the debt we've accumulated? Nothing that I can see. We're not any safer from terrorism and all that seems to have come from it is more hatred towards the US, more death of our young men and women and more destruction of a culture and society that has been the victims three major wars since the 80's.
All those billions squandered and we could have gotten so much for it :( |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 10:15:50 PM · #73 |
Thank you Louddog for the link explaining the debt/deficit. Mr. Hall, it seems, is not for a raising of the national debt. I have emailed him, and have asked him more specific questions regarding the debt in relation to the Iraqi war and will post that when, and if, he responds back.
HERE is an another article, this time by Lew Rockwell, concerning the debt during the Iraqi war. He is not for increasing it either. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 10:24:39 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems to me that the money that has been squandered in Iraq could have been used elsewhere in our economy, such as developing alternative fuels and the infrastructure needed to deliver those fuels. This would have been the wise thing to do... |
And in terms of the National Debt, what would change if you spent the money as you suggest as opposed to spending it on the war effort? Does my debt load change less if I charge an extra $2000 on a plasma TV or charge an extra $2000 on a used car? I don't think so. My debt STILL goes up by the same amount - $2000. But I forget. . .an increase in the national debt for non-constitutionally supported spending is wise, but an increase for constitutionally mandated national security is "squandering". By the way, who would benefit if the U.S. invested in developing alternative fuels or the infrastructure? Oh, that's right - those nasty, evil, large CORPORATIONS - the ones that contribute so heavily to the Republican Party. And if that happened, it would just give you MORE to rant and rave and blame Bush for. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 10:39:03 PM · #75 |
It was cheeper to deal with Saddam today than it would have been in 5-8 years. That is a fact. You may still think it was wrong. But less people died and we spent less money and we will be more effective today than in the future.
Not only that, we ARE investing our money. We are buying security. And not just from attacks, but market stabilization and hopefully another middle eastern friend.
Not only that, but we are keeping terrorists busy over there vs over here!
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 22:39:28. |
|
