cawacko
Well-known member
Is inflating away our debt considered outside the box?
Trickle down voodoo-economics at work....
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Is inflating away our debt considered outside the box?
I doubt you're really this obtuse.
OF COURSE borrowing is a SHORT TERM benefit. The problems are:
a) It's not simply a matter of having to pay the $money back. It has to be paid back with $interest. And the $interest on $20+ $Tril. is $mucho $dollaro.
b) Therefore long term, which except in emergency is the only rational criterion, it costs $more!
WHY ?!
Because without debt, we have so much income (revenue) and so much outgo (spending). BUT !!
With debt, we have the same income, BUT !! we have just as much outgo PLUS interest !! It's by far the worse deal, except in cases where the expense is invested.
In the vaguest of terms, generalities.
But you did not quantify it in terms of:
- $dollars
- %GDP
- or other useful standard. Merely that a little is good, a lot is bad, and you refuse to identify the demarcation between one & the other.
The difference is, balanced budgets eliminate interest payments, and we're paying $Hundreds of $Billions with a $B on debt service.
That's not paying down the principle. It's merely keeping our creditors off our backs.
You see PT. So far you've ignored these facts, and then pretend I don't hue to you, that your one narrow bogus reality is the only reality.
To the contrary, no one I know has ever disputed it. I've already agreed with it. Just because it's true doesn't justify the overall principle.
A little cocaine may elevate our energy level. Would you have all humanity strung out on cocaine?
It has short term affect. The long term affects MORE than negate it in most cases, by historical standard.
Oh?
Are there not some nations that balance their budgets?
So please explain what's unique about the U.S. that this simple sensible rule Reagan mentioned in his inaugural address is perfectly viable with other nations, but simply doesn't apply in North America.
Correct.
We can continue to keep our tax rates high, and continue to pay the $Hundreds of $Billions we pay each year in debt service.
But I prefer lower taxes, & efficient finance.
piffle
Reagan ADVOCATED it while campaigning against President Carter. Reagan criticized Carter for deficit spending.
$BUT !!
Once in office, not only did Reagan spend more than Carter. Reagan ran up more U.S. federal debt than all the other previous U.S. presidents before him COMBINED !!
It's because it's political suicide, as I mentioned before.
Actually...NO.
But the dangers of using inflation as a means of ridding debt are enormous. Witness people carting notes around in Germany because of inflation between the two world wars.
LMFAO
L
In his unique circumstance yes.
Keynesian economics is NOT a viable long-term strategy.
BUT !!
For recovering the U.S. economy from "the worst recession since the Great Depression" it was adequate.
When Bush / Cheney / Paulson left office, the U.S. was losing 800K private sector jobs per month.
The voters put the economy in Democrat Obama's hands, and Obama cut the unemployment rate nearly in half.
If Obama overreacted to the Bush recession, then even after Trump replaced Yellen, why were interest rates not immediately altered?
Obama-bashers may not wish to admit it. But the truth is, Obama handled the Bush recession fairly well; SURELY better than Bush / Cheney / Paulson did!
Bush / Cheney / Paulson's $700 $Billion $TARP didn't recover the U.S. economy. All $TARP did was keep the U.S. economy from succumbing to the Bush recession long enough for Bush / Cheney / Paulson to get outa town (DC).
That threw the Bush / Cheney / Paulson "worst economic recession since the Great Depression" hot potato into Obama's lap.
BUT !!
Obama was such a resourceful, studious leader, Obama lead our nation through the Republican adversity with style.
It's called "economic recovery". And by quantifiable standards we emerged from the global recession ahead of many of our trading partners that were similarly afflicted.
evince
Truthmatters
and then you take on a new car loan
evince
Truthmatters
spot on
I have asked for over a decade the right what level of debt is acceptable
they have always refused to tell me that %
cawacko
Well-known member
You've read the same data I have on where this recovery ranks among post war recessions and it was a weak one. And there's a reason if was at weak as it was and that's because they tried to use the gov't as the driver even after we passed the worst patch. Hence the continual blaming of Congress for not passing additional stimulus bills after we were out of the trough.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello sear,
I am not the subject.
Warning: People who stray from the issue and begin talking about me often end up on my permanent Ignore List. I make it very clear that my rules are more strict than the site rules. Warnings are rare and few. When I say permanent I mean permanent. If you doubt my word just try it out. It's a one way trip. I will have my civil discourse with respectful posters unmarred by personal invective. That is how I enjoy this place, and I mean to filter out anyone who slips below that standard. I'd like to discuss this thread and many more with you, but only on the level I enjoy. If you agree then simply avoid talking about me personally and we can talk about almost anything else. Otherwise I will not hesitate to vanish from your discussions as I will never be reading another word you post. I am not currently angry at you, just letting you know where I am coming from, that I have these high standards, and that I am not kidding about how I maintain them.
I understand this. I understand everything you are saying and have said in the previous posts. Much of it I agree with. I am telling you I used to completely agree with you. Ten years ago I could have written your post word for word and meant every word of it.
I have since come to a higher understanding. I now understand why we can always carry a deficit, and probably always will. And it is not all bad. Yes, it is costly.
No, an emergency is not the only rational criterion. Yes, it costs more over the long term, but time means something different to a nation than it does to a living breathing mortal human. That's one of the reasons a national budget operates under different rules than a personal budget.
Much of our spending can be considered to be 'invested.' When we spend on public education, we are 'investing' in the next generation of Americans. When we spend on poverty assistance programs, we are 'investing' in society, expecting that some will be raised to middle class producers and tax payers. (That does happen, you know.) When we spend on infrastructure, we are 'investing' in capitalism, giving it all it needs to move at full speed. When we spend on unemployment and assistance for the families of laid off workers, we are 'investing' in the idea that if we help them get over the hump and they can get back to work and avoid foreclosure, which would cause further economic damage. During a recession, deficit spending *IS* 'investing' in our ailing economy so that we can get the GDP back up higher again.
All of the above spending is 'investing' in the strength of our country and our economy.
Baloney. I emphasized the DEBT/GDP ratio. That is a more useful standard than the level of the debt.
No, they don't. A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)
We are actually our own creditors. Most US Debt is held by Americans.
What you are taking for 'me ignoring those points' is actually me accepting and agreeing with you on them. I don't have a 'one narrow bogus reality.' What I believe I have is a wider understanding. I accept everything you are saying and I posit that those considerations are not enough to evaluate why the USA has debt and what to do about it. So I add more factors to consider. And I am sure that even my assessment is incomplete. The more I learn, the more I modify it. That's why I went from complete agreement with you (about ten years ago) to feeling differently about it now.
No, of course not. But US national debt and cocaine are two very different things.
I am not the subject.
Warning: People who stray from the issue and begin talking about me often end up on my permanent Ignore List. I make it very clear that my rules are more strict than the site rules. Warnings are rare and few. When I say permanent I mean permanent. If you doubt my word just try it out. It's a one way trip. I will have my civil discourse with respectful posters unmarred by personal invective. That is how I enjoy this place, and I mean to filter out anyone who slips below that standard. I'd like to discuss this thread and many more with you, but only on the level I enjoy. If you agree then simply avoid talking about me personally and we can talk about almost anything else. Otherwise I will not hesitate to vanish from your discussions as I will never be reading another word you post. I am not currently angry at you, just letting you know where I am coming from, that I have these high standards, and that I am not kidding about how I maintain them.
I understand this. I understand everything you are saying and have said in the previous posts. Much of it I agree with. I am telling you I used to completely agree with you. Ten years ago I could have written your post word for word and meant every word of it.
I have since come to a higher understanding. I now understand why we can always carry a deficit, and probably always will. And it is not all bad. Yes, it is costly.
No, an emergency is not the only rational criterion. Yes, it costs more over the long term, but time means something different to a nation than it does to a living breathing mortal human. That's one of the reasons a national budget operates under different rules than a personal budget.
Much of our spending can be considered to be 'invested.' When we spend on public education, we are 'investing' in the next generation of Americans. When we spend on poverty assistance programs, we are 'investing' in society, expecting that some will be raised to middle class producers and tax payers. (That does happen, you know.) When we spend on infrastructure, we are 'investing' in capitalism, giving it all it needs to move at full speed. When we spend on unemployment and assistance for the families of laid off workers, we are 'investing' in the idea that if we help them get over the hump and they can get back to work and avoid foreclosure, which would cause further economic damage. During a recession, deficit spending *IS* 'investing' in our ailing economy so that we can get the GDP back up higher again.
All of the above spending is 'investing' in the strength of our country and our economy.
Baloney. I emphasized the DEBT/GDP ratio. That is a more useful standard than the level of the debt.
Merely that a little is good, a lot is bad, and you refuse to identify the demarcation between one & the other.
So do balanced budgets.
The difference is, balanced budgets eliminate interest payments,
No, they don't. A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)
We are actually our own creditors. Most US Debt is held by Americans.
What you are taking for 'me ignoring those points' is actually me accepting and agreeing with you on them. I don't have a 'one narrow bogus reality.' What I believe I have is a wider understanding. I accept everything you are saying and I posit that those considerations are not enough to evaluate why the USA has debt and what to do about it. So I add more factors to consider. And I am sure that even my assessment is incomplete. The more I learn, the more I modify it. That's why I went from complete agreement with you (about ten years ago) to feeling differently about it now.
No, of course not. But US national debt and cocaine are two very different things.
Last edited:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Politalker says: "A balanced budget does not mean you have no debt. It means you have as much coming in as you have going out. The two are 'balanced.' Part of the outgo can be used for interest payments if there is debt. In our case there is debt, so a balanced budget would still include interest payments (servicing the debt.)"
Thank you. This is basic econ 101 but is often misunderstood. The (R) base always seems to believe that when an (R) politician says "I'm in favor of a balanced budget" that that = lower taxes and cutting off social welfare program funding. We got just an email blast the other day from our own (R) U.S. Representative bleating about how he supports a balanced budget amendment.
Thank you. This is basic econ 101 but is often misunderstood. The (R) base always seems to believe that when an (R) politician says "I'm in favor of a balanced budget" that that = lower taxes and cutting off social welfare program funding. We got just an email blast the other day from our own (R) U.S. Representative bleating about how he supports a balanced budget amendment.
Yeah...the "balanced budget amendment" will be big with the Republicans this next election. For some reason, they think it would be wise not to go with the old standard..."elect us and we will do away with Obamacare."
They've got less chance of passing anything that will lead to a "balanced budget"...than they had of eliminating Obamacare.
Yep. It'll be difficult to ever balance a budget when you're handing out massive tax cuts to the 1% like candy at Halloween. Trick or treat, for real.
Conservative "reasoning":
John Q. Republican to Mrs. Republican: Honey, our household budget is out of control. We're spending more than we're bringing in. At this rate we'll be bankrupt in less than a year!
Mrs. Republican: You're absolutely right, John. Tell you what, I'm going to cut back on the kids' lunches and after-school activities. No more soccer, ballet lessons, Little League, STEM camp. We'll cancel the family vacation to see the National Parks, and spend it at my mother's. I'll cut back on the food budget too. Macaroni and cheese and beans are healthier anyways.
Mr. R.: Great ideas, thanks. Let's cancel cable and Internet too; we can just read old books. I'll give up dart league and the gym. When I go into the office tomorrow, I'm also going to ask my boss to cut my pay by 10%.
Mrs. R.: Wonderful! I'll ask my boss to cut my pay by 10% as well! We can do this!
One year later........
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Yep. It'll be difficult to ever balance a budget when you're handing out massive tax cuts to the 1% like candy at Halloween. Trick or treat, for real.
Conservative "reasoning":
John Q. Republican to Mrs. Republican: Honey, our household budget is out of control. We're spending more than we're bringing in. At this rate we'll be bankrupt in less than a year!
Mrs. Republican: You're absolutely right, John. Tell you what, I'm going to cut back on the kids' lunches and after-school activities. No more soccer, ballet lessons, Little League, STEM camp. We'll cancel the family vacation to see the National Parks, and spend it at my mother's. I'll cut back on the food budget too. Macaroni and cheese and beans are healthier anyways.
Mr. R.: Great ideas, thanks. Let's cancel cable and Internet too; we can just read old books. I'll give up dart league and the gym. When I go into the office tomorrow, I'm also going to ask my boss to cut my pay by 10%.
Mrs. R.: Wonderful! I'll ask my boss to cut my pay by 10% as well! We can do this!
One year later........
cancel2 2022
Canceled
God you are truly a dopey bint, I've told you many times that the EU Stability Pact specifies that government deficit (3% of GDP) and debt (60% of GDP). Of course we all know that you'll forget again next week and ask the same stupid question! Here is your favourite website!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_and_Growth_Pact
Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk