US Debt Explained in Simple English

Off Topic
41

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

It’s this type of MY side is always Right and Your side is always wrong that leads to a fucking Super Congress of scape goats.

[/quote]

Ah, thats so very middle of the road of you.

It is just that debt and money printing either a) “Govt debt is good. Stimulates growth and checks recession” or b) removes resources from the productive, i.e. private sector and strangles the economy even more.

Tertium non datur, choose.
And of you choose wrong, you might tank the system.

Thank You

[/quote]
[/quote]

For what?

I did not make your point for you.

I pointed out to you that if there are two diametrically opposed positions, which there are when it comes to debt and inflating there can be no middle ground.

That is not fear mongering, that is a logical necessity and no matter how “moderate” or conciliatory you might want to get in order to feel mainstream there is no escaping it.

Choose.

42

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

It’s this type of MY side is always Right and Your side is always wrong that leads to a fucking Super Congress of scape goats.

[/quote]

Ah, thats so very middle of the road of you.

It is just that debt and money printing either a) “Govt debt is good. Stimulates growth and checks recession” or b) removes resources from the productive, i.e. private sector and strangles the economy even more.

Tertium non datur, choose.

And of you choose wrong, you might tank the system.

[/quote]

But doesn’t Govt spending boost the private sector and SET UP the economy for failure with policy changes? The problem with the Gubment is that they don’t follow a free mkt philosophy. They follow ideology which sure as hell will get you broke.[/quote]

In very many ways a free market philosophy is ideological because it does require the belief that even as far as you can see that might be a good idea what you are planning it most like is not.

There are reasons for that which are above the interest level of most people, so ideology would be needed to psuh it through even if the immediate benefit is not obvious.

43

[quote]overstand wrote:
@ Orion

Don’t twist my words. I never said unchecked/irresponsible money growth is a good thing, in fact I conceded the opposite. And with regards to speculation over inflation, the US just spent the better part of a trillion dollars and 20 year US treasury notes are holding steady right around 4%.

If investors feared massive inflation in the future, it would show up in the 10 and 20 year notes in the form of jacked up interest rates. This has not been the case. So unless we are going to operate under the ludicrous notion that markets and investors are irrational, the danger has been grossly overstated. Beyond that I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make. Are you in favor of a balanced budget?

PS: Enjoy being a miserable cynic.

@ RRibber

My point was comparing household debt to government debt is apples to oranges. Your analogy does not apply and the picture you posted is propaganda aimed at people who aren’t versed in economics.[/quote]

I enjoy being a miserable cynic.

It keeps me fed, dry and reasonably entertained.

And yes, the markets are irrational because every single player is.

Just not as irrational as central planning.

What I am basically disputing is that any kind of inflation is good.

Money is not a mystical substance, it is a place holder for goods and services. If you trick the market into believing that there are more resources than there actually are by inflating the currency it might lead to a boom, well, at this point more to a mild recovery, but it also leads to a misallocation of capital regarding sectors of the economy, a misallocation of capital over time and exaggerated booms and busts.

You had two bubbles in a row now.

Want to inflate a third one?

Go ahead, I will take all the money out of your retirement account I can get, better me than someone else I guess.

But, fear not, you will get everything you were promised, it is just that it will be so inflated that you will be able to buy a cup of coffee each sunday and no more.

44

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:
People need to understand that balancing the budget for the sake of balancing the budget makes absolutely no economic sense. Despite what Obama and the rest of the harbingers of doom would have us believe, the government CAN NOT go broke. We are not Greece! Where Greece had no control over the Euro, we have total sovereign control over the $ and can (and should) continue to run a deficit indefinitely. This principle is the very foundation of a fiat money system. Money growth is not only NOT a bad thing, but is absolutely essential for stable economic growth. The concept of government debt is a holdover from the gold standard era and has no application in today’s economy. Instead of thinking of the deficit as “debt”, think of it as money growth. Every dollar the government spends beyond what it collects in taxes represents another dollar added to the economy. This infusion of cash lowers the interest rate and spurs private investment. In the bottom line, deficit spending = money growth = private sector savings, penny for penny.

Understand that I am not advocating limitless money expansion. There is a resource contraint whereby if we grow money faster than our consumption/investment/etc. can expand, we will face unnecessary inflation. However, this is why we have the Fed and monetary policy tools to make micro adjustments to keep the economy on track.

In case you have forgotten, the US has run a deficit for 99% of the country’s history. A period with one of the largest deficits in history, WWII, also saw some of the fastest economic growth ever. The few times we’ve run a surplus have resulted in recessions. Instead of focusing on the deficit (which is largely arbitrary and endogenous), we should be focusing on real issues like unemployment.
[/quote]

Obviously without slight deficit spending there would not be the government bonds the Fed OMC uses however the current deficit levels vs GDP are unsustainable. Remember not even Keynes believed that the government should operate in a state of deficit spending continuously. But rather could use deficit spending as a tool to nudge the economy out of down turns but that when economic growth returned government outlays should be reduced.

Its that kind of nuance that we aren’t getting from either ideological side.

[/quote]

Thank you!

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Laughing my head off at the naivete of those who think the Tea Party of all things is causing the problem or not trying to deal with it]

Lord have mercy, the ignorance here is unfettered. Wow.[/quote]

I don’t solely blame the Tea Party, both parties are at fault and the unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the people is almost the size of the Grand Canyon. It’s more of a pissing contest now. Case in point, the payroll tax cut. The GOP “caved” instead of “compromised.” I’m pretty sure “compromise” isn’t in Congress’s vocabulary. It’s each side out for itself and fuck the people. Right now, there are two evils and you have to pick the lesser of them, which ever fits your political beliefs.

This government, quite plainly, SUCKS. I don’t even know if it’s fixable. Everyone says to vote out EVERY body and vote in completely new people…well…that’s not exactly possible, now is it? So there was a revolution this past election cycle and look what we got. The Tea Party and that stupid guy who makes every GOPer take that stupid pledge about taxes. Lincoln would be supremely pissed with what his party has become. He’d probably become a Democrat or Independent or shit, start his own damn party all over again. They’re a disgrace to the Constitution and everything that generation and succeeding generations fought for.

Katie Couric told an awesome story of when Reagan was shot and in the hospital. Tip O’Neil went into his room, knelt by his bed and started reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Reagan started reciting along with him. At the end Tip O’Neil said “I love you, Mr. President.” and Reagan returned it. At the end of the day, those guys were friends, were known to share a cigar and a glass of scotch. This would never happen today. No one in Congress, on opposite sides of the aisle, are friends. They are enemies 24/7/365. The Tea Party, IMO, takes this to the extreme and extremes are bad, in any form. And the GOP, right now, isn’t any better. All this talk of taking us “back to the Constitution”…so half our population (women) won’t be able to vote or hold property or go to school, all people of any percentage of black ancestry would be considered 3/5 of a person. Really? Or do we just skip that part? Which parts of the Constitution are skippable? It’s like asking a Catholic which parts of the Bible are skippable. Fuck that. Thomas Jefferson never meant the Constitution to be written in stone, shit, he wanted it thrown out and rewritten every generation. We can’t do that now, we can barely keep the government running as it is…let alone rewriting the whole damn thing.

46

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Laughing my head off at the naivete of those who think the Tea Party of all things is causing the problem or not trying to deal with it]

Lord have mercy, the ignorance here is unfettered. Wow.[/quote]

I don’t solely blame the Tea Party, both parties are at fault and the unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the people is almost the size of the Grand Canyon. It’s more of a pissing contest now. Case in point, the payroll tax cut. The GOP “caved” instead of “compromised.” I’m pretty sure “compromise” isn’t in Congress’s vocabulary. It’s each side out for itself and fuck the people. Right now, there are two evils and you have to pick the lesser of them, which ever fits your political beliefs.

This government, quite plainly, SUCKS. I don’t even know if it’s fixable. Everyone says to vote out EVERY body and vote in completely new people…well…that’s not exactly possible, now is it? So there was a revolution this past election cycle and look what we got. The Tea Party and that stupid guy who makes every GOPer take that stupid pledge about taxes. Lincoln would be supremely pissed with what his party has become. He’d probably become a Democrat or Independent or shit, start his own damn party all over again. They’re a disgrace to the Constitution and everything that generation and succeeding generations fought for.

Katie Couric told an awesome story of when Reagan was shot and in the hospital. Tip O’Neil went into his room, knelt by his bed and started reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Reagan started reciting along with him. At the end Tip O’Neil said “I love you, Mr. President.” and Reagan returned it. At the end of the day, those guys were friends, were known to share a cigar and a glass of scotch. This would never happen today. No one in Congress, on opposite sides of the aisle, are friends. They are enemies 24/7/365. The Tea Party, IMO, takes this to the extreme and extremes are bad, in any form. And the GOP, right now, isn’t any better. All this talk of taking us “back to the Constitution”…so half our population (women) won’t be able to vote or hold property or go to school, all people of any percentage of black ancestry would be considered 3/5 of a person. Really? Or do we just skip that part? Which parts of the Constitution are skippable? It’s like asking a Catholic which parts of the Bible are skippable. Fuck that. Thomas Jefferson never meant the Constitution to be written in stone, shit, he wanted it thrown out and rewritten every generation. We can’t do that now, we can barely keep the government running as it is…let alone rewriting the whole damn thing. [/quote]

To paragraph one— yes. I do hope that the tea party stays sufficiently anarchic not to be subverted by the likes of Bachmann and Palin.

To paragraph two: Lincoln would be ecstatic. Suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention-… Well maybe he would be slightly miffed because so far no SCOTUS judge was threatened and no opposition newspaper shut down.

Any paragraph mentioning Lincoln and the constitution should be required to begin with “damn that bastard”.

I am willing to concede that slavery was not the best case to put forward when it comes to states rights.

Paragraph three, well, your constitution can be amended. It was never meant to be the end all and be all of things. Women can vote now and coloreds are no longer second class citizens, as it should be, but if you are worried about the constitution, what about the general welfare clause?

The interstate commerce clause?

The necessary and proper clause?

Roe vs Wade?

Look into it and tell me that the US constitution has not been anally raped.

And I am not asking you whether you agree with the outcome of a specific decision, just if you think that the mechanism the Constitution outlines to effect changes was honored or not.

Because, after all, they lord over you because of the Constitution only.

What if they do not honor it?

What are they then?

edited

47

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Laughing my head off at the naivete of those who think the Tea Party of all things is causing the problem or not trying to deal with it]

Lord have mercy, the ignorance here is unfettered. Wow.[/quote]

I don’t solely blame the Tea Party, both parties are at fault and the unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the people is almost the size of the Grand Canyon. It’s more of a pissing contest now. Case in point, the payroll tax cut. The GOP “caved” instead of “compromised.” I’m pretty sure “compromise” isn’t in Congress’s vocabulary. It’s each side out for itself and fuck the people. Right now, there are two evils and you have to pick the lesser of them, which ever fits your political beliefs.

This government, quite plainly, SUCKS. I don’t even know if it’s fixable. Everyone says to vote out EVERY body and vote in completely new people…well…that’s not exactly possible, now is it? So there was a revolution this past election cycle and look what we got. The Tea Party and that stupid guy who makes every GOPer take that stupid pledge about taxes. Lincoln would be supremely pissed with what his party has become. He’d probably become a Democrat or Independent or shit, start his own damn party all over again. They’re a disgrace to the Constitution and everything that generation and succeeding generations fought for.

Katie Couric told an awesome story of when Reagan was shot and in the hospital. Tip O’Neil went into his room, knelt by his bed and started reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Reagan started reciting along with him. At the end Tip O’Neil said “I love you, Mr. President.” and Reagan returned it. At the end of the day, those guys were friends, were known to share a cigar and a glass of scotch. This would never happen today. No one in Congress, on opposite sides of the aisle, are friends. They are enemies 24/7/365. The Tea Party, IMO, takes this to the extreme and extremes are bad, in any form. And the GOP, right now, isn’t any better. All this talk of taking us “back to the Constitution”…so half our population (women) won’t be able to vote or hold property or go to school, all people of any percentage of black ancestry would be considered 3/5 of a person. Really? Or do we just skip that part? Which parts of the Constitution are skippable? It’s like asking a Catholic which parts of the Bible are skippable. Fuck that. Thomas Jefferson never meant the Constitution to be written in stone, shit, he wanted it thrown out and rewritten every generation. We can’t do that now, we can barely keep the government running as it is…let alone rewriting the whole damn thing. [/quote]

To paragraph one— yes. I do hope that the tea party stays sufficiently anarchic not to be subverted by the likes of Bachmann and Palin.

To paragraph two: Lincoln would be ecstatic. Suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention-… Well maybe he would be slightly miffed because so far no SCOTUS judge was threatened and no opposition newspaper shut down.

Any paragraph mentioning Lincoln and the constitution should be required to begin with “damn that bastard”.

I am willing to concede that slavery was not the best case to put forward when it comes to states rights.

Paragraph three, well, your constitution can be amended. It was never meant to be the end all and be all of things. Women can vote now and coloreds are no longer second class citizens, as it should be, but if you are worried about the constitution, what about the general welfare clause?

The interstate commerce clause?

The necessary and proper clause?

Roe vs Wade?

Look into it and tell me that the US constitution has not been anally raped.

And I am not asking you whether you agree with the outcome of a specific decision, just if you think that the mechanism the Constitution outlines to effect changes was honored or not.

Because, after all, they lord over you because of the Constitution only.

What if they do not honor it?

What are they then?

edited[/quote]

Yes, it’s been amended, wouldn’t exactly say anally raped, but definitely amended. My problem is that when the whole idea of going back to the principles of the Constitution is brought up, what are they talking about? The original and forget the amendments? Or just keep the original and the Bill of Rights? What exactly are they talking about going “back” to?

And I can’t believe you said “coloreds”. This is not 1964.

About Lincoln: he was a wartime president, certain liberties have to be curtailed during war, especially civil war. Please do not read that as agreeing to torture or whatever, but you definitely have to be more suspicious than in peace time. I’m sure he would have governed differently if there had not been a Civil War going on, though if he hadn’t been president, there probably wouldn’t have been one…or at least not at that time. His election was as much a catalyst as the firing on Ft. Sumter.

48

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Laughing my head off at the naivete of those who think the Tea Party of all things is causing the problem or not trying to deal with it]

Lord have mercy, the ignorance here is unfettered. Wow.[/quote]

I don’t solely blame the Tea Party, both parties are at fault and the unwillingness to cooperate for the sake of the people is almost the size of the Grand Canyon. It’s more of a pissing contest now. Case in point, the payroll tax cut. The GOP “caved” instead of “compromised.” I’m pretty sure “compromise” isn’t in Congress’s vocabulary. It’s each side out for itself and fuck the people. Right now, there are two evils and you have to pick the lesser of them, which ever fits your political beliefs.

This government, quite plainly, SUCKS. I don’t even know if it’s fixable. Everyone says to vote out EVERY body and vote in completely new people…well…that’s not exactly possible, now is it? So there was a revolution this past election cycle and look what we got. The Tea Party and that stupid guy who makes every GOPer take that stupid pledge about taxes. Lincoln would be supremely pissed with what his party has become. He’d probably become a Democrat or Independent or shit, start his own damn party all over again. They’re a disgrace to the Constitution and everything that generation and succeeding generations fought for.

Katie Couric told an awesome story of when Reagan was shot and in the hospital. Tip O’Neil went into his room, knelt by his bed and started reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Reagan started reciting along with him. At the end Tip O’Neil said “I love you, Mr. President.” and Reagan returned it. At the end of the day, those guys were friends, were known to share a cigar and a glass of scotch. This would never happen today. No one in Congress, on opposite sides of the aisle, are friends. They are enemies 24/7/365. The Tea Party, IMO, takes this to the extreme and extremes are bad, in any form. And the GOP, right now, isn’t any better. All this talk of taking us “back to the Constitution”…so half our population (women) won’t be able to vote or hold property or go to school, all people of any percentage of black ancestry would be considered 3/5 of a person. Really? Or do we just skip that part? Which parts of the Constitution are skippable? It’s like asking a Catholic which parts of the Bible are skippable. Fuck that. Thomas Jefferson never meant the Constitution to be written in stone, shit, he wanted it thrown out and rewritten every generation. We can’t do that now, we can barely keep the government running as it is…let alone rewriting the whole damn thing. [/quote]

To paragraph one— yes. I do hope that the tea party stays sufficiently anarchic not to be subverted by the likes of Bachmann and Palin.

To paragraph two: Lincoln would be ecstatic. Suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention-… Well maybe he would be slightly miffed because so far no SCOTUS judge was threatened and no opposition newspaper shut down.

Any paragraph mentioning Lincoln and the constitution should be required to begin with “damn that bastard”.

I am willing to concede that slavery was not the best case to put forward when it comes to states rights.

Paragraph three, well, your constitution can be amended. It was never meant to be the end all and be all of things. Women can vote now and coloreds are no longer second class citizens, as it should be, but if you are worried about the constitution, what about the general welfare clause?

The interstate commerce clause?

The necessary and proper clause?

Roe vs Wade?

Look into it and tell me that the US constitution has not been anally raped.

And I am not asking you whether you agree with the outcome of a specific decision, just if you think that the mechanism the Constitution outlines to effect changes was honored or not.

Because, after all, they lord over you because of the Constitution only.

What if they do not honor it?

What are they then?

edited[/quote]

Yes, it’s been amended, wouldn’t exactly say anally raped, but definitely amended. My problem is that when the whole idea of going back to the principles of the Constitution is brought up, what are they talking about? The original and forget the amendments? Or just keep the original and the Bill of Rights? What exactly are they talking about going “back” to?

And I can’t believe you said “coloreds”. This is not 1964.

About Lincoln: he was a wartime president, certain liberties have to be curtailed during war, especially civil war. Please do not read that as agreeing to torture or whatever, but you definitely have to be more suspicious than in peace time. I’m sure he would have governed differently if there had not been a Civil War going on, though if he hadn’t been president, there probably wouldn’t have been one…or at least not at that time. His election was as much a catalyst as the firing on Ft. Sumter.[/quote]

Well, I said coloreds to be as all encompassing as possible.

That whole race thing is dubious at best, when it comes to Hispanics who I would consider to be mostly Spanish you lose me completely.

Then, wartime president. Not only did he choose to be one, I reject the notion that the Constitution is a fair weather contract. It is precisely in times of turmoil that peoples rights need to be protected because that is when government wants to infringe on them the most.

Also, there never was a civil war. Or maybe there was, the original revolutionary war, because then the stakes really were as high as the rule over the American colonies.

The “civil war” was not a civil war because the South never intended to rule over the North. They wanted to be left alone. It was the second American war of independence and it was lost, for better or worse.

49

Checks he hasn’t stumbled into PWI instead of GAL