Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have a specific number I can quote, but I do think the current level of debt is "unacceptable". Now that the economy has essentially recovered, I'd like to see some focus on balancing the budget with BOTH phased-in cuts in government spending AND some modest tax increases.
Not likely to happen though.
Hawkeye needs to go back to school, maybe this is why republicans support cutting education funding. The less people who know math, the more likely the republican party can continue to manipulate their base.
What "math" are you referring to?
The math that shows Obama has racked up $8 trillion in debt?
The math that shows Obama has had average federal revenues 20% higher than Bush?
The math that shows last year's federal revenue was over $3 trillion?
The math that shows we have record numbers of unemployed citizens under Obama?
The math that shows we have record numbers of citizens living in poverty under Obama?
The math that shows we have record numbers of citizens on foodstamps under Obama?
The math that shows declines in US wages under Obama?
Being a liberal must be a little like being high- one can simply ignore facts.
PS- Anytime you want to compare college transcripts, let me know! Unlike Obama, mine is available and shows mathematics courses you have never even heard of.
Or is there no amount of debt that is unacceptable? What happens if the interest (not principle on debt) exceeds 50% of annual revenues? 75%?
Debt could be reduced by issuing "debt free notes" so that the amount of circulating currency is not reduced, thus avoiding a depression/recesssion. However, this would require a partial dismantling of the Federal Reserve current policy (it will never happen).
I don't understand why you are only asking liberals. It seems there would be an objective answer to that, but I would ask an economist, not liberals.
How about we back off from this notion of the federal government pretending it's a nanny state, returns powers back to the states, and starts concentrating on the obligations laid out within the US Constitution?
First, many conservatives were upset over Bushs debt..
and second.
if you're really not sure the difference between debt of a few hundred billion,
and trillion.. then I'm not sure what to tell you..
p.s. he didnt look ss to pay for the war, it was financed through bonds..
What?
I need a link for that please; because I can't find anything that says war bonds paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and I certainly don't remember any bonds being advertised. As far as I remember, those wars were completely off the budget. Paid for (actually NOT paid for) by increasing the debt.
I don't understand why you are only asking liberals. It seems there would be an objective answer to that, but I would ask an economist, not liberals.
The Laws of Economics will make that determination whether people like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Debt could be reduced by issuing "debt free notes" so that the amount of circulating currency is not reduced, thus avoiding a depression/recesssion. However, this would require a partial dismantling of the Federal Reserve current policy (it will never happen).
Debt is debt and there is no way of getting around it, even with gimmickry like "debt free notes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
That's really a question for the Republican lawmakers who vote for spending but not for the taxes to pay the bill. With our low interest rates, debt service really isn't a problem. It consumes about 7% of the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
True. It is amazing so many have no idea how this country works.
Yes, it is.
Your country is reliant on other foreign States to purchase your debt in order to stave off Monetary Inflation.
Your debt is currently 1/4th of World GDP and will be at 1/3rd of World GDP by 2025, and 1/2 of World GDP by 2042.
So, who, exactly, do you think is going to be buying your debt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Really, so what I am hearing is you are so far to the right that everyone else is basically to the left of you and are automatically leftist neocons.
Neo-Conservatives are Left-Wing.
The "X" is where Neo-Conservatives and the Heritage Foundation are located.
After you all read "Two Cheers for Capitalism" by the god-father of neo-conservatism Irving Kristol, and the "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" by neo-con economic guru Daniel Bell, you'll have an understanding of neo-Trotskyism.
Then, perhaps, maybe, we can have an intelligent discussion. Probably not. I'll settle for an informed discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The right-wing has been predicting hyperinflation for seven years. The nation has had mild -- 2% inflation all through that time and there is no inflation on the horizon.
You'll have hyper-Inflation in about 10 years.
Look at the bright side....for as long as Social Security lasts, there'll be double-digit COLA increases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incognitoe
Under Bush, when debt blew up and he looted from Social Security to pay for war. Not one peep?
Nobody looted from Social Security.
If you don't know what you're talking about, go read the 1935 Social Security Act.
Most actual conservatives did not (and do not) like Bush. Bush was a wild spending liberal.
When Obama took office, the debt was $10 trillion. When Obama leaves office, the debt will be $20 trillion. I would say that any rational person would call that a problem. Libs, however, are never rational and simply ignore the debt, as "their man" has put us in a terrible hole.
Record revenues, yet racking up $10 trillion in additional debt.
Libs- What level of debt is unacceptable to you? Is there no level of debt that you would find unacceptable?
Obviously lower, but what debt number would seem most rational to YOU today? And then how would you recommend we get there?
I answered in post #71.
If you think it is a simple question then you are looking at our National Debt too conventionally. Our National Debt is unlike personal, business, city, county or state debt. And also unlike any National Debt of a country that does not have monetary sovereignty, or uses a currency that is pegged to another.
Debt is debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Because our National Debt is debt we alone create. We did not borrow any foreign currency.
For instance our National Debt will NEVER be paid off. This is one very major key point.
That is a Fallacy.
In the first place, it's federal debt, not national debt.
There is no reason to pay off the entire federal debt, but there is a host of reasons to keep it manageable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Another is that National Debt will tend to rise as our nation grows over time.
Only due to excessive spending.
Show us the math that shows debt must increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Next is that since our debt is in our sovereign currency, it can always be paid off via new money creation, unless we the people or our elected officials decide to default for some reason. Such as political lunacy, or as in war or war reparations. Of course inflation is always a possibility, but bankruptcy itself has a very low possibility.
What you say is untrue.
First, you misled people by failing to tell them the cost of new money creation is hyper-Inflation.
See Japan: 1 Yen = 0.0080 US Dollar
The Yen is practically worthless against the US Dollar, and the worthlessness of the Yen is a major contributing factor to Japan's decades-long economic problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Doubling that too soon would be a stretch, yet Japan manages with about 3X.
Yup, GW Bush should have pulled what Barack "Benito" Obama did in Libya. Just go into Iraq, without approval from the Congress, without addressing the American people first, just blown the place up, watched Saddam be murdered in the streets by a mob, and pulled out to leave the country in chaos, to fend for itself.
That's the liberal way, destroying a country's military, dissolve their form of government, see their president deposed an executed, and then just walk away. War should be quick, easy, and cheap too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.