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.
Debt didnt cause the homes to be foreclosed on, a lack of income did..
And our national debt isnt a problem currently.
It does appear to be unsubstainable long term if we continue to add to it at the current rate. The problem is we arent maintaining a growth of income to pay the current debt, and current plans in effect, (such as the Obama stimulus package), actually decrease future growth in the GDP.. (something like .2% decrease in the GDP beginning in 2016).
Debt is meaningless if the result of that debt is an INCREASE in revenue..
Example.. if you buy a $100K building and it brings in $10K a year, the $100K in debt is a positive.. If you buy a $100K building and it loses you $10K a year, its a negative.. See the difference?
Unsustainable long term, in three of four years we'll have to pay a trillion a year on just the interest.
Debt didnt cause the homes to be foreclosed on, a lack of income did..
And our national debt isnt a problem currently.
It does appear to be unsubstainable long term if we continue to add to it at the current rate. The problem is we arent maintaining a growth of income to pay the current debt, and current plans in effect, (such as the Obama stimulus package), actually decrease future growth in the GDP.. (something like .2% decrease in the GDP beginning in 2016).
Debt is meaningless if the result of that debt is an INCREASE in revenue..
Example.. if you buy a $100K building and it brings in $10K a year, the $100K in debt is a positive.. If you buy a $100K building and it loses you $10K a year, its a negative.. See the difference?
Revenue which is larger than or equal to what you've spent.
That hasn't happened though yet Congress continues to spend and cut.
Reality is the revenue is not there for what we are spending.
The difference between those who were foreclosed upon and the gov is simple.
Most citizens at least try to live within their means.
The fed just spends as if their is no limit. I laugh when I see the fed talking budget.
Most folks who talk budget figure out what their bills are v.s what they earn and budget accordingly. We try to build in a safety net and save some money in case we have a rainy day.
Not true of the Fed. They budget based upon shoulds and ifs. We should generate X amount of revenue and if we have X revenue then we can spend Y amount of money.
The way out of it is not complex. Quit spending money they don't have. If we must raise taxes then lets do so only after we have cut every smidgin of fat from the budget.
We need National defence but how much?
We need a lot of things but do we need bloated departments to manage it?
Why raise anyones taxes if we are not first going to cut out the waste?
In my experience Tax increases only justify the Feds willingness to spend even more.
We hear it everyday. "But thats only a drop in the bucket." Well add up the drops and the buckets are running over.
Yep...they recently discovered that while TARP was the vogue Ben Bernanke and the Fed board loaned nine trillion dollars in 21,000 transactions to outfits like Wells Fargo, Bank of America etc. The Fed answers to nobody...it isn't required to.
When Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard a twenty dollar bill was worth exactly one $20 gold piece. Now it takes 70 twenty dollar bills to buy a $20 gold piece.
This nation has just about squandered it's middle class and while it was doing it the millionaires and billionaires made out like bandits. Wages for middle America have been stagnant since the nineties and all the while because of low taxes the rich in this country have made out like bandits.
That's not what chaps my arse the worst. The kids of the wealthy and powerful do not have to serve in the military. They can start their wars of choice and political BS and never have to worry about one of their own having to put everything on the line. That Sucks. I guess it's just coincidence that the criminal Nixon is also the president who did away with the draft.
Last edited by Melvin.George; 12-25-2010 at 10:40 AM..
Unsustainable long term, in three of four years we'll have to pay a trillion a year on just the interest.
Thats not long term, thats now.
Thats not now.. we spend about 40% of our revenues on interest.. Excessive, absolutely, but no where near unsubstainable.
Do you own a house? Is your mortgage payment unsubstainable, even though a large portion of your income goes to cover interest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Revenue which is larger than or equal to what you've spent.
That hasn't happened though yet Congress continues to spend and cut.
Reality is the revenue is not there for what we are spending.
I completely agree revenues arent there to substain the debt long term. you wont hear me shouting for more debt.. Heck, I'd cut everything and anything to get the government to start paying down the debt.. If it doesnt, it means larger taxes in the future which means the poor will become poorer etc, but liberals dont like to hear about cutting out things like welfare, unemployment, healthcare.. They keep asking for more, and more and more.. They need to make up their mind.. Do they want more now which can only result in higher debt, or are they willing to go without and help contribute their "fair share", for the long term stability of the nation?
American Politics 2010 ! ... "A Political Nightmare No One Will Want To Remember" !
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
.................... and after the democratic congress of the last four years has added $6 trillion in debt, should there be anything else that we SHOULD talk about?
It really seems as though liberals believe that there is a bottomless pit of money and that adding trillions of dollars to the national debt every year will have no consequences. This democratic congress (congress spends the money) has been the most fiscally irresponsible congress in the history of the US. After the financial damage they have done, of course we need to talk about massive spending cuts. To not do so will result in insolvency, which liberals just do not seem to understand.
hawkeye2009 !!! ... Your Post Is On The Money As Usual !
Indeed ... This utterly pathetic "DINO" congress has absolutely heaped enough national debt upon America that in final analysis it may very well be this nations undoing !!!
These acutely inept "Career Politicians" appear to be proceeding at "Flank Speed" on a steady course of "Completely Bankrupting" the U.S.A. in the very near future !
The American People deserve so damn much better than this bunch of utterly ineffective and arrogant so called elected representatives!
And yet todays political idiocy very well may equate into the most horrendous chapters ever written into the "Actual Historical" record books for future American's .
This nation has just about squandered it's middle class and while it was doing it the millionaires and billionaires made out like bandits. Wages for middle America have been stagnant since the nineties and all the while because of low taxes the rich in this country have made out like bandits.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but arent you one of those diehard supporters of Obama? Again, I could be wrong but I believe you are.. Where is your outrage over the stimulus bill which decreased the long term GDP in this nation?
Thats not now.. we spend about 40% of our revenues on interest.. Excessive, absolutely, but no where near unsubstainable.
Do you own a house? Is your mortgage payment unsubstainable, even though a large portion of your income goes to cover interest?
I completely agree revenues arent there to substain the debt long term. you wont hear me shouting for more debt.. Heck, I'd cut everything and anything to get the government to start paying down the debt.. If it doesnt, it means larger taxes in the future which means the poor will become poorer etc, but liberals dont like to hear about cutting out things like welfare, unemployment, healthcare.. They keep asking for more, and more and more.. They need to make up their mind.. Do they want more now which can only result in higher debt, or are they willing to go without and help contribute their "fair share", for the long term stability of the nation?
You make me laugh. The two big expenses this government has is the defense/military and interest on the debt. Kinda late to be talking about social programs. $300 billion of new annual interest was acquired while
Reagan was quadrupling the debt then when George W. Bush doubled it again. Common denominator...low tax rates for the wealthy.
Debt didnt cause the homes to be foreclosed on, a lack of income did..
And our national debt isnt a problem currently.
It does appear to be unsubstainable long term if we continue to add to it at the current rate. The problem is we arent maintaining a growth of income to pay the current debt, and current plans in effect, (such as the Obama stimulus package), actually decrease future growth in the GDP.. (something like .2% decrease in the GDP beginning in 2016).
Debt is meaningless if the result of that debt is an INCREASE in revenue..
Example.. if you buy a $100K building and it brings in $10K a year, the $100K in debt is a positive.. If you buy a $100K building and it loses you $10K a year, its a negative.. See the difference?
Then the simple answer would be to increase income correct?
You make me laugh. The two big expenses this government has is the defense/military and interest on the debt. Kinda late to be talking about social programs. $300 billion of new annual interest was acquired while
Reagan was quadrupling the debt then when George W. Bush doubled it again. Common denominator...low tax rates for the wealthy.
The debt increased more under Clinton than Reagan, and Clinton had a higher tax rate. Debt increased more under Obama than Bush. Common denominator. THEY INCREASED SPENDING.. You can laugh but I think its no laughing matter!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sindey
Then the simple answer would be to increase income correct?
For people that would be true, but government cant increase income without taking income out of the economy, which decreases the GDP and is damaging to the economy.. For every $1 the government spends, it reduces the GDP by $3... if the nation is to grow, the government should be getting smaller.. not larger like it currently is..
For people that would be true, but government cant increase income without taking income out of the economy, which decreases the GDP and is damaging to the economy.. For every $1 the government spends, it reduces the GDP by $3... if the nation is to grow, the government should be getting smaller.. not larger like it currently is..
You are right about it being no laughing matter & no matter what political leaning one has, I think most would agree on some basic ideas of reducing government & spending that is out of control. Its a start.
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.
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.
American Politics 2010 ! ... "A Political Nightmare No One Will Want To Remember" !
