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.
so you believe we could run a 10 trillion dollar debt on a yearly basis and it would not affect our economy?
Assuming that was all spent on the things we do now, and our economy is the size it is now?
No, we couldn't. We'd devalue the currency at $10 trillion / year.
I'm not arguing that the dollar has an infinite capacity to absorb public debt. I'm arguing that by focusing only on public debt and ignoring private debt, you're ignoring the bulk of the problem. You're not really solving anything unless you address banks, and the volume of debt that they are creating, too, and the methods by which they create it.
This is why it is so maddeningly frustrating to watch the Tea Party get upset over debt, but then completely ignore any problem policy that has been causing excessive private debt.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 11-17-2011 at 01:21 PM..
Not really. Most households aren't trying to find new wars to start, nor are they trying to rebuild other nations that they just finished tearing ass on.
True - all decisions on where to spend money - assuming you plan to pay for it.
All cuts proposed by politicians are hollow cuts...
As a people we need to take a good long look at what we think the government is supposed to provide and what we are willing to pay for.
Problem is everyone wants the government to provide for everything, but have the other guy pay for.
The fight between 99% and 1% is a distraction by the Elite Political Class, so that we won't see them LOOTING..... Right now both Republicans and Democrats are the same... think of it as Pro-Wrestling.
True - all decisions on where to spend money - assuming you plan to pay for it.
And definitely considering the income, not ignoring it. Don't tell me you work on household budgets by trying to reduce incomes so you can cut your income to reduce deficits.
Nationalize the mortgage industry(which will become a real estate tax), revalue land, write down principle and rebate rent and mortgage expense for those who have equity to account for phony bubble money.
With no direct taxes on labor, and "free lunch" land rents paying for our government, we would become the industrial power house of old.
And definitely considering the income, not ignoring it. Don't tell me you work on household budgets by trying to reduce incomes so you can cut your income to reduce deficits.
Of course not. I look at what I do and how much income it brings. If something isn't bringing in much relative to the effort, I put my effort into something that is. I make such decisions on measurable results and not on what seems to make sense or sounds good.
Obviously all those little $146 million budgets were able to be gathered up to find the $9 Trillion in cuts. Every little bit eventually adds up to be a significant savings.
Excellent, MOgal! Then you must agree that raising taxes on the top 1%--something that the right wing always scoffs at because they claim it wouldn't be enough to solve the problem--is a good idea after all. Every little bit eventually adds up, right?
Of course not. I look at what I do and how much income it brings. If something isn't bringing in much relative to the effort, I put my effort into something that is. I make such decisions on measurable results and not on what seems to make sense or sounds good.
In other words, you look for venues to increase your income, not just decrease your spending, and especially if you're looking to pay off the debt. Yes?
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.