What is the progressive/ democrat stategy for paying off the national debt?

[clb10]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Apparently their strategy is to wait until forced Austerityâ„¢ and then blame Bush's daughters or the bad economy.



Krugman? Krugman doesn't know squat. His Nobel Prize was in Comparative Advantage....you know, trade....as in off-shoring US jobs is good.



No, they are not. That's isn't Kool-Aid, that's Cyanide.



That's erroneous. Someone's really playing head games with people.

When gold was used to back currency, the price of gold was regulated. Another way of saying that, is that the price of gold would not be $1,700/ounce if was being used to back currencies today.

I'm going to blow a whole in the idiot web-sites your looking at and completely debunk them.

You say an home cost 100 ounces of gold in 1912. Gold averaged $18.93 for the year. How much did an home cost? I don't really give a damn.

However, in 1971, gold was $40.62 an ounce. Did an home cost 100 ounces of gold.... $4,062 in 1971?

Hell, no....the average price of an home in 1971 in the US was $25,500.

Where ever you're getting your bad information, bring those jack-asses here so I can gouge out their eye-balls and pee on their little brains.

And for the record, you can find home prices here.....

http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf

and gold prices here.....

http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

Note that as soon as the US government goes off of the Gold Standard (enacted 1973 effective January 1, 1974) watch gold prices start soaring.




I don't know, but good luck trying to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Food Stamps and everything else.

Monetarily...

Mircea



That is not entirely true. You'd only reduce private financial assets that are held in US treasury bills, notes and bonds.

If they did not purchase those notes from the US treasury, they would buy them elsewhere or make other investments.....yes, other investments, like in new technology and such.

Just look at how your National Debt destroys entrepreneurship, because every US Dollar used to buy US Debt is a US Dollar that cannot be used in Private Sector Investments.



No, that is not how it works. Where are you two from, Bad-Info-Web-Site City?



That is not entirely true either.

Net private savings are not a "mirror image of net deficits."

Private savings represent the surplus cash generated. If an household or a business takes in more money than it spends, it generates a surplus, which it stores in financial institutions, like banks.

What deficits do is increase private savings by generating interest on monies borrowed.

You put $100,000 into a bank, allowing the bank to loan your $100,000 out for development which benefits the community. The bank collects interest on the loan, which it uses to reward you for allowing your money to be used, and which compensates the bank for its costs in loaning and securing the money, plus a profit to allow the bank to make continual Capital Improvements.

How is that even remotely like what the government does?

The government spends money, which may or may not be to your benefit at all. Even if it would be to your benefit, it might be indirect, and you may not actually reap those benefits for decades, if ever at all. For example, what was the benefit you derived from the government spending money to put Ghadaffi in power? The fact that you got to shoot down an Italian passenger plane and murder people, or the fact that you got to bomb Libya in 1986, or the fact that you got to back into Libya and get one of your Ambassadors killed?

Unlike in the banking system where a borrower hasn't yet spent the money, the government has spent the money --- and more than that, it spent money it didn't even have-- and now it has to borrow money to get Cash. And sure, the government pays interest, but that is not the same as a bank collecting interest, where both the bank and the saver -- the account holder --- benefit.

And how does it benefit me that I collect interest on government securities I purchase?

Where does the interest come from? Taxes. So I'm paying my own reward to myself. How do I benefit? Where do I win? Oh, well the pain is spread around so that everyone pays the taxes, but then why should I pay your interest on your securities?

When my money is in the bank and the bank loans it out, I don't pay taxes to the borrower, right? How stupid would that be?

You people just don't think.

Financially...

Mircea

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by clb10

I'd love it if someone could post a link or a video where an expert such as Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D. or someone of equal esteemed progressive stature in the field of economics explains in detail how America will pay down $17 trillion in debt.

I haven't been able to find such an explanation.

Thanks in advance.

Who tells you we have a 17 trillion debt?
How do you know we have a debt?
Heard it on the news?
What debt?
President Romney will take care of it..

He's not the President?
But the news show told me he was going to win in a landslide

[clb10]

Originally Posted by jambo101

Who tells you we have a 17 trillion debt?
How do you know we have a debt?
Heard it on the news?
What debt?
President Romney will take care of it..

He's not the President?
But the news show told me he was going to win in a landslide

[Winter_Sucks]

I'm a Democrat. Cut, reform, and tax to bring down the deficit.

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

We are never going to pay down our debt, ever. Best we can do is to balance the budget, or pay down the deficit to a level to where it grows far less then the rate of GDP growth.

The liberal/Democratic plan is to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to cut that deficit down, cut spending in areas other then those like welfare, food stamps, etc, mainly cuts in defense.

But the elephant in the room, the one that no one is talking about, even Republicans, is medicare and social security.

Americans don't want a voucher system, so the challenge is to find a way to pay for them, without cutting benefits, and without hurting the economy with to much taxation.

^
THIS

Thanks for a sensible response among all of the partisan hackery and gold-bug nonsense. When it comes to the debt, the horse burned down the barn on his way out the door. We are not going to reduce the debt in any meaningful way. At best we can do in the short term is try to slow its growth by doing away with our yearly deficits. Income tax increases, targeted cuts in programs, cuts in defense spending, raising the income limit on SS taxes, and retooling medicare will have to happen in order to do that. Anything else is just window dressing that will do nothing to address the budget.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Government is always involved. What ever they collect in taxes becomes the currency. You don't even need to make a law.


Japan is the perfect example of what not to do. They should lower taxes and raise interest rates. The reason they don't is because of the same fiction. They consider private bank loans healthy, even though its debt, the same kind that destroyed their economy and now ours, and consider public debt, which is virtually free, a bad thing. That is the laugh, its debt no matter what you do. All money is inherently a form of debt.

You will always have deficits no mater what you do. No government can ever pay down its debt for long. Its all a matter of how you like them. You can run enough of a deficit now for full employment or you can do it later when unemployment reduces tax receipts and you run into deficit with a shrunken economy. Japan indeed has deficits by voluntarily choosing the stagflation route which they were told then not to do then. Problem is we lost that generation of Americans who actually did understand economic theory. Now we followed the Japan's plan expecting different results as people who have no sanity often do.

Did somebody "body snatch" you and replace you with someone who understands economics? You are actually making sense and are correct.