3rd Largest 1 Day Debt Increase Marked

Obfuscate said:
Why, every time Keynesian spending is tried, it fails and the excuse every time is "they need to spend more". We are in a debt crises and a spending crises, adding more is like printing more money during inflation, it makes no freaking sense. The only way the economy will get going again is cut the debt and spending, it may sting in the short run but the long term benefits will be a healthy economy not prolonged stagnation. When Volcker whipped inflation by driving interest rates to 20+% it caused short term negatives but the long term was 30 years of growth, the ONLY way to get a 30 year growth period again will be getting debt and spending under control we need the balls to do it.
Click to expand...


There is no debt crisis in the United States. None. That's pure horseshit. If there were anything approaching a debt crisis bond rates wouldn't be at 3%.

I'm not naive enough to think we will reach agreement on all of this stuff, but let's get real about the debt crisis clap-trap.
 
Sometimes improvements for the long term are better than propped up phoney demand GDP bs. Cutting wastefull long term spending would be worth it even if we double dipped or had 2% instead of 3%. Hopefully republicans do more than faint this.
 
We're not Greece but we have 13+ Trillion now and projections of 23 Trillion in 10 years so if that's not a problem to you I guess that's OK. I'm positive every CEO from every major company sees that and plans his future accordingly.
 
Topspin said:
Sometimes improvements for the long term are better than propped up phoney demand GDP bs. Cutting wastefull long term spending would be worth it even if we double dipped or had 2% instead of 3%. Hopefully republicans do more than faint this.
Click to expand...


It isn't an either/or proposition, though. The fact of the matter is that nothing will be done on either front any time soon.
 
Obfuscate said:
Why, every time Keynesian spending is tried, it fails and the excuse every time is "they need to spend more". We are in a debt crises and a spending crises, adding more is like printing more money during inflation, it makes no freaking sense. The only way the economy will get going again is cut the debt and spending, it may sting in the short run but the long term benefits will be a healthy economy not prolonged stagnation. When Volcker whipped inflation by driving interest rates to 20+% it caused short term negatives but the long term was 30 years of growth, the ONLY way to get a 30 year growth period again will be getting debt and spending under control we need the balls to do it.
Click to expand...
You hit on the root problem. GOP politicians have no balls.
 
NigelTufnel said:
It isn't an either/or proposition, though. The fact of the matter is that nothing will be done on either front any time soon.
Click to expand...

that doesn't mean it wouldn't be smart to do, I say cut military 75% and invest in free college and healthcare
 
Obfuscate said:
We're not Greece but we have 13+ Trillion now and projections of 23 Trillion in 10 years so if that's not a problem to you I guess that's OK. I'm positive every CEO from every major company sees that and plans his future accordingly.
Click to expand...


There's plenty that can be done in those 10 years to address the problem. Choosing right now this very minute to cut government spending while interest rates are extraordinarily low doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

As for what every CEO from every major company sees, in the near term they see low demand and are planning accordingly by not investing. What you want to do is to make demand even lower. I don't see the logic in that.
 
Topspin said:
Sometimes improvements for the long term are better than propped up phoney demand GDP bs. Cutting wastefull long term spending would be worth it even if we double dipped or had 2% instead of 3%. Hopefully republicans do more than faint this.
Click to expand...
$23T is $66,000 for every one of the 350,000,000 people in this country, most of whom do not work, never mind make that much in a year. And Nigel doesn't see it as a problem.
 
It's called the new normal, spending yourself into oblivion does 1 thing. Buy's votes, all long term affects are negative. WTF when did growth become the be all end all only measure. Are we going to tax and spend our way out of BUSINESS CYCLES????
 
NigelTufnel said:
Cutting wasteful spending right now is brain-dead. You would remove a lot of money from the economy.

The best course of action would be to increase spending now while providing for cuts in the future when the economy is strong.
Click to expand...

LMAO... really.... HOW would it remove money from the economy? Does that money just disappear?

The old 'we will spend now and cut spending in the future' has been the line of crap sold by politicians for 50 years now.

1960 was the last fiscal year in which our national debt was lowered year over year. 1960!
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... really.... HOW would it remove money from the economy? Does that money just disappear?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you really need an explanation for this. Just think a little harder. Unless the government were to cut spending and turn around and cut taxes in the same amount, it would remove money from the economy. And if you are proposing that the government cuts spending and reduce taxes in a corresponding amount, you aren't the deficit/debt hawk you claim to be. You just want tax cuts.

Superfreak said:
The old 'we will spend now and cut spending in the future' has been the line of crap sold by politicians for 50 years now.

1960 was the last fiscal year in which our national debt was lowered year over year. 1960!
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the appropriate course of action.
 
Southern Man said:
$23T is $66,000 for every one of the 350,000,000 people in this country, most of whom do not work, never mind make that much in a year. And Nigel doesn't see it as a problem.
Click to expand...

I never said that 23T in 10 years isn't a problem. In fact, I said the opposite. I simply said that it isn't a problem that absolutely must be addressed right now with the economy in the shape it is in.
 
I bet polling will show republicans have this issue hands down.
The unreconcilable fact for dems is this. IF the economy was inflated with Bullshit wallstreet mortgage transaction and derivatives then the real value added economic number is much lower.
 
NigelTufnel said:
There's plenty that can be done in those 10 years to address the problem. Choosing right now this very minute to cut government spending while interest rates are extraordinarily low doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

As for what every CEO from every major company sees, in the near term they see low demand and are planning accordingly by not investing. What you want to do is to make demand even lower. I don't see the logic in that.
Click to expand...

again.... you are not paying attention.... that money does not simply disappear dung.

Say your budget is $3T. In that $3T you have waste of $1T. If you cut that waste.... you SAVE the $1T. It does not just magically vanish.

In the case of the government, you take that $1T and make the tax cuts permanent (or give real help to small businesses) and the spending thus transfers from the government to the consumer.

If you are showing the world that your future debt is not going to become a problem, the CONFIDENCE in your market is going to increase and spending will proceed there.

Also... there are more factors that effect the treasury rates than simply.... 'does the country have a debt problem'. If you don't comprehend that basic economic fact, then perhaps you should go back to arguing fictional things like 'reverse racism'.
 
Yes no econmist will say saving a trillion won't help lower interest rates. Ahh outside of moonbatshitcrazy Krugman
 
NigelTufnel said:
I never said that 23T in 10 years isn't a problem. In fact, I said the opposite. I simply said that it isn't a problem that absolutely must be addressed right now with the economy in the shape it is in.
Click to expand...
You think by spending more now then in ten years we'll owe less. That's retarded.
 
Superfreak said:
again.... you are not paying attention.... that money does not simply disappear dung.

Say your budget is $3T. In that $3T you have waste of $1T. If you cut that waste.... you SAVE the $1T. It does not just magically vanish.

In the case of the government, you take that $1T and make the tax cuts permanent (or give real help to small businesses) and the spending thus transfers from the government to the consumer.
Click to expand...

Just stop right there for a second. That's a huge "if" and in the end it does little to address government debt or deficit spending. It's a wash. Government debt remains where it was before you cut the spending.

Superfreak said:
If you are showing the world that your future debt is not going to become a problem, the CONFIDENCE in your market is going to increase and spending will proceed there.

Also... there are more factors that effect the treasury rates than simply.... 'does the country have a debt problem'. If you don't comprehend that basic economic fact, then perhaps you should go back to arguing fictional things like 'reverse racism'.
Click to expand...


The problem with the economy isn't a lack of confidence because of government debt. That's laughable. And I understand that rates are impacted by many things. I also understand that if investors have a huge fear of a debt problem and the risk associated therewith they aren't going to be enticed by 3% rates. But here we are.
 
Southern Man said:
You think by spending more now then in ten years we'll owe less. That's retarded.
Click to expand...

How so? Based on that limited criteria, you don't really have an economic case. It depends entirely on HOW the money is spent. If it is spent in a way that increases revenues down the line, it's smart fiscal policy.

It's basic business; any business owner will invest more in the short-term if it means more return in the long-term, and that's how the majority of successful businesses get off the ground.

Now, you can argue that this isn't how the money is being spent, but to make a blanket statement that spending now doesn't make fiscal sense for later isn't logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top