We'll just hyperinflate the debt away.Transcend said:
See, easy solution. 21st century Americans are notorious for their ability to make sacrifices like that...
2006 budget deficit to exceed 400 billion dollars
- Thread starter narlus
- Start date
See, easy solution. 21st century Americans are notorious for their ability to make sacrifices like that...
The problem with an out-of-control deficit is NOT world politics. It's a matter of domestic grays, not black-and-whites. It means we've weakened our ability for social services, weakened the buying power, weakened investment/savings and most importantly, weakened our ability to spend our way out of the next recession... meaning more unemployed.
What does an insane deficit mean to the USA...
big picture: it means the middle and lower class have a slightly lower level of living quality.
Small picture: more american citizens (thousands of people) will die and suffer needlessly due to the weakening social structure.
What does an insane deficit mean to the USA...
big picture: it means the middle and lower class have a slightly lower level of living quality.
Small picture: more american citizens (thousands of people) will die and suffer needlessly due to the weakening social structure.
Welfare is far cheaper than the police/military, and easier on the civil rights as well.gschuette said:
lol...BurlyShirley said:
"thats not gonna happen".
there was a dude here and in brazil who thought exactly like you, deficit spending wouldnt hurt anybody...
in fact, for a few years it was the most awesomest thing in the universe... then 1987 came... 2000000% inflation in 5 years (i think brazil had one more million %)... the awesomeness!!!!!
both countries are very far apart.. but when your deficit is over 3%.... at some point the income/debt ratio will be unsustainable, then you´ll feel it hitting hard.....
are you sure it doesnt affect you? your buypower (independant of your income) is going down from what i see....
Okay Einstein, let's do some math. From the White House website...gschuette said:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $67.2 billion
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $28.5 billion
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $11.5 billion
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority (with collections):
$33.4 billion
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $9.5 billion
All of which contain some form of welfare...their entire budget is NOT welfare programs. Your grand total from these depts is $150.1 billion.
For fun, lets estimate 50% goes to Welfare progs. This leaves you with about $75 billion to extract from the lower class.
Now, on the other hand, we have the military/intelligence/policing agencies:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority: $419.3 billion
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
2006 Discretionary Budget Authority (gross): $34.2 billion
Grand total? $453.5 billion.
Please back something up you say with fact, rather than "cutting all the welfare programs will solve our debt problem".
Burly, imagine your dollar being worth half of what is now. Anything you buy that wasn't made or grown in the US will cost twice as much. Your DVD player, your bike parts, your gasoline. The dollar becomes unstable to a point where it's no longer the trade currency of choice (already starting to happen, and we haven't even come close to what could occur if we don't start taking care of the current debt). The NYSE loses favor to Nikkei. Industry sand innovation grind to a halt as investment dollars dry up and move overseas to places with higher organic growth and more stability.
This is not a sky-is-falling worst case scenario. This is absolutely what will happen if we continue with the current trend. We rely on other countries more than you realize, and when they start to become concerned that we won't pay them back they WILL pull the plug.
While it seems obvious and you've stated you understand the economics, I feel the need to repeat them. You run up a credit card debt. It helps you float some rough times painlessly. You carry the balance a few months and keep paying the interest, but don't get rid of the balance. Then you buy some cool stuff because you can, but you add to the balance. Before you know it, you're using 10% of your paycheck just to pay off the interest, but the balance isn't getting any smaller. At this stage, most people would cut back and find a way to pay off that balance. Our government is not doing that. THIS would be the time. Cutting military and social programs? If we continue on this path for another two years, that won't be close to enough. You also seem to think we can just tell the rest of the world to F off, we're not paying the debt back. Much like you saying that to a credit card company, the result is bankruptcy. You can't get a mortgage, you can't buy a car. Except it's worse, because if you as an individual go bankrupt, you can still earn money and trade that with people for goods and services. You don't get isolated and need to figure out how to live as a subsistence farmer, which is essentially what would happen to our country.
I'm investing 75% of everything I put away overseas, in foreign currencies and developing markets. I don't feel bad about it. I would be irresponsible not to. I guarantee that I am not the only person doing this.
This is not a sky-is-falling worst case scenario. This is absolutely what will happen if we continue with the current trend. We rely on other countries more than you realize, and when they start to become concerned that we won't pay them back they WILL pull the plug.
While it seems obvious and you've stated you understand the economics, I feel the need to repeat them. You run up a credit card debt. It helps you float some rough times painlessly. You carry the balance a few months and keep paying the interest, but don't get rid of the balance. Then you buy some cool stuff because you can, but you add to the balance. Before you know it, you're using 10% of your paycheck just to pay off the interest, but the balance isn't getting any smaller. At this stage, most people would cut back and find a way to pay off that balance. Our government is not doing that. THIS would be the time. Cutting military and social programs? If we continue on this path for another two years, that won't be close to enough. You also seem to think we can just tell the rest of the world to F off, we're not paying the debt back. Much like you saying that to a credit card company, the result is bankruptcy. You can't get a mortgage, you can't buy a car. Except it's worse, because if you as an individual go bankrupt, you can still earn money and trade that with people for goods and services. You don't get isolated and need to figure out how to live as a subsistence farmer, which is essentially what would happen to our country.
I'm investing 75% of everything I put away overseas, in foreign currencies and developing markets. I don't feel bad about it. I would be irresponsible not to. I guarantee that I am not the only person doing this.
Or you could pull a Bush and invade a country because they sell their oil for dollars AND Euros, and not just dollars...The Euro is quickly becoming a standard. I think that once there's enough Euros in foreign banks, the dollar will tank, as the creditors begin lining up, cause we can't just print more and hyperinflate...ohio said:
Sheesh, kids don't need medicine. What are you some kind of pinko pansy or something?LordOpie said:
One year's deficit isn't the biggest problem, the continued deficit is. Shrub II has run up about three trillion in debt during his time in office.
The US now owes something like 8 trillion dollars, about march we hit our debt ceiling, and spending is going to be cut, and it's going to hurt unless we add to the debt limit. During FY '05 we payed approximately $350 billion in interest. Interesting, that number is almost exactly the same size as the current deficit. 90% of the national debt was built up by Regan, Evil shrub I, and Evil Shrub II. Most of the remainder comes from Nixon and the Vietnam war.
China is one of the largest holders of US bonds, If they decide to dump bonds, the interest rate we have to pay goes up, way up. Instead of $350 billion a year, our interest payments might be $6oo billion. In our recent currency manipulation spat with China, I suspect the leverage of holding a huge amount of bonds help China immensely.
The US now owes something like 8 trillion dollars, about march we hit our debt ceiling, and spending is going to be cut, and it's going to hurt unless we add to the debt limit. During FY '05 we payed approximately $350 billion in interest. Interesting, that number is almost exactly the same size as the current deficit. 90% of the national debt was built up by Regan, Evil shrub I, and Evil Shrub II. Most of the remainder comes from Nixon and the Vietnam war.
China is one of the largest holders of US bonds, If they decide to dump bonds, the interest rate we have to pay goes up, way up. Instead of $350 billion a year, our interest payments might be $6oo billion. In our recent currency manipulation spat with China, I suspect the leverage of holding a huge amount of bonds help China immensely.
Public debt by year.
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
y'all keep worrying about another country dumping our bonds. Firstly, they'll take a loss, second, it's a global economy.
In other words, if you, as an individual have the ability to pay, even if deep in debt, you're financer isn't going to cut you off... that's bad business for him.
In other words, if you, as an individual have the ability to pay, even if deep in debt, you're financer isn't going to cut you off... that's bad business for him.
Thats what I keep meaning to say, only Im bad with words.LordOpie said:
where's N8 in this thread?
Yes, it is in their best interest to find a way to make us pay, but at some point they still stop extending credit (effectively, the actual process relates to the value of the dollar and the rates at which people are willing to purchase bonds) even IF we're paying back the debt. THAT'S what I'm trying to say. Even if we don't default, we're looking at a massivey devalued dollar, which would absolutely crush our standard of living, and, among other things, will mean a serious brain drain.BurlyShirley said:
But what I was getting at before is that I wont necessarily mind if the US ends up having to take a backseat in world politics (ie, superstrong military, foreign aid, etc) to compensate for what we'd be faced with...if it ever came to that.ohio said:
I'm not talking a backseat on the world political stage. I'm talking a backseat in standard of living. This could literally turn us into a 2nd world nation. Do you like electricity? Running water? An effective (at least somewhat) police force? Because if we don't start paying off this debt soon, our basic infrastructure will crumble when we finally do face the reality.BurlyShirley said:
ohio said:
I haven't even begun on why the debt is bad, but you bring up another point. The dollar has lost a huge amount of it's value in relation to other currencies, particularly the Euro. If the huge debt, and imbalance of trade continues it won't be worth it to buy US bonds, unless the interest rate is high enough to counteract the falling currency. That could mean interest rates in the 15 to 20% range, or about a 1.5 trillion dollar interest payment, if anyone would even buy the bonds.
Imagine the draconian cuts necessary to live with that?
valve bouncer said:
It is not the government's responsibility to provide medicine to children. It is the parents. If the parents can not afford proper health care then they should not have children (don't even bring up abortion, there are a multitude of ways to keep from getting pregnant). The government did not make someone have a kid so why should they provide health care provided by taxpayers money?
gschuette said:
The governments resposibility is to care for it's citizens regardless of their economic position. That's what you all pay taxes for......collectively provide that which you cannot individualy provide for yourselves.
Here's an idea: why don't you stop using public roads and start purifying your own water from the river. Tell you what, stay out of public parks while you're at it; you can mountain bike on land you bought yourself. Don't even get me started on schools and libraries. You sure as hell better have gone to private school and never read a book you or your parents didn't pay for.gschuette said:
edit: I just saw in another thread you go to SUU. Is that a state school?
Southern Utah University (Formerly college), land of ugly ducklings, morons, and Ditsy College transfer students.ohio said:
The question was rhetorical. SUU is a state school and his education is heavily subsidized.blue said:
Gschuette, if your parents couldn't afford to send you to college, they shouldn't have had you. And instead of figuring out a way to pay for college on your own buck, with say loans, you're suckling the teat of big government who is using taxpayer money to support some school 99% of the taxpayers will never benefit from. Good for you.
And the deaths from the ensueing riots would be a boon to inheritance tax revenue. 
Actually, yes, it is.gschuette said:
You should take some basic politics courses at that state funded school you attend, you seem to be out of touch with reality.
gschuette said:
Government's responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of it's citizens. In a capitalist society you have to have a safety net for people who are disadvantaged, unemployed or disabled. I think a lot of people having kids shouldn't, but I'm not about to punish kids for their parents bad judgement, so farmers and industrialists can have more subsidies. Government is society, it's job is to do what individuals can't. Only the government can build a national highway systems, or enforce clean water standards.
Ah, but the current government would just as soon make sure that no one knows how to keep from getting pregnant, with their abstinance only education and all that.gschuette said:
I see your getting hammered already but my point has been missed.gschuette said:
Our system of economics requires a poverty class. If we take away government aid, that leaves a whole lot of people with zero means of support. They will be forced to take because they cannot earn. More police will be required to protect the haves from the have nots. The more police on the street the more corruption and civil rights will dissapear. This all spirals downward toward a full on police state. See any 3rd world country for historic examples. Be it wrong or right by what ever idealogy you subscribe to, welfare is by far the lesser evil.
BuddhaRoadkill said:
Yeah but it doesn't really matter. SUU might be a state school that receives government money. Most schools are the funded in the same manner. These people don't really know anything about how I go about paying for school or anything else for that matter. They can use their all or nothing welfare rhetoric and that's fine. It does go both ways. Communism is one example I can think of, a total welfare state. Why not? It is the governments responsibility to provide general welfare. Anyway it is just a political differnece. I am for a smaller government and they are for a bigger one. They disagree with me and that's fine.
I don't mind the government promoting general welfare with the aforementioned roads, schools, libraries, and so on. The problem I have is with the government throwing constantly throwing money at people who still refuse to go out and do something productive being they can rely on that government check.
I forgot to say that the only reason I came to SUU is because the riding and skiing around here is quite good. Not to mention the weather is amazing. I am never more than an hour away from warm weather in the winter and cool weather in the summer. Now if only I could do something about the nutcase locals and their very pushy religious antics.
Because all people on welfare are lazy no-good-for-nothings that would rather get a subsistence check than be rich?gschuette said:
It doesn't matter how you pay for school, because the fact is they're only asking you for 1/3 of what they need to educate you. Whether you work to pay that 1/3 or not, you're receiving 2/3s of it as welfare.gschuette said:
I hear this one a lot. Actually where we disagree is on the definition of "big" government. "Big" government to me is bloated budget; someone has already pointed out that the Iraq War is costing us far more than every federal social program combined. We could trim a lot more big government by ending the war than by cutting welfare. Big government to me is a government encroaching on my rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression, or right to privacy.gschuette said:
You see "big" government is any government you disagree with. Especially given that the current administration has spent more money and and created more bureacracy than any government in history, it's preposterous to think that the right is for "small" government and the left is for "big" government.
You mean like, say, giving you $8000 a year to educate yourself, while you instead just **** around and play all the time?gschuette said:
gschuette said: