Obama is talking about the largest national works project in our history. I'm not sure what to think.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/06/obama-banks-large-scale-public-works-project/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/06/obama-banks-large-scale-public-works-project/
Not true at all.
You insist on ignoring the growth in the economy over the last 40 years...which is the means to pay it.
It's all relative.
Historically we aren't even close to any records in debt relative to GDP.
The way the defecit is paid down is economic growth...the payments have always been rolled over...and always will.
Budget surplus causes recessions and economic contraction. In the end...you are worse off.
Do we have to control spending? Yes...can we? No.
Thus the only solution is economic growth. Grow or die.
You are trying to put the National debt in household or business terms.
That would be considered naive and ridiculous.
We are talking about government...not a business.
The debt is not being passed on to our grandchildren. That is the dirty little secret to the national debt. It never gets paid!
Money that Martin Van Buren borrowed in 1837 still has not been paid back and I doubt it ever will. We just roll over the debt.
How many roundhouses are you willing to endure on this subject?
First of all, economic growth is only sustainable through savings. Without savings, there can be no economic growth. Sure on paper, your wealth may say 14 trillion GDP but not so much when you factor in inflation (and not the government CPI that leaves out Energy and Food inflation out of the equation). But... after all, its not real wealth. If it was, you would have had peoples 401k's wiped out and you would have seen the Dow drop 40% in just one year. Could you do that with savings? Only if the dollar was being debased at Zimbwabe levels.
Now you talk about paying off the deficit, witch is not the same as the Debt. I know this works on these kool aide drinking Obama guys, but i know better son. Read what i said again.
Paying off just the interest doesn't lower the principal. I mean take a car loan, pay just the interest. Pay off that 19 dollars a month and what do you have left? The same amount you financed. And by doing this the debt never lowers. Now next year by another car. And repeat. How the economy expanding is going to make this situation any better is beyond me. In 1988 the interest on the Debt was a little over 200 billion. Today is approaching 500 billion. In fact, i estimate in just 4-5 years the interest payment alone will be higher then any other expenditure on the budget. Why is this the case? Because, we repeat the same exercise every year. We buy a car and just pay off the interest; pretty soon we are going to have as much debt as we do GDP. The consumption you like to think as wealth is fake. The debt to keep this consumption up and propped up our markets is crumbling.
Now we have never seen levels in debt relative to GDP? Maybe so, but in those times we funded our own recovery. We didnt have a trillion dollar trade deficit then. In fact we ddint have a trade deficit at all until the 1970's and ironic enough that is when the money supply began to ramp up and this is only possible because the use of the US dollar as an international reserve currency. When they start pulling out of the dollar (like they have and will continue to do so) all your wealth you tout will evaporate. Thus it becomes clear why the US likes to keep people in dollars and if they are weak enough will be forced to keep the dollar ponzi scheme going.
You close it out by saying: "Thus the only solution is economic growth. Grow or die."
Folks, what Mj is saying here is what the government from Bush to Bernanke to Paulson to Obama and everyone in between all believe...Exponential growth. Problem with that philosophy is that its a fallacy. Exponential growth is only sustainable in biology and physics and one type of monetary policy. And that is compound interest. To tie it all together... that is what i just pointed out two paragraphs ago.
I don't know what are you going to do?
Do you want cuts in your services or bennies?
Neither does anybody else.
Thats why it can't be done.
Obama has no intention of cutting spending...I thought he was about change?
Obama Plans Largest Public Construction Program Since 1950s...
<CENTER><! MAIN HEADLINE>[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]
JOBS, ROADS, BRIDGES, SCHOOLS, BROADBAND, ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS, ENERGY [/SIZE][/FONT]</CENTER>
Messiah? I think not. :nohead:
He is talking about his plans...thats fair game for debate.
What do you think about Obama's plans to spend all that money... with your views on the defecit Punter? :think2:
Obama's "big spending" dollars will go to many companies and workers within the USA and of course there will be a very real trickle down as these companies and US workers spend their improved income dollars within the USA.
This will be a welcome Change to over spending tens of billions in federal tax dollars per month overseas where it's sucked down by a limited number of companies and the US military who are working mercenary duty.
IF OBAMA keeps his pledge to methodically reduce US combat troop levels and related spending in the Middle East during the next eight years while at the same time rechanneling those dollars into domestic based projects, it's going to be a real win win for the USA compared to the past eight years of economic self-destruction wrought by BushCo.
This will be a welcome Change to over spending tens of billions in federal tax dollars per month overseas where it's sucked down by a limited number of companies and the US military who are working mercenary duty.
IF OBAMA keeps his pledge to methodically reduce US combat troop levels and related spending in the Middle East during the next eight years while at the same time rechanneling those dollars into domestic based projects, it's going to be a real win win for the USA compared to the past eight years of economic self-destruction wrought by BushCo.
However, if Obama ends up insisting on maintaining current US military spending levels in the Middle East along with strongly funding economic and business growth within the US, he's likely going to find it difficult to also keep pledges to not allow Congress to increase income taxes on people making under 200K per year.
The debt under Bush was much easier to service than the debt under Clinton. Bush tax cuts grew the economy and grew revenue. Thats how you actually pay down defecits. Economic growth...not balanced budgets.
Thats what you guys just don't get.
The Clinton surplus is just a political talking point...in real terms...it was better under Bush.
And don't forget...it wasn't rosy under Clinton either. He had the largest stock market crash since 1929. All the gains of the 90's were wiped out in Clinton's last year. Then he handed the mess to Bush...you dummies blame Bush. :lolBIG:
