-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Simple thread about why debt is bad
- Thread starter ~~whimsy~~
- Start date
If you look at the historical trend the often feared uncontrollable behemoth many decry seems to have been actually tamed over the years as when looked at as a fraction of GDP.
Also most recently by the time Clinton left office the debt was actually going down to the point where it was lower than when he took office. It then spiked upward when GWB took office and obviously spiked again from there upon his departure with the bailouts.
So to me it seems as our economy expands our ability to control and cut it grows exponentially and the outcries about it seem to amount to alarmism.
Also most recently by the time Clinton left office the debt was actually going down to the point where it was lower than when he took office. It then spiked upward when GWB took office and obviously spiked again from there upon his departure with the bailouts.
So to me it seems as our economy expands our ability to control and cut it grows exponentially and the outcries about it seem to amount to alarmism.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
What's the tab in Iraq now, about a trillion dollars?
Here's what I continue to struggle with: use American taxpayer $ to build a bridge in the U.S. and it's "pork". But use American taxpayer $ to build a bridge in Iraq (the same one 7 or 8 times!) and you're "spreading democracy, freedom and apple pie". And even worse, so many people are still wound up about the $60 billion or so that the government used for GM (which is thought to be about even money right now), yet those same people have no issue with the trillion (and counting) that is going up in smoke in Iraq. I have my own issues with the stimulus bill. But compared to the similar amount that has been spent (wasted!) in Iraq, it was money better spent, IMO. I'd sooner waste $50 here before I'd spend the first $ in Iraq, or some of these other shit holes around the world.
I see the article is not read but provided yet another opinion piece for those who want to beat a so called dead cow...
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
The article was read, Whimsy. Rep. Goodlatte is from the 6th District. I used to live next door in the 5th District (probably the best days of my life). I'm well aware of his (claimed) fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately the deeds of the good representative have not always matched his words.
While the dead cow that you speak of was indeed half dead, it was still kicking and twitching a tad bit when he was first took office in 1993. So pardon my rant on the trillion dollar tab for Iraq, but if we're on the topic of fiscal discipline, a trillion dollars is still a trillion dollars. Right? To a country boy like me, that's a big ol' number... takes a whole bunch of fingers and toes to count that high! It was in the late 80's that the United States went from being the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor nation in the world... and except for a brief time in the mid/late 90's, it's continued to spiral downward ever since. So you'll have to excuse my cynicism when a guy who voted for an all expenses paid crusade in the sand is now writing articles on the cautionary words of Jefferson from 200 years ago. If Jefferson's words apply to the here & now, why didn't they apply 8 years ago... or 20+ years ago?
He is correct for the most part though. And if he'd said it in the late 80's and in the early part of this century, he'd have been just as correct. But it's just my nature to cast a jaundiced eye on those who suddenly find God. Ya know what I mean? Maybe Mr. Goodlatte doesn't remember it, but I do: the National Debt Clock. People were making a big deal about the national debt years ago. Hey, I was/am a believer in Supply Side economics. Applied correctly and in the right circumstances, it can and does work. But the necessary, corresponding spending cuts never came under Reagan or Bush I. And Bush, Jr., well he was sorta like a drunken sailor with a stolen credit card. So... Hello, Japan in the late 80's/early 90's. And now it's Hello, China.
And no, Obama is not a fiscal conservative. I wouldn't even say that he's fiscally responsible at this stage. The problem is the fellows who are preaching words of goodness & light these days are the same fellows who were hanging with the drunk sailor boy just a couple of years ago. When the old preacher (with booze still on his breath) is telling me about how evil the current
preacher is... :dunno:
In addition to the Iraq funding, my other issue with Goodlatte (on this topic) is that he has supported a number of free (unfair) trade measures while in Congress. And for those who don't realize it, when the U.S. has a balance of trade deficit, that also contributes to the overall deficit and the national debt. That's in addition to the price fixing, dumping and foreign subsidized businesses driving American companies and workers out of business.
So in closing, Whimsy, I agree with Goodlatte's words in large part. It's his actions that I'm suspicious of. :hatsoff:
You really can't compare the situations. Back when it was very high there was a certain worldwide event going on, one in which we were desperately fighting with others for the fate of the entire world and afterwards we were the only people that could spend to help others out of it. Incurring that kind of debt was totally justified given the circumstances. We don't have those excuses now. Also like then unlike now we weren't piling up debt to people that are our rivals and probably future enemies. If you notice that curve is steadily heading upward at a good rate.
There is also the fact that after that debt was piled up in the past that America then had the luxury of being one of two super-powers in the world and was in an extremely favorable position following WWII to have an economic surge like it had never seen before leading to the prosperity of the 50s and 60s in the war's afterglow. Guess what? We don't have those conditions anymore. We squandered our economic gain from that era so our corporations could make things cheaper elsewhere and our rich could have even more. Nothing like that former era is going to pull our asses from the fire this time to make that curve go down again.
Our real problem was getting rid of the USSR as an example of negative behavior to show others not to live by. Too bad.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
-Shakespeare
Of course, the Koran also forbids debt and lending... but maybe we shouldn't mention that...
-Shakespeare
Of course, the Koran also forbids debt and lending... but maybe we shouldn't mention that...
The bible itself talks about pay off debt as well.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Yeah, I really shouldn't have bought religion into it - but I can't resist starting a lil bushfire here & there...
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
That is a very good trend chart. It speaks volumes. And if you also consider the chart with the fact that in the 80's we went from being a net creditor nation to a net debtor nation, it says even more.
Personally, I only see debt as "bad" when it cannot be serviced or when it prevents you from doing things that benefit your future. I mean, there's a hell of a difference between owing $750K on an apartment building that generates $3K or $4K a month in net income for you and owing $750K on a house that serves no purpose other than keeping your wife happy.
In my mind, our primary concern at this point should be getting out of this recession without going back into another recession. And I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but anyone who stands by the decision to plow a trillion dollars into Iraq but is really wound up about the $60 billion (or whatever) to save GM and several hundred thousand Amerian jobs, we'll just have to agree to disagree. While it's admirable to have free market beliefs, I do not find it admirable when you'd support the wasting of American lives and money for a cause that did not really affect us - but when it comes to the welfare of Americans, you're willing to take the "whatever happens, happens" attitude. As I said before, a trillion dollars is a trillion dollars, no matter how you slice it. And that trillion dollars could/should have either been used to reduce our national debt or to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure... and employing Americans to do it. Which is another point of contention that I have with the neo (fiscal) conservatives. Can anyone here name a civilization which saw continued prosperity once its infrastructure began to crumble? I can't name one. :dunno: I like to read about and study ancient Rome, but I'm far from being a true student of history. So maybe someone else knows of one (JUST one). If you can name such a civilization, please list it here for me, so I'll have that one example. Otherwise my belief that a declining infrastructure is a sign of a declining civilization stands: Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia and various Chinese dynasties.
To reduce the deficit, and the annual additions to the national debt, we have to 1) grow the economy (to bring in more revenue) and 2) reduce spending - it's just that simple. And the two areas of spending that take the most resources are entitlements and defense. But while I think both should be addressed, each is a sacred cow of one party or the other. The recent report that $9.5 billion of Iraqi aid money can't be accounted for made me livid. But not a peep from the "fiscal conservatives" on that. And even funnier, when Obama suggested that some portion of the waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare/Medicaid could be attacked and counted as savings, the neo/faux fiscal conservatives immediately went on the attack that he was (once again) trying to "hurt the old people." Medicare/Medicaid is (by definition) a socialist program - seems like the neo fiscalists would want to aid in that fight. Various studes have shown that the waste, fraud and abuse amounts to at least $50 billion annually in Medicare alone. But in the world of political convenience, even when someone is willing to take a steak from their OWN sacred cow, the other side will try to spin it on its ear.
Ridiculously long post. But mark me down in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp in regard to these recent converts to fiscal conservatism. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
Well...let's attack the point...the biggest contributions to the spike in debt has been Bush era financing of tax "rebates", financing a Bush "error" war of choice in "I-rack" and the corresponding Bush era bailouts...
The bailouts and Iraq war are the 2 biggest contributors to the situation today....
So if we take them at their point...their point backs up what many have said before...Bush is the worst ever.:elaugh:
It's easy to analyze this in a vacuum now..but let's see how it plays when the autos repay their loans and a profit is realized on the sale of their stocks, the financial institutions fully repay theirs, the massive expense of "democratizing" I-rack is over and the country returns to a consistent level of production.:2 cents:
But give the O man some cred (or at least rep) willya!! At least he had the foresight to commission a panel to watchdog the circumstance as opposed to his predecessor and rubber stampers in congress who simply pulled out the check book, didn't mark it down in the ledger and called it "supplementals" when it came to "I-rack".
I stay away from that kind of thing on the board. However if it is tame and simple response I might put a post. As I did here.
:hatsoff:
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I can't believe you stated that you hate God and are glad jebus was crucified!
Don't you dare use the edit tool to delete it!
See what I mean about having a penchant for stirring up trouble?
But seriously, on topic. Debts bad. We knew it. We did it anyways. Why? We no longer plan for the future, just for the now.
Clement Attlee would be rolling in his grave if he could see the situation today.
I have no problem spending money for bombs to be used in Iraq, but I have a huge problem if we are spending a single cent on rebuilding the place. We were good enough to rid them of Saddam Hussein. Not only should we not be giving them money, they should be giving us free oil until every one of our soldiers is out of there.
I do (have a problem with it). It's not our job to spend that kind of money to overthrow some regime at taxpayer expense when they pose no threat to us.
Agree or disagree with what spending you believe benefits the taxpayer as long as the overwhelming majority is intended to directly benefit the American I don't have a problem with most per se spending.
Not only was this expense to the taxpayer exorbitant, not a single dime was authored in legislation to pay for it. A first in US history....there is your debt spike right there.
To accept the notion of spending money to overthrow Hussein but not accept the cause of their reconstruction into a "democracy" is out of sync with the purpose of the whole exercise.
What would be the purpose of overthrowing someone for being a despot if you couldn't reasonably assure your effort didn't simply pave the way for a new, potentially worse one?
That's why the whole thing was wrong-headed to begin with and amounted to nation-building from the get-go.
Facetious
Moderated
:error:
War of choice? but, but . . they said
and on the bailouts, I thought that the fed gov bailout of corporations deemed as too big to fail was decided in a bipartisan fashion? :dunno:
BO has both approved and expanded the very bailout scheme that you criticize 'w' for, has he not?
I don't care what anyone said. I care about what Bush did and how bad he did it in this case. Two things though....I'm not inclined to lend weight to political posturing in light of the Bush administration hounding a case for invading I-rack in the wake of 9/11. And there is some distance between where I-rack was in the '90s with their stockpiles as they were being destroyed and where they were in 2003 when Hans Blix couldn't find them and implored "imporer' Bush for more time. But Bush simply :ban2: Blix in favor of war. Ergo, his choice.
Bush era bailouts obviously refers to the economy his watch presided over which created the necessity for them.:horse:
Similar threads
