Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hetta said:I always find the fact that the spending problem is the fault of the current President, who has been in office for 4 years hilarious. Seriously? Clinton was the last president to balance the books. Remind me what happened after that? I mean, who was in power after him and failed to continue to balance the books?
8.5 days, if you took everything from the rich-a one time deal when they have nothing left.Correct. I mean taking everything from the rich would fund what - 6 months of government? And of course, they know that - which means it's not about the "rich" at all, except to use them as an excuse to give their minions another object on which to focus their envy, greed, and hate - which, if you think about it, is all the Democrat message is.
And ironically, the Democrat party proper could care less about their minions, really. They just use them as a vehicle to obtaining more power, which is the real story in Washington - he who controls the strings of the purse has the most power. More money into the federal coffers means more power. That's the bottom line.
True, but we have never seen this much spending in four years by far we are now at 16.5 trill and climbing.Since when? I have yet to see a republican administration vote for less spending.
I said "tend to." There's no denying Republicans have their own struggles with spending. But let's be honest, for the Democrats it's no struggle whatsoever. Indeed, it's their platform! It always has been. Now, as far as hypocrisy may go, that's the one thing positive that can be said of Democrats. They make no bones at all about being big spenders. Republicans though *say* they're for cutting spending, cutting taxes, smaller government, etc. - and there's no denying that. Doing it I agree is more difficult - but as I also said, it's a powerful, powerful drug - money - to which there's little ability to resist - particularly given the massive size of our federal government. It's highly addictive (or more appropriately, corrupting). But you gotta give Democrats credit - they have zero problem being corrupted by such power. It's who they are and who they want to be.Since when? I have yet to see a republican administration vote for less spending.
I'm sure Belk was just complaining that Repubs just don't spend enough.I said "tend to." There's no denying Republicans have their own struggles with spending. But let's be honest, for the Democrats it's no struggle whatsoever. Indeed, it's their platform! It always has been. Now, as far as hypocrisy may go, that's the one thing positive that can be said of Democrats. They make no bones at all about being big spenders. Republicans though *say* they're for cutting spending, cutting taxes, smaller government, etc. - and there's no denying that. Doing it I agree is more difficult - but as I also said, it's a powerful, powerful drug - money - to which there's little ability to resist - particularly given the massive size of our federal government. It's highly addictive (or more appropriately, corrupting). But you gotta give Democrats credit - they have zero problem being corrupted by such power. It's who they are and who they want to be.
I said "tend to." There's no denying Republicans have their own struggles with spending. But let's be honest, for the Democrats it's no struggle whatsoever. Indeed, it's their platform! It always has been. Now, as far as hypocrisy may go, that's the one thing positive that can be said of Democrats. They make no bones at all about being big spenders. Republicans though *say* they're for cutting spending, cutting taxes, smaller government, etc. - and there's no denying that. Doing it I agree is more difficult - but as I also said, it's a powerful, powerful drug - money - to which there's little ability to resist - particularly given the massive size of our federal government. It's highly addictive (or more appropriately, corrupting). But you gotta give Democrats credit - they have zero problem being corrupted by such power. It's who they are and who they want to be.
Spending does not bother me so much. BORROWING is the thing I have an issue with. We need to get our borrowing under control. As far as I have seen both sides of the house are doing this. Unfortunately the tea party was less interested in dealing with borrowing and more interested in lowering taxes. If they would have been willing to make common sense compromises I would have been fully behind them.
Because you are betting interest rates will not go up and revenues will increase. It's like relying on O.T to pay what you can't pay for with cash if it will not go away. Saving is the opposite of borrowing. Storing up is aways better than hoping you can pay for it down the road.Borrowing is cheap though, why shouldn't we use it?
Because you are betting interest rates will not go up and revenues will increase. It's like relying on O.T to pay what you can't pay for with cash if it will not go away. Saving is the opposite of borrowing. Storing up is aways better than hoping you can pay for it down the road.
The only "cheap" in our current fiscal crisis that might have any relevancy would be someone taking pity on this nation and charitably giving us the $60T - $120T we'd need to become solvent once again.You borrow at current interest rates. That's how it works.
The government doesn't take out a 30 year ARM on our debt it issues bonds at current interest rates at auction.
Current interest rates are lower than inflation on government bonds. It's incredibly cheap to borrow money right now for them.
The only "cheap" in our current fiscal crisis that might have any relevancy would be someone taking pity on this nation and charitably giving us the $60T - $120T we'd need to become solvent once again.
Only there are two problems with that. 1) No such benefactor exists; and 2) even if one did exist, all our government would do is spend it - making matters doubly worse.
Was it the Democrats who voted in the Medicare prescription package, which is enormously expensive, without adding funding for it?It's called a representative republic. In our case, Democrats tend to vote for all manner of entitlements and hand-outs and the attendant exorbitant taxes to pay for them (which they only use to spend on more entitlements and handouts) while Republicans tend to vote for less government spending and taxation. Sad thing is, once the Democrats spend all the money they can then turn around and whine "but we voted for it" and "but we spent it" and "...so we need to be 'responsible' folk and now pay for it" as if the problem were solely Republicans' fault.
Borrowing is cheap though, why shouldn't we use it?
Borrowing is cheap though, why shouldn't we use it?
Even if borrowing is cheap you need a credible plan to pay it back(*). Endlessly rolling forward loans (repaying bonds by issuing new bonds) is the kind of thing that works just fine until it doesn't. Like when lenders decide they aren't interested in lending for 10 years at less than the current rate of inflation and demand more.
There's also a big difference in borrowing to pay for specific projects that yield a specific benefit, and borrowing to pay for a general lack of fiscal discipline. In household terms it's a bit like the difference between me taking a loan so I can buy a car so I can get to work and borrowing every single year because I rather like the idea of a 5-star holiday in the Seychelles despite the fact my salary doesn't stretch that far, and borrowing for another holiday this year even though I haven't repaid anything towards the loan I took for last year's holiday.
(*) ETA - a credible plan to repay borrowings means cutting the deficit to the point of creating a situation where a budget surplus is the norm. As I understand the US budget that means cuts of something like $1,500,000,000,000 to clear the deficit, and then further cuts to start repaying the debt. When Congress appears to struggle to cut as little as $50,000,000,000 from the budget (approximately 3% of what is needed to address the deficit) it's hard to see how the debt will ever be repaid.
From my side of the water it seems the biggest elements of spending are welfare and the military, and the Democrats refuse to cut one and the Republicans refuse to cut the other. So basically the US is doomed, financially speaking at least. It's just a question of time before lenders stop lending and the only solution is massive inflation, sky high interest rates, or both.
I DON'T CARE HOW "CHEAP" INTEREST RATES ARE Variant. Yes, they ARE "cheap" - cheaper perhaps than they've ever been.THE PEOPLE WHO BUY OUR BONDS LOAN US MONEY AT 2.53%
Yes this is what we call cheap. Inflation last year averaged at 2.1% Effective APR of.43%
The conservative thing to do is of course toss up our hands and enforce austerity to crush the economy because borrowing money at 0.43% interest will kill us.
The amount of money we spend on the interest of our 16 trillion dollar debt is not cheap. I do not deny that in a down economy we should borrow and then replenish in an up economy. The problem is that instead of paying off our debt we get tax cuts (because it's your money) and unfunded wars. We need to address our debt at some point. Simply because people are willing to lend us money in order to make a profit off of us does not mean it is a good deal for us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?