• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

$16,000,000,000,000 And counting....

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
You all know that interest rates going up doesn't impact debt we accrue right now, right? If someone buys a 20-year bond at 0.025%, then interest rates go up to 10%, the US is still just paying 0.025% on that bond. It's only new debt generated after the interest rate hike that gets more expensive.
Not all our debt is fixed rate bonds.

 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I've given up on caring about the debt. It is SO large it will never get back to 0 at this point. Both sides love to spend albeit on different things, but one side likes to lie about it.
That was true but only because both sides refuse to sell the govt's weapons and it's land, they support monetary bureaucracy so that the govt can run up debts, and they both support the revenue neutral fair tax or the revenue neutral income tax and some like Herman Cain support both. However, if you think you're the only one who doesn't care, then youre not... even the op isn't sincerely concerned about it either, because he is on record as disliking dr. Paul. That said, I think the op is just starting this thread to make Obama look worse than the former's big spending heroes dick 'n Bush and that's very intellectually dishonest to do so.
I am so proud

Our Government has left each and every one of us with $50,900 a piece in debt. Thanks guys and gals.
some of it is fake, and if you don't support dr. Paul then you can't complain about the debt anyway.:). You may complain about big spending, but by doing so while supporting a primary opponent of dr. Paul shows that you are being intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
We (the voters) are responsible. We punish politicians who say anything about trying to reign in one of the big 3 drivers of the deficit (Medicare/Medicaid, SS, Military spending), and we reward those who overspend or promise to spend money on the things we like without explaining where that money will come from.

Ultimately, the voters are to blame. The two parties have shrewdly figured out that by having the voting public bicker about meaningless stuff and cheer on their team as if it were a football squad they can maintain power and control.

Until the voters say "that's enough" and take action by voting out irresponsible spenders, we're going to continue down this path.
Agreed, 100%. That's why democracy is so great - you may not get the leaders you need, but you always get the leaders you deserve.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Agreed, 100%. That's why democracy is so great - you may not get the leaders you need, but you always get the leaders you deserve.
So why aren't we all doing everything in our power to uproot these two parties that don't serve the nation's interest?

There are PLENTY of issues that we all can agree on that are basic common sense that need to be implemented today. I can't tell you how many voters would love to see a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party in town. By socially liberal I mean, stop the government from trying to legislate morality/religion or any other nonsense onto its citizens. We should all be free to live the lives that we want so long as were are not intrinsically doing others harm.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,936
1
0
LOL...
How much money do you owe, Joe?
-John
What does the size of my mortgage (or the astonishingly low interest rate I pay on it) have to do with the supposed surge in Federal interest rates you falsely claim?
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,152
14,001
136
So let's raise taxes and pay that sucker down! Or we can just inflate it away like everyone else does.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
The early warning signs will be from market reactions in those areas I mentioned, not conservatives going [strokeface]OMG debt crisis!!!1[/strokeface] at some arbitrary number.

Edit: And by the way, "my guy" pushed for $4T in deficit reduction, while "your guys" balked at that, bragged they got 98% of what they wanted, and were specifically named by Moody's in the credit downgrade. So who is being politically motivated again?
When your mother told you the stove was hot, how many times did you touch it until you believed her?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
So why aren't we all doing everything in our power to uproot these two parties that don't serve the nation's interest?

There are PLENTY of issues that we all can agree on that are basic common sense that need to be implemented today. I can't tell you how many voters would love to see a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party in town. By socially liberal I mean, stop the government from trying to legislate morality/religion or any other nonsense onto its citizens. We should all be free to live the lives that we want so long as were are not intrinsically doing others harm.
I agree with you, but I suspect the devil is in the details. Most of the Republicans I know say they are in favor of personal liberty, but they are opposed to gay marriage. Most of the Democrats I know say they are in favor of personal liberty, but they are four square in favor of hate crime legislation, high taxation, and virtually every regulation. I suspect that we'd have a very hard time agreeing on what is necessary spending as well. Most of all, we haven't had a suitable third party leader emerge. In some ways it's a catch 22. For instance, I think Gary Johnson is as close to a perfect Presidential candidate as we're ever likely to have, but because his positions don't necessarily fit the left orthodoxy (as represented by the main stream media) or the right orthodoxy (as represented by Fox News and talk radio) he gets very little air time. Similarly, personal liberty and fiscal conservatism are not causes the wealthy and corporations line up to support; they want advantageous government, not less government. Without exposure, most voters will remain blissfully unaware of Johnson and his positions.

Also, we're becoming kind of a mean nation, as witnessed by the explosion of "reality" television that people mainly watch to make fun of others and/or witness their humiliation. Far too many people prefer seeing someone else get punished, whether by confiscating their money or by denying their choices, over enhancing their own freedom.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
So why aren't we all doing everything in our power to uproot these two parties that don't serve the nation's interest?

There are PLENTY of issues that we all can agree on that are basic common sense that need to be implemented today. I can't tell you how many voters would love to see a socially liberal and fiscally conservative party in town. By socially liberal I mean, stop the government from trying to legislate morality/religion or any other nonsense onto its citizens. We should all be free to live the lives that we want so long as were are not intrinsically doing others harm.
I'm with you brother but I hold out no hope for what is essentially an overthrow of the government. It's important to remember that they make the rules.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,345
278
126

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,760
11
81
I agree with this almost entirely. We send mix messages to our elected officials. These officials want to be re-elected, so do not expect any different behavior until we clarify said mixed messages.
It's not a mixed message - it's a very clear message: "Give me things and don't ask me to pay for them!!" Hence, a $16T debt.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,107
1
81
Lesson # 1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

Got It ?????

OK now,


Lesson # 2:

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer
backup in your neighborhood....and your home has sewage all the way up
to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do ......

Raise the ceilings, or remove the shit?
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Federal budgets are nothing like household budgets.

Stop comparing it to a household budget. They are not the same thing. They are fundamentally different in ways that completely ruin the analogy.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Federal budgets are nothing like household budgets.

Stop comparing it to a household budget. They are not the same thing. They are fundamentally different in ways that completely ruin the analogy.
That's what those who want to continue freely spending want to believe. It's called "rationalization", the want to pretend that because the federal government is able to easily borrow more all the time, it's OK to keep running up the debt. While there are differences in the national debt versus that of a household, fundamentally the comparison is valid, and it brings things into a better perspective.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,107
1
81
Federal budgets are nothing like household budgets.

Stop comparing it to a household budget. They are not the same thing. They are fundamentally different in ways that completely ruin the analogy.
That's right, with a household budget you don't buy votes.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
No, it's called basic economics. Unless your family budget can increase its earnings whenever you want, either by raising (no good analogy to taxation) or in the worst case scenario by (no good analogy to printing money) at the cost of (there's no good analogy for slower economic growth, because it's a shit analogy to start)? Unless you're arguing that we're all family and so we have to support each other when we're broke and down no matter the cost? Unless there's no such thing as debt collectors or repo men when your family wracks up a debt? Unless the whole world is eager to lend you money at sub-inflation rates, despite the previous difference?

It's a shit analogy. Government debt is nothing like the kind of debt we experience day-to-day. It's still 100% possible to understand that and argue for eliminating the debt being very important for the government. It just requires talking about what it is rather than trying to oversimplify.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY