$9 trillion in debt

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

We know Republicans are crooked. They don't even attempt to hide it anymore. But you Democrats have been had and you can't even see it. Only one Democrat senator voted no to expanding our debt ceiling by another $1 trillion. (Your heroes Hilary and Obama couldn't even be bothered to vote on the issue. Flip flop. Flip flop. Ooooo, campaign money!) Most of the House voted Yes as well.

Now I'll just kick back and watch the sheep herd in and tell me how awful Republicans are. Spin. Dodge. Deflect. Baaaaa.

PS I'm quite proud of my representative (Keith Ellison) who voted No. Mr. Ellison, a Muslim, is more of an American than 95% of our "leaders".

----

Bush got 6 trillion... So what is another 1 trillion? Hell, I bet bush could spend that 1 trillion before he leaves.

So what is the big deal? Might as well go out with a bang eh?

I don't see you giving any solutions to this problem. If there were any. I think we are at the bloat level and its too late now. We are spending 1.3 billion a day just to keep it afloat. We can't possible afford to pay it off.... I really don't have any answers nor do I really care. I guess I am waiting for America to go bankrupt the dollar is falling...

Thanks, Bush!

Haha, here's one of the sheep now. How could I have forgotten to put ericlp in my list? You can always depend on him to try to deflect off the Democrats onto Bush. Sorry fool, your party voted for this one all the way. Don't pin it on Bush.

I guess an idiot like you can't read charts. Go back and see how much bush has pushed up the debt then get back to us when you can figure out how to read it... If your too stupid to figure out bush has driven this nation into the ground in the past 8 years then well... what can I say? Also, look at the charts for how much the dollar has dropped since your buddy you voted for got in... I guess it doesn't bother you that now china is buying 3com? What other high tech companies are we gonna sell out????

Don't be foolish... I'm not for democrat's. I'm voting 3'rd party (always have). Sorry, I'll stand by Greenspans words on that bill clinton was the smartest man of them all (but that's not saying much since we had some really...really dumbs ones). He actually got us out of the red... then your buddy bush gave it all away in taxes. Sigh... Yeah I got my rebate, but I'd rather have seen it used to keep the nation from going broke. But with the chimp in the office it was only a matter of time. Here we are!!!!!! 9 Trillion in debt! Thanks bush!

Anyway, the point is I'll give credit where it's due. And I'll piss on anyone that deserves it...

 

[charrison]

The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

Barely changed since when? It's more than doubled since 1980, although still relatively small compared to parts of the world.

Click me.

By the way, since 1980 (and the point that Debt to GDP ratio turned upward), notice that only one President turned the tide on that ratio (with help of the opposite party in Congress no less).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

Barely changed since when? It's more than doubled since 1980, although still relatively small compared to parts of the world.

Click me.

Well it was about 62% when bush entered office and it is less than 65%. And this ratio is currently decreasing, with the budget heading for a balance sometime in the near future.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I am curious though as why the OP is purposely directing this toward the Democrats when they are known as the "Tax and Spend" party?

Only because this forum is Democrat heavy. There's a contingent of Democrats in this forum (just look at eskimospy and ericlp) who believe that the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican. They're too blinded by party affiliation to realize they've been bamboozled.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Little Bo Beep has lost her eskimospy...

I'm sick of hearing this "they don't have a veto proof majority" excuse. That's pathetic and you know it. Apparently your hyper-partisan self can't see it. Maybe you missed the fact that THEY ALMOST ALL VOTED YES. The didn't even vote No and wait for the veto from the chimp. They just said Yes to screwing over America. Those that could be bothered to vote that is. The Democrat frontrunners were too busy deal with little things like protecting the US from financial freefall.

Looks like you didn't read my post. I'm GLAD they voted yes. Raising the debt celing saves the government from having to print lots more money to pay off our debts, which would lead to inflation.

Also, how would Bush veto a "no" vote?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Little Bo Beep has lost her eskimospy...

I'm sick of hearing this "they don't have a veto proof majority" excuse. That's pathetic and you know it. Apparently your hyper-partisan self can't see it. Maybe you missed the fact that THEY ALMOST ALL VOTED YES. The didn't even vote No and wait for the veto from the chimp. They just said Yes to screwing over America. Those that could be bothered to vote that is. The Democrat frontrunners were too busy deal with little things like protecting the US from financial freefall.

Looks like you didn't read my post. I'm GLAD they voted yes. Raising the debt celing saves the government from having to print lots more money to pay off our debts, which would lead to inflation.

Also, how would Bush veto a "no" vote?

I'm not sure what raising the debt ceiling has to do with "lower" money printing. Looks like the Fed prints more money for every dollar they borrow. (I'm not sure how money is created so someone chime in on this one. Would raising the debt ceiling raise or lower the money supply?)

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The government has no credit card. The government sells bonds with a maturity, for example 30 years. They obviously can only issue as many bonds as investors are willing to buy.

Once you buy a 30 year bond you accept to receive payments for 30 years, and receive your principal back at maturity. You cannot ask to get your principal back before it's due. Of course they could sell the bond if they don't want to hold it anymore (causing price to fall and yield to rise).

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The debt cannot be called as some people fear. About the worst national foreign banks can do is stop or slow buying it.

Even if it was possible to call the bulk of the debt the potential consequences to the world economy from doing so would be disastrous. Failure to make interest payments on Federal securities (a first in the history of the US) would probably assassinate the world economy.

They could actually sell huge chunks of it, depressing the dollar.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The government has no credit card. The government sells bonds with a maturity, for example 30 years. They obviously can only emit as many bonds as investors are willing to buy.

Once you buy a 30 year bond you accept to receive payments for 30 years, and receive your principal back at maturity. You cannot ask to get your principal back before it's due. Of course they could sell the bond if they don't want to hold it anymore (causing price to fall and yield to rise).

And once people decide that the "Full faith and trust" of the US is no longer worth anything, they stop funding our debt. At that point the whole thing comes crashing down. What's worse? Forcing our representatives to stop spending right now by cutting off their credit limit? Or allowing them to continue to create new progams, new entitlements, new wars all without ever intending to actually pay for them?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The government has no credit card. The government sells bonds with a maturity, for example 30 years. They obviously can only emit as many bonds as investors are willing to buy.

Once you buy a 30 year bond you accept to receive payments for 30 years, and receive your principal back at maturity. You cannot ask to get your principal back before it's due. Of course they could sell the bond if they don't want to hold it anymore (causing price to fall and yield to rise).

And once people decide that the "Full faith and trust" of the US is no longer worth anything, they stop funding our debt. At that point the whole thing comes crashing down. What's worse? Forcing our representatives to stop spending right now by cutting off their credit limit? Or allowing them to continue to create new progams, new entitlements, new wars all without ever intending to actually pay for them?

This is a whole new debate. As I said before, I am not saying you shouldn't do anything about debt. I am just saying that debt ceilings have no impact on future fiscal and current account performance of this country.

But if you want to enter this new debate, when people start losing "full faith and trust" you'll see US treasuries prices fall, and yield rising. If the thing goes on, you'll probably see treasuries getting downgraded by S&P, Fitch and Moody's.And prices falling again...

We are talking about a purely theoretical scenario here. I hardly believe I will see a down-rating on US bonds in my lifetime. This of course does not mean you shouldn't keep your debt in check.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

Barely changed since when? It's more than doubled since 1980, although still relatively small compared to parts of the world.

Click me.

Well it was about 62% when bush entered office and it is less than 65%. And this ratio is currently decreasing, with the budget heading for a balance sometime in the near future.

Shhhh... that doesn't fit the current political template.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

Barely changed since when? It's more than doubled since 1980, although still relatively small compared to parts of the world.

Click me.

Well it was about 62% when bush entered office and it is less than 65%. And this ratio is currently decreasing, with the budget heading for a balance sometime in the near future.

Shhhh... that doesn't fit the current political template.

So you deny that the debt to GDP ratio is rising? Do you deny the chart I posted above? A rising debt to GDP ratio isn't necessarily a bad thing but if it keeps going, then what? I guess you're not fiscially conservative....but then again, who is in DC anyway.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison
The debt ceiling is a joke and both sides know it and use it to their advantage when they need to. Sure the debt is 9T, but our GDP is almost 14T, which means our debt to gdp ratio has barely changed.

Barely changed since when? It's more than doubled since 1980, although still relatively small compared to parts of the world.

Click me.

Well it was about 62% when bush entered office and it is less than 65%. And this ratio is currently decreasing, with the budget heading for a balance sometime in the near future.

Shhhh... that doesn't fit the current political template.

So you deny that the debt to GDP ratio is rising? Do you deny the chart I posted above? A rising debt to GDP ratio isn't necessarily a bad thing but if it keeps going, then what? I guess you're not fiscially conservative....but then again, who is in DC anyway.

What I believe is that as long as the ratio is stays under control we do not have big issues like the alarmists would like you to believe. However, would I like it to decrease? Hells yes. The way we lower our debt to GDP is to have better fiscal policy in Washington - this means spending less. An easy way to do that would be to cut out all the unconstitutional spending that goes on.... but that will never happen because too many people like their pork and vote themselves more of everyone else's money they've come to expect and rely on.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If interest rates rise or the debt is called in by foreign governments, then a ticking time bomb ignites.

Sovereign debt emissions are not callable.

Are you saying that our government has a credit card without limits? Trying to understand what you are saying here.

The debt cannot be called as some people fear. About the worst national foreign banks can do is stop or slow buying it.

Even if it was possible to call the bulk of the debt the potential consequences to the world economy from doing so would be disastrous. Failure to make interest payments on Federal securities (a first in the history of the US) would probably assassinate the world economy.

They could actually sell huge chunks of it, depressing the dollar.

Only so much could be floated on the market without risking a drastic devaluation of the securities, I think the market is set up to prevent this as well. Other nations that are major holders would probably buy up the excess in an attempt to save their holdings.

Even if it were possible to sell off sufficiently large chunks it would be the same as the call scenario (just might take a little longer). It really is tantamount to a murder-suicide pact.

 

[Rogodin2]

Partisianship is 'stupid' boober. You should know that it's irrelevant.

Your way of life isn't tenable lad.

You're fvcked.

Rogo

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you Democrat faithful embarassed yet?

Craig? Senseamp? The rest of you bleating sheep? What do you have to say for your messiahs now?

Trolling for response? Nice. Bush is holding our troops as hostages in Iraq and extorting money from Congress. Now, you may say, why would they go along? Well, because he's only going to be president for another year, which in the grand scheme of things isn't much. Plus, by letting him go along, you are also letting him destroy his own party over Iraq, and that is going to benefit the whole country in the long run. We will have nice liberal new judges on USSC, universal healthcare system for all Americans, more progressive tax system, reduced deficits, better regulations, and many new social programs. All because Bush wants to stay in Iraq until the election and throw the GOP under the bus again. So the upside of giving him the money outweighs the downside. I know there are many single issue Iraq Democrats, but I am not one of them. I want it all. Actually I am a lot more interested in domestic policy than foreign, but if Bush's stupidity over Iraq is what helps get it done, it's fine by me.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Perhaps the U.S. will pay its debt off one day and all of our dollars will return, however, if that happens it will be either because:

1. Americans will be selling assets, such as land and business ownership, to foreigners (effectively losing wealth in the process),

or

2. American wages will have decreased to third world levels and costly environmental and labor regulations will have been eliminated in which case American exports would then be price competitive.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Perhaps the U.S. will pay its debt off one day and all of our dollars will return, however, if that happens it will be either because:

1. Americans will be selling assets, such as land and business ownership, to foreigners (effectively losing wealth in the process),

or

2. American wages will have decreased to third world levels, costly environmental and labor regulations will have been eliminated and corporate income tax abolished in which case American exports would then be price competitive.

Added another 'recently heard' trinket in there.

 

[nergee]

...."2. American wages will have decreased to third world levels, costly environmental and labor regulations will have been eliminated and corporate income tax abolished in which case American exports would then be price competitive."...

Exports are at an all time high now.........

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: nergee
...."2. American wages will have decreased to third world levels, costly environmental and labor regulations will have been eliminated and corporate income tax abolished in which case American exports would then be price competitive."...

Exports are at an all time high now.........

The benefit of a weak dollar. The US exports mainly big ticket items (military, airplanes, etc). However, imports are at an all time high also with decline in sight. Also, up until a few years ago, the US led the world in exports. That is now a title that Germany holds and the US, IIRC, is now 3rd.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: nergee
...."2. American wages will have decreased to third world levels, costly environmental and labor regulations will have been eliminated and corporate income tax abolished in which case American exports would then be price competitive."...

Exports are at an all time high now.........

Actually balance of trade (exports-imports) it's at an all-time deficit...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...6/USTrade1991-2005.png

http://www.citizenstrade.org/i...rack-trade-balance.jpg

http://www.earth-policy.org/Up...2_USBalanceofTrade.GIF

Edit: added more graphs with different periods...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

WTF. We have not spent 1/9th of the deficit on the war, but you're going to make IT the subject of the deficit? Way to mislead!

While it may be a spending issue it is a minor one compared to the rest of our government. EVERYTHING needs to be looked at an examined, not a narrow scope of less than 1/9th of the spending that has lead us to this point.

Increasing the deficit has little to do with supporting the troops. It has everything to do with expanding our government and its abuses of power ? because the only solution you WILL EVER witness is increased taxes. Money is power, they will fill this gap with it guaranteed.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

WTF. We have not spent 1/9th of the deficit on the war, but you're going to make IT the subject of the deficit? Way to mislead!

While it may be a spending issue it is a minor one compared to the rest of our government. EVERYTHING needs to be looked at an examined, not a narrow scope of less than 1/9th of the spending that has lead us to this point.

Increasing the deficit has little to do with supporting the troops.

Well, I agree with you on one thing, Iraq shouldn't be the main focus of deficit hawks, Bush tax cuts should.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: rchiu
What you failed to mention is that the money raised from the expanded debt ceiling goes to the soldiers in Iraq. While I don't agree with this war, it's a fact that soldiers are there and they need armor, tanks, and their family needs money. You just cannot cut the fund for the soldiers while they put their life on the line for the country.

The government need to pull the troop out of Iraq, cutting the fund for the troop is not the right way to stop this war.

WTF. We have not spent 1/9th of the deficit on the war, but you're going to make IT the subject of the deficit? Way to mislead!

While it may be a spending issue it is a minor one compared to the rest of our government. EVERYTHING needs to be looked at an examined, not a narrow scope of less than 1/9th of the spending that has lead us to this point.

Increasing the deficit has little to do with supporting the troops.

I guess you didn't read the article OP quoted. I am strongly anti-deficit, but I don't support any deficit reduction that comes at a cost of people putting their life for this country.