America's debt crisis: Interest payments will hit a $Trillion$/year

[Maxima1]

Lolwut? This is exactly the sort of flailing I was looking for. Hahaha. It doesn’t even make sense to link that post.

It’s funny that you’re now searching through my posts to try and find some imagined hypocrisy as if that would make you look any less dumb here.

Here's another. lmao Posted on Jan 25, 2018. Obviously referring to PAST spending in 2017. Just admit it! LOL

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-trumps-tax-plan.2535086/page-8#post-39276510

"In good economic times we should be reducing deficits, which we are not. If we aren’t going to do that though we should at least be using that money to make people’s lives better, not defeating our own purpose."

 

[dasherHampton]

There is no simple fix.

IMO we need a genius, cold-as-ice bean counter president for four years who can (hopefully)

1) determine a path to a balanced budget. Probably a 10-15 year time frame.

2) determine a subsequent path to debt reduction/elimination. Probably a 50-100 year time frame

3) shape a constitutional amendment that mandates the plan be followed without a single deviation, with the possible exception of national security issues. As soon as national debt is eliminated the amendment should revert to a status quo that does not allow for deficit spending.

hahahaha

I'm dreaming and I just woke up.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's another. lmao Posted on Jan 25, 2018. Obviously referring to PAST spending in 2017. Just admit it! LOL

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-trumps-tax-plan.2535086/page-8#post-39276510

"In good economic times we should be reducing deficits, which we are not. If we aren’t going to do that though we should at least be using that money to make people’s lives better, not defeating our own purpose."

Man, you sure showed me by posting past quotes that are entirely consistent with my current position!

You’re embarrassing yourself even more, haha. You can’t win this so I don’t know why you’re trying.

 

[Maxima1]

Man, you sure showed me by posting past quotes that are entirely consistent with my current position!

You’re embarrassing yourself even more, haha. You can’t win this so I don’t know why you’re trying.

Another attempt to play stupid. We just discussed how Krugman wrote an article for increasing spending during the Clinton administration. You tried to pass it off as being only about 2017, yet as I've shown you've clearly argued during 2017 that the economy was "good" and reducing the deficit was the proper policy.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no simple fix.

IMO we need a genius, cold-as-ice bean counter president for four years who can (hopefully)

1) determine a path to a balanced budget. Probably a 10-15 year time frame.

2) determine a subsequent path to debt reduction/elimination. Probably a 50-100 year time frame

3) shape a constitutional amendment that mandates the plan be followed without a single deviation, with the possible exception of national security issues. As soon as national debt is eliminated the amendment should revert to a status quo that does not allow for deficit spending.

hahahaha

I'm dreaming and I just woke up.

Why would that amendment be a good idea?

 

[fskimospy]

Another attempt to play stupid. We just discussed how Krugman wrote an article for increasing spending during the Clinton administration. You tried to pass it off as being only about 2017, yet as I've shown you've clearly argued during 2017 that the economy was "good" and reducing the deficit was the proper policy.

What on earth are you babbling about? I said none of those things. I’m genuinely starting to question your ability to read.

Like I said you’re desperately flailing and getting owned by your own sources.

 

[Jhhnn]

Another attempt to play stupid. We just discussed how Krugman wrote an article for increasing spending during the Clinton administration. You tried to pass it off as being only about 2017, yet as I've shown you've clearly argued during 2017 that the economy was "good" and reducing the deficit was the proper policy.

Which merely obfuscates the simple fact that the GOP is increasing deficits in a way that have no benefit to anybody but the Rich. Well, unless you still believe that trickle down actually delivers when it obviously does not.

 

[dasherHampton]

Why would that amendment be a good idea?

Can you thing of ANY other way to keep the fat, slimy, incompetent, corrupt idiots on Capitol Hill in check?

 

[Maxima1]

Which merely obfuscates the simple fact that the GOP is increasing deficits in a way that have no benefit to anybody but the Rich. Well, unless you still believe that trickle down actually delivers when it obviously does not.

I'm only arguing about the decision to increase or decrease deficit spending.

What on earth are you babbling about? I said none of those things. I’m genuinely starting to question your ability to read.

Like I said you’re desperately flailing and getting owned by your own sources.

Here's another one. It's funny that you try to insinuate Krugman thinks an infrastructure package would pass on the first day of Hillary's admin or that it only involves the year 2017. You love to twist and play dumb, even as you argued opposite of Krugman during that period, which shows how your deficit rule is based on feels and not hard data.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-more-after-bill.2528751/page-5#post-39190958

So in other words when the Republicans are saying their tax bill costs $1.4 trillion they are lying as now we're expanding the debt by $2-3 trillion for tax breaks while the economy is at full employment and even if middle class tax breaks don't expire the vast majority is still going to the ultra rich. Even smarter! Then when the next recession comes conservatives will be pointing to the national debt and screaming about how we have to cut back because our debt will doom us.

 

[fskimospy]

Can you thing of ANY other way to keep the fat, slimy, incompetent, corrupt idiots on Capitol Hill in check?

But why would we want to pass a balanced budget amendment? Imagine if we had one in 2008 and 2009, it would have been an utter catastrophe.

 

[Maxima1]

But why would we want to pass a balanced budget amendment? Imagine if we had one in 2008 and 2009, it would have been an utter catastrophe.

It's not just stupid for that reason.

 

[dasherHampton]

But why would we want to pass a balanced budget amendment? Imagine if we had one in 2008 and 2009, it would have been an utter catastrophe.

With exceptions for national security.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm only arguing about the decision to increase or decrease deficit spending.

Here's another one. It's funny that you try to insinuate Krugman thinks an infrastructure package would pass on the first day of Hillary's admin or that it only involves the year 2017. You love to twist and play dumb, even as you argued opposite of Krugman during that period, which shows how your deficit rule is based on feels and not hard data.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-more-after-bill.2528751/page-5#post-39190958

So in other words when the Republicans are saying their tax bill costs $1.4 trillion they are lying as now we're expanding the debt by $2-3 trillion for tax breaks while the economy is at full employment and even if middle class tax breaks don't expire the vast majority is still going to the ultra rich. Even smarter! Then when the next recession comes conservatives will be pointing to the national debt and screaming about how we have to cut back because our debt will doom us.

So now you’re quoting more things by me that are entirely consistent with what I’m saying now. I’m genuinely confused as to why you think this is meaningful.

Do you even know what you’re trying to argue anymore? This is pathetic.

 

[Maxima1]

So now you’re quoting more things by me that are entirely consistent with what I’m saying now. I’m genuinely confused as to why you think this is meaningful.

Do you even know what you’re trying to argue anymore? This is pathetic.

It's not consistent. Again, you love playing dumb.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm only arguing about the decision to increase or decrease deficit spending.

Heedless of differing reasons to have deficits, of course. Krugman argues that if we're to have deficits that they need to be for good reason, not as a consequence of coddling the Rich with gratuitous tax cuts.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not consistent. Again, you love playing dumb.

They are entirely consistent. You are clearly not playing dumb, lol.

 

[Ken g6]

Fuck it, let's just default on the debt. 😛

Actually, that may not be a bad idea, eventually.

There is no simple fix.

IMO we need a genius, cold-as-ice bean counter president for four years who can (hopefully)

1) determine a path to a balanced budget. Probably a 10-15 year time frame.

2) determine a subsequent path to debt reduction/elimination. Probably a 50-100 year time frame

3) shape a constitutional amendment that mandates the plan be followed without a single deviation, with the possible exception of national security issues. As soon as national debt is eliminated the amendment should revert to a status quo that does not allow for deficit spending.

hahahaha

I'm dreaming and I just woke up.

Or replace step 2 with defaulting on the debt.

Of course, the traditional way (in 3rd-world countries) is to:

1) Keep increasing the debt until you get hyper-inflation.

2) Replace the money supply with a new currency that hopefully won't hyper-inflate.

3) Repeat 2 until you pick a currency based on something solid, usually gold. (The other common option is the US Dollar. 😛)

 

[Maxima1]

Heedless of differing reasons to have deficits, of course. Krugman argues that if we're to have deficits that they need to be for good reason, not as a consequence of coddling the Rich with gratuitous tax cuts.

Yes, but fski is arguing that the right policy would be to reduce the deficit even in a Democratic admin. I'm well aware that what the Republicans are doing is BS, though we could potentially claw it back and allocate it elsewhere if we whack the dirty Dems. Krugman was arguing that it was the right policy at the time to Increase it. While there's the other article which I was aware of even before fski brought it up, I believe Krugman only changed because it was Trump. Many people mocked him for it because it was rather transparent. I think he totally forgot about his past article.

 

[Maxima1]

They are entirely consistent. You are clearly not playing dumb, lol.

Can you lay out your argument over what we discussed?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you lay out your argument over what we discussed?

My argument is that we should be decreasing our debt to GDP ratio, same as it’s always been. You then started furiously shitting your pants so I’ve mostly switched to making fun of you as you flail.

 

[Maxima1]

My argument is that we should be decreasing our debt to GDP ratio, same as it’s always been. You then started furiously shitting your pants so I’ve mostly switched to making fun of you as you flail.

In 2017 as well? So why was Krugman arguing the opposite?

 

[fskimospy]

In 2017 as well? So why was Krugman arguing the opposite?

Why would I defend an argument that’s not mine? This makes no sense.

 

[Maxima1]

Why would I defend an argument that’s not mine? This makes no sense.

How are you determining when it's right to do so or not? Someone is wrong. If you say it's a "good" economy and therefore it's optimum to reduce deficit spending, what made you determine that? Krugman and others note the problems with the NAIRU.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/the-receding-nairu/

It’s hard to escape the sense that something similar is happening now when it comes to estimates of the NAIRU, the lowest level unemployment can reach before inflation becomes an issue. The chart shows the actual unemployment rate versus the FOMC estimate of the long-run unemployment rate (the middle of the “central tendency” until the latest report, which gives us the median). Estimates of how low U can go seem always to be a bit below the current level of unemployment.

What’s driving this ever-falling estimate of the NAIRU? The failure of inflation to materialize. And look, it’s better to see the FOMC update in the light of evidence than not. But the truth is that we really don’t know how low unemployment can go, which means that the unemployment rate is not a good reason to tighten. Wait until you see the whites of inflation’s eyes!

 

[fskimospy]

How are you determining when it's right to do so or not? Someone is wrong. If you say it's a "good" economy and therefore it's optimum to reduce deficit spending, what made you determine that? Krugman and others note the problems with the NAIRU.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/the-receding-nairu/

It’s hard to escape the sense that something similar is happening now when it comes to estimates of the NAIRU, the lowest level unemployment can reach before inflation becomes an issue. The chart shows the actual unemployment rate versus the FOMC estimate of the long-run unemployment rate (the middle of the “central tendency” until the latest report, which gives us the median). Estimates of how low U can go seem always to be a bit below the current level of unemployment.

What’s driving this ever-falling estimate of the NAIRU? The failure of inflation to materialize. And look, it’s better to see the FOMC update in the light of evidence than not. But the truth is that we really don’t know how low unemployment can go, which means that the unemployment rate is not a good reason to tighten. Wait until you see the whites of inflation’s eyes!

I have no interest in discussing this with you. Maybe if you grow up enough to admit when you’re wrong I’ll reconsider.

 

[Maxima1]

I have no interest in discussing this with you. Maybe if you grow up enough to admit when you’re wrong I’ll reconsider.

Surprise, surprise. Now you can't go further without admitting that your rule based on feels was retarded.