Debt Limitapalooza 2023!

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
We are deeply in debt and must repay all of it eventually. It is ignorant to carry this debt monkey on our back for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
But it isn't for 'absolutely no reason whatsoever', the reason is that trying to pay off the debt will cause economic damage. As our government's obsession with 'cutting the deficit' and austerity did. Everyone suffered (we got Brexit as a result) and it just made the economy worse, delaying any recovery from the financial crash.

 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
27,974
1,378
126
[/QUOTE]
But it isn't for 'absolutely no reason whatsoever', the reason is that trying to pay off the debt will cause economic damage. As our government's obsession with 'cutting the deficit' and austerity did. Everyone suffered (we got Brexit as a result) and it just made the economy worse, delaying any recovery from the financial crash.

Since we simply do not have the ability to pay off the debt at all at once this is more of an esoteric argument. However we can balance the budget by cutting spending and keeping it flat in future years while slowly whittling down what we owe through higher taxes, less deductions and economic growth.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, we just need courage to do it.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
27,974
1,378
126
Round and round we go, where we stop ... just kidding, you'll never get anything useful out of him.

/spinspinspin
People who say why only Republicans want to control spending when a Dem is president should cheer Dems on to hold R's responsible for irrational deficit spending when they are in control. And if they have to use the debt ceiling to do it, so be it.

I would love to see this happen because if each party knew that out of control spending is no longer acceptable they might try harder to pass balanced budgets in the future. Otherwise a future showdown my loom.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
Since we simply do not have the ability to pay off the debt at all at once this is more of an esoteric argument. However we can balance the budget by cutting spending and keeping it flat in future years while slowly whittling down what we owe through higher taxes, less deductions and economic growth.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, we just need courage to do it.
'I plan to solve our debt problem through lowering economic growth, and thus our ability to pay on our debt' is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard.

It is kind of funny though - you inadvertently admitted your plan will make us poorer. I vote we become richer instead of poorer.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
People who say why only Republicans want to control spending when a Dem is president should cheer Dems on to hold R's responsible for irrational deficit spending when they are in control. And if they have to use the debt ceiling to do it, so be it.

I would love to see this happen because if each party knew that out of control spending is no longer acceptable they might try harder to pass balanced budgets in the future. Otherwise a future showdown my loom.
What material benefits would the average American see from your plan?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
21,101
8,036
136
But it isn't for 'absolutely no reason whatsoever', the reason is that trying to pay off the debt will cause economic damage. As our government's obsession with 'cutting the deficit' and austerity did. Everyone suffered (we got Brexit as a result) and it just made the economy worse, delaying any recovery from the financial crash.

Sounds like the effects of the World Bank edicts.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,977
4,298
136
Egg prices have way more to do with sick chickens (avian flu) than inflation, but you never have actual facts, so what else is new.



Actually, it's more probably collusion and greed driving up egg prices.

 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
16,729
14,816
136
Actually, it's more probably collusion and greed driving up egg prices.

A report came out today in England I think by Tesco that they think there's lots of price gouging going on.

In the case of eggs it's literally the flu that started the price hike but then the company's take advantage of that too. I mean there's a serious reduction of chicken leg hens as shown in the article.

But then the capitalist mantra is to take advantage of any situation and then continue to raise and charge high prices even when they don't have to be that high anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
27,974
1,378
126
What material benefits would the average American see from your plan?
None in the short run. This is shared sacrifice to lower the amount of debt that is publicly owed to reduce the amount of interest paid on said debt, thus causing a snowball effect on the balance. The sacrifice is stagnant government spending levels, tax increases for some and less tax deductions for all. It will be bitter medicine but it will show us the true cost of endless deficit spending.

You dont have to agree with me, but I sure would like to see a decline in the balance for once in my lifetime. Since interest rates have increased dramatically over the last 12 months and the Fed is no longer buying bonds via Quantitative Easing (and is doing the opposite - selling bonds), and the bill for our lavish spending habits is coming due.

The more they look at it, the more it was about climate change. Amazing right?
Climate change has played a role in many things. Even temporary changes can be devastating. Ive seen a few interesting videos on Youtube such as when super volcanoes have erupted, spewing ash that into the sky blocking sunlight worldwide and having a major impact on events in the past. Then of course there is all the man made foibles such as poor farming methods that led to the loss of topsoil which became airborne, blocked out sunlight and hampered rainfall for years leading to what became known as The Dustbowl.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
None in the short run. This is shared sacrifice to lower the amount of debt that is publicly owed to reduce the amount of interest paid on said debt, thus causing a snowball effect on the balance. The sacrifice is stagnant government spending levels, tax increases for some and less tax deductions for all. It will be bitter medicine but it will show us the true cost of endless deficit spending.

You dont have to agree with me, but I sure would like to see a decline in the balance for once in my lifetime. Since interest rates have increased dramatically over the last 12 months and the Fed is no longer buying bonds via Quantitative Easing (and is doing the opposite - selling bonds), and the bill for our lavish spending habits is coming due.



Climate change has played a role in many things. Even temporary changes can be devastating. Ive seen a few interesting videos on Youtube such as when super volcanoes have erupted, spewing ash that into the sky blocking sunlight worldwide and having a major impact on events in the past. Then of course there is all the man made foibles such as poor farming methods that led to the loss of topsoil which became airborne, blocked out sunlight and hampered rainfall for years leading to what became known as The Dustbowl.
‘My plan has no benefits for people’ is pretty hilarious.

You are so, so dumb.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,353
1,955
136
None in the short run. This is shared sacrifice to lower the amount of debt that is publicly owed to reduce the amount of interest paid on said debt, thus causing a snowball effect on the balance. The sacrifice is stagnant government spending levels, tax increases for some and less tax deductions for all. It will be bitter medicine but it will show us the true cost of endless deficit spending.

You dont have to agree with me, but I sure would like to see a decline in the balance for once in my lifetime. Since interest rates have increased dramatically over the last 12 months and the Fed is no longer buying bonds via Quantitative Easing (and is doing the opposite - selling bonds), and the bill for our lavish spending habits is coming due.



Climate change has played a role in many things. Even temporary changes can be devastating. Ive seen a few interesting videos on Youtube such as when super volcanoes have erupted, spewing ash that into the sky blocking sunlight worldwide and having a major impact on events in the past. Then of course there is all the man made foibles such as poor farming methods that led to the loss of topsoil which became airborne, blocked out sunlight and hampered rainfall for years leading to what became known as The Dustbowl.
You need to step back and go review some history. Clinton Balanced the Budget, which actually left a surplus.... Did Bush apply it to our debt? Nope! What does that tell you?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,257
7,741
126
Since we simply do not have the ability to pay off the debt at all at once this is more of an esoteric argument. However we can balance the budget by cutting spending and keeping it flat in future years while slowly whittling down what we owe through higher taxes, less deductions and economic growth.

There is light at the end of the tunnel, we just need courage to do it.
light at the end of the tunnel of what? debt doomers have been predicting the country will be sold off to foreign creditors for centuries and it has yet to come to pass.

the debt will never be 0 and history shows that trying to make it run backwards is bad fiscal policy. admit that you want the economy in tatters because it brings out the worst in people and advances nationalism.


People who say why only Republicans want to control spending when a Dem is president should cheer Dems on to hold R's responsible for irrational deficit spending when they are in control. And if they have to use the debt ceiling to do it, so be it.

I would love to see this happen because if each party knew that out of control spending is no longer acceptable they might try harder to pass balanced budgets in the future. Otherwise a future showdown my loom.
debt ceiling chicken is sheer and utter fiscal idiocy. no rational person should support it, and i certainly won't encourage the democrats to do it.

You need to step back and go review some history. Clinton Balanced the Budget, which actually left a surplus.... Did Bush apply it to our debt? Nope! What does that tell you?
the drivers of our debt are the umpteen tax cuts for wealthy people that republicans have passed since 2000, along with two unfunded land wars of choice in asia. that's been exacerbated by the shitty economic growth we had coming out of the great recession at the hands of the sequester that the republican congress insisted on. but, hey, the sequester fueled angry white people which got the republicans the presidency. so they're going to try to run that play again. nevermind that it's eating away at democracy. who cares about that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheVrolok

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
27,974
1,378
126
light at the end of the tunnel of what? debt doomers have been predicting the country will be sold off to foreign creditors for centuries and it has yet to come to pass.

the debt will never be 0 and history shows that trying to make it run backwards is bad fiscal policy. admit that you want the economy in tatters because it brings out the worst in people and advances nationalism.

debt ceiling chicken is sheer and utter fiscal idiocy. no rational person should support it, and i certainly won't encourage the democrats to do it.

the drivers of our debt are the umpteen tax cuts for wealthy people that republicans have passed since 2000, along with two unfunded land wars of choice in asia. that's been exacerbated by the shitty economic growth we had coming out of the great recession at the hands of the sequester that the republican congress insisted on. but, hey, the sequester fueled angry white people which got the republicans the presidency. so they're going to try to run that play again. nevermind that it's eating away at democracy. who cares about that?
While I would prefer us to eventually reach zero debt its probably not a given in my lifetime since so many have been brainwashed into believing irresponsible deficit spending is a given, therefore we should always do it (ie, inflation).

Yes, fingers can be pointed at both sides for various reasons as to why we owe so much. Both parties have contributed to the mess we are in. But finger pointing will solve nothing. So lets resolve to figure out a way to start reducing the debt and no longer add to it.

My suggestion was to balance the budget and keep government spending fixed for 5 years. No increases at all. Then as the economy grows apply additional collection to paying down the debt. Pretty simple. We can also raise some taxes and eliminate some deductions to balance the budget.

But you dont have to agree with me. I realize I am in the minority and have argued for this in various ways for a very long time.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
You mean like saving money on interest due by owing less money? Especially when rates have gone up considerably?

Yup, no benefit there.
So to be clear you’re saying by lower federal interest payments the average American will be materially better off?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
28,886
2,241
126
People who say why only Republicans want to control spending when a Dem is president should cheer Dems to hold R's responsible for irrational deficit spending when they are in control. And if they have to use the debt ceiling to do it, so be it.

I would love to see this happen because if each party knew that out of control spending is no longer acceptable they might try harder to pass balanced budgets in the future. Otherwise a future showdown my loom.
because the Dems couldnt in 2016 when trump was pres.
Repubs controlled the House and Senate.
for the senate, i assume R's used budget conciliation to pass Trump's massive tax cut for the rich.

R's wanting to cut size of govt is a thinly veiled plan to cut oversight and enforcement of regulations so rich people/companies can cheat.
look at the IRS. not enough people to run effective audits. (ie: on Trump himself as Pres, there was only 1 agent assigned to that task)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
109,246
26,815
146
Inflationistas would have you believe that 2% inflation is better than 2% deflation when in fact they are relatively the same. It is when you have too much of one or the other, ie, a "spiral" that you have a problem. The Fed knows we have an inflation spiral and has been taking all the money out of the ecomony (that they purposely flooded it with since 2008) in response.

The only spiral we are facing now is an wage inflation spiral. SS payments were increased by over 8% recently. Most people should get raises this year just to keep up with deadly, out of control inflation. (Ex. Egg prices are up hundreds of percent recently.)
lol @ "wage inflation spiral." wtf cabal of evil bearded capitalists did you just come out of to announce this fucking nonsense? Wages are actually about 70% less than what they were back when "America was truly great!" and dipshit Bircher sociopaths like yourself took over and started forcing Reaganism down our throats.

It's truly fucking staggering the amount of inhuman, progress-hating, anti-patriotic fascist nonsense that you fucking evangelical conservatives have swallowed for decades to convince you that your base anti-democratic, self-hating personas are somehow "truly patriotic and christian."

The only way humanity progresses is when you fucking pieces of shit are dead and your regressive ideas set on the pyre and only exist in libraries--which is why you are hell-bent on destroying libraries in the first place.

Fuck, you are one useless fucking twat.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,929
6,612
136
But what is the “political upside” for the GOP? Who are the GOP arguing with in this scenario?

Well, the real answer is, they’re arguing with themselves. They’re offering up two plans, one guts everything in the government, the other only guts some things in the government, and they can’t pass either of them.

So we get one of three things: the GOP caves to the Dems, and you get a half-decent bill passed; one wing of the GOP caves to the other, and you get a shitty bill passed, the level of shittiness being dependent upon who caves; or you get an endless very harmful shutdown as the GOP bickers amongst themselves, and that shutdown is entirely their own fault. They own it. In a game a chicken, the one thing that is worse the barreling down the road towards an car driven by an opponent with nerves of steel, is barreling down the road towards a car where there is no one at the wheel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
But what is the “political upside” for the GOP? Who are the GOP arguing with in this scenario?

Well, the real answer is, they’re arguing with themselves. They’re offering up two plans, one guts everything in the government, the other only guts some things in the government, and they can’t pass either of them.

So we get one of three things: the GOP caves to the Dems, and you get a half-decent bill passed; one wing of the GOP caves to the other, and you get a shitty bill passed, the level of shittiness being dependent upon who caves; or you get an endless very harmful shutdown as the GOP bickers amongst themselves, and that shutdown is entirely their own fault. They own it. In a game a chicken, the one thing that is worse the barreling down the road towards an car driven by an opponent with nerves of steel, is barreling down the road towards a car where there is no one at the wheel.
The problem here is not a shutdown - the problem here is a worldwide global financial catastrophe as the underpinnings of zillions of financial products are undermined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NWRMidnight

ASK THE COMMUNITY