Does the national debt worry you?

[VRAMdemon]

If the Trump administration hasn't yet laid bare the fact that the entire platform of today's Republican party is bullshit, and has been for quite some time, then it never will. Everything they have claimed that they were about since I was a kid was nonsense. Lower deficits. Rule of Law. Free trade. Family values. Safe environments. Meritocracy. Personal responsibility. All of it was bullshit.

 

[trenchfoot]

My only concern is that if there will be a serious effort toward lowering the deficit, the burden will inevitably fall on the middle class and the poor while the very wealthy get off scot-free, living luxuriously in their corruption-derived tax shelters and havens thus widening the income gap between the peasant and aristocrat class even further.

 

[BoomerD]

Now follow the wise words of The Who so you won't be fooled again. At least I think there's a message in there. If not, play it backwards and I'm sure something wise will be said.

Time for another bong hit.

“There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.”

― George W. Bush

 

[BoomerD]

Republicans seem to always bitch about "tax and spend Democrats," all the while ignoring the concept that they tend to be "borrow and spend Republicans."

 

[Jhhnn]

My only concern is that if there will be a serious effort toward lowering the deficit, the burden will inevitably fall on the middle class and the poor while the very wealthy get off scot-free, living luxuriously in their corruption-derived tax shelters and havens thus widening the income gap between the peasant and aristocrat class even further.

That doesn't have to be true. The rich getting off scot-free is the cumulative effect of too many people voting GOP for the last 40 years. We started cutting taxes for the financial elite & expanding deficits way back then, on the premise that it would all create more & better jobs & trickle down to the rest of us, remember? So what happened with that, anyway?

 

[theeedude]

It's basically theft from everyone through eventual inflation to give money to corporate shareholders.

 

[trenchfoot]

That doesn't have to be true. The rich getting off scot-free is the cumulative effect of too many people voting GOP for the last 40 years. We started cutting taxes for the financial elite & expanding deficits way back then, on the premise that it would all create more & better jobs & trickle down to the rest of us, remember? So what happened with that, anyway?

Obvious scam for sure yet the Repub middle class and their poor who ironically rely on welfare from the gov't refuse to elect politicians who actually really do represent their interests, of whom 99.99% of them are Democrats that really do want to give them affordable health care, lower taxes, job opportunities, more access to higher education, etc.

Much more important to stop the Trump declared national emergency "invasion" from the south, build Trump's Wall that Mexico will somehow pay for, ramp up the hatred, fear, nationalist racism, keep women from having control over their own bodies, stopping gay marriage....well you know , really really REALLY important stuff like that.

Election after election we have the working class Repubs buying into that crap 'cuz they were convinced by their wealthy landowners and mega-buck corporate "benefactors" that these very wealthy and influential people having complete control over the lives of "their hired help" is much better than getting paid what their working class stiffs actually deserve.

 

[nOOky]

Does the national debt worry me, hmmm. I can't imagine why in this record economy of Trump's making that we can't at least balance the yearly budget deficit. It's akin to me making $500k a year with the ability to pay down all my debt easily, but instead I ratchet up the debt even more by buying more things I can't afford and have to pay on, because as long as I make my minimum credit card payments I'm golden.

Since we can't balance the budget there's no hope of attacking the national debt, soon I suspect there will be trouble merely servicing the interest on the national debt, which really seems stupid if you think about it. And amid the howls of the people warning against socialism, instead of spending tax money on infrastructure or useful things we just give the rich even more with a tax cut. Huh? At the very least the super rich are doing better also and making more than ever, so we give them even more? How does that help the economy again? Oh crap it doesn't. If you think the ultra rich are job creators, wait and see what happens the second they think the economy is going south or orders dry up for a day or two, they are laying employees of so fast and making the remaining work twice as hard to retain their margins.

Gotta love the Republicans America. From what I can see they are least fiscally responsible party by a long shot.

 

[dank69]

No, ignorance and arrogance worries me.

 

[Amused]

In just eight years Obama took the debt from around $10 trillion and doubled it to about $20 trillion when he left office. About as much debt racked up by all prior admins combined there. We're still standing.

Being that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are carried out by radical right wing white males, Slow, please get help. Facts are facts, you're statistically more likely to end up being a terrorist than just about any other demographic in the US.

 

[Amused]

The only time the growth of the debt ever flatlined was under a Clinton.

But thats none of anyone's concern.

It is clearly the black guy's fault for using debt spending to drag the country out of the worst financial disaster since the great depression. amirite?

 

[ecogen]

ITT: People forgetting that interest costs come out of your national budget.

You guys should check the interest cost projections for the next few years.

 

[Wuzup101]

But as a thought experiment, if the US government created $1.5T without first borrowing from the Federal Reserve, and paid off all of the student loan debt, how would that negatively affect the economy? How would people who are now paying hundreds/thousands per month in interest on maybe a piece of paper, going to do with that excess cash? Burn it? Papercut babies? Explain how this becomes a negative. Again, the US government could just print the cash and pay off all the debt. No new debt would be created. How does it negatively affect anything, minus, well, loan companies that are no longer cashing in on student debt interest.

It would just devalue our currency. Essentially those of us who didn't take on stupid amounts of student debt, or those of us who paid it off, would be paying for those who made poor choices via our money being less valuable and having less buying power.

Edit: I'm all for making college cheaper (say by not federally securing loans going forward), but excusing debt isn't the answer.

 

[nickqt]

It would just devalue our currency. Essentially those of us who didn't take on stupid amounts of student debt, or those of us who paid it off, would be paying for those who made poor choices via our money being less valuable and having less buying power.

Edit: I'm all for making college cheaper (say by not federally securing loans going forward), but excusing debt isn't the answer.

Why would it devalue currency? It all ends up in the hands of corporations and banks, regardless of who you give it to.

How devalued did our currency become after multiple trillions were used to bail out banks in 2008?

 

[JSt0rm]

Why would it devalue currency? It all ends up in the hands of corporations and banks, regardless of who you give it to.

How devalued did our currency become after multiple trillions were used to bail out banks in 2008?

I think the banks paid that back?

 

[alcoholbob]

The only time the growth of the debt ever flatlined was under a Clinton.

But thats none of anyone's concern.

It is clearly the black guy's fault for using debt spending to drag the country out of the worst financial disaster since the great depression. amirite?

View attachment 10272

Debt-to-GDP is much more useful than total debt. It's like saying a billionaire with a million dollars in debt is heavily indebted compared to the average American who has tens of thousands in debt by comparing them as if they were apples to apples.

Like clockwork every administration has lowered debt during peace-time until the Reagan administration. Since then the debt-to-GDP ratio has been rising non-stop. You can say Reagan Revolution ushered what people today describe as Modern Monetary Theory, the idea you can ramp up deficits during peace-time in order to goose the GDP numbers whenever it's political convenient (read: a Republican is in the white house).

If Obama did anything wrong, it's because he was too conservative and decided to maintain the Reagan/Thatcher/Friedman/Hayak neoliberal consensus that started in 1980 instead of taking the opportunity to reset the system.

 

[Wuzup101]

Why would it devalue currency? It all ends up in the hands of corporations and banks, regardless of who you give it to.

How devalued did our currency become after multiple trillions were used to bail out banks in 2008?

Because you are printing more money / increasing the money supply.

 

[nickqt]

Because you are printing more money / increasing the money supply.

Great economics 101 textbook answer.

How devalued did our currency become after multiple trillions were used to bail out banks in 2008?

 

[DarthKyrie]

That doesn't have to be true. The rich getting off scot-free is the cumulative effect of too many people voting GOP for the last 40 years. We started cutting taxes for the financial elite & expanding deficits way back then, on the premise that it would all create more & better jobs & trickle down to the rest of us, remember? So what happened with that, anyway?

It went to China with all the manufacturing jobs.

The National debt is what gives the United States its credit rating, Alexander Hamilton set it up this way in order to pay off the costs accrued during the Revolutionary War.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Being that the majority of domestic terrorist attacks are carried out by radical right wing white males, Slow, please get help. Facts are facts, you're statistically more likely to end up being a terrorist than just about any other demographic in the US.

That's an odd reply to what I said. And I'm not sure what you said holds true anyway. From what I've heard, and is probably true as it came from a black conservative, the bravest and most honest group of people out there, is that in recent years the way the data is collected on white nationalist terror has changed and there are more agencies reporting on those types of issues than in previous years. White nationalism isn't expanding, and certainly the body count due to white nationalist terror pales in comparison to that of islamic terror over the last few decades. But again, not sure what this has to do with the national debt.

 

[Amused]

That's an odd reply to what I said. And I'm not sure what you said holds true anyway. From what I've heard, and is probably true as it came from a black conservative, the bravest and most honest group of people out there, is that in recent years the way the data is collected on white nationalist terror has changed and there are more agencies reporting on those types of issues than in previous years. White nationalism isn't expanding, and certainly the body count due to white nationalist terror pales in comparison to that of islamic terror over the last few decades. But again, not sure what this has to do with the national debt.

You'll deny any fact. Any reality to maintain your belief system.
You believe a handful of black people who are disagreed with by 99% of other blacks because it fits your world view.
You'll believe the statistics on terrorism are fake news because it requires you to change your world view.
You have a religion there, spidey. And it's as cultish as any other.

 

[zinfamous]

That's an odd reply to what I said. And I'm not sure what you said holds true anyway. From what I've heard, and is probably true as it came from a black conservative, the bravest and most honest group of people out there, is that in recent years the way the data is collected on white nationalist terror has changed and there are more agencies reporting on those types of issues than in previous years. White nationalism isn't expanding, and certainly the body count due to white nationalist terror pales in comparison to that of islamic terror over the last few decades. But again, not sure what this has to do with the national debt.

where are the numbers, dingus? If you're going to refute the consensus data with some phantom numbers that you created from a "phantom black guy that you know," then you better bring actual numbers to a debate. Arguing against the accepted, published standards requires you to bring weight to the table. Your empty anecdote does not have any kind of validity compared to collected, analyzed data.

So shut the fuck up until you are at any capacity to engage actual adults in real debate. Not once have you argued anything of substance. It's only ever "I feel that a thing is this way and so it must be. You're the real bigot for demanding that I support my never-substantiated claims!" It is only ever thus with you and your cadre of mouth-breathing vermin.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The only time the growth of the debt ever flatlined was under a Clinton.

But thats none of anyone's concern.

It is clearly the black guy's fault for using debt spending to drag the country out of the worst financial disaster since the great depression. amirite?

View attachment 10272

Just going to take this line by line, a break down:


True, wish we had a 90's Clinton-like trend again.

Some kind of self-victimization, not important to the discussion.

And... off the rails with a touch of manufactured racism.

 

[ElFenix]

It would just devalue our currency. Essentially those of us who didn't take on stupid amounts of student debt, or those of us who paid it off, would be paying for those who made poor choices via our money being less valuable and having less buying power.

Edit: I'm all for making college cheaper (say by not federally securing loans going forward), but excusing debt isn't the answer.

i guess the real question is: would it? i think the experience of the last 10 years has put to rest any argument that there's a hard link between the money supply and inflation.

 

[Wuzup101]

Great economics 101 textbook answer.

How devalued did our currency become after multiple trillions were used to bail out banks in 2008?

You're welcome. If you wan't a more detailed explanation please feel free to google it.

You mean the TARP funds that were paid back (technically I believe the government turned a profit)? Seems hard to compare that to student loans at 1.5T (I believe TARP was actually closer to 0.5T), they didn't just hand out free money (think of it like student loans, if the loans were paid back).

With that being said, I don't really support either program. I do support no longer guaranteeing student loans, which will hopefully mean that fewer students qualify, and will drag down the cost of college. I also support using my tax dollars to help pay for community college or some other form of relatively low cost post-secondary schooling.

Do I want to pay for people that took out 100k in loans so they could get a basket weaving degree and a sweet $15/hour job at starbucks? No, I really don't (and several of them are friends). That was a shitty decision, but it's their decision.