Enough of this "national debt caused the credit crunch" BS

[manowar821]

Don't tell me what to post, bitch.

 

[First]

halik, I like the initial thought, but you're wasting it on people who aren't that intelligent or well informed. They don't even pretend they know what they're talking about, they'll just link to nonsense even they don't understand. Realize that these twits believe in Austrian economics (and, therefore, Ron Paul) even though he has been consistently wrong for 3 decades. So you're fighting a losing cause to that end.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Who is RAN Paul? If you spent half as much time with your spelling instead of spouting stupid BS like "deficit spending, us national debt had NOTHING to do with the current economic climate" then maybe you would be taken seriously.

Even a preschooler could tell you that increasing national debt at an alarming rate will affect consumer confidence levels, which in turn affects domestic and global markets. Stop being a fcking troll.

Alarming Rate? Hop on your bloomberg and tell me what's the credit rating for U.S. Treasuries....

Nice ad hominem tough, shows you really know nothing.

The national debt doubled in the past 8 years (which has never happened in history), keep saying stupid sht and trolling though.

Your quote is so sig worthy:
deficit spending, us national debt had NOTHING to do with the current economic climate - Halik

BTW, why aren't you whining like a little girl about LIBOR rates anymore for your student loan? You should create another troll thread about that while you're at it. Don't forget to attach "RAN Paul" so you can complete your BS degree in Trolling. :disgust:

So young and so angry... keep repeating that typo though, it will make you look more mature.

Looking at the nominal debt amount alone tells you nothing - had you actually taken a finance course in your life, you'd know that credit rating covenants (the only risk that debt poses to the U.S.) are relative - you look at the debt to value and debt coverage ratio. So long our GDP keeps growing, our debt can grow at the same rate and we'd be equally as risky (c.p.)

Also Libor has been coming down; not that it makes any difference to me since my loan reset was in July and the rate went down 1.2% YoY.

I'm still waiting for you to somehow prove that the nominal amount of U.S. dept is somehow responsible for the credit crisis. This ain't ronpaulforums; we enjoy, you know, facts....

Oh also about the troll comments, I'm a former Investment Research analyst at Goldman with B.S. in Economics and 2 months away from getting Applied Economics Master's ... who are you again?

I've never said debt was all BAD, any econ101 course will teach you that it's good from a business perspective. But then again, I've never made such a stupid statement like: deficit spending, us national debt had NOTHING to do with the current economic climate.

I've already addressed your statement: The facts are that markets are built on confidence. Consumer confidence is affected by large increases in national debt (like this one - doubled in 8 years). Consumer confidence affects every rate cut the Fed made that helped the subprime market explode. Any middle schooler could have told you that the deficit does have some impact on markets, even if it's not the main catalyst.

If you don't think debt is bad, then why don't we pass a $7 Trillion surplus of $20,000 apiece for Americans? In addition, if you're so smart, please tell us exactly what your "estimate" total would be before hyperinflation sets in?

Who am I? I'm a former Lockheed (since you like to throw big company names around) and Boeing defense contracting senior software engineer going back to med school to be a doctor. I'm currently employed with the government, who the hell do you work for Mr. Troll Economist?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Evan
halik, I like the initial thought, but you're wasting it on people who aren't that intelligent or well informed. They don't even pretend they know what they're talking about, they'll just link to nonsense even they don't understand. Realize that these twits believe in Austrian economics (and, therefore, Ron Paul) even though he has been consistently wrong for 3 decades. So you're fighting a losing cause to that end.

Nice! Do you swallow, as well? :laugh:


Read the OP again. He basically made the analogy that "Well, this bullet hole in the corpse's forehead can't be the cause of death, because I once saw a dead body that didn't have a bullet wound!" Brilliant! :roll:


Again, if you don't think that our culture of personal and governmental dependence on potentially un-repayable amounts debt, hugely unbalanced budgets, deficit spending, etc are problems and cause for concern, then I think we realize who the "twits" here really are.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: venkman
National Debt is the cause of the Government spending TOOO MUCH DANG MONEY on things like Star Wars Defense Programs and War in Iraq II.

Japan's nation debt is twice it's GDP (imagine if our debt was $24 trillion!!) and yet their defense spending in less than 1% of their GDP, about a third of ours.

So much for debt being caused by defense spending.

BTW Italy, Greece, Norway, Canada, France and Germany all have higher debt levels than the US and none of them spending close to the amount on defense that we do.

Just because the kid next to me got a D+, I should be happy with a C? I don't care what Norway and Japan are spending their budgets on, that is their business. I do care what my country spends it's budget on:

don't take my word for it, lets look at the facts: Here is the summary table from directly from the white house. Lets look at the numbers:
Link

Looking at the 2006 Actual:
Defense Spending - $410.7 Billion
Discretionary Spending - $843.4

Thats 48.7% of all discretionary spending. That doesn't even include homeland security. The next largest line item are Health care (69.6) and Education (59)

If were going to spend half of the discretionary budget on wars, then I want to see some tangible benefit from that money. Tell me, are we safer now then we were on September 12th, 2001?

I would hope so because we have paid through the nose for that safety.