National debt exceeds $13,000,000,000,000.00

[Zorkorist]

I'm reminded of Soylent Green, where if you were rich, you could buy a steak,

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

And nobody will stop this runaway Government we have?

Where's Hitler?
Where's Nixon?
Where's Perot?

-John

 

[CycloWizard]

When will you admit that you don't even understand the concept of stimulus?

I can't believe you really think Obama should have cut Bush's deficit spending, plus more to match revenue loss. Wow. Did you fail macroeconomics or what? It's one thing to want less government spending in general during good times as part of your ideology, but you're just out of touch with reality.

When will you understand that we've stimulated ourselves into insurmountable debt? Maybe you would think more clearly if you weren't so interested in placing blame on someone and just wanted to fix the problem. I have no interest in Bush or Obama. I do have an interest in the facts. In this case, we have a debt owed by our federal government that is 90% of our GDP. The only growth in GDP in the last several years is from government spending, which comes from borrowing money and is necessarily transient in nature. Do you think the federal government can print enough money to fill the ocean? That is what the stimulus amounts to. The economy will correct itself eventually, and the sooner the better. If you keep propping it up on printed and borrowed money, it simply has a longer way to fall when all of that money disappears due to our debts being called in. That is reality.

 

[CycloWizard]

And nobody will stop this runaway Government we have?

Where's Hitler?
Where's Nixon?
Where's Perot?

-John

You're the worst spammer I've ever seen on these forums, and that includes all of the Free iPod people. /yourself

 

[Throckmorton]

When will you understand that we've stimulated ourselves into insurmountable debt? Maybe you would think more clearly if you weren't so interested in placing blame on someone and just wanted to fix the problem. I have no interest in Bush or Obama. I do have an interest in the facts. In this case, we have a debt owed by our federal government that is 90% of our GDP. The only growth in GDP in the last several years is from government spending, which comes from borrowing money and is necessarily transient in nature. Do you think the federal government can print enough money to fill the ocean? That is what the stimulus amounts to. The economy will correct itself eventually, and the sooner the better. If you keep propping it up on printed and borrowed money, it simply has a longer way to fall when all of that money disappears due to our debts being called in. That is reality.

So you think we should have stopped spending and started paying back the debt at the worst possible time, an action that would have resulted in a drastically worse economy, even a depression, and much less revenue which would require even more spending reduction? Are you nuts or do you WANT us to become a third world hellhole?

How about we continue deficit spending until the economy picks up again, then worry about cutting the deficit and eventually getting to surplus like with Clinton?

 

[Zorkorist]

You're the worst spammer I've ever seen on these forums, and that includes all of the Free iPod people. /yourself

Keep talking amongst yourself.

-John

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

And how is that different from any other deficit spending? Are you going to demand the interest be added in to every mention of the wars, the farm bill, etc?

How about the cost if there's no stimulus and the economy plunges into a depression? What's the interest on soup lines and people loading up their jalopies to go to California to pick grapes?

So your reasoning for this not costing the amount it will actually cost is that ALL THE OTHER HORRIBLE SPENDING THAT IS RUINING THE COUNTRY also is financed terribly?

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

So you think we should have stopped spending and started paying back the debt at the worst possible time, an action that would have resulted in a drastically worse economy, even a depression, and much less revenue which would require even more spending reduction? Are you nuts or do you WANT us to become a third world hellhole?

How about we continue deficit spending until the economy picks up again, then worry about cutting the deficit and eventually getting to surplus like with Clinton?

Or, considering that deficit spending has never worked and never can work, we stop it. And we cancel the spending that we've passed through congress. Just stop with all the stimulus, right now. Pay back what we can of the loans, right now. Then the recession will end faster, as we won't have to raise taxes and kill more businesses and jobs. We can then... lower taxes! Which actually stimulates the economy.

 

[CycloWizard]

So you think we should have stopped spending and started paying back the debt at the worst possible time, an action that would have resulted in a drastically worse economy, even a depression, and much less revenue which would require even more spending reduction? Are you nuts or do you WANT us to become a third world hellhole?

How about we continue deficit spending until the economy picks up again, then worry about cutting the deficit and eventually getting to surplus like with Clinton?

Apparently that was too difficult, so here's an analogy. At equilibrium, a rubber band undergoes random thermal fluctuations in its shape. These fluctuations are very small. When you apply an external force to the rubber band, these natural fluctuations are dwarfed by the large deformations you are applying. If you stop pulling and hold steady, the rubber band will undergo force relaxations that want to take it back to its equilibrium state, but you prevent it from reaching equilibrium because you still have that external force applied to it. When you increase the force again, at some point, the rubber band will no longer be able to return to its equilibrium size - it now has permanent damage to its structure. A little more force and the rubber band breaks, causing a sharp contraction to its new equilibrium shape.

How does this apply to the economy? The economy has an equilibrium shape which exhibits small fluctuations in size. Government deficit spending is a force which is external to the rational economy. The larger this force becomes, the more distorted the economy becomes. Is it better to let the rubber band contract at a relatively slow rate back to its initial size, or stretch it to the point where it snaps, inflicting a rapid contraction and hurting your fingers in the process?

 

[dank69]

Apparently that was too difficult, so here's an analogy. At equilibrium, a rubber band undergoes random thermal fluctuations in its shape. These fluctuations are very small. When you apply an external force to the rubber band, these natural fluctuations are dwarfed by the large deformations you are applying. If you stop pulling and hold steady, the rubber band will undergo force relaxations that want to take it back to its equilibrium state, but you prevent it from reaching equilibrium because you still have that external force applied to it. When you increase the force again, at some point, the rubber band will no longer be able to return to its equilibrium size - it now has permanent damage to its structure. A little more force and the rubber band breaks, causing a sharp contraction to its new equilibrium shape.

How does this apply to the economy? The economy has an equilibrium shape which exhibits small fluctuations in size. Government deficit spending is a force which is external to the rational economy. The larger this force becomes, the more distorted the economy becomes. Is it better to let the rubber band contract at a relatively slow rate back to its initial size, or stretch it to the point where it snaps, inflicting a rapid contraction and hurting your fingers in the process?

Yes, the economy is exactly like a rubber band. Well done.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Or, considering that deficit spending has never worked and never can work, we stop it. And we cancel the spending that we've passed through congress. Just stop with all the stimulus, right now. Pay back what we can of the loans, right now. Then the recession will end faster, as we won't have to raise taxes and kill more businesses and jobs. We can then... lower taxes! Which actually stimulates the economy.

That's not how Reagan and the Bushies looked at things.

And, no offense. Your Tax Cut Voodoo Economics (and unpaid costs on Wars, DoD build-up, Part D drugs, et al) is what has gotten the US in the mess it is currently in ...

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Yes, the economy is exactly like a rubber band. Well done.

His analogy was a boat load of bull crapola, has Fail written all over it, and does not pass a basic Econ 101 smell test.

Of course, he also believes that those big sub-prime mortgages caused The Great Recession and that unregulated risk and leverage had nothing to do with it.





--

 

[Cuda1447]

Revenue went way down because of the recession. We have to spend money we don't have, otherwise the recession becomes worse. We can't cut spending from what it was previously, otherwise the recession becomes worse. We have two wars to fight, otherwise we fuck over Afghanistan and Iraq.

Go and learn some basic economics, maybe some foreign policy, and then get back to me. Or just pay attention when people are trying to explain this to you on P&N.

I can't believe this mother fucking shit.


You're an Obama supporter, right? So you hate Bush, right? So that means, just a few short years ago you were on here screaming and yelling about how the wars need to end, right?

But now since your home boy is in office, he can do no wrong. He didnt end the wars, so now its good to be there? Come on, mother freaking double standard.

 

[HendrixFan]

about 5 years ago, i had < 10K in savings. over 30K in debt. guess what mortgage amount i got approved for? $355,000. :hmm:

How much was your income? The question was could you get approved for a home loan if your debt to income was at 100%. Surely you did not have a household income of $30k, $30k in debt and got a $355k home loan.

 

[soccerballtux]

Relax...According to this, the real number is currently close to $21 trillion: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100525/cm_csm/303853

and don't forget, the CBO is predicting another another $9 trillion will be added by 2020. That should give us a nice round $30 trillion.

GO USA!

Lol, right. Try another 9T within the next 3 years.

 

[Throckmorton]

I can't believe this mother fucking shit.


You're an Obama supporter, right? So you hate Bush, right? So that means, just a few short years ago you were on here screaming and yelling about how the wars need to end, right?

But now since your home boy is in office, he can do no wrong. He didnt end the wars, so now its good to be there? Come on, mother freaking double standard.

No I wasn't in here screaming and yelling about how the wars need to end... I've never wanted to "pull out".

 

[CycloWizard]

That's not how Reagan and the Bushies looked at things.

And since two wrongs make a right... Oh, nope, they don't.

His analogy was a boat load of bull crapola, has Fail written all over it, and does not pass a basic Econ 101 smell test.

Please, enlighten me as to why my analogy is fail.

Of course, he also believes that those big sub-prime mortgages caused The Great Recession and that unregulated risk and leverage had nothing to do with it.

The sub-prime mortgage problem was the direct result of your precious "regulation," which forced banks to lend to people that weren't deserving by any rational risk assessment. This was obvious from the get-go as it was a government mandate and, therefore, free from the confines of rationality.

 

[dank69]

...

Please, enlighten me as to why my analogy is fail.

...

Nobody will be able to enlighten you, ever.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

That's not how Reagan and the Bushies looked at things.

And, no offense. Your Tax Cut Voodoo Economics (and unpaid costs on Wars, DoD build-up, Part D drugs, et al) is what has gotten the US in the mess it is currently in ...

Where Today's Large Deficits Come From
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities




His analogy was a boat load of bull crapola, has Fail written all over it, and does not pass a basic Econ 101 smell test.

Of course, he also believes that those big sub-prime mortgages caused The Great Recession and that unregulated risk and leverage had nothing to do with it.





--

So your point is that when I say to stop spending during the recession that I am wrong because Bush and Reagan spent during recessions and that I am Bush and Reagan. I got you.

CHANGING THE SUBJECT ALWAYS WORKS!

 

[nick1985]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We have added over 27 billion more already.


SPEND SPEND SPEND!!!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

We have added over 27 billion more already.


SPEND SPEND SPEND!!!

It's called 'stimulating the economy'....get with the program!

 

[nick1985]

It's called 'stimulating the economy'....get with the program!

Its called driving this nation off a cliff. The chickens WILL come home to roost. Only a matter of time now.

 

[Rebel44]

Can i get 10 000 000 please? It wont make any difference to US government anyway...

 

[jman19]

The sub-prime mortgage problem was the direct result of your precious "regulation," which forced banks to lend to people that weren't deserving by any rational risk assessment. This was obvious from the get-go as it was a government mandate and, therefore, free from the confines of rationality.

Sure, the sub-prime mortgage problem was in part a combination of Bush having the GSEs ramp up to meet low income housing targets and the Dem tools in congress blocking reform, but you're being dishonest by ignoring the fact that a very large porition of the problem came from a push for profits from financial institutions and poor regulation of risk.

 

[werepossum]

Sure, the sub-prime mortgage problem was in part a combination of Bush having the GSEs ramp up to meet low income housing targets and the Dem tools in congress blocking reform, but you're being dishonest by ignoring the fact that a very large porition of the problem came from a push for profits from financial institutions and poor regulation of risk.

You honestly think Bush was behind the increased mandates for disadvantaged borrowers?

Sorry, that was insensitive. You honestly feel Bush was behind the increased mandates for disadvantaged borrowers?

 

[jman19]

You honestly think Bush was behind the increased mandates for disadvantaged borrowers?

Sorry, that was insensitive. You honestly feel Bush was behind the increased mandates for disadvantaged borrowers?

What does feeling have to do with anything here?

Bush advocated for more home ownership in the early 2000's. Moron Dems in congress blocked a chance for more reform.

My main issue is that CycloWizard is blaming too much regulation on the crisis which is laughable.