Can you honestly say the Republicans will be on a Jihad to face the Debt if/when an "R" ever gets in the WH?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What Should President Obama Focus on in his Second Term?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Can you honestly say the Republicans will be on a Jihad to face the Debt if/when an "R" ever gets in the WH?
Texashiker
Lifer
Some of the debt can never be paid back.
For example, baby boomers have paid into the system their whole lives, but for some reason social security is going broke?
What happened to the money the baby boomers paid into the system? That money was robbed and spent on other things.
How are we supposed to be able to repay the investments of an entire generation?
Our roads and bridges are falling apart. How are we supposed to maintain something when states are filing for bankruptcy protection?
Absolutely not. They havent been a small govt minded fiscally reponsible party since Clinton was in office. But that only goes more to my point that expanding our spending means that new spending wont be repaid.
Jaskalas
Lifer
WW2 is a great example of destroying the rest of the planet and leaving ONLY our industry untouched by the ravages of world war. If similar conditions are what you advocate now...
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Proven right? What are you smoking? Perhaps you missed the negative fourth quarter GDP numbers announced last month?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/b...ctedly-contracted-in-fourth-quarter.html?_r=0
We got limited short-term benefit from stimulus spending which likely prolonged our recovery. When interest rates start rising again...the true impact of this short-sighted strategy will become quite apparent as interest payments start eating us alive.
Last edited:
So you are in agreement with me then. New spending financed by debt isnt going to be repaid.
Jaskalas
Lifer
They simply blame the Republicans for that, we're standing in the way of economic recovery.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Sorry, but the entire concept of insurance destabilizes economies and promotes wealth concentration (which further destabilizes economies). Further, it adds transaction layers without physical commodity, both of which are anathema to stability.
Risk is part of life, and the ONLY people financially responsible for any given thing are those directly involved in it. Everyone must accept individual responsibility in all things, and pay the costs directly.
Texashiker
Lifer
Yes, that is correct.
How are we supposed to pay social security back for an entire generation of baby boomer investments?
How are we supposed to pay anything back with no jobs to support the working middle class?
The governments answer is to print more money that is not backed by anything is insane.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
Of course they blame Republicans...who else do they have to blame? :whiste:
And that negative GDP number came from excessive contraction in government spending.
He was proven right again. As for prolonging our recovery, we need only look to Europe to see the failure of austerity in a depression. Proven right... again.
Interest rates will rise when our economy improves...and thus our ability to pay.
This is not correct. The trade sector of our economy wasn't that large. Our growth was mostly internal.
FerrelGeek
Diamond Member
No they won't. It's all about their greed and lust for power. Doll out the .gov candy to their base and their big $$$ supporters.
Texashiker
Lifer
Do you know what is missing from your statement? Private investment.
GDP should not be affected by the governments tax and spend policy.
GDP should be based off business, and not government business.
When is AT&T, boeing, GM, apple,,,, going to open factories here in the US to increase our GDP?
Jaskalas
Lifer
Interesting conflict... if the numbers / examples were clearly before us then it would win you the argument over an age old belief.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
In addition to the recent tax increases, significant federal spending cuts are scheduled to take effect March 1...sounds like a recipe for double-dip recession to me.
Which would be proving Paul Krugman even more right. We are reducing our deficit way too fast.
The last quarter GDP number is likely to be revised upwards btw. We will most likely have seen some very small growth.
Bring back all the troops like you said you were going to do and quit interfering in other countries. We are still protecting Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, Italy, France, Germany, and other parts of Europe and Asia. Let them kill each other in their civil wars.
If countries like China and Russia are supporting these rogue terrorists nations, dont trade with them. Put tarriffs on their goods.
If countries like China and Russia are supporting these rogue terrorists nations, dont trade with them. Put tarriffs on their goods.
werepossum
Elite Member
I don't believe that is true. While exports took a nosedive right after the war due to the cancellation of war materials orders and as we cut off the USSR, exports increased considerably over time. Also, one huge factor during that boom was that government spending drastically decreased with the end of the war. Now we're in a mode where we're spending basically TARP and the stimulus every year, plus we're on baseline budgeting where austerity is defined as an increase still in excess of inflation.
The graph runs from 1948 through January 2013. The X axis is labeled from 1/40 to 1/2013, the Y axis from 10 to 10,000. Note that this graph is logarithmic, not linear. Here's the link, which shows the axes labeliing which oddly is not part of the image. http://forecast-chart.com/graph-us-exports.html
Anyone who wishes can look up total spending. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_2013USrn Federal government FY2013 spending is on line to be $3.8 trillion, roughly double what we spent as recently as 2001. That's roughly $12K per head. Hard to imagine our problem being our federal government spending too little money.
Werepossum, it's not that exports didn't go up, it's that they didn't comprise that large a share of our economy. They still don't. The vast majority of economic activity in the US is internal to our borders.
As for government spending, most of that is just a logical outcome. Simply accounting for inflation and population growth we should have increased spending by about 42%. That's just by doing absolutely nothing. This of course doesn't count increasing costs from aging demographics, specific recession fueled social safety net spending, etc.
As for government spending, most of that is just a logical outcome. Simply accounting for inflation and population growth we should have increased spending by about 42%. That's just by doing absolutely nothing. This of course doesn't count increasing costs from aging demographics, specific recession fueled social safety net spending, etc.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
