NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2613135&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


Do you agree or disagree that the economy is not in a positive long term position? Have the short term gains of the Bush economy hurt the long terms goals of the country? Please discuss.

:fluffle:

You can't spend like Paris Hilton and expect the inheritence to stay solvent.

http://www.testing.com/blog/images/debt.jpg

I think if we stay on our present course we will be in trouble, but that all depends on whether or not our spending will continue to remain at elevated levels. However, I doubt we will continue to spend at elevated levels far enough in to the future to have that kind of long-term damage.

I mean, the only reason why spending slowed and the budget was balanced during the 90's was because the Soviet Union collapsed and the Gulf War was over, so we no longer had to spend like we did in the 1980's or early 1990's. It's a pretty clear sign that elevated spending eventually comes to an end and the budget will balance itself if you control spending. If, for example, a similar "end" were to occur for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, our spending growth would decline and revenues would

Revenues are growing very quickly and faster than spending, so if we were to control our spending for another prolonged period of time (as we did in the 90's), the fiscal situation could be fairly easily reversed and improved. However, if we continue to spend more and more we will not improve the situation and economic difficulty will be very likely.

http://www.testing.com/blog/images/debt.jpg
Well, will ya look at that? hm,hm,hm,hm...

So, anyway, yeah, we're teetering on the brink of another major recession at least as bad as the 1970s. The chart notwithstanding, American spending, both personal and national, is so out of control, that I am not confident a change of government will have any effect this time.

http://www.testing.com/blog/images/debt.jpg

Yeah.... But Clinton got a BJ.

Yeah.... But Clinton got a BJ.

And that's what makes him the best President of the last fifty years. ;)

Yeah.... But Clinton got a BJ.

Quick, send Monica to the oval office!

All economies will have their short-term gains wiped out by long-term effects by any sort of artificial credit expansion and lowering of interest rates- it really doesn't matter which president you have.

And that's what makes him the best President of the last fifty years. ;)


Sorry, I'll have to disagree on this one.



JFK, after all, got his hummers from Marilyn.

He wins.

I blame global warming. The debt and greenhouse gases follow nearly the same curve.

I think if we stay on our present course we will be in trouble, but that all depends on whether or not our spending will continue to remain at elevated levels. However, I doubt we will continue to spend at elevated levels far enough in to the future to have that kind of long-term damage.

I mean, the only reason why spending slowed and the budget was balanced during the 90's was because the Soviet Union collapsed and the Gulf War was over, so we no longer had to spend like we did in the 1980's or early 1990's. It's a pretty clear sign that elevated spending eventually comes to an end and the budget will balance itself if you control spending. If, for example, a similar "end" were to occur for the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, our spending growth would decline and revenues would

Revenues are growing very quickly and faster than spending, so if we were to control our spending for another prolonged period of time (as we did in the 90's), the fiscal situation could be fairly easily reversed and improved. However, if we continue to spend more and more we will not improve the situation and economic difficulty will be very likely.

Even if revenues are growing as quickly as your imagination implies there's still a problem with debt. You see, anyone who understands basic interest rates will undersetand that we'll still be in trouble even if we were to lower our spending. Here's an easy example. You are spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave and rack up an extra 10,000 a month for 12 months. Now you've just spent 120,000 in 12 months and we'll give you an easy interest rate like %12.99 It seems to make sense as consumer rates are hovering around that level right now. This interst compounds monthly and you must make payments towards your debt each month (not put it off like the fed gov does). You lower you spending by a whopping %40 and are now only spending 6k a month. Now you have an extra 2k a month to pay off your debt. 120k *.1299=15,588 in interest along without touching principal. Let's assume your income was 120k. So in total your payments towards interest on what you "borrowed" for the year would be 15,588*12=187,056+6k in current spending per month or 72,000. Your budget shortfall the next year is now 139,056. Add that to your principal and you have 259,056. Let's say your income triples to 360,000 this new year. You're still only spending that 6k a month. Your interest on your principal is now 403,816.49 + 6k a month at 72,000= 475,816.49 and you're paying 360,000... Unless you drastically reduce expenditures, almost to zero and increase your income 10 fold each year you'll never recover. Read the article.

Sorry, I'll have to disagree on this one.



JFK, after all, got his hummers from Marilyn.

He wins.

Okay, strictly on the blowjob scale, JFK is the winner. :D

The problem with GAO predictions is that they assume that economic trends will continue in perpetuity. The great projected budget surplus everyone was crowing about in the late 90s was primarily because the GAO assumed that the economic boom from the tech bubble would continue at its peak forever.

Hopefully some fiscally conservative people will get into power – not likely, most politicians spend money like crazy because it benefits them directly while saving money is indirect. Why keep spending low if you are going to be vilified for causing economic hardship while your successor claims the benefits?

If spending was cut and the budget balanced, the debt doesn’t really matter so much at the moment - though it will need to be dealt with in the long-term. The key is to drastically cut spending now. Of course the problem come in of what do you cut.

Unfortunately Medicare and Social Security are the third-rail of politics. They will not get any meaningful reform as any politician who makes a real effort is committing political suicide.

Long-term problems are looming on the horizon, which no politician is willing to tackle because it does not win votes, only looses them. Issues like gay marriage or abortion get the press because that is what idiotic evangelicals consider to be the most pressing issues of the government.

I can see countless ways for the government to save money by getting its nose out of where it doesn’t belong. Were the government to stop giving out subsidies for everything, not only would it save a lot of money but the markets would be more efficient as well. Simplifying the tax code is something which would not only help to eliminate tax shelters and loopholes, but increase collections and reduce the costs to the economy. Removing trade barriers would both boost the economy and cut the amount of time government offices had to deal with trade issues. There are countless ways to cut the government down to size – cut it back to what it was originally intended and you will see a much simpler and cost-effective government.

Voters don’t seem to care though. They would rather vote based on how often a candidate thanks god, how a candidate feels about abortion, or how politically correct they can be.

There seems to be nowhere for someone fiscally conservative left to go – what I would love to see is a moderately libertarian party develop. The Libertarian party is too out of step to become acceptable to mainstream America, but I wish there was a party to help get Americans pointed in the right direction.

Lifetime tax rates.

There is a word all young Americans better learn, and learn soon. How does an average 60% sound to you?

You'll be paying to pay back this debt, you'll be paying to finance whatever new zany schemes the US Government cooks up, you'll be paying for old people, sick people, and so on and so forth. Oh, and above that every one of you will also be paying off your private debt.

Particularly the fact that you guys will be paying for baby boomers and ex-hippies should comfort you.

Theory: The current administration is happy to drive the country towards ruin on the theory that economic disaster will show most clearly during an opposition presidency.

Hmmmm ... and this doesn't even take into account other shocks the American economy is in for ... peak oil, climate change, water shortages as the Oglalla acquifier dries up ...

Theory: The current administration is happy to drive the country towards ruin on the theory that economic disaster will show most clearly during an opposition presidency.

That' s why the Democrats should run a dud in 2008. Save the big guns for 2012.

That' s why the Democrats should run a dud in 2008. Save the big guns for 2012.

I'm almost, note to all, ALMOST, be tempted to let Bush stay in power until 2012. I think he's getting off easy proverbally arse raping the country and then getting to run away while his disaster takes place. Hell, I'm going to print up my signs for Jeb right now ;) :eek:

The problem with debt is interest. Interest service on the national debt is taking up a larger and larger percentage of the budget. The more interest we pay (which we have to pay in order to avoid defaulting on the underlying debt), the less funds available for the rest of the pie. Were the US debt free, we COULD address the Social Security/Medicare and health care situation. Probably not an immediate solution, but a step-by-step plan.

$100,000, being spent on Iraq, EVERY SECOND. That is no joke...

Every Single US citizens owes At lest 1,500. At this current moment to pay for that bloody mess. Fuck the republicans, fuck them all and all the shit they stand for, they stand for nothing but pain. They're nothing but grown up Emo kids. Any registered Republican should be the only ones to pay for the war. They're the ones that wanted it, they can freakin pay for it.

Even if revenues are growing as quickly as your imagination implies there's still a problem with debt.

Revenues are growing quickly; it's an undeniable fact that revenues are growing at very fast rates relative to GDP growth or inflation. The problem is, that fast growth is just bringing us back to where we were prior to the tax cuts in nominal terms, which means even more growth will be required to recover revenues to the point they would have been without tax cuts.

-snip-

Effectively, yes. We're living on borrowed time and on the goodwill of our creditors. If we make a huge about face and begin to pay down our debt and fund our entitlements, we'll make some progress and possible stave off or mitigate the inevitable. If we don't, we're screwed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2613135&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312


Do you agree or disagree that the economy is not in a positive long term position? Have the short term gains of the Bush economy hurt the long terms goals of the country? Please discuss.


bush got his cronies rich...whats new?

clintoon didn't?

they are all whores...i will say that bush's tax cuts,aside from him giving them to his boys..helped the economy...we will pay for it down the road...but who cares...we live inthe now..lol...my kids will pay for it.
no different then clintons cuts and social pograms...some one pays for it...period.

thats why i love capitalism...both party's can whore themselves out...and make our kids pay for it..and they just keep passing it along.
may as well spur the economy...like the rich repubs do..it helps the economy...rather then the dems ass backward approach.

the dems remind me of someone fixing a leaking boat...let the thing sink allready...

the repugs do the opposite,let rich fucks get rich...but it at least helps the little guy.
trickle down economics...rather then...high taxes for nothing...stagnates the economy....and acomplishes nothing,but making poor (well middle class) even poorer.

Theory: The current administration is happy to drive the country towards ruin on the theory that economic disaster will show most clearly during an opposition presidency.

Just part of the "Starve the Beast" economic strategy. If they bankrupt the nation, then no matter who is in power, they will have to end social spending. Despicable but true. It's an integral part of mainstream "conservative" thought now. http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp

"The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus "incredibly positive news" because it would put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."

Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the "lucky ducky" argument.

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage.""

Just part of the "Starve the Beast" economic strategy. If they bankrupt the nation, then no matter who is in power, they will have to end social spending. Despicable but true. It's an integral part of mainstream "conservative" thought now. http://www.wordspy.com/words/starvethebeast.asp

"The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus "incredibly positive news" because it would put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."

Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the "lucky ducky" argument.

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage.""
When I move to Ireland next fall for a year... I think I might stay for seventy.

When I move to Ireland next fall for a year... I think I might stay for seventy.

Take me with you. Pleeeeeeeeeeeease? :)

More fun with numbers (http://zfacts.com/p/480.html)

Unfortunately Medicare and Social Security are the third-rail of politics. They will not get any meaningful reform as any politician who makes a real effort is committing political suicide.

Lifetime tax rates.

There is a word all young Americans better learn, and learn soon. How does an average 60% sound to you?

You'll be paying to pay back this debt, you'll be paying to finance whatever new zany schemes the US Government cooks up, you'll be paying for old people, sick people, and so on and so forth. Oh, and above that every one of you will also be paying off your private debt.

Particularly the fact that you guys will be paying for baby boomers and ex-hippies should comfort you

I see no bigger problem in America than the fact that the baby-boomer generation seems perfectly willing to shit all over their children's futures to ensure that they get all those entitlements.

The AARP will lead us to the downfall of this country...mark my words.

This issue is just one of the many reasons why I don't plan to stay in this country any longer than is feasible.

I blame global warming. The debt and greenhouse gases follow nearly the same curve.

Both of which are directly related to the number of pirates in the world.

Think about this one -- all those baby boomers with Individual Retirement Accounts are allowed to make deductions starting at 59½, but are required to start taking them out by 70½ years of age. In 2016 or so, the first baby boomers turn 70. Seven hundred thousand more people starting to make required withdrawals. Selling off stocks and mutual funds and bonds and such. The year after that, the 1947ers turn 70 and they're going to start selling, too. This'll go on.

What happens when millions of people all try to dump stock at the same time? (Just food for thought.)

Wow, looks like fruit makes a better long term store for wealth than the dollar. At least I could sell the rotten fruit as compost.

Though the figures in Liuzzo's analogy confuse me? Looks like the borrower is paying 12.99% per month, not year.

The US government (in 2003) had a debt of 6.8 trillion, receipts of 1.8 trillion, outlays of 2.2 trillion and a deficit of 0.4 trillion. In 2006 the US government spent 0.4 trillion on interest repayments (the deficit is equal to yearly interest on the debt?) on a debt of 8.5 trillion.

Over the period 93-03 outlays increased 54%, and receipts by 55%. Effectively, from simple number crunching, it will be nigh on impossible for the US to stabalise its debts, and therefore its future economy.

What this can be interpreted as meaning is that the US is going the way of the USSR, only much more slowly. It cannot remain a military hegemon if it wishes to ensure its long term economic survival. The US may well physically be able to project force into several theatres around the world, but it is not economically capable of sustaining this machine, even in peacetime.

Hopefully someone will be able to make sense of all that.

Wow, looks like fruit makes a better long term store for wealth than the dollar. At least I could sell the rotten fruit as compost.

Though the figures in Liuzzo's analogy confuse me? Looks like the borrower is paying 12.99% per month, not year.

The US government (in 2003) had a debt of 6.8 trillion, receipts of 1.8 trillion, outlays of 2.2 trillion and a deficit of 0.4 trillion. In 2006 the US government spent 0.4 trillion on interest repayments (the deficit is equal to yearly interest on the debt?) on a debt of 8.5 trillion.

Over the period 93-03 outlays increased 54%, and receipts by 55%. Effectively, from simple number crunching, it will be nigh on impossible for the US to stabalise its debts, and therefore its future economy.

What this can be interpreted as meaning is that the US is going the way of the USSR, only much more slowly. It cannot remain a military hegemon if it wishes to ensure its long term economic survival. The US may well physically be able to project force into several theatres around the world, but it is not economically capable of sustaining this machine, even in peacetime.

Hopefully someone will be able to make sense of all that.

Made perfect sense...military reduction is something I've been in favor of for over a decade.

Of course, if I had my way, there wouldn't be a single U.S. armed service member in any foreign country ('cept Naval vessels in transit)...but that's just me.

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but it's the Government Accounting Office, not "Accountability", Mr. Crenson.

Not to be a spelling Nazi, but it's the Government Accounting Office, not "Accountability", Mr. Crenson.
It's a good thing you don't want to be a "nazi" about it, because it actually IS "Accountability." They are the Government Accountability Office. Please see their site:

http://www.gao.gov/

Quick, send Monica to the oral office!

Edited for truthery.

And really, it only makes sense that we're screwed. Massive deficit spending is good for short term problems, but not so as a long term plan. But meh. I just wanted to make my edit, really.

Eliminate all entitlements.
Of course, this is what is going to happen anyway. Governments, both Democrat and Republican, will NEVER raise taxes to the levels required to fix the imbalance, and in all likelihood, they won't cut benefits either. So the US government will keep tottering along until judgement day (not the religious one) - and when that time comes, it will have no choice but to eliminate entitlements altogether.