Forum Thread

Stopping the increasing National Debt , and somebody will.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 33 1 2 3 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Living on a credit card is not sustainable. A growing debt liability is a concern of the lender. Eventually the lender will suspend the card and demand repayment. The USA cannot continue to live on other people's money. As other people see we are not making progress to pay our bill, they will cut the card up. The USA needs to cure its gambling addiction and get a job. Live off what we make and sell.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    You're confusing the national debt with private (consumer) debt. They are not the same by any means. The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed public.

    Consumer debt is the debt that people owe when they borrow and get into trouble because the can't afford to repay it. What are you trying to tell us?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I was analogizing the debt that the USA owes to consumer debt. There is no difference in the reality. The countries that we continue to borrow from are effected in exactly the same way that credit card companies are affected by their debtors. The reality is that you cannot keep living off somebody else's money. Countries that hold significant US debt can liquidate that liability any way they want. If the ability of the US to service those securities comes into question then those countries could redeem the debt or sell it. We have debt because we buy more than we sell. We need to regenerate our ability to earn income. If the US doesn't make significant moves to secure that debt or repay it, that will reduce the credit rating. Those countries continue to lend us money not because we are a guaranteed annuity, but because we are too big to fail. When one of those countries decides the US isn't a good investment and moves toward trading the securities in a significant way our economy will start to collapse. That is what I am saying.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    You're confusing the national debt with private (consumer) debt. They are not the same by any means. The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed public.

    Consumer debt is the debt that people owe when they borrow and get into trouble because the can't afford to repay it. What are you trying to tell us?

    pr Wrote: :"The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed".

    Are you saying the 18 trillion dollar national debt is a meaningless figure? If so, pleases explain.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Dallas, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Please read Warren Mosler's book:

    moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoi...

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    pr Wrote:

    You're confusing the national debt with private (consumer) debt. They are not the same by any means. The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed public.

    Consumer debt is the debt that people owe when they borrow and get into trouble because the can't afford to repay it. What are you trying to tell us?

    pr Wrote: :"The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed".

    Are you saying the 18 trillion dollar national debt is a meaningless figure? If so, pleases explain.

    Yes, go to the link above.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    pr Wrote:

    You're confusing the national debt with private (consumer) debt. They are not the same by any means. The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed public.

    Consumer debt is the debt that people owe when they borrow and get into trouble because the can't afford to repay it. What are you trying to tell us?

    pr Wrote: :"The national debt is basically a meaningless figure employed by politicians (mostly Republican conservatives) to scare the under informed".

    Are you saying the 18 trillion dollar national debt is a meaningless figure? If so, pleases explain.

    Yes, go to the link above.
    I don't care if it is "meaningless"; whatever "tax money" is wrongly used for all our wars, waste and inefficiency is not "meaningless" but stupid. Just by having trillions wasted should we be proud of that?
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    No the military should have its budget cut by 75% at least. When we stop attacking others they may stop attacking us.

    But, the national debt debate is meaningless. It's nothing more than political BS by underinformed politicians feeding their even more uninformed constituents. People believe because state must live within a budget as individuals do because they don't understand the US can and does create as much money as it pleases and if anything, this is what makes our economy healthy and strong rather than the other way around. It's a very difficult concept for the typical person to understand (and we are only talking about the US here) but historical it's has been proven as reality.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    the key as mosler notes as well as others is that the us. government controls its currency. if you want to see a mess look at greece, spain, et al who do NOT control their currency. the euro was a massive mistake. unless political blending occurred which would have created a "united states of europe" the concept of the euro was doomed from the outset.

    btw, the largest amount of u.s.federal debt is held internally by the fed, state & local governments, citizens and other governmental agencies such as soc sec, and when we count in how tied to the u.s. and vice versa china is there is no way in hell they will cause upheaval by trying to use debt as a weapon. the communist party of china values stability very highly such action would threaten that stability on a scale they have never seen.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:

    the key as mosler notes as well as others is that the us. government controls its currency. if you want to see a mess look at greece, spain, et al who do NOT control their currency. the euro was a massive mistake. unless political blending occurred which would have created a "united states of europe" the concept of the euro was doomed from the outset.

    btw, the largest amount of u.s.federal debt is held internally by the fed, state & local governments, citizens and other governmental agencies such as soc sec, and when we count in how tied to the u.s. and vice versa china is there is no way in hell they will cause upheaval by trying to use debt as a weapon. the communist party of china values stability very highly such action would threaten that stability on a scale they have never seen.

    I agree that the Euro was a huge mistake; however I'll stick to it, that when the government (any government!) spends its money wisely then the population benefits. In our situation handing out billions to the Pentagon and then hearing they "lost" it without a trace; I guess then you don't control anything; so then the trillions in debt did not return anything to boost living conditions or infrastructure; it just went all in the war/Pentagon garbage bin; you may as well not have printed that money; most of it ended up in the pockets of a few. Which ever way you look at it "budget" systems don't work; ever seen any Government program which came out under budget and gave the money back?
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    As indicated on this thread, "the National Debt is meaningless????", maybe, but more accurately political bantering does treat the roaming figure of national debt as meaningless. It is far from being meaningless, because it can be used against nation where the debt may be called. The debt being called is not imaginary, but a possibility and has grave consequences on America if World Banks and other Nations refuse to provide future loans based on our credit risk. America does need to balance the books and last done was by President Bill Clinton. Ever sense Bill retired from Office, our National Debt has risen more than it ever has. Having a huge national debt does impact our national health economically. Although the dollar is strong and our GNP is producing robust numbers, jobs are numerous, the caretakers of our beautiful nation, I assume are concerned and do not think for one moment the National Debt is meaningless. It's like we are one tragedy away or one paycheck away from disaster in economic fallout. What can America do?

    I read the thread responses where one entered the case for reducing the military costs 75%. Now, that is meaningless and unworthy of intelligent forethought. Reducing military costs impacts millions of jobs and productivity in our nation. There is so much tied to the military complex that reducing the military costs could be that one tragedy that would throw America into a dismal spiral and not have a genuine positive impact to the economy. Someone you know, friend, family or even yourself more likely has a job or community that is based on the success of the military complex. This is a solution that can never be an intelligent reaction to curing the national debt. Maybe a slight reduction rather than a radical reduction would be more appropriate. But whatever reduction in military costs, there will be undesired results. As you desire for less military around the world, reducing military costs could only threatened America , so remember Pearl Harbor, 9-11, and America's ability to aid friendly nations around the world, stopping Hitler, Communism in Eastern Europe, and our best efforts in the Middles East. At best our United States Armed Forces do protect and preserve our national interests here at home and abroad. To remove any funding promoting our Armed Forces is an act for some other nation possible evil, to grow in strength and consider attacking our country. ISIS comes to my mind, immediately. So, whatever decision is made to reduce the national debt, consider the cause and effects.

    All that America can do at this time is to continue on pace and perform due diligence on funding and remove those sneaky add-on's to bills that are not representing all of America's interests, like building a Flight Service Station for Cheney alone. Yes, I remember that one and most of us involved were shaking our heads and worse when years later, all Flight Service Stations were reorganized and Cheney's was decommissioned. The people making these political decisions in Congress needs a good Elizabeth Warren to seek out the trash from the good bill and remove it. Our President needs to perform more line-veto option rather than veto the entire bill. There are good bills and than there are bad bills with all the trash attached to it. The Keystone Pipeline is my current trash to any bill. The Hillary attack fund by Congress on her emails is another. The people of America needs better representation in Congress to remove the trash from all these bills, that's what is raising our national debt.

  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    By cutting the needlessly overly bloated military budget we can start to spend on programs that actually help the citizens and country as a whole. The military should not be the employer of last resort as, unfortunately, it is today!

    You seem to feel the military is too big to fail just like the banks. Well, military spending is most likely the biggest contributor to the debt and the one that provides the least safety to its citizens. Like the police, the military is totally out of control in this country and they both need some serious changes to serve and protect the citizen rather than themselves.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:

    As indicated on this thread, "the National Debt is meaningless????", maybe, but more accurately political bantering does treat the roaming figure of national debt as meaningless. It is far from being meaningless, because it can be used against nation where the debt may be called. The debt being called is not imaginary, but a possibility and has grave consequences on America if World Banks and other Nations refuse to provide future loans based on our credit risk. America does need to balance the books and last done was by President Bill Clinton. Ever sense Bill retired from Office, our National Debt has risen more than it ever has. Having a huge national debt does impact our national health economically. Although the dollar is strong and our GNP is producing robust numbers, jobs are numerous, the caretakers of our beautiful nation, I assume are concerned and do not think for one moment the National Debt is meaningless. It's like we are one tragedy away or one paycheck away from disaster in economic fallout. What can America do?

    I read the thread responses where one entered the case for reducing the military costs 75%. Now, that is meaningless and unworthy of intelligent forethought. Reducing military costs impacts millions of jobs and productivity in our nation. There is so much tied to the military complex that reducing the military costs could be that one tragedy that would throw America into a dismal spiral and not have a genuine positive impact to the economy. Someone you know, friend, family or even yourself more likely has a job or community that is based on the success of the military complex. This is a solution that can never be an intelligent reaction to curing the national debt. Maybe a slight reduction rather than a radical reduction would be more appropriate. But whatever reduction in military costs, there will be undesired results. As you desire for less military around the world, reducing military costs could only threatened America , so remember Pearl Harbor, 9-11, and America's ability to aid friendly nations around the world, stopping Hitler, Communism in Eastern Europe, and our best efforts in the Middles East. At best our United States Armed Forces do protect and preserve our national interests here at home and abroad. To remove any funding promoting our Armed Forces is an act for some other nation possible evil, to grow in strength and consider attacking our country. ISIS comes to my mind, immediately. So, whatever decision is made to reduce the national debt, consider the cause and effects.

    All that America can do at this time is to continue on pace and perform due diligence on funding and remove those sneaky add-on's to bills that are not representing all of America's interests, like building a Flight Service Station for Cheney alone. Yes, I remember that one and most of us involved were shaking our heads and worse when years later, all Flight Service Stations were reorganized and Cheney's was decommissioned. The people making these political decisions in Congress needs a good Elizabeth Warren to seek out the trash from the good bill and remove it. Our President needs to perform more line-veto option rather than veto the entire bill. There are good bills and than there are bad bills with all the trash attached to it. The Keystone Pipeline is my current trash to any bill. The Hillary attack fund by Congress on her emails is another. The people of America needs better representation in Congress to remove the trash from all these bills, that's what is raising our national debt.

    As always you refuse to accept that our Pentagon has squandered billions of dollars (trillions since WWII) for which they can not account for and are lost or used as bribery money (see P.R.' s attachment where the money went t0 (for instance truckloads of saran wrapped billions in Iraq etc.) millions of weapons unaccounted for and plenty of other waste like a building a ship of 13 billion (actual budgeted cost about half) an airplane which is useless, for 400 million a piece, which when ordered was budgeted for about 19o million a piece; which is also way too much; the French and Sweden built much better planes for one fifth of the that price as well with much better aerodynamics and payloads. So wake up AMC, our military nor the Pentagon ever wants to hear the word "efficiency" or "honesty" or "usefulness" or "book keeping" our 999 generals make sure they get their "cut" and keep our wars going in order to satisfy the billionaires or certain industry lobby's. If you think this wasteful industry provides a lot of jobs; sure, but for the wrong reasons. The same jobs can be had if all that wasted money would have been spent instead on infrastructure in this land. Open up your eyes for a change and accept reality; glorifying these corrupt crooks and their secret/slush funds without any decent accountancy is utterly naïve.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Start ups are declining, the stock market lists half as many companies than it did 10 years ago and trade deficit continuing to widen are all signs of declining credit worhtiness. I have not seen anywhere where this is listed as a positive sign. In fact most articles cite a possible trend in unloading US securities. This is a reality for the US debt. Debt is good in the beginning because it shows confidence in the dollar, but now support for servicing the debt is declining. I would call Mosler more of a satirical humorous than a solid economist. The fact that he supports Bernie seems to indicate that his true feelings may support positive ideas. I think most if not all economists are more influenced by the concentrated power of the .001 than they are of presenting positive solutions. I don't see many demands for reregulating the stockmarket and banks. And no protest for the ignoring of the post 2008 laws. I have a lot of respect for Reich but he dances around any real solutions. Maybe because of his ties to Clinton.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    That begs the question "What other country in the world today is prepared to take over the role the USA plays in world finance today?" China, Russia, EU, not likely.

    Thee more pressing concerns this country faces today are, in no particular order, religion, the military, the police, an ignorant and self serving Congress, a voter base of undereducated numbskulls who are fear and bigotry of everyone and everything that doesn't look, act and sound like themselves.

    I'm sure Dutch and others can add to the list but this is a good start.