Well, for one thing it's not $3,000.00 it's $330,000,000,000.00. How many days at work will it take for you to pay it off?
Zero.
Homeowners can't do this because the interest rates don't let it happen, but the federal government is able to do this because its interest rates are nearly equal to inflation. But in the analogy I presented earlier, you would refinance the new value of the home, $103,000, which returns to you the $3000 you spent in interest for the year.
So let's recap: At the beginning of the year, you owed the market value of a new home. At the end of the year, you owed the market value of a new home. You've lived in the home for a year without paying a dime.
Again, your understanding of debt is valid for consumer-grade debt, because the interest on consumer-grade debt is invariably higher than inflation rates. Lending to consumers can be a highly lucrative investment practice. It can also be exceedingly risky.
Your understanding of debt is not valid for government debt. Paying down government debt in the same way that we should be paying down consumer debt is doing nothing but flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet. Lending to the government is NOT a highly lucrative practice T-bills are a very stable, low-risk investment.
So how is it that the government is wasting money servicing this debt when nobody is getting rich on the other side of it?
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The $330 billion has to be included in the yearly budget, comes out of the taxpayers pockets and buys no goods and services. It's a waste to those of us that pay taxes, maybe not to the 47% that don't. The growing debt insures that future generations will continue to pay it, even if a balanced budget is achieved the cost to service the debt remains.
Progressives use a narrow and constrained model to suggest that inflation takes care of overspending. Their model seems to be based upon an assumption that the government is purchasing something that is not only of value but even increasing in value. Not only is this not the case but we don't live in a closed end economic society. The reality of our economics include a congress that is self serving, crony capitalism (and socialism), Ponzi schemes and shadow banking (including hyper rehypothecation). Financing and refinancing money that is spent frivolously doesn't even come close to the constrained model touted to prove the progressive concept of economics.
The $330 billion has to be included in the yearly budget, comes out of the taxpayers pockets and buys no goods and services. It's a waste to those of us that pay taxes, maybe not to the 47% that don't. The growing debt insures that future generations will continue to pay it, even if a balanced budget is achieved the cost to service the debt remains.
You're going with the "It doesn't buy anything" argument again? That's just silly.
By this argument, a house payment is a waste. House payments have to be included in the yearly budget, and that house payment buys "No goods and services", at least not any comparable to what you're allowing for.
Except that it does, or rather, it did. It bought a house.
In the federal budget, that money was borrowed at ludicrously low interest rates, used to purchase things that our elected officials decided we needed. Schools, roads, rail, bridges, the space program, things that grow markets and make it easier to move products and services to them, weapons to protect them, etc. We are reaping the benefits from past government spending. That spending has increased our GDP, increased our tax base by far more than 330 billion dollars. Had we NOT spent that money in the past, we would have a far weaker economy today.
Now, this has been explained to you multiple times. You've never offered a counter argument against any of these points, and yet you continue to make the false claims. You can no longer claim to simply "not know" - you can no longer claim simple, excusable ignorance on this.
I've tried to help you stop making stupid arguments. Yes, debt causes problems, but none of what you have presented to date is in any way a valid problem. I don't know if you're just trolling me or if you honestly believe what you're saying, but I'm done arguing with you, and I'm adding you to my ignore list.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Except that it does, or rather, it did. It bought a house.
That is worth less than the balance due.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
In the federal budget, that money was borrowed at ludicrously low interest rates, used to purchase things that our elected officials decided we needed.
Interest rates weren't as low under Bush. The operative here is "officials decided we needed" such as wars and etc. The goodies you cite are not the bulk of the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
We are reaping the benefits from past government spending.
We are reaping, it's just not benefits.
The candid conservative gives credit where credit is due.
Quote:
It may come as a shock to conservatives, but Obama is right about inheriting a mess. Much of our economic collapse was created by Bush and other Republicans behaving badly. Their socialistic drug plan, military adventurism in two corrupt countries, and persistent borrow and spend policies were expensive Republican nonsense. Bush and his pretend conservative cronies squandered a six year opportunity when they had control of the presidency, house, and senate. Apologies to Republican loyalists, but being the lesser of evils still puts you in the middle of evil. As you might guess, the story doesn?t end with a halo for Obama. Democrats took congress two years before he was elected. They spent like crazy and then Obama jumped in with his own hope and change fantasies. PBO?s right about inheriting a mess, but conveniently forgets he volunteered, promised the moon, and then made everything worse.
Linear Mode
