There is no "debt" crisis. There was/is a "debt ceiling" crisis. Ireland is suffering from a debt crisis. Greece is suffering from a debt crisis. Their debts, as a percentage of their GDP and/or per capita, are vastly larger than our own, as are a lot of other nations that are not generally considered to be suffering from a "debt crisis".
The "debt ceiling crisis" was entirely manufactured by house teapublicans
It might be nice if you read up on the Great Depression and what was tried to alleviate it. Repeating tea thug mantras isn't economics.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
There is no "debt" crisis. There was/is a "debt ceiling" crisis. Ireland is suffering from a debt crisis. Greece is suffering from a debt crisis. Their debts, as a percentage of their GDP and/or per capita, are vastly larger than our own, as are a lot of other nations that are not generally considered to be suffering from a "debt crisis".
The "debt ceiling crisis" was entirely manufactured by house teapublicans
It might be nice if you read up on the Great Depression and what was tried to alleviate it. Repeating tea thug mantras isn't economics.
Just brilliant, I am happy to learn that an unpayable debt is not a crisis. That means Obama won't have to let a crisis go to waste.
I am so disillusioned I won't even buy Bama peanut butter. Meanwhile keep up the vilification, with some it will actually have influence.
Just brilliant, I am happy to learn that an unpayable debt is not a crisis. That means Obama won't have to let a crisis go to waste.
I am so disillusioned I won't even buy Bama peanut butter. Meanwhile keep up the vilification, with some it will actually have influence.
we can pay it, we just have to raise taxes on the rich a little bit..... in no way is it unpayable, you are pretending a crisis exists where it does not, the typical republican strategy. where was the crisis when the last republican raised the debt limit 7 TIMES!
we can pay it, we just have to raise taxes on the rich a little bit..... in no way is it unpayable, you are pretending a crisis exists where it does not, the typical republican strategy. where was the crisis when the last republican raised the debt limit 7 TIMES!
Both democrats and republicans got us into this mess so bashing and laying blame solves nothing. Obama owns it now and is seemingly in over his head. I haven't really seen the math on the Connie Mack plan, but it sounds too simple. A mortgage calculator shows that it would take more than 50 years of balanced budgets and $600 billion in yearly payment to resolve. Those who say 36% of revenue is a sustainable debt level are not considering a balanced budget. Does the Connie Mack plan address debt or just deficit? Anyone with facts and figures out there?
Both democrats and republicans got us into this mess so bashing and laying blame solves nothing. Obama owns it now and is seemingly in over his head. I haven't really seen the math on the Connie Mack plan, but it sounds too simple. A mortgage calculator shows that it would take more than 50 years of balanced budgets and $600 billion in yearly payment to resolve. Those who say 36% of revenue is a sustainable debt level are not considering a balanced budget. Does the Connie Mack plan address debt or just deficit? Anyone with facts and figures out there?
we had a surplus until the republicans took control and doubled our deficit, we were completely on track to solve this issue (for all purposes it was solved, even if we didn't drastically pay it down, just not increasing it while paying down a little goes a long way as our GDP goes up and it will eventually become trivial) but then the republicans came along, said we could cut taxes but it was ok, the increased tax revenue would make up for it and we would still have a surplus.....
where is that surplus we had??? which party is to blame.
don't give me the crap they are both to blame. It WAS solved.
a mortgage calculator doesn't work for government debt, it's not a realisticly similar scenario.
we had a surplus until the republicans took control and doubled our deficit, we were completely on track to solve this issue (for all purposes it was solved, even if we didn't drastically pay it down, just not increasing it while paying down a little goes a long way as our GDP goes up and it will eventually become trivial) but then the republicans came along, said we could cut taxes but it was ok, the increased tax revenue would make up for it and we would still have a surplus.....
where is that surplus we had??? which party is to blame.
don't give me the crap they are both to blame. It WAS solved.
a mortgage calculator doesn't work for government debt, it's not a realisticly similar scenario.
The crap is that it wasn't really solved, if you look carefully the debt rose during the Clinton years. The discrepancy was the intra-government loans, but that is not to say that the pres and the congress did not perform far better than Obama . Yep debt is debt and calculators work the same, in fact the 36% recommendation is cited by economists for both households and the government. The difference is that households plan to pay, but the government is content just to service the loan. The government thinks just servicing the loan is bad for households but doesn't heed its own advice.
Both democrats and republicans got us into this mess so bashing and laying blame solves nothing. Obama owns it now and is seemingly in over his head. I haven't really seen the math on the Connie Mack plan, but it sounds too simple. A mortgage calculator shows that it would take more than 50 years of balanced budgets and $600 billion in yearly payment to resolve. Those who say 36% of revenue is a sustainable debt level are not considering a balanced budget. Does the Connie Mack plan address debt or just deficit? Anyone with facts and figures out there?
Ok, I'll try a different method.
Suppose you have a loan of $100,000 at 0% interest. You have $100,000 worth of gold sitting in a safety deposit box. How do you pay off this debt?
If you cash in the gold today, you can pay off the debt entirely. If you wait a year, the gold will maintain its real value, but its dollar value will increase due to inflation. The debt is still $100,000. You can now cash in that gold and the difference between the dollar value and the $100,000 is extra money in your pocket.
Now, suppose that the debt had simple 3% interest. At the end of the year, you would owe $103,000. Suppose that the interest rate is 4%. At the end of the year, your gold would be worth $104,000.
Complicating it a bit, it makes more sense to make the minimum payments on our federal-level debts, as the longer we stretch them out, the less real value we pay out.
Again, the interest rate that the government pays is very close to inflation rates. As long as that is true, it doesn't make sense for the government to actually pay off the debt, unless needed to maintain or improve credit rating.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The crap is that it wasn't really solved, if you look carefully the debt rose during the Clinton years. The discrepancy was the intra-government loans, but that is not to say that the pres and the congress did not perform far better than Obama . Yep debt is debt and calculators work the same, in fact the 36% recommendation is cited by economists for both households and the government. The difference is that households plan to pay, but the government is content just to service the loan. The government thinks just servicing the loan is bad for households but doesn't heed its own advice.
WHAT INTEREST RATE DO HOUSEHOLDS PAY? WHAT INTEREST RATE DOES THE GOVERNMENT PAY? The reason the government thinks just servicing the loan is bad for households is because the interest rate significantly exceeds the inflation rate; the longer you take to pay it off, the more real value it takes to pay. The same is not true of government debts, a fact that has been explained to you for weeks now and one that you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of.
SMART HOUSEHOLD FINANCING DOES NOT SCALE UP TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The crap is that it wasn't really solved, if you look carefully the debt rose during the Clinton years. The discrepancy was the intra-government loans, but that is not to say that the pres and the congress did not perform far better than Obama . Yep debt is debt and calculators work the same, in fact the 36% recommendation is cited by economists for both households and the government. The difference is that households plan to pay, but the government is content just to service the loan. The government thinks just servicing the loan is bad for households but doesn't heed its own advice.
i suggest you look closer, clinton inherited a deficit and each year worked to reduce deficit spending, so yes the total deficit grew, but deficit spending decreased and the budget by the time he left (if continued) would have left a surplus for bush. republicans can't say the same thing, they have all increased deficit spending and obviously the deficit with no plan to ever reduce the deficit, in fact it wasn't that long ago they said the deficit spending we had was healthy.
Linear Mode
