The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
The US government spent hundreds of millions on Afghan health clinics it's not sure it can find
I can find dozens more examples that prove there is no shortage of money, just a shortage of responsible spending and oversight.
I can find dozens more examples that prove there is no shortage of money, just a shortage of responsible spending and oversight.
Mullan Transportation, LLC.
419-410-3057
Advertiser
We are looking for a SOLO Tractor Driver with CDL A . You can start right now with our quick and remote orientation. Driver receives 60% of the Linehaul plus 100% of the Fuel Surcharge. Driver pays for Fuel. Truck has a Carrier APU to save you money while stopped. Drivers averaging $1,300 - $1, 500 per week after fuel. Line haul rate is $1. ... Apply Today!
Debt is a necessary evil [how many of us could pay cash for a house? Or even an education?] that the Republicans publicly rail against, but do their share of multiplying. Except they prefer spending the money for the military [and not even the troops - just the flashy toys and secret 'black ops' stuff] over spending it on things that benefit regular [middle class & the poor] people.
Here's a radical idea [you're surprised I'd suggest that, right?] let's stop bombing other countries, only to rebuild what we destroyed. We'd save money on both ends [not to mention people's lives] so win/win.
Here's a radical idea [you're surprised I'd suggest that, right?] let's stop bombing other countries, only to rebuild what we destroyed. We'd save money on both ends [not to mention people's lives] so win/win.
There's certainly a lot of wasteful spending by out government, including that given to USAID, but the link you provided was nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations that were successfully refuted by USAID and others. Just thought you should know that.
Got it. That was just the first one I came across - but as you say, there's plenty of wasteful spending to go after, but oddly, the Republicans aren't saying anything on that subject. [Unless it's regulations - which are tantamount to the same thing, in their view.]
Umm??? No. We are broke. The credit card is maxed out. Almost 19 trillion in debt with 60 trillion already committed.
There is crazy spending everywhere, but that doesn't equal having money. The only extra money available is what we keep printing. We aren't far from half of all taxes collected will be just going for the interest on the debt.
Yeah, we got tons of money. lmao.
There is crazy spending everywhere, but that doesn't equal having money. The only extra money available is what we keep printing. We aren't far from half of all taxes collected will be just going for the interest on the debt.
Yeah, we got tons of money. lmao.
Umm??? No. We are broke. The credit card is maxed out. Almost 19 trillion in debt with 60 trillion already committed.
There is crazy spending everywhere, but that doesn't equal having money. The only extra money available is what we keep printing. We aren't far from half of all taxes collected will be just going for the interest on the debt.
Yeah, we got tons of money. lmao.
Income [from taxes, fees, licenses, permits, etc] is the other half of the equation, and one might suspect the focus on spending is meant to deflect attention from the egregious abuses on that side. Especially among 'not for profit' companies, and 'charitable' organizations that exist to provide a nice income for a few, and precious little for anyone else. [The misleadingly named 'Center for Medical Progress' comes to mind]
The first two quotes are typical of so many people in this country that (a) think just because they have credit cards and are able to make the make minimum payments they've got "plenty of money", and (b) equate government spending and debt with personal spending and debt.Umm??? No. We are broke. The credit card is maxed out. Almost 19 trillion in debt with 60 trillion already committed.
There is crazy spending everywhere, but that doesn't equal having money. The only extra money available is what we keep printing. We aren't far from half of all taxes collected will be just going for the interest on the debt.
Yeah, we got tons of money. lmao.
The inconvenient truth is that politicians from both parties are spending tons of other people's money, running up a bill on the taxpayers' credit card that they can't pay now, so the bill will be handed to their children and grandchildren. If interest rates weren't being kept artificially low by the fed our economy would be in chaos. Imagine if interest levels were to rise to the levels we saw during the Carter years! Another false notion that's been sold to the public is that it's our moral obligation to pay taxes, equating them with our personal debts - this coming from the govt assumption that our earnings belong to them to spend or redistribute as they see fit.
Personal debt is sometimes necessary, but it must be limited and paid off as soon as possible. Our public debt as it now stands has no limits, and the politicians scream to the heavens that the country will collapse every time somebody mentions imposing limits. Notice that nothing happened when the infamous "Sequester" was imposed.
Anybody who borrows money for an education should first educate themselves on basic personal finance; they would then realize how stupid it is to bury themselves in debt and hoping they'll somehow be able to pay it back. What ever happened to working your way through college, or applying for grants and scholarships? Basic economics should be a required course in our high schools, but most of them don't even offer it. It's no wonder so many people - especially the younger generation - are ignorant in the subject.
Any analogy between personal debt and government debt is a spurious one. It's spurious for many reasons, but the one big one is the Fed can buy back public debt, but an individual cannot do that.
Personal debt for a house or a child's education is fine, as long as the family is careful about the amount of debt it takes on, it could pay off handsomely, giving them a comfortable place to live for many years and ensuring their child has higher future earnings. If, on the other hand, they take on debt to pay day-to-day expenses, vacations, expensive cars or a nifty new boat, that's gonna be a problem. They can't buy back the debt, all they can do is pay it off. If they don't have the money to pay it off, they're screwed.
When the government borrows money to pay for things that have a long-term payoff, such as a highways, schools, and things that help grow the economy, deficit bond financing makes a lot of sense because as the economy grows so does the tax revenue and the debt becomes less burdensome (a $1 million debt for a middle class family is a burden, not so much for someone like Bill Gates). When the government borrows money just to pay its year-in, year-out expenses, it’s really just a tax increase.
The notion that our children will have to pay off the national debt is also spurious, because it is the same equating of personal debt that must be paid off with government debt that doesn't. We haven't have to pay off the national debt of our fathers or grandfathers any more than our children will have to pay it off.
The national debt has become a catch-all for everything that ails American and it's economy. It's become the Monsters, Inc. of scary nighttime closets. The reality is, it's an accounting concept. There are plenty of countries with much higher debt ratios than the US, and they'e doing fine. We've been in debt for 200 years, England for 300. Government debt isn't a big deal. It's only a bog deal if it gets too high.
There are rich people who borrow a lot of money, and there are poor people who live strictly within their means. The question of whether someone is rich or poor is separate from the question of how much money they borrow. Just like the question of how much the government should spend is a completely separate question from what is the proper level of deficit spending (deficit is the gap between revenue and spending, and deficit spending is the money borrowed to fill the gap). It's the political ideologies that drive the argument over the proper size of government and the proper level of the deficit. Neither side is right, or wrong, it's ultimately just different ways of doing the same things.
The national debt isn't a bottom line of an accountant ledger, it's the accumulation of deficits over time. Even if we had a balanced budget for next year, we'd still have the accumulated deficit. It would take a lifetime of balanced budgets to erase the national debt. It rises rapidly during times of depression and war, and occasionally falls in times of prosperity and restraint, but mostly it just rises slowly, relentlessly. But there’s really no need to eliminate the debt entirely. Having no debt could be problematic, as government debt, in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds, plays a crucial role in the inner workings of the financial system, offering a place for investors to put their money that is considered safe. Eliminate the US debt and the stock markets, and the economy along with it, would crash so hard that the Great Depression would look like losing a $2 bet at the race track.
Interest rates plays the key role in all of this, of course. A high level of debt is perfectly manageable at 3%, but could be devastating at 6%. Every rise in interest rates by a single percentage point increases the annual cost to service that debt by about $450 for every American. So even though interest rates are very low now, current U.S. debt levels are a concern. The national debt itself isn't something people really need to worry about, it's really more about government spending that's the larger concern. The government doesn't need to take money from this program or that program and use it to pay down the debt, since doing so will have zero effect on the economy (ours or the world's), they simply need to not spend that money in the first place, because the deficit ratio of revenue to spending has simply gotten too high.
Paying down the debt won't have any effect on the ratio at all, as paying down the debt is still spending. With debt levels high relative to the size of the economy, like we are now, we lose control of our own destiny in terms of public finances. The only way to take control of that destiny is to control spending.
Personal debt for a house or a child's education is fine, as long as the family is careful about the amount of debt it takes on, it could pay off handsomely, giving them a comfortable place to live for many years and ensuring their child has higher future earnings. If, on the other hand, they take on debt to pay day-to-day expenses, vacations, expensive cars or a nifty new boat, that's gonna be a problem. They can't buy back the debt, all they can do is pay it off. If they don't have the money to pay it off, they're screwed.
When the government borrows money to pay for things that have a long-term payoff, such as a highways, schools, and things that help grow the economy, deficit bond financing makes a lot of sense because as the economy grows so does the tax revenue and the debt becomes less burdensome (a $1 million debt for a middle class family is a burden, not so much for someone like Bill Gates). When the government borrows money just to pay its year-in, year-out expenses, it’s really just a tax increase.
The notion that our children will have to pay off the national debt is also spurious, because it is the same equating of personal debt that must be paid off with government debt that doesn't. We haven't have to pay off the national debt of our fathers or grandfathers any more than our children will have to pay it off.
The national debt has become a catch-all for everything that ails American and it's economy. It's become the Monsters, Inc. of scary nighttime closets. The reality is, it's an accounting concept. There are plenty of countries with much higher debt ratios than the US, and they'e doing fine. We've been in debt for 200 years, England for 300. Government debt isn't a big deal. It's only a bog deal if it gets too high.
There are rich people who borrow a lot of money, and there are poor people who live strictly within their means. The question of whether someone is rich or poor is separate from the question of how much money they borrow. Just like the question of how much the government should spend is a completely separate question from what is the proper level of deficit spending (deficit is the gap between revenue and spending, and deficit spending is the money borrowed to fill the gap). It's the political ideologies that drive the argument over the proper size of government and the proper level of the deficit. Neither side is right, or wrong, it's ultimately just different ways of doing the same things.
The national debt isn't a bottom line of an accountant ledger, it's the accumulation of deficits over time. Even if we had a balanced budget for next year, we'd still have the accumulated deficit. It would take a lifetime of balanced budgets to erase the national debt. It rises rapidly during times of depression and war, and occasionally falls in times of prosperity and restraint, but mostly it just rises slowly, relentlessly. But there’s really no need to eliminate the debt entirely. Having no debt could be problematic, as government debt, in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds, plays a crucial role in the inner workings of the financial system, offering a place for investors to put their money that is considered safe. Eliminate the US debt and the stock markets, and the economy along with it, would crash so hard that the Great Depression would look like losing a $2 bet at the race track.
Interest rates plays the key role in all of this, of course. A high level of debt is perfectly manageable at 3%, but could be devastating at 6%. Every rise in interest rates by a single percentage point increases the annual cost to service that debt by about $450 for every American. So even though interest rates are very low now, current U.S. debt levels are a concern. The national debt itself isn't something people really need to worry about, it's really more about government spending that's the larger concern. The government doesn't need to take money from this program or that program and use it to pay down the debt, since doing so will have zero effect on the economy (ours or the world's), they simply need to not spend that money in the first place, because the deficit ratio of revenue to spending has simply gotten too high.
Paying down the debt won't have any effect on the ratio at all, as paying down the debt is still spending. With debt levels high relative to the size of the economy, like we are now, we lose control of our own destiny in terms of public finances. The only way to take control of that destiny is to control spending.
As the federal debt balloons, the government necessarily has fewer dollars available for discretionary spending, or even mandated expenditures, because an ever-increasing amount of federal revenue must be directed to make interest payments on the debt. But our public policymakers are so smart that they just keep raising the national debt limit, then borrow money overseas or sell more government backed securities or run the currency printing machines day and night to pump fairy-tale dollars which are loaned out to large US banks at near zero percent. Voodoo economics has arrived.
Spend some time reading through analysis of the impending financial collapse of Greece to see our future. Whistling past the graveyard, we are.
Spend some time reading through analysis of the impending financial collapse of Greece to see our future. Whistling past the graveyard, we are.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Jung Express
414-747-4070 x140
Advertiser
Jung Express started in 1991 primarily as a courier service in the Milwaukee and Chicago areas. Today Jung Express is a nationwide expediter for many top Fortune 50 companies delivering their freight throughout the continental United States and Canada.Our owner-operator fleet consists of cargo vans, sprinters, straight trucks and tractor/trail ... Apply Today!