Brutal ad: The Chinese Professor

[Taboon]

You don't measure it by the % of debt they hold, you measure it vs. the yearly GDP which shows the measure of economic strength a country has, which is a debt to GDP ratio. CBO estimates $14,400bn while total debt by year-end will be $13,000bn – 90 per cent of GDP. China's ownership is closing in on 1 trillion very soon - and yes I agree they don't own us yet and I'm not sure they'd want to. But the amount of foreign debt to China is unexceptable as is the total amount of foreign debt. So while China may not own us today, the groundwork is laid for China or some other foreign country to do it in the future.

Not just that - but this debt is not just unsustainable but I'm wondering what influence and what business we are giving away due to this debt. The intangible effects may be broad or narrow - but that they exist in such a large amount, and amount that historically has never occurred before, shows signs of trouble ahead. You asked why cut pork? To avoid that trouble ahead.

Ok, so China's holding US debt to the tune of about 8% of our debt and 7% of our GDP. What's the difference of what percentage I base it off?

I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove to me. I consider myself more liberal than conservative because of social values. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. I believe in a balanced budget. I agree with you when you say that China is a potential threat. If we continue to go further into debt and China continues to buy more of our debt, then China will slowly become more and more of a problem for us. Just because I called you on one of your facts does not mean I do not agree with your argument overall. I just did not like the spin resulting from the way those facts were conveyed. I also don't like the fact that politicians are running amok with scare tactics revolved around relatively trivial expenditures (i.e. pork) when they should be looking into plans that actually help us take a big bite out of our deficit.

 

[Taboon]

I took your post #16, particularly this part:



As identifying pork cuts aren't worth the time - my view is that they are very much worth the time as a first step to change our financial spending spree, and to start the process of paying down our debt. We have to start somewhere so why not there? I took your post to not see the value of cutting pork. Did I misunderstand?

I think where we are off is on the amount of time that should be spend on it. I'm not saying pork cuts are not worth the time, I'm just saying they should not be the deficit reducing issue getting the most amount of the time.

 

[Ockham]

Ok, so China's holding US debt to the tune of about 8% of our debt and 7% of our GDP. What's the difference of what percentage I base it off?

I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove to me. I consider myself more liberal than conservative because of social values. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. I believe in a balanced budget. I agree with you when you say that China is a potential threat. If we continue to go further into debt and China continues to buy more of our debt, then China will slowly become more and more of a problem for us. Just because I called you on one of your facts does not mean I do not agree with your argument overall. I just did not like the spin resulting from the way those facts were conveyed. I also don't like the fact that politicians are running amok with scare tactics revolved around relatively trivial expenditures (i.e. pork) when they should be looking into plans that actually help us take a big bite out of our deficit.

I'm trying to prove to you that our fiscal world has to change, that pork is a first step in that change, and that foreign debt is a real concern and that claims about fearmongering is a nice liberal talking point which dismisses our financial woes and supports the "spend as usual" process of the last 6 or 7 years.

 

[Ockham]

I think where we are off is on the amount of time that should be spend on it. I'm not saying pork cuts are not worth the time, I'm just saying they should not be the deficit reducing issue getting the most amount of the time.

Ok - I could agree to that certainly.

 

[Ikari]

It's showing a potential future which may indeed come true. Obviously China doesn't currently own the U.S. I would have thought the view is clearly a warning and not a "true to life" representation of today. Sorry you missed that and didn't understand the context of the ad. Apparently it went over your head.

Even if they owned all our debt, how would they own us? In fact, if they held all our debt, they'd be super cool to us. They'd want to be able to get that money back. But seriously, what are they going to do about it? Invade? Demand repayment? We can say "no". Also, our debt is written in our dollar and we have a printing machine. Of course, that creates horrible inflation and won't be done. But man, it's like if China owns our debt then all of a sudden we're beholden to them in some way. It's not true. They don't get to make policy or law in this country, they don't control our military. It's like the people saying that we have to be fearful of Sharia law being implemented in America. Yeah right.

 

[Redress]

You fail to understand that I don't CARE about domestically held debt, I'm concerned about FOREIGN debt. And the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt? CHINA.

Which is a fact in isolation of the big picture. The big picture is that while China is the largest foreign holder of US debt, the US itself is far and away the largest holder of US debt. Facts need to have context to be relevant.

It's showing a potential future which may indeed come true. Obviously China doesn't currently own the U.S. I would have thought the view is clearly a warning and not a "true to life" representation of today. Sorry you missed that and didn't understand the context of the ad. Apparently it went over your head.

The world could be struck by a comet next year. It is a potential future which may indeed come true. Like the scenario in the video, it's highly unlikely. The scenario in the video is not even the largest potential problem with a large debt, not even close.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I love the way the video makes no mentions of two costly and unfruitful wars...

Must have slipped the makers mind. :2razz:

 

[Taboon]

I'm trying to prove to you that our fiscal world has to change, that pork is a first step in that change, and that foreign debt is a real concern and that claims about fearmongering is a nice liberal talking point which dismisses our financial woes and supports the "spend as usual" process of the last 6 or 7 years.

Yeah, I guess I'm just a little more gung ho on the subject. I don't think we should be taking "baby steps". But, maybe that is an ok start I guess.

 

[Ockham]

Which is a fact in isolation of the big picture. The big picture is that while China is the largest foreign holder of US debt, the US itself is far and away the largest holder of US debt. Facts need to have context to be relevant.

If a domestic holder of the debt had the ability to own the U.S, it would be relevant, alas it's not relevant.

The world could be struck by a comet next year. It is a potential future which may indeed come true. Like the scenario in the video, it's highly unlikely. The scenario in the video is not even the largest potential problem with a large debt, not even close.

No one's claiming it's the largest potential problem and no one is claiming it will come true - it's a warning. What it's not is fearmongering and as I said, it's a nice liberal talking point, and a weak one at that.

 

[Redress]

I'm trying to prove to you that our fiscal world has to change, that pork is a first step in that change, and that foreign debt is a real concern and that claims about fearmongering is a nice liberal talking point which dismisses our financial woes and supports the "spend as usual" process of the last 6 or 7 years.

Pork, while a problem, is such a small part of the problem it is not where we should focus on. We do need to limit pork, but it's not where we should focus. We need to cut back costs across the board, and need to find real solutions to SS and health care.

 

[Redress]

If a domestic holder of the debt had the ability to own the U.S, it would be relevant, alas it's not relevant.

China does not have the ability to own the US. Part of the reason is the US owns much more of the debt than China. Trying to hide inconvenient facts does not help your argument.

No one's claiming it's the largest potential problem and no one is claiming it will come true - it's a warning. What it's not is fearmongering and as I said, it's a nice liberal talking point, and a weak one at that.

Except it is warning about something with no real likelihood of happening, while ignoring the real possibilities.

The debt is a real issue. It has been since at least Reagan ballooned it, if not before. Presidents and congresses of both parties have ignored the problem and it has to end. I am not arguing otherwise. But we need a real discussion, not some scary video.

 

[Ockham]

Pork, while a problem, is such a small part of the problem it is not where we should focus on. We do need to limit pork, but it's not where we should focus. We need to cut back costs across the board, and need to find real solutions to SS and health care.

I agree generally. I simply espouse a different approach. Instead of diving right in and taking on the 3rd rail of U.S. politics, I'm suggesting a slower approach to get people and politics used to the change. Start off with a small step and build on success before long jumping into Social Security.

 

[Redress]

I agree generally. I simply espouse a different approach. Instead of diving right in and taking on the 3rd rail of U.S. politics, I'm suggesting a slower approach to get people and politics used to the change. Start off with a small step and build on success before long jumping into Social Security.

I agree with small steps, but I think those small steps have to be across the board. We have allowed the debt to reach the point it is at, so we have to suffer the pain it will inflict to fix it.

Let me show you something interesting: Citizens Against Government Waste:

I just moved from Michigan to Georgia. Michigan was rated 46th in receiving pork, Georgia 44th. Emphasizing pork means that the two states I think of as "home" are less effected by cuts to pork than almost all the other states, and yet we share an equal part of the blame for the debt.

2010 federal spending = ~3.552t
2010 pork spending= 16.5b

That works out to(assuming I did my math right, about 4 %. So even if you trim 25 % from that, it's still only a 1 % impact on federal spending.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Sorry I cant take the video seriously. I turned it off about 2 seconds in.

 

[Ockham]

Even if they owned all our debt, how would they own us? In fact, if they held all our debt, they'd be super cool to us. They'd want to be able to get that money back. But seriously, what are they going to do about it? Invade? Demand repayment? We can say "no". Also, our debt is written in our dollar and we have a printing machine. Of course, that creates horrible inflation and won't be done. But man, it's like if China owns our debt then all of a sudden we're beholden to them in some way. It's not true. They don't get to make policy or law in this country, they don't control our military. It's like the people saying that we have to be fearful of Sharia law being implemented in America. Yeah right.

I don't know that anyone can answer your question - I don't think it's ever happened before. Would they invade? Maybe. Could they simply ruin us economically and put our entire country into chaos and then walk in without a shot and take over? Possibly. I think your scenario could have possibilities we cannot fathom. As for being beholden ... nothings for nothing. Someone or many someone's are benefitting. You know that right?

 

[Taboon]

I agree with small steps, but I think those small steps have to be across the board. We have allowed the debt to reach the point it is at, so we have to suffer the pain it will inflict to fix it.

Let me show you something interesting: Citizens Against Government Waste:

I just moved from Michigan to Georgia. Michigan was rated 46th in receiving pork, Georgia 44th. Emphasizing pork means that the two states I think of as "home" are less effected by cuts to pork than almost all the other states, and yet we share an equal part of the blame for the debt.

2010 federal spending = ~3.552t
2010 pork spending= 16.5b

That works out to(assuming I did my math right, about 4 %. So even if you trim 25 % from that, it's still only a 1 % impact on federal spending.

Sorry to be a nitpick, but it's 0.4%, not 4% of our total spending.

 

[Ockham]

I agree with small steps, but I think those small steps have to be across the board. We have allowed the debt to reach the point it is at, so we have to suffer the pain it will inflict to fix it.

Let me show you something interesting: Citizens Against Government Waste:

I just moved from Michigan to Georgia. Michigan was rated 46th in receiving pork, Georgia 44th. Emphasizing pork means that the two states I think of as "home" are less effected by cuts to pork than almost all the other states, and yet we share an equal part of the blame for the debt.

2010 federal spending = ~3.552t
2010 pork spending= 16.5b

That works out to(assuming I did my math right, about 4 %. So even if you trim 25 % from that, it's still only a 1 % impact on federal spending.

Totally true and 100% factual. It's certainly not going to make a huge impact fiscally but it would be a gesture to show the our message was heard and understood in Washington. I think the we the people would be behind it and as a first step it's safe and achievable. That may be what we need to get the fiscal changes started.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Sorry I cant take the video seriously. I turned it off about 2 seconds in.

It's well made. I'll give it that.

 

[Barbbtx]

Ok, where do I start. Getting rid of porkbarrel spending is nice and all. But, when you consider it totals approximately $8 Billion and then you also consider our current budget deficit is over $1,000 Billion it amounts to less than 1% of our total budget deficit (less than 0.4% of our total budget). Which, amounts to squat. It amazes me how this little teeny amount gets so much more attention than anything else that is hoisting our budget deficit up. Did you know we are going to spend about $750B this year on Medicare and Medicaid but we only expect to bring in approximately $200B in Medicare Payroll tax receipts? That's almost half of the budget deficit right there. Now that's something to get up in arms about! But no, the politicians want us to fight over the scraps that are too small for a mouse to eat rather than actually finding out what is really causing our problems.

I don't look at pork that way.
I look at it as bribery to get bills passed. It's not the amount of money. We need to reform the way our politicians get money for their states. Trading pork for votes is corrupt.

 

[Taboon]

I don't look at pork that way.
I look at it as bribery to get bills passed. It's not the amount of money. We need to reform the way our politicians get money for their states. Trading pork for votes is corrupt.

No arguments here.

 

[Whovian]

Except that it is not accurate. Just one quick example, China is not the largest holder of US debt. It's scare tactics and appeal to emotion without any real substantive facts.

China is 3rd.

Here are the 15 largest holders of US Debt... I bet #1 surprises everyone... surprised me.
The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

 

[Redress]

Sorry to be a nitpick, but it's 0.4%, not 4% of our total spending.

That is why I had the "if my math is correct" caveat. I used to be good at math when I was young...