JayGatsby
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 32
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
If the debt was getting paid down regularly it wouldn't be a problem but the government debt is NEVER getting paid down and we're still adding to it.
In your scenario what would happen is that if the debt never got paid off then one day mom and dad are going to be dead and the kids would be left with the debt. With the government.......SAME SCENARIO!
There's nothing wrong with increasing debt if it's accompanied by increasing revenue.
As businesses grow, their debt often does the same
The thing, the mom and dad in this case is the govt, and it's not about to "die"
And if it does, we'll have bigger problems than the debt we owe
Since 2009 growth in GDP has increased by 2-2.5% each year while debt has increased between 8-12%. Now, historically, we collect roughly 18% of GDP in taxes so at 2.5% growth that amounts to debt increasing roughly 18 times faster than our ability to pay it off. That's a problem.
Since 2009 growth in GDP has increased by 2-2.5% each year while debt has increased between 8-12%. Now, historically, we collect roughly 18% of GDP in taxes so at 2.5% growth that amounts to debt increasing roughly 18 times faster than our ability to pay it off. That's a problem.
Not only is it not "perfect" - it completely misses the point.Picture this....
You have a decent paying job and a nice family with 2 kids and a wife. You just bought a new house which was $500,000 and a car for $30,000. You also can afford to use a credit card to buy things like groceries and clothes for your kids, and your wife is able to also. You are never late on your payments, and the bank lets you borrow money at low rates; you have great credit. So one day one of your coworkers is talking about finances with you and all of the sudden he says "Wow! You are 600,000 dollars in debt!!!! That's ridiculous!". You try to explain that you pay interest payments on time, and you have good credit, yet your friend is so stubborn he starts to tell everyone you work with that you are $600,000 in debt. Everyone starts to call you irresponsible and a huge spender, and it is getting out of control. So your wife gets worried and cuts you off from your bank account somehow and says we can't be so far in debt lets just stop spending all together. So now you are late on your payments and your rates start to go up and your credit is shot because every one claimed you were "too far in "debt"" and they refused to let you borrow more when things like your car breaks down, or your kid gets hurt, or you need to repair your dishwasher.
Why should we not be allowed to borrow more if we need to in rough times, the world uses us as their bank, the US is trusted and we have very good credit?
Note: I know this analogy isn't perfect, but my point is who here actually supports not raising the debt limit?
What a crock of disturbingly disingenuous BS.Your analogy actually misses the real absurdity of the the debt ceiling crisis. A better analogy is ordering a big meal and then deciding afterwards whether you want to pay the bill or not. There shouldn't even be a vote on the debt ceiling - it's redundant. Congress already decides how much and what programs to fund in a completely separate bill. If Congress wishes to spend less, then do so in the goddamn appropriation bill!
The whole idea ****s common sense right in her tender little ass.
Your analogy actually misses the real absurdity of the the debt ceiling crisis. A better analogy is ordering a big meal and then deciding afterwards whether you want to pay the bill or not. There shouldn't even be a vote on the debt ceiling - it's redundant. Congress already decides how much and what programs to fund in a completely separate bill. If Congress wishes to spend less, then do so in the goddamn appropriation bill!
The whole idea ****s common sense right in her tender little ass.
the better analogy is ordering a meal knowing you can't pay for it
The absurdity is baffling.
Picture this....
You have a decent paying job and a nice family with 2 kids and a wife. You just bought a new house which was $500,000 and a car for $30,000. You also can afford to use a credit card to buy things like groceries and clothes for your kids, and your wife is able to also. You are never late on your payments, and the bank lets you borrow money at low rates; you have great credit. So one day one of your coworkers is talking about finances with you and all of the sudden he says "Wow! You are 600,000 dollars in debt!!!! That's ridiculous!". You try to explain that you pay interest payments on time, and you have good credit, yet your friend is so stubborn he starts to tell everyone you work with that you are $600,000 in debt. Everyone starts to call you irresponsible and a huge spender, and it is getting out of control. So your wife gets worried and cuts you off from your bank account somehow and says we can't be so far in debt lets just stop spending all together. So now you are late on your payments and your rates start to go up and your credit is shot because every one claimed you were "too far in "debt"" and they refused to let you borrow more when things like your car breaks down, or your kid gets hurt, or you need to repair your dishwasher.
Why should we not be allowed to borrow more if we need to in rough times, the world uses us as their bank, the US is trusted and we have very good credit?
Note: I know this analogy isn't perfect, but my point is who here actually supports not raising the debt limit?
agree.
we know we spend more then we get. so it is absurd to claim otherwise as you are doing.
We do spend more than we take in. That does not mean the country cannot afford deficits. To make such a claim is absurd! According to you and your ideology, we should have had hyperinflation, a dollar crisis, another bubble, etc....
Yet here we are, sitting @ 2% real growth (4% nominal).
Picture this....
You have a decent paying job and a nice family with 2 kids and a wife. You just bought a new house which was $500,000 and a car for $30,000. You also can afford to use a credit card to buy things like groceries and clothes for your kids, and your wife is able to also. You are never late on your payments, and the bank lets you borrow money at low rates; you have great credit. So one day one of your coworkers is talking about finances with you and all of the sudden he says "Wow! You are 600,000 dollars in debt!!!! That's ridiculous!". You try to explain that you pay interest payments on time, and you have good credit, yet your friend is so stubborn he starts to tell everyone you work with that you are $600,000 in debt. Everyone starts to call you irresponsible and a huge spender, and it is getting out of control. So your wife gets worried and cuts you off from your bank account somehow and says we can't be so far in debt lets just stop spending all together. So now you are late on your payments and your rates start to go up and your credit is shot because every one claimed you were "too far in "debt"" and they refused to let you borrow more when things like your car breaks down, or your kid gets hurt, or you need to repair your dishwasher.
Why should we not be allowed to borrow more if we need to in rough times, the world uses us as their bank, the US is trusted and we have very good credit?
Note: I know this analogy isn't perfect, but my point is who here actually supports not raising the debt limit?
"Afford" is a relative term and one utterly dependent on a snapshot in time. Have we defaulted yet? No. But as you admit, we *are* spending more than we take in. Moreover, the disparity between what we spend and what we take in is increasing. It's getting worse. Now to suggest that it's absurd that we can't "afford" deficits is itself absurd inasmuch as it doesn't address the exponentially increasing debt we're assuming. Moreover, to suggest as your premise does, that just because we don't [yet] have hyperinflation or a dollar crisis, does not for an instant mean we're not running headlong into that direction.We do spend more than we take in. That does not mean the country cannot afford deficits. To make such a claim is absurd! According to you and your ideology, we should have had hyperinflation, a dollar crisis, another bubble, etc....
Yet here we are, sitting @ 2% real growth (4% nominal).
So the only thing I see ridiculous is your feigned indignation of my accurate analogy
...only that's not correct. Yes, it can "afford" to do more than a household might, but can it do so totally unrestrained, and that without any downstream consequences? No, of course not.Comparing the finances of a household with a government will always get you in trouble. Especially when the use of the word "afford" is applied in each situation. The government can afford to do whatever it wants (from a financial standpoint). Not that i am saying it should.
"Afford" is a relative term and one utterly dependent on a snapshot in time. Have we defaulted yet? No. But as you admit, we *are* spending more than we take in. Moreover, the disparity between what we spend and what we take in is increasing. It's getting worse.
Now to suggest that it's absurd that we can't "afford" deficits is itself absurd inasmuch as it doesn't address the exponentially increasing debt we're assuming.
...only that's not correct. Yes, it can "afford" to do more than a household might, but can it do so totally unrestrained, and that without any downstream consequences? No, of course not.
Actually, it is true: Federal Spending Exceeds Federal Revenue by More than $1 Trillion
No, they don't. But in our case, right now, they do.Deficits do not automatically entail the bold.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?