UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Those ultra conservatives and progressives ain't nuttin' but trouble. They either shut down the government or make more of it. It's about time Boehner takes the party back to RINO's. Still need Tea Party Patriots and Hippies to keep them honest but we need more RINO's and DINO's. Even the new Fox is more moderate.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/12/house-approves-two-year-budget-plan-over-conservatives-objections/?cmpid=NL_fntop

jay-are

Who is going to pay down this debt, and quit spending what we haven't got? Not the RINOS or the DINOS.

If moderate meant living within your means, that would be good, but apparently even moderates are out of control. - running the debt up to $23 trillion
That's 23,000,000,000,000

jay-are

Where is the evidence that more RINOS AND DINOS will get the spending under control. The debt just keeps getting higher and higher.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Yeah, if you're worried about the debt then there are political factions that will accept your donations. If you're worried more about hitting the debt ceiling, there's another group. I agree with James Baker and Ronald Reagan - they'd be considered RINO's today.

jay-are

How can you not be worried about the debt?

Have you got $23 trillion dollars to pay it when it comes due?

jay-are

I certainly don't agree with or approve of the government running up debt so that we pay billions of dollars a day on interest alone. How can it be good financial management to throw away that much money for absolutely no return value?

Do you pay hundereds or thousands of dollars a day on your personal debt? If not, How can you v**e to throw away so much on national debt?

jay-are

I certainly don't agree with Reagan running up spending as much as he did, when he had the chance, because of the increased revenue coming into the treasury, to balance the budget.

If that makes him a RINO, then we don't need more like him.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Hi Jay-Are!

I see it all relative to the GDP and historically, a good deal. I consider the history of the country, Washington started out in debt and handed Adams more debt, who handed Jefferson more debt, and so on.

Since then, there's been ups and there's been downs for debt.

The ability to sell debt to buyers looking for a guaranteed return has allowed big things that kept the country going and expanded growth that in turn, increased revenue paying for the debt. Things like the t***scontinental railroad, Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, funding WWII, Federal Highway Act. When the debt was sold to pay for the Afghan and Iraq wars, taxes were also decreased in order to stimulate growth. The short-term affect was an increase in debt. Any growth that was going to occur from that tax cut (Bush tax cuts) were negated by the great recession. The economic stimulus needed to save banks and auto jobs pile on more debt. We found plenty of buyers and the projections are that the economic growth due to selling debt will, as always, cover the costs. I believe it takes many years to recover from the increased debt but we'll be better off long-term going into debt than we would be had the Bush tax cuts not been done and if the banks and auto industry had crashed.

How much is too much debt? No one really knows. Japan has been paving a new path for economists to consider. Some argue that their high debt resulted in a lost decade of growth while others argue it wasn't aggressive enough.

jay-are

OK, Mr. RINO. I appreciate you laying out your platform. I certainly won't be v****g for you based on what you said.

We have tried the debt thing, as you have described. I advocate trying the balanced budget, and no debt. When we do that and things get worse, I will be convinced by your argument, but you can't prove me wrong without trying it.

My first job was with Texas Instruments. They built a huge business without going into debt. They were very successful. And they have plenty of cash to invest in new research and new projects. The difference is they have more cash because they are not throwing a percentage of it in the waste basket paying interest.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Hi Jay-Are!
Yeah, the balanced budget has been experimented with austerity policies in other countries during the global recession and it has had mixed results with a downside of choking growth due to less government spending but a big upside if it is followed by a stimulus package after GDP drops to target value. It can't always be "increase debt to stimulate growth" just as it shouldn't always be seeking austerity to reduce debt. They refer to when to time one or the other as counter-cyclical economic policies in order to maximize the macro benefits.

I generally agree with the TI analogy except that is more of a micro business rule than a macro domestic one. However, even in micro business cases, there are times when it better to use the cash as collateral to finance a low rate in order to grow larger than you could with cash alone.

jay-are

You have priorities out of order. All theory of finance and maximizing profits is fine and valid, but it comes after the priority of being honest, ethical, responsible, legal - the intangible right. Once the priorities are in place that the choices must be right, and you can't do wrong to accomplish the goal, then those theories and policies are appropriate.

But if I want to buy a new car, I might be able to get a better price, or a better car, if I pick pocket my neighbor and use his money, but that is not supposed to be a valid financial choice. Neither is it ethical for me to finance it in my granddaughter's name, and then leave the note to her to pay off after I die. I may stimulate the economy, and help some car salesman to get rich and thereby the whole city gets richer, and if I get lots of people to use the same tactic, it might appear that we all have a lot more money than we have, but it is still wrong, and not the right way to improve the lives of our neighbors. I should only buy the car with my own money, and not leave the responsibility for my choices to somebody else to be held to later. That is unethical, so it should be thrown out as an option before I even start considering how I will buy my new car.

If you don't understand that, then that explains why so many Americans seem satisfied with the path we are on, no core principles of right and wrong. And those people who don't assume personal responsibility and don't demand it of our nation and our government are the problem.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Hi JR!

Who convinced you the money is anyone’s other than the US Treasury? If you are worried about the SS Trust Fund, fahgettaboudit (see myth busting link below). If you are generally opposed to any debt then you might want to consider how it’s been used since this country was founded to pay for big ticket things from the American Revolution to the most recent continuation of tax cuts. The next generation always pays for the prior’s debts and there is no end to debt buyers lining up to purchase it.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

jay-are

That attitude will destroy this country, as it already is. I am sure that there will come a time when people will not be willing to buy our debt. They have already stopped, in many cases. Now, only the federal reserve is left to buy up America's debt. How long do you think that can continue?

If the economy doesn't just collapse, we will become so weak, that everyone else will just surpass us. Same result either way.

jay-are

Read this article:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59870?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=f802eb6eeb-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-f802eb6eeb-297697313

Sorry, Uncle, I believe this author more than I believe you. I think you are wrong, and this author is going to be right.

Murray Holland’s book, “A Nation in the Red: The Government Debt Crisis and What We Can Do About it” ($28.00, McGraw Hill).

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Thanks JR!

I appreciated the article. I didn't read Holland's book but there is a ring of t***h in the concept of a debt trap. I also agree with the article's author that an increase in GDP is the best way out of it.

Regarding Keynesian versus austerity-alone, I think the answer is most definitely, "It depends".

I agree with article's implied position that a strategy to always spend to grow GDP is unsustainable. Rather, it is a stop-gap economic policy that does help in the short-term. But to use it for a purpose to grow GDP would result in a debt trap. The way to grow GDP is to increase productivity. Capitalism has a natural tendency to continuously increase productivity and it can also be advanced with good government incentives.

I don't agree with a connection between the debt trap and the Cloward-Piven strategy or that an impending financial cliff will happen. The economy is being held back by less government spending to reduce the deficit which is causing less revenue too. This is the way it is until productivity increases to grow GDP. It is a slow change which is comforting because if it were happening quickly, it would be the sign of an unsustainable sector bubble. In the meantime, we can't increase or decrease revenue because the economy is in a sweat spot where the former would reduce productivity and the latter would reduce spending.

If policy makers start taking action for another stimulus package in order to grow GDP, then I will potentially agree that a debt trap is being created.