Can you pay down the debt WITHOUT growing the "economy"?

[rdean]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

 

[oldfart]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

As a practical matter, the unemployment rate and the deficit track almost identically. As one goes up, so does the other. The lag is in the deficit. Both the historical number and the economic theory suggest the causation runs from employment and production to deficits and not the reverse. So you can't balance a budget in a downturn with spending cuts, period. God knows, Ike tried to do it three times and in the end learned the lesson. No president since has tried that again, and until 2010, no Congress has either.

 

[Freemason9]

If you pay down the debt, you reduce the money supply. That isn't a good thing--it is deflationary. Debtors would suffer tremendously under such circumstances. And all Americans have consumer and/or mortgage debt.

 

[rdean]

If you pay down the debt, you reduce the money supply. That isn't a good thing--it is deflationary. Debtors would suffer tremendously under such circumstances. And all Americans have consumer and/or mortgage debt.

Not all. I just bought a house in cash. I have about 50 bucks debt on two credit cards. How did I get here? It wasn't easy.

I studied engineering on the GI bill and still ended up with $56,000 in debt. It took me years to pay it off. When I finally built up my 401 enough, I borrowed the money from me to pay off college and since the loan was from me, I paid it back into my account. That was about 5 years ago.

This is why we have to make college more affordable. And Technical Schools (which I went to before I transferred to a university) and Jr. College.

How we got to the point where half the country thinks education is for snobs is beyond me.

 

[Politico]

As usual deanie doesn't get the point Freemason.

 

[rdean]

As usual deanie doesn't get the point Freemason.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

 

[rdean]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

As a practical matter, the unemployment rate and the deficit track almost identically. As one goes up, so does the other. The lag is in the deficit. Both the historical number and the economic theory suggest the causation runs from employment and production to deficits and not the reverse. So you can't balance a budget in a downturn with spending cuts, period. God knows, Ike tried to do it three times and in the end learned the lesson. No president since has tried that again, and until 2010, no Congress has either.

That's because these Republicans are crazy batshit. Can you imagine how history will see them? Fighting tooth and nail to keep Americans from having health care? Could they be anymore stupid? And USMB Republicans represent.

 

[TNHarley]

bought a house in cash?
whats the going rate for a house in chicago? 2500? LOL

 

[jasonnfree]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

As a practical matter, the unemployment rate and the deficit track almost identically. As one goes up, so does the other. The lag is in the deficit. Both the historical number and the economic theory suggest the causation runs from employment and production to deficits and not the reverse. So you can't balance a budget in a downturn with spending cuts, period. God knows, Ike tried to do it three times and in the end learned the lesson. No president since has tried that again, and until 2010, no Congress has either.

That's because these Republicans are crazy batshit. Can you imagine how history will see them? Fighting tooth and nail to keep Americans from having health care? Could they be anymore stupid? And USMB Republicans represent.

In California with the low cost of education in the 60's it was possible to get a college education on the G.I. bill. University of California was close to free. Reagan of course got busy going after free tuition not long after becoming governor. Republicans. They will keep chiseling away at the middle class and the poor until it's like the really old days when only the wealthy could afford college.

 

[rdean]

As a practical matter, the unemployment rate and the deficit track almost identically. As one goes up, so does the other. The lag is in the deficit. Both the historical number and the economic theory suggest the causation runs from employment and production to deficits and not the reverse. So you can't balance a budget in a downturn with spending cuts, period. God knows, Ike tried to do it three times and in the end learned the lesson. No president since has tried that again, and until 2010, no Congress has either.

That's because these Republicans are crazy batshit. Can you imagine how history will see them? Fighting tooth and nail to keep Americans from having health care? Could they be anymore stupid? And USMB Republicans represent.

In California with the low cost of education in the 60's it was possible to get a college education on the G.I. bill. University of California was close to free. Reagan of course got busy going after free tuition not long after becoming governor. Republicans. They will keep chiseling away at the middle class and the poor until it's like the really old days when only the wealthy could afford college.

It's worse than that. They have convinced their base that "smart people are bad" and "education is for snobs".

 

[rdean]

See what I'm saying? USMB Republicans have no ideas. That's why they don't debate. They don't know enough about anything.

 

[Politico]

As usual deanie doesn't get the point Freemason.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

Seeing as you have no clue that our economy depends on debt it is clear who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Quick question....................................

What is wrong with cutting spending (like this administration is doing), and raising taxes on the rich (who can afford it)?

I mean............................raising taxes by 5 percent on the wealthy wouldn't hurt them much, but doing so on the poor and middle class would.

Why can't we tax the rich? George Bush Jr. gave them a tax cut when he saw that Clinton left him with a surplus, and he even cut the taxes again (in 2003) when we were in the middle of a war.

Tax the rich and make them pay their fair share.

 

[rdean]

As usual deanie doesn't get the point Freemason.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

Seeing as you have no clue that our economy depends on debt it is clear who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Republicans on this board have said "Supply and Demand" is a "wild liberal theory". So anyone who is a Republican is suspect.

 

[rdean]

Quick question....................................

What is wrong with cutting spending (like this administration is doing), and raising taxes on the rich (who can afford it)?

I mean............................raising taxes by 5 percent on the wealthy wouldn't hurt them much, but doing so on the poor and middle class would.

Why can't we tax the rich? George Bush Jr. gave them a tax cut when he saw that Clinton left him with a surplus, and he even cut the taxes again (in 2003) when we were in the middle of a war.

Tax the rich and make them pay their fair share.

Remember, Mitt Romney said he wouldn't support 47% of America. That's the middle class and the poor. He wasn't joking.

Republicans who are poor see themselves as "millionaires without funds", not as poor. So they despise the poor as much as Mitt Romney does. But they don't believe Mitt Romney despises them. We know better.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

In this scene, we earned the money, we are responsible for it's spending.

In you're "reality" government does the same thing.

It doesn't, but you've been told and told this, you live under $16,000,000,000,000 of debt, and you think we have plenty more to spend.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Rdean has a handle on the problems, but he ignores it. In order to solve our problems we have to have a growing economy.

that does not mean a growing government sector. Having a growing government sector means we have to have a growing economy to support it

 

[Politico]

You don't even know what you are talking about.

Seeing as you have no clue that our economy depends on debt it is clear who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Republicans on this board have said "Supply and Demand" is a "wild liberal theory". So anyone who is a Republican is suspect.

Jesus this is like the fourth request in 12 hours. Did you just call me a republican?

 

[Steven_R]

Quick question....................................

What is wrong with cutting spending (like this administration is doing), and raising taxes on the rich (who can afford it)?

I mean............................raising taxes by 5 percent on the wealthy wouldn't hurt them much, but doing so on the poor and middle class would.

Why can't we tax the rich? George Bush Jr. gave them a tax cut when he saw that Clinton left him with a surplus, and he even cut the taxes again (in 2003) when we were in the middle of a war.

Tax the rich and make them pay their fair share.

Define fair share.

 

[alan1]

Let's make this "simple".

Let's say you had a job and a car to get to that job.

Suddenly, you had a lot of bills. Medical. Home loan. Whatever.

So you cut back spending to pay those bills.

The car breaks down. You can't get to work. So you decide to stop all spending. Do you quit your job and not fix the car so you can "save" enough money to pay your bills?

Now, compare your car to infrastructure, job training and so on. If you don't invest in jobs, can you ever pay down the debt? Think about it.

How does my car breaking down prevent me from getting to work?
Can I ride a bike, walk or take the bus? Or did my bike break down at the same time, and my legs stopped working and the city cut off the busing?

Another strawman from rdean.