Question for Democrat Debt Hawks

[DustyInfinity]

First, I understand that a party only cares about the debt when the other party has the presidency. I also understand it is more hypocritical for republicans because they are the ones who say they actually care. The uniparty people can go ahead and say duh, I told you so.

Getting that out of the way, the current democrat party has the biggest Christmas List in the history of American Politics. How do Democrat debt hawks reconcile such huge spending amounts with the national debt? I know the plan is to tax the crap out of rich people. It sounds a lot like capturing a leprechaun or finding a money tree. Historically, the rich don't like to be fiscally raped and move their assets while the middle class gets pummeled. Assuming that you can indeed rape the rich and keep them from protecting themselves, the revenue wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket for the spending that is planned. How can there be a plan that in the best case scenario doesn't generate the revenue to cover spending? To put it in a nutshell, democrats talk about huge taxation to allow responsible spending, but it is not even close to possible. Are democrats ok with a platform that guarantees debt spending, perhaps at a historic level?

 

[Ben Thomson]

First, I understand that a party only cares about the debt when the other party has the presidency. I also understand it is more hypocritical for republicans because they are the ones who say they actually care. The uniparty people can go ahead and say duh, I told you so.

Getting that out of the way, the current democrat party has the biggest Christmas List in the history of American Politics. How do Democrat debt hawks reconcile such huge spending amounts with the national debt? I know the plan is to tax the crap out of rich people. It sounds a lot like capturing a leprechaun or finding a money tree. Historically, the rich don't like to be fiscally raped and move their assets while the middle class gets pummeled. Assuming that you can indeed rape the rich and keep them from protecting themselves, the revenue wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket for the spending that is planned. How can there be a plan that in the best case scenario doesn't generate the revenue to cover spending? To put it in a nutshell, democrats talk about huge taxation to allow responsible spending, but it is not even close to possible. Are democrats ok with a platform that guarantees debt spending, perhaps at a historic level?

Maybe for a comparison you can tell us what the Republican plan is..

 

[denmark]

First, I understand that a party only cares about the debt when the other party has the presidency. I also understand it is more hypocritical for republicans because they are the ones who say they actually care. The uniparty people can go ahead and say duh, I told you so.

Getting that out of the way, the current democrat party has the biggest Christmas List in the history of American Politics. How do Democrat debt hawks reconcile such huge spending amounts with the national debt? I know the plan is to tax the crap out of rich people. It sounds a lot like capturing a leprechaun or finding a money tree. Historically, the rich don't like to be fiscally raped and move their assets while the middle class gets pummeled. Assuming that you can indeed rape the rich and keep them from protecting themselves, the revenue wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket for the spending that is planned. How can there be a plan that in the best case scenario doesn't generate the revenue to cover spending? To put it in a nutshell, democrats talk about huge taxation to allow responsible spending, but it is not even close to possible. Are democrats ok with a platform that guarantees debt spending, perhaps at a historic level?

Sometimes, you have to take a step backwards to eventually move a few steps forward.
Trump could have reduced the eventual economic pain if he took COVID-19 more seriously back in February and was proactive with a coherent strategy.
The devil is in the details ... of the plan.

 

[pknopp]

The "wealth" of the country being created is largely not because of production or work. It's about debt and the Fed just deciding there needs to be more "money".

With this being the case some should not benefit more than others because of this. I far, far prefer to stop what the Fed is doing and let things fall where they fall. Since we will not do that I support the idea of taking from those who benefit the most to provide for all.

But then again, even that idea is not factual. Democrats are not raising taxes to pay for things. They claim they will but they do not.

Sanders would note how he would pay for his programs. Both sides thought that was crazy.

 

[ReinyDays]

What would be a "Democrat Debt Dove" in this context? ... I'm definitely hawkish on debt; kill it, destroy it, cut services and raise taxes ... just the interest payments will drive the Federal Government into insolvency ... board up the hospitals and banks ... let the States fund the government services they think are necessary ...

"Buyer beware" ... get rid of the FDA, EPA, FBI, DoE, FDIC, USDA, both DHS's ... that all duplicate service, some of us are paying for 4 individual police forces, 3 sets of District Attorneys' offices, it was Ronald Reagan who dismantled the office charged with keeping Mexico from joining the German Empire during World War I ...

Accounting is gone from Washington DC ... no one knows where all this money is going ... the books are decades behind, no way to catch up ... spend spend spend and no one's balancing the checkbook ... there will be no accounting for these $7 trillion, and it appears to be all gone now ... Congress and the President will be adding more debt very soon, more trillions lost ... and almost all these congresscritters will be long dead and buried before the butcher's bill comes in the mail ...

Bankrupcy isn't an option ... "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned" ... damn that 14th Amendment ...

Long past time we gave ourselves back to England ...

 

[Pete7469]

I was concerned with the debt back when Bush gave Kennedy a bunch of signed checks in order to keep the wars going without too much democrook interference, and they blew through 500 Billion/year in debt spending for almost his entire administration. I recall the democrooks bloviating and the meat puppet faggot in the senate calling it "unpatriotic" as if he was not a treasonous piece of shit himself. Then when the MPF became POTUS, he and the democrooks DOUBLED debt spending after he said he would cut the debt in half. Now we have Trump trying to break even that record and it seems like no one is concerned about it anymore.

So I just have to conclude it was all a bullshit political shit show. When you think about it, what is money anyway? At this point it's nothing but digits. There is not enough gold, platinum, silver or diamonds in this earth to base the US money supply alone, let alone all of the world's. Money is a bugaboo, it's based on faith that it has some value because people accept it in trade for goods and services.


.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

 

[pknopp]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

It will happen.

 

[g5000]

First, I understand that a party only cares about the debt when the other party has the presidency. I also understand it is more hypocritical for republicans because they are the ones who say they actually care. The uniparty people can go ahead and say duh, I told you so.

Getting that out of the way, the current democrat party has the biggest Christmas List in the history of American Politics. How do Democrat debt hawks reconcile such huge spending amounts with the national debt? I know the plan is to tax the crap out of rich people. It sounds a lot like capturing a leprechaun or finding a money tree. Historically, the rich don't like to be fiscally raped and move their assets while the middle class gets pummeled. Assuming that you can indeed rape the rich and keep them from protecting themselves, the revenue wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket for the spending that is planned. How can there be a plan that in the best case scenario doesn't generate the revenue to cover spending? To put it in a nutshell, democrats talk about huge taxation to allow responsible spending, but it is not even close to possible. Are democrats ok with a platform that guarantees debt spending, perhaps at a historic level?

One of the chief reasons I am voting for the Libertarian candidate is because Biden and Trump will both run up trillion dollar deficits no matter which one wins.

Our debt is my number one political priority.

 

[Pete7469]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

Here is what I don't get though, what rocks? Who do we owe the money to? Who is going to call in the debt? It's not like we're Greece, and our money is based off the value of other currencies, other currencies are based off the value of ours and is traded around the world.

I wish I understood economics better.

 

[B. Kidd]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

If an effective vaccine is not found for the Wuhanvirus soon, it'll be a zoom to the bottom!

 

[g5000]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

Here is what I don't get though, what rocks? Who do we owe the money to? Who is going to call in the debt? It's not like we're Greece, and our money is based off the value of other currencies, other currencies are based off the value of ours and is traded around the world.

I wish I understood economics better.

The rocks are the investors who buy our Treasury bills. Eventually, they will lose faith in our ability to pay and they will demand higher interest rates on US government bonds.

And then it's all over.

 

[22lcidw]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

It will happen.

Will we export our pain on someone else?

 

[g5000]

There are six ways to deal with government debt.

1. Declare you won't pay. This is what most people think of when they think of the word "default". See: Argentina.

2. Renegotiate the terms of your debt. See: Trump's bankrupt casinos.

3. Internal devaluation. Suppress wages to make your production costs competitive with other countries. See: Spain.

4. External devaluation. This is also a kind of default. Make your money lose its value. The most common way to achieve this is through inflation, but you can also de-peg your currency from a fixed exchange rate and just declare its new value.

5. Raise taxes/cut spending.

6. Economic growth. A growing economy means increased revenues. Simple enough. This is obviously the best option. However, GDP growth in the US has been steadily declining for decades, thanks in large part to our public and private debt overhang.


Dollars to donuts, our government will choose option 4.

 

[pknopp]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

It will happen.

Will we export our pain on someone else?

No, our dollar will no longer be recognized as legit.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I was concerned about the debt at $5 trillion...lnow we are racing to $30 trillion. We will never pay it. The only question is how long can we ride the wave before we crash into the rocks.

Here is what I don't get though, what rocks? Who do we owe the money to? Who is going to call in the debt? It's not like we're Greece, and our money is based off the value of other currencies, other currencies are based off the value of ours and is traded around the world.

I wish I understood economics better.

We borrow in the form of bonds and from other gpvernment agencies. The problem lies in the ability of us to pay our commitments along the way. The service on our debt is currently almost $500 billion per year, or roughly 1/8th of our entire budget.

Here are some great resources on the matter.

Who Owns the US National Debt?

The majority of the U.S. national debt is owned by Social Security, the Federal Reserve, and foreign investors. Learn how that impacts the economy and you.

www.thebalance.com

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding