ForumsWEPRThe National Debt

23 6140
Alexander116
offline
Alexander116
107 posts
Shepherd

Just like you can't dig yourself out of a hole! We can't spend our way out of debt! We need to cut spending and borrow less. Why is the governments accounting different then our accounting! 13.9 trillion dollars is over the top.

  • 23 Replies
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

National debt is really meaningless just so you know. The thing that causes issues is the trade deficit, and ours really isn't bad. Government accounting is different than your accounting because the government has a better understanding of complex global economics and you apparently do not.

Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

OOHHHH HELL YEAH! FINALLY!
Every time I've seen one of your *cough cough* threads, I've been too late! It was already locked. But now...muahahahahaha.

Just like you can't dig yourself out of a hole!

What? Okay, either you've missed something out and that wasn't intended to be your first sentence, or you have no idea how to make your point. I'm betting on the second. Here's a tip; the comma helps when two sentences are connected, otherwise you get all this nasty confusion and mean people on the internet will exploit it during their argument....

We can't spend our way out of debt!

The government isn't spending the money, we are. And since you're using that "hole" analogy so nicely, allow me to take it one step further.
Say the government is one big hole in the middle, that will stand for the present debt America is in(I'll get to the trade deficit later). Now, let's assume that "digging" = spending money. So, taking your debt hole analogy and running with it, in order for us to be out of debt, all the holes have to be filled. So, in order to fill the government hole, we have to get some more dirt(cash) from somewhere else. But where? I'll tell you where; the citizens will dig(spend) and a portion(taxes) of the dirt(money) that they dig(spend) will go to the hole in the middle(the government) to fill it. In return, those citizens' holes created by their spending will be filled with dirt by the companies who hire them, digging(spending money) to keep them under their employ, and the dirt the companies dig(spend) will go to the employees. And those companies are sponsored by the government, who gives them dirt, so it's all just one big circle. Sitting on our asses not spending and not doing anything is not going to fill any holes, thank you very much.

We need to cut spending

Government spending? Sure, I can agree with you there. People spending? Not so much, people spending money is exactly what we need, as long as they actually have the money to spend.
and borrow less.

Well...not exactly. As long as the money is paid back, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't borrow. Borrowing and then paying back the money is better than doing nothing at all, or working for the money is also good. However, sometimes you need money to earn money, and once you've used that money you borrowed to earn money, you can thus use that money to pay back your debt before the interest builds up.

Why is the governments accounting different then our accounting!

It's actually not the accounting that you need to worry about(to be honest...accounting is accounting), it's the trade and budget deficits.

13.9 trillion dollars is over the top.

Just so we all can be sure...please provide a link. It's just a good habit to get into.
Ernie15
offline
Ernie15
13,344 posts
Bard

13.9 trillion dollars is over the top.


The National Debt Clock says otherwise.

But you were close.

So theoretically, according to that link, any person who gives the government the amount of money that one US citizen "owes" could just stick their nose up at the national debt and say that they no longer need to worry about it?
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

What isn't being taken into account is the debt that other world nations owe the US, which is a substantial sum in itself and vastly reduces the overall total debt. Also, these debts are calculated on time frames that we aren't typically used to dealing with. For example, we typically never see any loan on a term longer than 30 years, yet world governments typically do loans on repayment terms of double or triple this length of time.

Also, as national spending goes up this encourages reciprocation by promoting spending on us by other world governments, especially in Europe and Asia. So while our debt increases, so does the amount that other nations owe us, so the ratio of debt to projected income remains fairly constant, and has for longer than any of us have been alive.

This is why we don't use national debt to calculate the financial strength of a nation, but the trade deficit (among other fiscal mile markers). Some politicians and the medial like to overplay the importance of the national debt in order to sway less educated voters into supporting measures which sound nice but are largely ineffective.

BenTheBozer
offline
BenTheBozer
815 posts
Nomad

National debt can be payed off quite easy and not all debt is bad, usally its just used as a scare tatic by the party who lost the election.

Efan
offline
Efan
3,086 posts
Nomad

At OP: you might have wanted to name the country first. America isn't the center of the universe you know.
I'd contribute but it is not my country to talk about

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

So, to get out of debt, we spend more? I am lost. I actually have to agree with OP in the sense that you can't spend your way out of debt.

So far, nothing has "changed" for the better. How much more does the government have to spend before we are out of debt? Why does the government have to spend so much? The government never had to spend so much money in the past to get us out of debt, why do we have to spend now?

Why are we complaining about being in debt, then wanting Obama to spend us out of debt? Shouldn't we either shrug debt aside completely or push Obama to stop spending?

Government spending is only a waste when you hate the president. Otherwise it is a risky maneuver that deserves the highest of honor for being such a crazy effective plan.

I don't care for double standards and I don't care for Obama. I don't care for people who go around talking about a decrease in taxes for the middle class, when the upper class includes people with small businesses. That's right, people who own small businesses are considered upper class and may have an increase in taxes that they can't afford. But I digress. Obama wants national health care, yet he promises to cut our taxes.

I could care less about National Debt right now, but I'm still not happy with Obama's double talk or his attack on the "rich", or the upper middle class.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I actually have to agree with OP in the sense that you can't spend your way out of debt.


Actually you can spend your way out of debt if what your spending the money on can make enough of a profit.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Actually you can spend your way out of debt if what your spending the money on can make enough of a profit.


True, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Alexander116
offline
Alexander116
107 posts
Shepherd

Actually you can spend your way out of debt if what your spending the money on can make enough of a profit.


Well that is not really "spending" your way out. Thats called investing, and yes it can allow you to get out of debt. but the government is not investing, well not investing wisely. you could call the AIG bailouts investing but that is not a wise investment plan. We need to do what Ronald Regan did by cutting taxes and government spending. Obamas not learning from the past! he's trying to fix the problems with money, instead of doing what works and has worked in the past!

To hypermntra,

Sorry about that little mistake in the first sentence, I meant to say "You can't did your way out of a hole!'
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

instead of doing what works and has worked in the past!


Which is?

And just to throw this out there people hate Obama because he's the face of the government. If someone else was in his position (regardless of party) people would hate that person just as much. All governments eventually become stagnated, but that's off topic.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

Umm... you don't cut taxes, especially in a recession. You keep them the same, or increase them, in order to bring in more money to the government. See, think of the government as the employee of the people. That employee relies on us, through taxes, to pay it's bills.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

you could call the AIG bailouts investing but that is not a wise investment plan.


Not saying I agree or disagree but I think it's more of an attempt to try and just keep everyone head above water.

We need to do what Ronald Regan did by cutting taxes and government spending.


Maybe someone else's policies Regan's didn't work.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

You don't keep taxes the same and you especially don't raise them in a recesion! Think about how much money government wastes on things that the government shouldn't even do. Cut those away, we could easily cut taxes.


Determining what is useless spending isn't always that easy. But even if we did wouldn't it not be better to re-divert that extra money into programs that aren't wastes?
BenTheBozer
offline
BenTheBozer
815 posts
Nomad

A prime example would be to reduce the military budget, and reduce AID help yourself then help others.

Showing 1-15 of 23