Not surprising how the insane among you ignore little tidbits like that. Especially when I think ahead to type them in the OP itself.



It is an interesting case study how many of you are terrified completely sh*tless about having a government that lives within a limited means. ANY limit. On any time frame.

Extremism, much?

 

-----signature-----

---

What time frame are you referring to? Too far in what hole? Given the market rate of gov't bonds, the rest of the world doesnt agree. Im always curious exactly what data people are looking at that makes them take your position. I know some people are making a moral argument against debt and dont feel there is any actual data that needs to be considered...but certainly not everyone is in that boat?


The medium term debt wasnt a problem just 11 short years ago. Half of Washington was panicked that we would pay off our debt too fast.


10 years of slow GDP growth plus forecasted future slow growth and future medicare spending are the only real budget problems over the long term. Planning to avoid massive economy crushing 5+ year recessions and slowing the growth of medical costs are really the only plans we need to tack the debt problem. But most are using it as a convenient excuse to wage their social war of choice.

Don't forget, if you pay federal income tax, your share is double. Those who don't pay income taxes will not help with this debt.

 

-----signature-----

We know your stance already, red. You're a caricatured poster child for it.

 

-----signature-----

Says the guy whose response to everything is "doesn't matter if I don't get my deficit cap amendment!!1111"


You are becoming like Fisted Puma.

Oh, that makes alot more sense. How could I have missed that.


The 'live within its means' trope is always a confusing one. No qualification or explanation is ever given. Given the rate on gov't bonds, the US is living within its means. Just about every household and company uses some type of debt....but this phrase isnt used to slam every single person with a house/car/school loan and every company with outstanding bonds.

Allowing a recession to drag on for years because debt scares you is really a shame....5 years of slow growth, lost incomes, lost production...all of these costs will be passed on to future generations, but because it doesnt show up neatly on a balance sheet statement its easy for people to ignore. This kind of economic ignorance is widespread.


Intelligent people really need to push back against this 'live within its means' line as it carries alot of weight with the sheeple I think. Applying this 'live within your means' scheme to households and businesses would crush most of them. Few entities get by without debt. This happens because debt is a wonderful instrument that allows people to get richer. Deferring costs into the future to a time when you will be wealthier often makes alot of sense. It makes sense for households, for business, and for governments. Individuals get old, stop working and die...so they cant keep rolling over debt forever. Countries dont face this problem. The sheeple get very confused by this as they think the gov't must face the same financial restrictions that they face. AA for example will one day find it harder to grow his income and this affects his ability to carry debt. The gov't doesnt have that problem. AA does not have an unlimited pile of dollars to make debt payments and this affects his ability to carry debt....again, the gov't doesnt have this problem. This is not a call for unlimited government debt, its just a reminder that AA is very, very confused.

My stated position is simply "some limit that imposes a cap on spending and aligns it to revenue some number of years down the road."

I leave completely open to discussion the concepts of:

- What a cap is in % of gdp, or even another metric
- What emergency measures or over-run is allowed
- What supermajority has to approve emergencies
- How many years down the road we achieve revenue-spending parity


The opposition's position is:





So, who's the fanatic?

 

-----signature-----

Probably the guy who posts stuff like "I don't care irrelevant without deficit amendment!" in any economic thread.