Bush killing US financially - heading for $8 trillion debt

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I belive Bush will send the US economy into one drastic downturn. I'm from Canada where we pay higher taxes than most of the world. However, our social services are second to none and our healthcare system(although still ripe with problems) can't be beat. Imagine never having to pay for medical care??

Thats true Canada's healthcare is second to none. But America's military is second to none and it cost a pretty penny to keep it that way. More money then the rest of the world combined is willing or able to pay. If we had no need for a military we could have one hell of a healthcare system.

End the madness --- Vote for a minority Government as was done in Canada.

This will hold the majority government accountable for its actions. Proud to be a Canadian.

Thats true Canada's healthcare is second to none. But America's military is second to none and it cost a pretty penny to keep it that way. More money then the rest of the world combined is willing or able to pay. If we had no need for a military we could have one hell of a healthcare system.

Why do we need a $500 billion dollar military stationed in Korea, Japan, Germany, England, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistant, Uzbekistan, Italy, Cuba, and 30 other countries, with 10 carrier battle groups prowling the world's oceans, to protect the US? Are they really protecting America, or are we being sold a bill of goods? I think it's a racket. Read this and decide:

lexrex.com...

Sure, don't give Clinton any credit for the great economy while he was President. But be sure to blame Clinton for the recession that Bush claims he inherited from Clinton. Did you look at the historical graph of national debt as a percentage of GDP, which I posted earlier? If Bush's policies are allowed to continue, the federal government will be bankrupted.

I didn't blame anyone for anything. I just said Clinton doesn't deserve much credit for the economy, and Bush doesn't deserve much blame for the current situation.

The president doesn't do much for the economy one way or the other. It's just a lot of garbage.

The economy is fine right now. Whining about the national debt is just a way for Democrats to get votes.

If Clinton was so good for the economy then why did he pardon the biggest tax cheat in US history? How exactly was that a good thing for the US economy?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If Clinton was so good for the economy then why did he pardon the biggest tax cheat in US history? How exactly was that a good thing for the US economy?

First of all, who are you talking about? Second of all, you seriously need to take a course in logical and critical thinking. What does who Clinton pardoned have to do with whether his policies had a positive effect of the economy???

Billionaire tax cheat Marc Rich one of the 139 pardons Clinton signed just two hours before he left office.Also look into the more than $1 million that Rich's ex-wife gave to the Clintons and Democratic causes.

Im just saying these are not the actions of a man who has the countries best economic interest in mind.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 30-7-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If Clinton was so good for the economy then why did he pardon the biggest tax cheat in US history? How exactly was that a good thing for the US economy?

How was that necessarily a bad thing? I don't really think that one guy had an impact on whether or not we're in a recession.

I'm not saying his action was virtuous or good... I'm just saying it didn't effect the economy. It was, however, irresponsible and showed poor moral values, but then again, that's not the issue.

I just looked at Kerry's campaign manifesto.

He say's he will cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first 4 year term. Sounds good, but what does it mean?

All he's saying is by the end of 4 years, the government is going to be digging itself further into debt at only half the rate it is doing so currently. Nothing about reducing the debt. Nothing about getting out of the hole they are digging. He's just offering to dig a little bit slower at some point in the future!


[edit on 3-8-2004 by muppet]

Originally posted by muppet
I just looked at Kerry's campaign manifesto.

He say's he will cut the budget deficit in half by the end of his first 4 year term. Sounds good, but what does it mean?

Wait .. "cutting the deficit in half" means making half of the federal defecit disappear... unless you wrote it wrong and that's not what he said verbatim.

Your right it wasn't verbatim, I should have posted the link! :doh:
John Kerry for President - Economy

Make Washington Live Within A Budget
John Kerry will cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office.

My understand of "deficit" is that it refers the difference between govt. receipts and expenses in any given year, not the overall level of borrowing. If there's a deficit, it means they still getting into more debt.

The budget deficit this year is projected to be nearly $500 billion for 2004, equivalent to 5% of US GDP. If federal debt is 8 trillion now, then even if Kerry achieves his target it's going to be pushing 10 trillion by 2008. I'm not saying Bush would be any better... of course! .

There's also arguments that running some sort of deficit is a good thing if the economy is also growing to match.

related link : BBC : Does the US budget deficit matter?

This thread is, I beleive, the penultimate example of an UTTER LACK of knowledge of economics I have ever seen...

The "Professor" TRIED to set some straight but was off-handedly dismissed by a BOGUS graph.

Pitiful...

m...

[edit on 8-3-2004 by Springer]

Pardon my intrusion. If I may offer an entirely different perspective. But first to say that:

The primary issue is not a deficit, or surplus for that matter, but world currency deflation. Allow me to explain my position.

The PNAC doctrine is one of hegemony, world domination, militarily as well as financially. The object militarily we have seen, but the financial aspect takes a bit longer, more than 4 years in fact.

The U.S of A is the strongest economy in the world, which for all intents and purposes can withstand a barrage of assault before it breaks. Such is the gamble, and that gamble is to reduce the debt load due to the cost of financing wars and the foreign investment needed to sustain such cost, and ensure dominance of trade.

The U.S is the largest importer in the world. So much so, that dependency on imports cripples the economy during times of excessive spending, such as in times of war. While many commodities are fixed for trade in USD, the necessities of life are fixed at the export markets currency. This mean for example, that fruits and vegetables are priced based on the currency of the exporting country, not a treaty assigned dollar value, and so the costs to import exceeds consumer spending.

Because of the excessive domestic deficit burden incurred by the U.S, the USD shrinks in value resulting in the foreign debt costing more with the increase in foreign exchange.

But, the opposite of that is the dependence of foreign countries which rely largely on the US for importing its products, such as France, which trades under the Euro. Currently as it stands, France (as an example) has the benefit of exporting many products to the US priced in Euros, which means that importers must pay an ever evaluating cost for same.

In steps the republican ideology of hegemony, the intent of which is to deflate foreign currency by stalling or allowing the imports from American businesses because it is just too expensive to order product. Those economies (e.g. France) stall because they depend on the export. In fact they not only stall they starve. The Euro devalues from want of investment, The USD rises in value eating away the deficits, and the republicans keep this up until the exporters are themselves crippled, so much so that all foreign debt amassed because of FX disappears.

In order for the European Nations to exit depression, OPEC is forced to trade solely in USD, as are they, EU nations, by virtue of the stranglehold on their other export products. The U.S debt is reduced, and (in PNAC's world) never again will the USD be forced into a foreign exchange scenario where the USD is worth less than any currency. The economic hegemony is complete.

However, as with the Bush administration�s miscalculation on the war, so too was their miscalculation on the FX. The EU, three months ago saw through the plan and threatened to devalue the EU currency to stave off the depression they faced.

For every action, there is a reaction, and unfortunately for bush and the PNAC authors, they were just a bit too opttimistic with their plans.

I am not surprised. Bush screwed so much stuff up.
And that is one big hole your taxes will have to dig out of.

Pardon my intrusion. If I may offer an entirely different perspective. But first to say that:

The primary issue is not a deficit, or surplus for that matter, but world currency deflation. Allow me to explain my position.

The PNAC doctrine is one of hegemony, world domination, militarily as well as financially. The object militarily we have seen, but the financial aspect takes a bit longer, more than 4 years in fact.

The U.S of A is the strongest economy in the world, which for all intents and purposes can withstand a barrage of assault before it breaks. Such is the gamble, and that gamble is to reduce the debt load due to the cost of financing wars and the foreign investment needed to sustain such cost, and ensure dominance of trade.

The U.S is the largest importer in the world. So much so, that dependency on imports cripples the economy during times of excessive spending, such as in times of war. While many commodities are fixed for trade in USD, the necessities of life are fixed at the export markets currency. This mean for example, that fruits and vegetables are priced based on the currency of the exporting country, not a treaty assigned dollar value, and so the costs to import exceeds consumer spending.

Because of the excessive domestic deficit burden incurred by the U.S, the USD shrinks in value resulting in the foreign debt costing more with the increase in foreign exchange.

But, the opposite of that is the dependence of foreign countries which rely largely on the US for importing its products, such as France, which trades under the Euro. Currently as it stands, France (as an example) has the benefit of exporting many products to the US priced in Euros, which means that importers must pay an ever evaluating cost for same.

In steps the republican ideology of hegemony, the intent of which is to deflate foreign currency by stalling or allowing the imports from American businesses because it is just too expensive to order product. Those economies (e.g. France) stall because they depend on the export. In fact they not only stall they starve. The Euro devalues from want of investment, The USD rises in value eating away the deficits, and the republicans keep this up until the exporters are themselves crippled, so much so that all foreign debt amassed because of FX disappears.

In order for the European Nations to exit depression, OPEC is forced to trade solely in USD, as are they, EU nations, by virtue of the stranglehold on their other export products. The U.S debt is reduced, and (in PNAC's world) never again will the USD be forced into a foreign exchange scenario where the USD is worth less than any currency. The economic hegemony is complete.

However, as with the Bush administration�s miscalculation on the war, so too was their miscalculation on the FX. The EU, three months ago saw through the plan and threatened to devalue the EU currency to stave off the depression they faced.

For every action, there is a reaction, and unfortunately for bush and the PNAC authors, they were just a bit too opttimistic with their plans.

Now that is a different way of looking at it, perhaps this is what some of the other opposers were talking about, too bad they didn't actually say anything. I think it should also be pointed out that the creditors could also have threatened to sell off all their U.S. bond and crash the U.S. dollar if the U.S. persisted in their attempt at economic hegemony. I think that the essential weakness of that plan and U.S. economic stratagy in general is that it ignores the dependence of the importer. Yes, exporters need someone to export too, but the importers need the exporters in a somewhat more urgent way. The E.U. would be short on money, the U.S. would be short on essential goods which would also damage the U.S. economy.

Originally posted by Springer
This thread is, I beleive, the penultimate example of an UTTER LACK of knowledge of economics I have ever seen...

The "Professor" TRIED to set some straight but was off-handedly dismissed by a BOGUS graph.

Care to explain which of my criticisms of the Professor's post are not valid?

Care to explain why the graph is bogus?

Care to explain why you gave me a warning for activity in this thread, when I should be getting applause?

First: Entire premise of this thread is retarded.

Second: The thread creator obviously knows nothing about modern currency.

Third: The US has an incredibly stable economy, after all our financial capital had a giant hole literally blown into it, and we the consumer did not even feel a hiccup while contrarily, Germany, after WW1, which did not even affect the fatherland directly, resulted in bread costing more than a million marks.

I don't even know where to begin.

Simply put, out dollar is worth its debt, the more debt the better, as long as our economy is "inflating".

That is why inflation is ok, sucks for us in a way, things cost more, but do they really? No.

Inflation has created a dollar about 1/12th as valuable as a 1945 dollar, however the buying power is about the same. In 1940 you could buy a car for about 800 bucks. That's $9,600 today (roughly). Not exact, but their typical cars weren't aerodynamic with fuel injection capable of going from 0 to 60 in 2 seconds and easily crusing at 130mph either.

Also you can buy cars for cheaper than $9,600.

As our economy grows, our currency inflates.

Why?

Because to buy all the new stuff you need to have more money, to have more money you take on more debt (very rudamentary but this is the basics).

So our on and off budget debt comes around 30 trillion dollars.

Well oddly enough that about equals the entire liquidatable assets of the US...even a bit less actually.

So...correlation? Yes.

Crisis? No.

The problem is when you accumulate say 30 trillion dollars of debt, and your economy is worth...1 billion dollars.

Then you have a sever problem because all your liquidatable assets can't pay off even 1,000th of the debt you owe.

Money today is just exchange of debt, and simply put, the nation is the collateral.

A country says "we have this much liquidatable assets and so we shall have this much money and investors both national and citizen shall forward the trust for that money."

If everyone collected on their debts, all that would happen is a transfer of ownership of materials in the US from those who bought it with US dollars, to those who invested in the US dollar...which is both American citizenry and foreign citizenry and foreign nations.

But never fear, the US as a nation has invested trillions in European economy, thus their Euro is ironically backed by ours and Asiatic investments and so forth.

This is all the beautiful system designed after WW2.

Again, simplistic, but captures a key point in global economics which is an important point that smashes this stupid thread's topic.

If someone already covered this better than I, (who studies politics not economics though they go hand in hand), then forgive me for reitterating.

The IMF certainly seem to think it's an issue.

I.�Overview: Returning Deficits and the Need for Fiscal Reform

U.S. government finances have experienced a remarkable turnaround in recent years. Within only a few years, hard-won gains of the previous decade have been lost and, instead of budget surpluses, deficits are again projected as far as the eye can see. The deterioration has not been restricted to the federal budget but has also taken place at the state and local government levels. As a result, the U.S. general government deficit is now among the highest in the industrialized world, and public debt levels are approaching those in other major industrial countries.

Although fiscal policies have undoubtedly provided valuable support to the recovery so far, the return to large deficits raises two interrelated concerns. First, with budget projections showing large federal fiscal deficits over the next decade, the recent emphasis on cutting taxes, boosting defense and security outlays, and spurring an economic recovery may come at the eventual cost of upward pressure on interest rates, a crowding out of private investment, and an erosion of longer-term U.S. productivity growth.

Second, the evaporation of fiscal surpluses has left the budget even less well prepared to cope with the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will begin later this decade and place massive pressure on the Social Security and Medicare systems. Without the cushion provided by earlier surpluses, there is less time to address these programs' underlying insolvency before government deficits and debt begin to increase unsustainably, making more urgent the need for meaningful reform.

From the IMF's Jan 2004 paper on U.S. Fiscal Policies and Priorities for Long-Run Sustainability

Originally posted by FreeMason
First: Entire premise of this thread is retarded.

Second: The thread creator obviously knows nothing about modern currency.

Ok, I'll admit to being a retard, but no amount of modern currency theory can state that 47% of 2003 taxes going to the interest on the debt instead of the principle isn't a waste of money.

Wouldn't you rather be spending 47% less taxes?

I can guarentee you Talibunsuu that if you want less tax you are probably significantly in the wrong political region. Less tax? Then support State Sovereignty. The Federal Government is too bloated as it is, and too inefficient.

The 47% paying interest is a shady figure because the interest on the debt is a result of expanding economy (if not the bonds would be junk bonds and no one would want to buy them) and so if the economy is expanding then the income is as well. And so forth and so on.

It's not smooth or else we'd notice nothing, it is a jagged general trend that crushes a few under its weight and carries others high aloft. But generally everything is moving towards more wealth, after all abject poverty today is nothing like abject poverty of the 1800s.

The real problem is, do we really need such a massive Federal Government which consumes most of the economy (in the form of off budget debt) to further its own existence.

We don't need that. A significantly smaller Federal Government without all the massive regulation bureaus would result in far less off budget spending and thus far less debt, and the debt backs our dollar but we do not need so much of it.

After all we can pay a nickle to buy a steak instead of 10 dollars...