- #1
- 8,142
- 1,759
Who makes all of that interest?
Why do Republicans always seem to favor deficit spending?
Why do Republicans always seem to favor deficit spending?
Ivan Seeking said:Why do Republicans always seem to favor deficit spending?
Why do US citizens favor deficit spending? Loads of personal, business and governmental debt, everywhere. If we were in a time of high inflation that might be understandable.
I agree except that I won't even give the Republicans credit for the surplus under Clinton. Yes, its true, if they'd have allowed national healthcare to go through, there would have been no surplus, but the surplus wouldn't have existed anyway had it not been for the internet boom - which the government had virtually nothing to do with.Locrian said:As for republicans favoring deficit spending, I don't find that to be a fair statement, as no one has really run much of a surplus since before WW2. Those few green blips on the map are too short lived for anyone to take much credit. The most recent surplus we kinda almost had can certainly not be credited to Clinton. If his healthcare plan had been implemented we would have never seen that money. More credit goes to the GOP who, back then in those ages past, actually showed some fiscal conservatism.
And the answer is: people really don't care about their children.So in my opinion a more accurate question would be:
Why do US citizens favor deficit spending? Loads of personal, business and governmental debt, everywhere. If we were in a time of high inflation that might be understandable.
russ_watters said:but the surplus wouldn't have existed anyway had it not been for the internet boom - which the government had virtually nothing to do with.
And with that thread on "the looming economic disaster," I'm more inclined to say there never was a surplus.Locrian said:That's an excellent point too. It's worth remembering that these surpluses were insignificant compared to GDP, and that the government's "bookkeeping," if you can call it that, has a great affect on it. Some estimates show four years of surpluses; a different analysis suggests as little as one.
Ivan Seeking said:Who makes all of that interest?
Why do Republicans always seem to favor deficit spending?
selfAdjoint said:Actually China owns most of the US Federal debt, and will receive most of the debt service. And they benefit because by doing so they keep interest rates low and encourage consumer spending to buy the products China offers for sale in the US.
The Treasury Department borrows money through the sale of Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, and United States Savings Bonds to the public. We have copies available of Table OFS-1--Distribution of Federal Securities by Class of Investors and Type of Issues and Table OFS-2--Estimated Ownership of Public Debt Securities by Private Investors. These tables can be found in the TREASURY BULLETIN, which gets published monthly by our Financial Management Service. You will be interested to know that a yearly subscription to this document is available from the Superintendent of Documents. You may place your order by calling 202-512-1800 or by writing to the Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. This material may also be available in your local library or in a depository library.
Considering the amount of chinese food I eat, I should be exempt.Ivan Seeking said:They're making out pretty good. So how much does each one of us owe the Chinese?
The 14 year sum was $5 Trillion in interest, equivalent to $17,182 per person over that period - or $68,728 per family of 4. To further place that sum in perspective: 14 years of interest was enough money to run the entire federal government for more than 2 years without any other revenue - - or enough to run all state and local governments (nation-wide) for more than 3 years, or run social security for 10 years without any FICA taxes, or run Medicare for 20 years.
Ivan Seeking said:So China is not only raking in our jobs, they're also pocketing the interest from our debt.
They're making out pretty good. So how much does each one of us owe the Chinese?
We should not be mad at foreign interests. We are the ones creating trade deficits PLUS excessive federal spending.
Well, its about the same as the theory that if you commit your kids to pay for it, it really isn't a deficit (Democrats, re: Social Security).Ivan Seeking said:So why do Republicans argue for deficit spending again? I know they have a really good theory.
[separate post] I'm not blaming foreigners for our debt; I'm blaming Republicans. They are the great advocates of deficit spending.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...e&node=&contentId=A25406-2003Mar14¬Found=trueIt didn't help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day.
Influence peddling charged over Iraq’s debt
Do Washington heavyweights have a private interest at stake?
In meeting after meeting, President Bush's special envoy, former Secretary of State James Baker, has lobbied world leaders to reduce the crushing debt owed by Iraq.
But at the very same time, a high-powered consortium — including Baker's firm, the Carlyle Group, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other Washington heavyweights — has been pitching a seemingly conflicting proposal. The plan urges one of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East to maximize what it collects from Iraq. [continued]
russ_watters said:Wow, Haliburton is worth forty trillion dollars?
And better yet, when faced with facts, change the subject so you don't have to deal with them! Lovely.Ivan Seeking said:When you say conspiracy theories, I assume that you mean Bush's conspiracy theories about the Iraqi WMDs. I was talking about business. You know, like the one that partners the Bin Ladens and the Bushs.
No, Ivan - you said:Are you just making things up again?
...which implies a problem of equal or greater scope than social security. Unless you can show that the problem you see is costing us as much as social secuirty (roughly $40 trillion), your argument is specious.Yes, let's go start some more wars for Halliburton and the Carlyle Group,
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
and forget about social security.
This is why we are in debt: these guys and their buddies.
russ_watters said:And better yet, when faced with facts, change the subject so you don't have to deal with them! Lovely. No, Ivan - you said: ...which implies a problem of equal or greater scope than social security. Unless you can show that the problem you see is costing us as much as social secuirty (roughly $40 trillion), your argument is specious.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.71 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
In February 2003, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bunnatine (Bunny) Greenhouse walked into a Pentagon meeting and with a quiet comment started what could be the end of her career. On the agenda was the awarding of an up to $7 billion deal to a subsidiary of Houston-based conglomerate Halliburton to restore Iraq's oil facilities. On hand were senior officials from the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and aides to retired Lieut. General Jay Garner, who would soon become the first U.S. administrator in Iraq.
Then several representatives from Halliburton entered. Greenhouse, a top contracting specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, grew increasingly concerned that they were privy to internal discussions of the contract's terms, so she whispered to the presiding general, insisting that he ask the Halliburton employees to leave the room. [continued]
Uh huh. Have you even read the thread/article on the Social Security/Medicare debt? That's $40 trillion in actual debt. That's money the government has taken in and already spent on other things that it has promised to pay out later.Ivan Seeking said:No Russ, you see, debt grows by how much we overspend, not how much we spend. So, not only do you again fail to understand the point, you know nothing of the facts.
If I thought you actually believed that, I'd respond. Since I know you know its rediculous, thoughtless rhetoric, I won't.Ivan Seeking said:So you wish to redirect the the blame his father? Okay that's true in part. We had to rob social security in order to fund Bush's cold war.