Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Infinite life does give us the ability to not worry about paying off our debt entirely, but not the ability ignore our level of debt. Our GDP is only relatively & indirectly important to debt because our nation doesn't pay off the debt. The government does, and they get that money from us. So long as we don't want the government to take more of our money to pay their bills, we should worry about how much of the debt they can pay off with what they already take in. The two are related. How much we pay into the government is related to how much debt they go into. You can't worry about one while ignoring the other. Just so you know, I think Red is being a bit too much of a worrier on this subject, as it's more of a political tool than anything. But it is still something that requires some attention, and shouldn't be completely ignored.
well, this is one topic where i admit the complexities of it confuse me. however, i think i understand things at the simplest level. we should almost never raise taxes, because we should not give the government more money to spend, because they waste such an insane amount of it already. we should not be frightened into raising taxes, we should lower spending instead. we should quit believing that these massive programs the government runs are actually helpful. and debt shouldnt always be viewed as a problem, if it facilitates growth, then it rules.
:thumb: All correct. Infrastructure is one of the best uses of federal funds because it facilitates a growing economy. Public education (theoretically, but this might be a different thread possability) and military also facilitate economic growth. A certain level of regulation does the same, but it's all the big government programs that pull down the growth of the economy and create the debt we should worry about. We should worry about it because the government shouldn't be undertaking it and yet we have to pay for it. Just like with responsible people & corporations, a reasonable amount of debt encourages optimal growth & wealth for everyone.
Yeah, the wealthy should pay all our taxes. The top 10% wage earners are only paying 68% of all federal income taxes. They can pay more! Tax Report
It's not "my programs", it the Bush administration's programs that you have vigorously defended. Did you forget that? :lol:
I don't understand why you would think that. China is our only potential superpower rival. US wealth is flowing to China in return for nothing, just interest payments on foolish overspending by our government. Is it not obvious? We are giving them economic leverage. China could dump this huge pile of US Government bonds on the market and collapse the dollar. Meanwhile they suck us dry of billions of wasted dollars which increases our debt and their surplus.
Where have I demanded that taxes be raised? You just made it up. What I have advocated is responsible government spending where income approximately equals expenses. This administration has no discipline on the spending side. Balance is the key. Either cut spending to match the income or raise income to cover the spending. Let the parties perform and then let the voters decide who they want. There is some ideal point we here we are getting approximately what we want and are willing to pay for. Let that point be found. It is borrowing that is a waste. Better to run a small suprlus and have a rainy day fund to cover emergencies, than to just borrow. And the Bush administration borrows not only for emergencies, but for pork barrel spending, and massive, wasteful new social programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Medicare Drug Benefits". Not to mention an expensive, unneccessary asian war.
Borrowing helps our economy grow. There's no reason to have a surplus. We should just be more responsible about how much debt we go into. We can always borrow more to cover emergencies and then pay it off during times of prosperity.
In return for financing social programs & other government spending, not for nothing. It is not an exchange of wealth, both countries are getting richer. No we aren't giving them leverage. They could just as easily invest in American companies or UK bonds. They don't increase our debt, we issue the bonds - they just buy them.
I don't dislke Bush. I actually voted for Bush in 2000 because the alternative was Gore. I simply think he is incompetent based on his performance in office. Perhaps, your worship of the guy blinds you to his faults. And the recession started before 9/11, which I never mentioned. To quote your own article: "On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of economic activity had occurred in March of that year. The March 2001 peak marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the NBER's chronology. " Clinton's 8 years were the last 8 years of the last great expansion of the economy. Bush took office in January 2001, the market began to deline in March, 2001. Not on Clinton's watch. CParso was wrong, Bush did not inherit a recession. I never mentioned 9/11, don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that Bush did not inherit a recession. It happened on his watch, for what ever reasons and it is his responsibility and his legacy. You can't change that. 9/11 timing was his misfortune, but the budget deficits, the Iraq war, the unfunded new social programs, the tax cuts, the uncertain stock market, the trade deficit, suspicious allies, and his failed attempt to make Social Security less secure and more expensive were all things that are directly the result of his actions. That's not what I said. I said the economy under Bush has been poorer than his predessesor. Look at the curves, amigo. Steadily rising DOW from 3,000 to 11,000 under Clinton. Dropping to under 8,000 and slowly climbing back to 11,000 under Bush. Just look at the performance alone and the difference is clear.
