Democratic Party, the party of fiscal responsibility

The Clinton reference was due to the fact that he was Bush's immediate predecessor and not any reference to your party loyalties.

Quit digging.

 

most likely to take shots at people and involve them in a non-issue related series of stupid personal jabs: 157 and contained chaos.

least likely: red and cparso.

 

Yes, I understand that. But you were insinuating that I would not be giving credit to W, which would be a double-standard on my part....much like my accusation of some of you as being double-standardizing. I don't have to dig, it's right there on the surface.

 

See, this is what happens when you:

a. Have to have the last word, and
b. are not as smart as me.

 

would you similarly argue that the interest a person pays on their mortgage bought them nothing? didnt it actually buy them the ability to buy a house long before they actually had the money for it? wasnt that a sound decision? is that not what wealth is?

furthermore, who do you think those interest payments are going to? don't they go back to the investment-holding private citizens? the ones who voluntarily loan money to the government by purchasing t-bills? does that hurt the economy?

is it not a sound investment to borrow money when the investment of that money provides for the future? the goal is growth, not reduction of debt. this pretense that debt is bad has no real rational basis.

also keeping a national debt gives people a rock solid place to store their money at 6% interest. i guess that benefits no one in your book?

keeping taxes low now (by not paying down the debt) helps growth, which is the ultimate goal. in the future the economy will be bigger, and wealth will be easier to come by. borrowing now increases our future potential. we should always borrow as much as possibe and spend it on things that facilitate future growth.

i can only tell you the way things ought to be, not the way they are. as it stands, the government takes far too active a role in manipulating the economy. the government that governs least, governs best.

 

I'll never understand the people who piss and moan when others respond to their posts. The formula is simple, really. If it is going to bother you when someone responds, just don't say anything to them.

 

so we can add you to that list now?

Most likely to misunderstand and have uninformed opinions of subjects: martin.

 

I take it you have abandoned your arguments?

 

fundamentally I agree with most all points though I dislike the constant debt due to foreign investors (govts) getting more control over our economy through the sale of such bonds needed to cover our asses (as I always bring up). but thats not always so bad since their risk is much higher because the international currency standard is our US dollar which gives us much more leeway than any other country in the world. even the richest ones.

the fact we are the the floating dollar standard means most all imports are paid with the US dollar, which in turn, implies all US liabilities are paid with it as well. not surprisingly, this has been the case since the early 80's.

given our fed reserve issues the dollar, it is impossible for the US to run out of money in order to pay back this debt--and because our foreign debt is paid off in our own currency, we have the enviable position of setting our own interest rate incurred on such debt. this also means the owners of US foreign debt suffer any depreciation of the US dollar and not us. that's one hell of an advantage to have over the rest of the world.

As I've said before, I'm no fan of the huge debt this country incurs on a continuum due to foreign governments becoming more controlling over our economy and the snowballing effect it has on interest. however, its not quite the issue most are led to believe, either, yet it makes for good fodder during elections and i presume it always will. i think the federal debt is fine when cyclical yet much more damaging if it becomes permanent.