"Aging Out" Fans...

[TIMKEYS]

Originally Posted by guido61

There's an advantage to being the economic top dog in the world and getting to print our own money. Yeah, a good deal of the debt will eventually be eaten up by inflation due to all the money printing, but from the economic standpoint of the individual, how is that any more painful or dangerous than a recession? And it has the advantage of being able to spread it out over the next few decades rather than taking the hit all at once.

Take a trip to Europe and ask some of those countries over there how well "austerity" is working out for them.

I've been hearing the cries of "the debt will destroy us!" since I was a little kid. None of that has ever really panned out, has it? Dick Cheney told us all that "deficits don't matter" around about 2002 when the government was in the mood to run up the credit card to pay for some wars. Were you as apoplectic about all the debt back then? Or did it not bother you because it was the guys YOU like running it up at the time?

Some quick tips to live your life by:

1) take care of yourself as best you can. Nobody else is going to do it for you. Not Barack Obama. Not Mitt Romney.

2) it's fun and entertaining to pick a team and play political football, but it isn't going really matter which party is in power because, if for no other reason, you can't do anything about it anyway. I can't think of any bigger waste of time than trying to live my life based on who the current or next president is. I need to focus on the things I CAN control.

3) don't let that {censored} run your life. Nobody like crazy political guy with a yard full of signs and his car covered in stickers. Doesn't matter which team you're rooting far. People will think you're a nut. They're laughing AT you, not WITH you. The truth is in the middle, not at the extremes. That's why we have a two-party system. If one side was always right and the other always wrong, they'd have obliterated the other side long ago.

The problem is that we are in un charted waters with the idea that you can inflate your way out of this. the difference between now and the last time we did this was that we were a creditor nation then. Today we are broke deep in debt, and losing market share. So basically you are headed toward one world goverment, or a default with a bank holiday or both. Its going to take a depression to fix it. The bubble is just getting bigger. How long can we play the game? who knows. If you happen to be a guy who is broke ,, nothing matters. If you have saved your money odds are its going to come at your expense.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

The problem is that we are in un charted waters with the idea that you can inflate your way out of this. the difference between now and the last time we did this was that we were a creditor nation then. Today we are broke deep in debt, and losing market share. So basically you are headed toward one world goverment, or a default with a bank holiday or both. Its going to take a depression to fix it. The bubble is just getting bigger. How long can we play the game? who knows. If you happen to be a guy who is broke ,, nothing matters. If you have saved your money odds are its going to come at your expense.

Turn off the radio. It's made your brain numb.

[TIMKEYS]

Originally Posted by guido61

Turn off the radio. It's made your brain numb.

I dont listen to talk radio. So where do you think the end game will be? Its obvious that we are going to keep going on expanding the national debt. do you think we will start bailing out europe by borrowing more? Whats the end game?

[Potts]

 

Originally Posted by guido61

Luckily you established the path you were on with them before you became crazy old gummit conspiracy guy.

 

LMAO

[Potts]

One world government... Heheh

[TIMKEYS]

 

Originally Posted by Potts

One world government... Heheh

 

where do you see the end game? How do you keep the ball rolling with trying to inflate your way out?

[toddkuen]

Who doesn't like to party with other peoples money?

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

I dont listen to talk radio. So where do you think the end game will be? Its obvious that we are going to keep going on expanding the national debt. do you think we will start bailing out europe by borrowing more? Whats the end game?

First, you have to understand the nature of the debt. 3/4s of it we owe to ourselves in one form or another. So whether we inflate our way out, cut spending, raise taxes, or simply default on it--or, most likely, a combination of all the above--the end game isn't going to matter muc one way or the other to the economy or to individuals. To the degree the debt is money owed to the SS Trust Fund, or owed to the Federal Reserve in the form of all the T-bills they've been buying with printed money, it really becomes just more a matter of how you spread out the debt until the time any of it actually becomes due. A good part of it CAN be "kicked forward" pretty much indefinately. We still haven't paid back all the debt accrued from the War of 1812. The way we pay back today's debt is by borrowing from others in the future.

It's nice, and easy-to-understand rhetoric to talk about things like "families have to balance their budget, why can't the government?" and talking about the debt like it's a credit card, but that's really not the way it works. Yes, we need to reduce the deficits. Yes, we need to get spending and revenues more inline with each other. Yes, there are dangers when the cost of servicing the debt gets too high. But the majority of all the doom-and-gloom talk about the debt ruining the nation is just political rhetoric that is useful for getting some people elected and radio/TV ratings, but not a lot else.

The key figure is debt-to-GDP ratio. Right now we're getting close to 70%. The generally accepted 'danger' figure is when it reaches about 90%. So we definately need to pull back. Germany is running about at 80%, Canada is closer to 90%. But the best way to reduce the debt is to grow the economy. Which isn't going to be done by drastically reducing spending. Again, ask Europe how well that is going for them. The economy is picking up. The best thing is to wait a lot of it out. You do the big cuts/big tax increases when times are better; not when things are fragile.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...

The key figure is debt-to-GDP ratio. Right now we're getting close to 70%. The generally accepted 'danger' figure is when it reaches about 90%. So we definately need to pull back. Germany is running about at 80%, Canada is closer to 90%. But the best way to reduce the debt is to grow the economy. Which isn't going to be done by drastically reducing spending. Again, ask Europe how well that is going for them. The economy is picking up. The best thing is to wait a lot of it out. You do the big cuts/big tax increases when times are better; not when things are fragile.

Your 70% figure excludes things like the Social Security Trust Fund which the US depleted by borrowing from years ago. Unfortunately today there are A) only about two workers contributing to support each SS recipient instead of the 5-7 in years past and B) far more (and a growing number of) retired people consuming ever more SS as well as all the other Medi* services - so I believe this puts us much closer to 100% than 70%.

So though it might be justified as "money we owe to ourselves" you're screwing the future recipient by repaying them with a newly printed dollar much more "leveraged" then when it was borrowed.

The difference I see in how people view this situation:

If you like leverage then this economy and its leadership are just the ticket because, like Tinkerbell, everyone just has to keep "believing" for it to keep growing - regardless of the fundamentals. So its rah, rah, rah!

If you don't like leverage than its doom and gloom - just like the 2008 housing market turned out to be - because there are no good underlying fundamentals.

Doom and gloom is always prefaced by rising insanity and nonsense - like the growth of no-doc loans in 2007.

The current 0% Fed rate to me is the same kind of insanity.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Your 70% figure excludes things like the Social Security Trust Fund which the US depleted by borrowing from years ago. Unfortunately today there are A) only about two workers contributing to support each SS recipient instead of the 5-7 in years past and B) far more (and a growing number of) retired people consuming ever more SS as well as all the other Medi* services - so I believe this puts us much closer to 100% than 70%.

But again, that's all money we owe to ourselves. Yes, SS needs to be fixed (which is a relatively easy thing to do, BTW) but it's a bit like saying my business account owes my personal account money.

If you like leverage then this economy and its leadership are just the ticket because, like Tinkerbell, everyone just has to keep "believing" for it to keep growing - regardless of the fundamentals. So its rah, rah, rah!

But, to a large degree, that's all it is. "Faith and credit in the United States". The money isn't backed by anything real---there isn't enough gold in the world to keep in reserve and besides, the value of gold is just bull{censored} as well. In fact, gold may be the most useless metal that exists. There isn't much of anything you can do with it. It has value because people think it's shiny and pretty and because we all "believe" it has value.

If you don't like leverage than its doom and gloom - just like the 2008 housing market turned out to be - because there are no good underlying fundamentals.

Doom and gloom is always prefaced by rising insanity and nonsense - like the growth of no-doc loans in 2007.

The current 0% Fed rate to me is the same kind of insanity.

I don't see the comparison. The no-doc loans led to a huge housing bubble. Values of real estate doubled and tripled in just a few years based on nothing but thin air. The current 0% Fed rate isn't creating any sort of similar bubble.

[TIMKEYS]

Originally Posted by guido61

But again, that's all money we owe to ourselves. Yes, SS needs to be fixed (which is a relatively easy thing to do, BTW) but it's a bit like saying my business account owes my personal account money.



But, to a large degree, that's all it is. "Faith and credit in the United States". The money isn't backed by anything real---there isn't enough gold in the world to keep in reserve and besides, the value of gold is just bull{censored} as well. In fact, gold may be the most useless metal that exists. There isn't much of anything you can do with it. It has value because people think it's shiny and pretty and because we all "believe" it has value.


What it is doing it destroying the buying power of anyone on fixed incomes and destroying the buying power of the dollar. If you are broke and spend every dollar as fast as you make it ,, its hunky. If you have saved over the years its legal theft. Americans with money are not going to buy anymore goverment debt. the risk is more than the reward is worth. Gold will always be worth more than the paper the USA is printing and calling it money. Gold is a speculation. but with obama in office , its a sure thing. He is the gift that just keeps on giving to gold bugs.

I don't see the comparison. The no-doc loans led to a huge housing bubble. Values of real estate doubled and tripled in just a few years based on nothing but thin air. The current 0% Fed rate isn't creating any sort of similar bubble.

Sure it is ,,, the bubble is the full faith and credit of the US goverment.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Gold will always be worth more than the paper the USA is printing and calling it money. Gold is a speculation. but with obama in office , its a sure thing. He is the gift that just keeps on giving to gold bugs.

You conservative nutballs crack me up. If Obama is the "gift the keeps on giving" for gold bugs, than he has been for the stock market and for low interest rates as well. If he had an "R" next to his name, you'd probably be hailing him as the 2nd coming of Reagan and kissing his feet for how he has gloriously pulled the US out of the depths of the recession. But he has a "D" next to his name so you spin it as hard as you can the other way.

it is ,,, the bubble is the full faith and credit of the US goverment.

All those signs out in front of your trailer are hand-painted, aren't they? Probably spelled "government" wrong on those too?

For pete's sake, if you really hate the United States and the way things have been run for the last century so much, why don't you move to Somalia or somewhere where the economy and government is more to your liking?

[Potts]

Originally Posted by guido61

You conservative nutballs crack me up. If Obama is the "gift the keeps on giving" for gold bugs, than he has been for the stock market and for low interest rates as well. If he had an "R" next to his name, you'd probably be hailing him as the 2nd coming of Reagan and kissing his feet for how he has gloriously pulled the US out of the depths of the recession. But he has a "D" next to his name so you spin it as hard as you can the other way.



All those signs out in front of your trailer are hand-painted, aren't they? Probably spelled "government" wrong on those too?

For pete's sake, if you really hate the United States and the way things have been run for the last century so much, why don't you move to Somalia or somewhere where the economy and government is more to your liking?

+1

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

...
I don't see the comparison. The no-doc loans led to a huge housing bubble. Values of real estate doubled and tripled in just a few years based on nothing but thin air. The current 0% Fed rate isn't creating any sort of similar bubble.

Its not the 0% creating the bubble - its a symptom.

If there are no problems then why are places like Stockton CA, Harrisburg, PA, etc. all bust? CA itself is not far behind.

Or maybe if we all believe they're not really bankrupt everything will be okay?

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Its not the 0% creating the bubble - its a symptom.

If there are no problems then why are places like Stockton CA, Harrisburg, PA, etc. all bust? CA itself is not far behind.

Or maybe if we all believe they're not really bankrupt everything will be okay?

No one has ever said there are no problems. We still working our way out of the worst economic crash since the Depression, and one that was much worse than most people personally felt--mostly due to things like food stamps and unemployment insurance that kept away the long soup lines we saw in the 1930s. The 0% may be a symptom in some ways, but it's also part of the path out of the hole. Anybody who is *shocked!* that government debt has increased dramatically during a depression doesn't really understand economics much. (The much worse problem is that so much debt was incurred when times were GOOD, IMO).

And yeah, some cities and states are having a really rough go of it. Not the first time that's happened either. The biggest city in the US went bankrupt in the 70s but still didn't take the entire country down with it. The rising US debt IS a problem. I'm not pretending it isn't. It's just not the end-of-the-United-States-as-we-know-it problem that a lot of people make it out to be. And frankly, I'm pretty sure want it to be. No doubt there's a good number of people rooting for the country to crumble just so they can prove a political point. That's pretty sad. Almost sick, when you think about it.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

... (The much worse problem is that so much debt was incurred when times were GOOD, IMO).

Agreed. And I think this points to the basic irresponsibility of the US government.

Originally Posted by guido61

... And yeah, some cities and states are having a really rough go of it. Not the first time that's happened either. The biggest city in the US went bankrupt in the 70s but still didn't take the entire country down with it. The rising US debt IS a problem. I'm not pretending it isn't. It's just not the end-of-the-United-States-as-we-know-it problem that a lot of people make it out to be. And frankly, I'm pretty sure want it to be. No doubt there's a good number of people rooting for the country to crumble just so they can prove a political point. That's pretty sad. Almost sick, when you think about it.

My comments are not about cheering for the destruction of the US but rather pointing out that there are what I view as serious problems.

To which many reply with laughter and "LMAO."

Its like you are in the passenger seat and the driver gets distracted. You might say, "hey!" to get him back on track. But at some point if you do nothing and/or the driver does not wake up you reach a point of "no return" where there's going to be a wreck, you are going off the road, etc.

You seem to agree there is a problem.

The question is how serious is it and where is the "point of no return."

It has nothing what-so-ever to do with politics and everything to do with the responsibility of our leadership (all aspects of it, state, local, federal).

I argue that years of basically 0% interest, municipal bankruptcy, etc. etc. are a sign the "point of no return" might be closer than some people think.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Agreed. And I think this points to the basic irresponsibility of the US government.

More due to corruption, IMO. I think the government is 'responsible'. Just not to you and me. They have other interests. I have no other explanation for a government that starts two wars with no plan to pay for them, employs millions either directly or indirectly via the defense department, complains that government doesn't create jobs when the economy is in the tank when that sort of rhetoric helps get them elected and then whines that we can't cut defense spending because it will ruin the economy to do so. (And I don't mean to just pick on defense. The same thing applies for all sorts of industries. Defense is just the biggest.) But the system is what the system is. All I can really do is worry about me and mine and navigate the best I can in the present environment. I'm not going to move to another country. And hollering for 'change' isn't going to do any good. All I can do is stay optimistic while being cautious and somewhat pessimistic at the same time.

I argue that years of basically 0% interest, municipal bankruptcy, etc. etc. are a sign the "point of no return" might be closer than some people think.

And we can agree to disagree on this point. I don't think the situation is nearly as dire as that. And I think that politics DOES have a lot to do with it. There's a lot of money to be made, and power to be gained, by playing the doom-and-gloom-and-blame cards. When you have a political-entertainment complex where there are people who make tens of millions of dollars a year by doing nothing more than waking up everyday, looking at whatever the bad news of the day is, and figuring out a way to put 100% of the blame on the opposing political party, it's really not hard to see how this is going to create far more problems than it solves.

There's ALWAYS been much more money in fear than in optimism. "If it bleeds, it leads" and all that. People LIKE being scared and like having others to blame for it to a certain degree. There's an adreneline rush (or something similar) that people get from all that. Fearing and hating the government makes people feel smart and important. It's nothing new.

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

More due to corruption, IMO. I think the government is 'responsible'. Just not to you and me. ... Defense is just the biggest....

Medical is far, far larger than defense, perhaps 1/6 of the GDP and its nothing but corruption, self interest and robbery as far the government, its largest customer, is concerned.

People just "trust" their doctors and government to take care of them (consider that in the context of your point on political corruption and profiteering from misery).

"Defense" is no longer in the same league.

Originally Posted by guido61

And we can agree to disagree on this point. ...

Like I said, the driver is distracted, the interesting part is how distracted and exactly what happens next.

While the unscrupulous can profit from doom and gloom I think the rest of us do far better with a decent economic outlook. Who wants to watch irresponsible idiots mismanage their grand children's future? Not me...

Personally, though, I am not terribly concerned.

I think its the younger folks are really getting a screwing here.

[TIMKEYS]

Originally Posted by guido61

No one has ever said there are no problems. We still working our way out of the worst economic crash since the Depression, and one that was much worse than most people personally felt--mostly due to things like food stamps and unemployment insurance that kept away the long soup lines we saw in the 1930s. The 0% may be a symptom in some ways, but it's also part of the path out of the hole. Anybody who is *shocked!* that government debt has increased dramatically during a depression doesn't really understand economics much. (The much worse problem is that so much debt was incurred when times were GOOD, IMO).

And yeah, some cities and states are having a really rough go of it. Not the first time that's happened either. The biggest city in the US went bankrupt in the 70s but still didn't take the entire country down with it. The rising US debt IS a problem. I'm not pretending it isn't. It's just not the end-of-the-United-States-as-we-know-it problem that a lot of people make it out to be. And frankly, I'm pretty sure want it to be. No doubt there's a good number of people rooting for the country to crumble just so they can prove a political point. That's pretty sad. Almost sick, when you think about it.

Obama has prolonged the recession. trillions down the drain with little to show for it. He needs to pull away and let things seek their own level. To continue to borrow and spend just is hurting the country at this point in time.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by TIMKEYS

Obama has prolonged the recession. trillions down the drain with little to show for it. He needs to pull away and let things seek their own level. To continue to borrow and spend just is hurting the country at this point in time.

Wanna point out what "trillions" Obama has spent or even signed off on? You do know that Congress writes the checks, don't you?

What? You think the budget simply resets every year and starts over? Do you not have ANY idea how the government works?

[toddkuen]

Originally Posted by guido61

Wanna point out what "trillions" Obama has spent or even signed off on? You do know that Congress writes the checks, don't you?

Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" - the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money.



According to this "top aides to President-Elect Obama held multiple meetings with committee leaders and staffers" to write the legislation.

So I have to agree with TIMKEYS that, yes, it was Obama's bill (though you could argue that he never bothered to read what his own staffers wrote I suppose).

(My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)

Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).

The trick here was this doubled the number of joints, which need constant maintenance, from say 8,000 to 16,000.

The obvious fix was to just asphalt over it like virtually every other highway in our area is made. But why do that when we can generate mindless work for our supporters...

[jimiv]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" - the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money.



According to this "top aides to President-Elect Obama held multiple meetings with committee leaders and staffers" to write the legislation.

So I have to agree with TIMKEYS that, yes, it was Obama's bill (though you could argue that he never bothered to read what his own staffers wrote I suppose).

(My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)

Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).

The trick here was this doubled the number of joints, which need constant maintenance, from say 8,000 to 16,000.

The obvious fix was to just asphalt over it like virtually every other highway in our area is made. But why do that when we can generate mindless work for our supporters...

That would not have made it to his desk for signature without the Republican controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate having voted for it first. I.e. that Bill required a lot of Republican support as well as Ds.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by toddkuen

Well, here's Obama signing the $831 billion (close enough to a trillion) "stimulus bill" -.

And that was pretty much the bulk of all his spending since taking office. The rest of the "trillions" is mostly stuff that was pre-authorized long ago.

the first of many documented things Obama has done to spend lots of extra money

Such as?

(My guess is that you didn't bother to look up what the bill did or how it was enacted before making your comment.)

You'd be wrong. But if you understood the bill, then you'd know that over 1/3rd of it was spent on tax cuts.

Around my house what they proudly did with this money (proclaiming it on signs along the way) was to take a stretch of concrete highway about 15 miles long and, for every 20 foot concrete section, they cut out the joint between the sections and inserted a new 5 foot section (concrete highways here tend to crack during freeze/thaw).

Around here we got several much needed re-pavings and highway constructions. Which is cool. I drive a LOT with my job. And with the band. I like good roads.

[kmart]

All the quibbling about how much money was/has been spent at the responsibility of Obama, the House, Congress, m Aunt Mabel is irrelevant.

Unless I missed someone else doing so previously, the finger of blame on that is being ascribed is being attached to SOMEONE being responsible for putting the US into and/or prolonging the recession.

The simple fact is that the US is not currently in, nor has it been in for at least the entirety of the Obama administration, a recession. If one believes the US is/has been, they may want to check themselves...

There's been a hell of a lot of "I know Econ better than you" dick-swinging in this thread, but the reality is that the individual who seems to be the most vocal in that regard should probably revisit that Econ 101 textbook they clearly ignored previously...
Hasn't been a recession, period: the Economic environment that constitutes a recession were not present, and have not happened.

We were CLOSE TO a recession at the worst of things late '08/early '09, but never actually entered into one. Throwing out the word recession as has been done is just ignorant and knee-jerk...

Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise.

[Vito Corleone]

Originally Posted by kmart

We were CLOSE TO a recession at the worst of things late '08/early '09, but never actually entered into one. Throwing out the word recession as has been done is just ignorant and knee-jerk...

Of course, I guess that shouldn't surprise.

The word "recession" has a couple of different meanings. One is the technical economic term which is defined by 2 or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Which we had from Dec 2007 to June 2009--the period that the National Bureau of Economic Research defines as the period of the "Great Recession".

The other is a more broad term that people use to define a sluggish economy and high unemployment. Under which we are still suffering.