Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 08, 2005, 08:41:02 PM
-
According to this article, President Bush has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511/NAT20051104b.html
How is this anything other than a massive mess up? I'm asking here because there is, to put it delicately, a strong contingent of George W. Bush supporters here. Is this spin? Or is this really as bad as it sounds? ...because it sounds bad.
-
Bush is a disaster. Does anyone but deni that at this point?
-
Oh Oh... report was by Democrats, it must not be true.
shamus
-
I give 10 minutes for some *** on this board to come up with "rellevant facts and links on the intardnet" as to why/how this was done, and that it was a good thing dubya did it. (I'll admit I have a list of names in my mind)
10 minutes...
-
The President does not control who finances our national debt. I have been screaming for some time that upwards of 40% of our $4.6 Trillion public federal debt is held by foreign banks or foreign governments. (This does not include the $3.3 Trillion held by intragovernmental holdings).
Bush is the reason the debt is ever-increasing, but he does not control who finances it.
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
The President does not control who finances our national debt. I have been screaming for some time that upwards of 40% of our $4.6 Trillion public federal debt is held by foreign banks or foreign governments. (This does not include the $3.3 Trillion held by intragovernmental holdings).
Bush is the reason the debt is ever-increasing, but he does not control who finances it.
Good point (as usual)
He's a failure at balancing the check book...I've complained about this for some time now...however 9/11, the failure to secure Iraq within 2 years, natural disasters have all played a part in this...and his administrations ineptness to deal with budgets in a frugel manner.
-
Bird flu!
-SW
-
Hi Chair,
That foreign countries, and in particular China, own a huge proportion of the countries debt is indeed alarming. But given our current addiction to spending its hard to see how this is avoidable.
Time was, when we had one party that was for Tax and Spend (in every department except Defense) and one which was in favor of Cutting Taxes and Spending. Unfortunately under Bush, we now have two parties both promoting massive spending across the board, and only arguing over the projected rate of growth in particular areas.
Even a quick look at the CBO data here CBO Data (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0) is terrifying. It is hard to find any program that has actually been cut in the last 10 years (except for Defense under Clinton) and our government spending (especially on mandatory social service payments and entitlements) is eating up a larger and larger percentage of the GDP. The Prescription Drug plan alone will add at least 25% to mandatory spending. No sane person would look at those figures and conclude that this is either:
a) a wartime budget
or
b) sustainable
Either we shut off the spigot or China may end up forclosing.
- SEAGOON
-
I would suggest that everyone here take an Economics course, and then shut the **** up.
I would also like to see a report that took into account inflation. And then for you guys to shut the **** up.
Until then, all your whines mean nothing.
-
Actually... I'm pretty sure my post wasn't a whine (your brush was broad), I'm actually asking for more info. Can you provide anything other than 'take a college course' when pointing me in the right direction? Thanks!
-
You have to take into account absolute free trade, which the last 3 presidents have all been for. Ross Perot tried to scare us with his "giant sucking sound towards Mexico", when speaking about NAFTA, but I don't think he could have even imagined the sucking sound towards China, of which the economists got exactly backward. They thought opening trade with them would open up new markets for American products. For some reason they forgot to take into account that the vast majority of Chinese could never afford American goods but were willing to make stuff for Americans for 50 cents an hour.
The knee jerk reaction is to not shop at places like Wal-Mart who import a majority of their goods from China. However why should I cut into my own buying power when my less scrupulous co-workers don't? The 30-60 dollars a week extra that I would spend else ware translates into a 3-7% pay cut across the board for me, or a 3-7% pay increase for my less-than-scrupulous co-workers, depending on how you look at it. Better to slowly make it harder for retailers to exploit third-world countries. As business is forced to come home, or new manufacturers spring up in the US, prices will rise but commerce and jobs will also be created.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Until then, all your whines mean nothing.
Just like your posts, which contribute nothing.
-
Give me your address and 80 dollars. I'll contribute both of my economics books.
Does that help now?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Give me your address and 80 dollars. I'll contribute both of my economics books.
Does that help now?
How much for your copy of "How to be an ass."?
-
Well, frankly, I could charge you the 120 bucks a book that this school charged me.
Actually, I think I will.
If you give me your address and 240 bucks I will contribute my Economics books to the conversation. Hell, I'll even throw in the freaking study guides and CD booklets that came with them.
-
laser, let me know when you've finished reading them and I'll consider doing it.
asw
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good point (as usual)
He's a failure at balancing the check book...I've complained about this for some time now...however 9/11, the failure to secure Iraq within 2 years, natural disasters have all played a part in this...and his administrations ineptness to deal with budgets in a frugel manner.
As we are being technical,
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Balancing the check book lies with congress.
-
Actually, I don't know where my books are right now. They are probably at home.
But mainly I was just trying to be an ass. To really understand what is going on, you'd need to take some basic economic classes.
I.E. You don't get in an astrophysics conversation when you haven't passed basic physics yet.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Bush is a disaster. Does anyone but deni that at this point?
Let's not talk about that. Let's talk about Clinton.
-
Hi Holden,
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Balancing the check book lies with congress.
I quite agree, however the President is the one who sends Congress the budget they are supposed to be debating. Additionally, as the defacto leader of the majority party, Bush sets the economic agenda for the Republicans. He certainly works overtime with the party leadership to ensure that the rank-and-file are brought into line with his economic priorities.
Holden, the past few years have been marked by the complete absence of fiscal conservatism in the government. All sectors of the US Gov't have grown, the budget has gotten larger and larger, and ideas that no sensible conservative would have touched 20 years ago, like the prescription benefit, are rammed down the throats of the rank-and-file as "must pass" items. At some point we have to be able to say, "wait a minute, is our fiscal agenda really supposed to be, 'what the Democrats said, only a little less'" Must we keep doing that in order to prove our "compassionate" bona fides?
Hey at this point not even Coulter and Limbaugh are towing the "spend, spend, spend" line anymore. "Big Government Republican" should be an oxymoron.
- SEAGOON
-
2:30 hours... I have to work on that timing :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Give me your address and 80 dollars. I'll contribute both of my economics books.
Does that help now?
With all due respect. If your are going to be critical about something. Such as the case in point. Then you should at least point out why.
I know I sure as hell am not going to go out and take an economics course.
but I like Im sure many her wouldnt mind hearing or having explained to us in a nutshell what the real deal is.
If your so well educated on the subject and see the eror yet will not explain why it is in error I dont see the point in saying anything to begin with.
Other then to try to get the responces you have thusfar received.
-
The first major point was about Inflation. Comparing the amount we spent this year compared to all past years without adjusting is kind of like racing a Model T against a Dodge Viper.
You can tell they didn't take inflation into consideration for a few reasons. The first would be if they had, they would have SCREAMED it throughout the article.
The next reason they didn't even mention it was a political reason. If they had mentioned that they hadn't taken inflation into consideration, it would meant that their results are questionable. And they don't want to have people thinking they have skewed results. They just want people thinking Bush = Bad.
The last reason they didn't take inflation into consideration is that it would have made the debt seem minute in comparison. I'd be willing to bet 100 bucks that they did both, but only published it without inflation.
If you do take an economics course, you'll reach a part called Macro Economics. In Macro, you learn about the ways the government and the Federal Reserve can change the economy and money flows for the better of the country.
Most of the power comes from Congress in the way of Taxing (cutting or raising) and Government Spending (raising or lowering). Now, changing the Taxes only has a fraction of the impact that changing the Government spending does.
So here are the general rules for the economy. When the economy is bad, you want to cut Taxes a little, and increase Government spending a lot. I know, it sounds absolutely wrong, but the numbers work out and it makes sense if you could read a few charts.
Visa Versa, when the economy is doing well, you want to increase Taxes and cut Government spending. Sounds contradictory, but until you take an Econ course you're going to have to take my word for it.
-
Maybe I'm just dumb, but it sounds to me like all you're saying is "trust me, economic theory says this will work out good in the end".
-
It's not theory. It's comparison of inflation, GDP, government spending and taxes.
They do correlate.
-
Ok, everything you've said is straight out of my 11th grade macro class.
It's also obvious that the article is biased. I recognize that the inflation numbers they're talking are not adjusted for inflation. Right about when they wrote "conservative to moderate Democrats said" it was pretty obvious they were trying to mislead the reader.
So how is owing buttloads of money to the Chinese a good thing for anyone but consumers in the short term -- especially when nobody has any intention of paying back the money owed?
-
We always owe money to someone. Often it goes to out of country people. It really doesn't matter who. The money always gets paid back. Because soon we'll be in an economic boom and someone else will be in a recession. It is just the way it happens in the world.
It actually stimulates the world's economy (not just the debtor and loaner) to buy bonds and loans of a (stabile) country in an economic recession. It has to do with the power of the currency and how it changes as the economies rebound.
Now, as our economy is going up (which it will) it benefits the people who have the loans and bonds and have bought stocks in the US Dollar. Ontop of that the money would get paid back just around when the Economy is on the + side of average.
-
Ya know the funny thing here... I work for an individual who is doing very well for himself and he has told me numerous times to make all I can now and be prepared to move it to hard commodities in the future.
Tell me why he is saying that all knowing bbs
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you do take an economics course, you'll reach a part called Macro Economics. In Macro, you learn about the ways the government and the Federal Reserve can change the economy and money flows for the better of the country.
Well if you are learning that and other socialist fallacies I suggest you ask for you money back.
So here are the general rules for the economy. When the economy is bad, you want to cut Taxes a little, and increase Government spending a lot. I know, it sounds absolutely wrong, but the numbers work out and it makes sense if you could read a few charts.
It sounds abosolutely wrong because it is. Increasing government spending through debt spending screws up the economy in so many ways. It misallocates resources, of which there is a finite supply no matter how much money the Fed prints off or the government borrows. Investment wealth is misallocated from enterprises that would supply actual demand, to bs government make-work projects. Labour is misallocated to said make-work projects, etc. What's more this debt has to be financed, and it's a gamble that the economy will recover to point where it can pay it off. All you do by increasing government spending is make the recovery take longer.
And nowhere do you mention that the boom-bust cycle of which your economy has to recover from the bust, is mostly caused by currency manipulation and government intervention in the economy to begin with.
Visa Versa, when the economy is doing well, you want to increase Taxes and cut Government spending. Sounds contradictory, but until you take an Econ course you're going to have to take my word for it.
I don't think so, instead I'll read books that aren't on your communist economics professors reading lists, and look at how differing economic policies have worked historyically. Cripes, the US hasn't even begun paying off Reagan's debt and you're sitting here telling people how great supply-side economics is? Sorry comrade, centrally planned economies are tyrranical, and incredibly inefficient compared to a free market.
-
Everything you just said (if practiced) would **** an economy quicker then disbanding the country itself.
I figured something like this would happen if I explained why.
All those practices I explained have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, conservatism, or liberalism. They are action reaction events.
Where politics comes into play is whether or not you actually want to do those things. But whether or not you want to has no effect on what actually happens when you do.
Just an FYI, I had two economics professors. Both of whom were card carrying Republicans. But they never brought politics into the equation.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We always owe money to someone. Often it goes to out of country people. It really doesn't matter who. The money always gets paid back.
It always get's paid back eh? Except when it doesn't. Cripes, if it always get's paid back then can you explain why your federal government has had to start monetizing it's debt?
Because soon we'll be in an economic boom and someone else will be in a recession. It is just the way it happens in the world.
Well, with arguements like "It just is that way", I'm sure that you will shortly have nay sayer's being crushed in the mighty grip of your reason.
It actually stimulates the world's economy (not just the debtor and loaner) to buy bonds and loans of a (stabile) country in an economic recession. It has to do with the power of the currency and how it changes as the economies rebound.
Now, as our economy is going up (which it will) it benefits the people who have the loans and bonds and have bought stocks in the US Dollar.
The USD has lost, what 30% of it's value in the past few years? Many pacific rim nations are diversifying thier reserve currencies. The UK, Australia and Canada are as well. Ten years ago 96% of Canada's reserve currency was USDs, it's now down to 46%. The US current account balance is mind bogglingly huge, and grows massively every year...but everying is find with USD and other promisary notes? Nope.
-
I've already explained how it happens thrawn. Pull your head out of your bellybutton and read it. It's right here on this page. I will be damned if I'm going to repeat it because you refuse to read it.
-
Lasersailor,
thank you for responding
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Everything you just said (if practiced) would **** an economy quicker then disbanding the country itself.
Excellant refutation! I admit, I am powerless to overcome the, "Well you're just wrong!", arguement.
I figured something like this would happen if I explained why.
You haven't explained squat, you have parroted statements you learned in first year ecomonics without explaining the reasoning behind them.
All those practices I explained have nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, conservatism, or liberalism. They are action reaction events.
Are you going to say next that they don't have anything to do with economics? A centalised government planning the economy isn't socialism? Well cripes, I guess your commie professors don't actually want you to know what they are teaching you.
Just an FYI, I had two economics professors. Both of whom were card carrying Republicans. But they never brought politics into the equation.
Card carrying Republicans? Have you seen how much money the Republicans have spent in the past few years? Heck that card almost guarauntees they are socialists.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I've already explained how it happens thrawn. Pull your head out of your bellybutton and read it. It's right here on this page. I will be damned if I'm going to repeat it because you refuse to read it.
Nah, ya didn't you said...
"So here are the general rules for the economy. When the economy is bad, you want to cut Taxes a little, and increase Government spending a lot. I know, it sounds absolutely wrong, but the numbers work out and it makes sense if you could read a few charts.
Visa Versa, when the economy is doing well, you want to increase Taxes and cut Government spending. Sounds contradictory, but until you take an Econ course you're going to have to take my word for it."
To paraphrase, "This is the way I was told it works. It sounds like bull****, but you better believe me because you are an ignoramous, and I are TEH SMRT!"
You didn't explain anything.
PS: Vis a vis GDP (heh, that rhymes), can you explain how increasing the speed of currency circulation helps an economy? Thx.
-
Thrawn.
And with all due respect to you.
I havent seen you putting up much in the way of making counterpoints other then finding creatively different ways of saying "your just wrong" Yourself.
If you have a valid counterpoint please make it so those of us less educated on the subject might better understand and see both sides of the coin so's to speak
thanks in advance
-
"It sounds abosolutely wrong because it is. Increasing government spending through debt spending screws up the economy in so many ways. It misallocates resources, of which there is a finite supply no matter how much money the Fed prints off or the government borrows. Investment wealth is misallocated from enterprises that would supply actual demand, to bs government make-work projects. Labour is misallocated to said make-work projects, etc. What's more this debt has to be financed, and it's a gamble that the economy will recover to point where it can pay it off. All you do by increasing government spending is make the recovery take longer."
"Cripes, if it always get's paid back then can you explain why your federal government has had to start monetizing it's debt?"
"Cripes, the US hasn't even begun paying off Reagan's debt and you're sitting here telling people how great supply-side economics is?"
"The USD has lost, what 30% of it's value in the past few years? Many pacific rim nations are diversifying thier reserve currencies. The UK, Australia and Canada are as well. Ten years ago 96% of Canada's reserve currency was USDs, it's now down to 46%. The US current account balance is mind bogglingly huge, and grows massively every year...but everying is find with USD and other promisary notes? Nope."
Wow, I like the word "Cripes".
-
It's a simple buy low sell high idea. The dollar is going to trail the economy into a recession. So companies (and sometimes countries) buy low and then ride the dollar as it goes higher. We do the exact same thing to other countries.
All of these things always go in patterns. You will always have a recession, followed by a boom, followed by a recession. The real question is how big of a change will it be?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's a simple buy low sell high idea. The dollar is going to trail the economy into a recession. So companies (and sometimes countries) buy low and then ride the dollar as it goes higher. We do the exact same thing to other countries.
Okay, let's run with the company/stock analogy. What would you expect to happen to the value of a company's stock if every year it issues gobs and gobs more of it, yet does not proportionally increase production capacity? What would you expect to happen to the value of it's stock if a stockhold went to trade it in, yet no one bought it...not even the company.
The Fed prints off hundreds of billions of more USDs every year. China recently tried to trade in some of it's hundreds of billions of reserve USDs to by Unical, and was told to go **** itself. The exchange of USDs isn't analogous to any other country, and that's because a good portion of the world uses it as it's reserve currency. But that is changing. There are some 14 trillion USDs sitting out thier out of circulation. There is no way in hell the US can buy those back. The US federal government's debt situation is so bad, they have to sell it to the Federal Reserve Bank. And the Fed has to print off even more dollars to cover it.
Now tell that this situation is going to go on like that forever, or that magically the actual production capacity of the US increase by several orders of magnitude so that all those promisary notes can be bought back.
All of these things always go in patterns. You will always have a recession, followed by a boom, followed by a recession. The real question is how big of a change will it be?
Yeah sure, and the world has always used a fiat currency system as well. Tell me, you say there has always been a boom-bust cycle, what causes it?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Balancing the check book lies with congress.
IIRC, the Congress does the appropriation. The authorization is up to the President. He shares the burden.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Tell me, you say there has always been a boom-bust cycle, what causes it?
1950's era text books?