lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 10:51 AM
Original message |
|
This worry ranks right up there as first second or third to me. And $3.69 gal S.F., CA
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 10:56 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Is there a chance AT fixing this now? Or are we all too late for |
|
recriminations?
And if we default, those we owe won't be happy either. And their populations are quite larger than America's.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Oh there is a chance/ bushitler consulting Mr. President Clinton, but does |
|
the bushitler have enough sense to implement anything noteworthy in reducing this debt? Not a chance! Only going to get worse in the remaining 3yrs 7 months.
|
brokensymmetry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Good point, HypnoToad. |
|
Yes, I think it is too late. The economy is lackluster at best despite massive stimulus. What happens when we end the stimulus? At the very least, a massive recession. With higher energy costs, that may evolve into a true depression. And the political party that gets blamed for it is in big trouble.
Notice I didn't say the one responsible for it; I said the one blamed for it. And we know what rove would do, don't we?
No, I think it's all over but the shouting. And, perhaps, the crying.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Hypnotoad...I believe you are absolutely without a doubt correctomundo! |
lastliberalintexas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
But neither of us will like what is done in the name of paying off/down the debt. This has been their plan for the last 60 years- try to bankrupt the federal government, and then in the name of debt reduction, dismantle the New Deal. And one guess as to who will bear the most of the increased taxes, because it certainly won't be the top tier.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. I know your point was directed to someone else, but I would like to |
|
interject if I may, ignore if you like, but how do you really purport to believe this when all of Europe and the euro is against us. There trade policies are screwing us right and left...even in the cosmetic industry the dreamed up that our cosmetics have cancer causing agents added and until they are removed no deal? America is failing fast as bushitler has made enemies of the rest of the world and we are fucking doomed!
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
10. And is it possible that * will resort to nukes? |
|
A bully who is defeated will not end the reign peacefully. That is a constant with human history.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
18. Don't put anything past this freak! |
lastliberalintexas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
15. I'm not saying it will be easy |
|
Just that it can be done. But again, likely only by substantially increasing federal taxes, eliminating certain programs (esp things like Head Start, Medicaid, AFDC, etc.) and cutting spending on everything else. Well, except military/defense spending of course. That is how the people in control want it to be, anyway- you've heard Norquist's comment about being able to drown the federal government in a bathtub, right?
Now on the flip side, with progressive policies the debt could be paid down as well by substantially increasing taxes on the wealthy. WWII was considered a national emergency, and the highest tax rates for the 40s and even into the 50s was a marginal rate of 90%. 90%! Compare that to the highest rates today. No, I don't think a 90% MTR is a good idea in a normal economic situation, but we're not talking about anything normal. We're talking about a national debt that is completely crushing, one that could bring down the global economy if the powers that be aren't careful. This was probably the best thing that Clinton and the Dems did in the 90s, was actually start to pay down the debt. And they did it by increasing taxes on the highest earners, which is why the Bush administration wanted those tax cuts a couple of years ago.
So, we'll start to see debt reduction on the radar of the repubs soon. But don't expect to like anything about their proposals to fix it.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
20. Of course the lib idea is better...charge the rich what they can afford |
dcfirefighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Most of the money in this country is not currency, it's electronic 'money', created by the banks due to the wonders of fractional-reserve banking. Wiki it.
All of this money is backed by high-powered money that is backed by US Debt.
If we phase out the ability of banks to create money by eliminating their right to fractional-reserve banking, while at the same time giving them fresh currency hot off the presses to back their deposits, we can eliminate the national debt in a year.
We'd basically be paying all those loans off early, with new money. To keep it from being inflationary, we'd 'destroy' the money created by the banks.
We could then end the Federal Reserve, and just print money from the Treasury, in limited amounts to avoid inflation.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. This sounds like an interesting way to pay off the debt, yet not really |
|
pay off the debt. I don't understand it myself...sounds like a Charles Keating proposition. No offense intended.
|
dcfirefighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. Really, it could be done |
|
The cost would be: and end to interest bearing accounts, for the most part you'd still be able to invest in stocks, bonds, and funds that returned dividends and capital gains the government would no longer compete with private individuals and private industry for credit the government would no longer offer a risk-free investment
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
19. Yeah private accounts Privitization of SS, no longer risk-free investment. |
Toots
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:16 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I just looked and that number is way off now |
|
it is increasing at over twenty five thousand dollars a second.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Yes it is impossible to post a correct number! |
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Only a historical number, I remember when only $4 trillion was huge. |
lastliberalintexas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. I remember when we first reached $1 trillion |
|
We all thought that was bad. And then Reagan/Bush took that and multiplied it by 4.5. Great guys, those "small government" republicans. :)
|
tabasco
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Borrow & Spend republicans .... |
|
are going to destroy our Nation.
|
lonestarnot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-10-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. I'd like to see some of the nest eggs prepared for what is to come ... |
|
Wonder how much dick and bush have stashed in foreign banks under other names.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 08th 2024, 08:21 PM
Response to Original message |