gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 14:34:22 GMT -5
I'd love to see interest rates go back up. So would everybody. But the fact remains that if interest rates went back up to 5%, where they were in 2000, the US would be paying a little under $1.2 trillion per year just servicing the interest on public debt and agency debt. Technically speaking, that goes beyond "unrealistic" to "impossible". I'd like to see it. Get this crap out of the way before my children have to inherit it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2016 14:39:12 GMT -5
This is an exercise in fiscal conservatism and hence i) you may not levy new taxes
When a household has too much debt for their income don't conservatives preach that spending should be cut and a part time job should be acquired to help pay down the debt load? Raising taxes to increase revenues is that equivalent. In fact, until all the conservos started slashing taxes we had much lower deficits. And under Clinton a combination of less spending and higher taxes did wonders for the deficit. i don't actually see why raising taxes is not a fiscally conservative thing to do when revenues are below historical norms. the historical norm is about 18% of GDP, and we are still below it- we have been since 2002, when W simultaneously went to war and cut taxes, the first president to ever engage in that act of stupidity in the history of the US, and hopefully the last. The restriction is to force some tough decisions. I can think of many scenarios where running a surplus would require cutting more than $750 billion out of the budget, hence imagine that you've already bumped taxes to 20% of GDP and $750 is still the amount you have to cut.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2016 14:50:26 GMT -5
So would everybody. But the fact remains that if interest rates went back up to 5%, where they were in 2000, the US would be paying a little under $1.2 trillion per year just servicing the interest on public debt and agency debt. Technically speaking, that goes beyond "unrealistic" to "impossible". I'd like to see it. Get this crap out of the way before my children have to inherit it. To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Feb 5, 2016 14:56:00 GMT -5
I'd love to see interest rates go back up. So would everybody. But the fact remains that if interest rates went back up to 5%, where they were in 2000, the US would be paying a little under $1.2 trillion per year just servicing the interest on public debt and agency debt. Technically speaking, that goes beyond "unrealistic" to "impossible". VtL, UST are fixed rates, not variable. This statement is completely inaccurate. Have a good one.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 14:56:38 GMT -5
I'd like to see it. Get this crap out of the way before my children have to inherit it. To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you. This is the same bunch who voted for free crap to get us into this situation; not my kids.
Ever hear the old saying "You reap what you sow"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 14:59:13 GMT -5
I'd like to see it. Get this crap out of the way before my children have to inherit it. To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you. There is a solution to what you describe that doesn't involve government. Learn to garden and raise some meat. Have no debt and a house. Be part of a community of like-minded. Stop depending on the government now. Manage some of your energy needs, with small scale solar, wood stove. People lived for centuries without government pensions.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2016 15:10:30 GMT -5
So would everybody. But the fact remains that if interest rates went back up to 5%, where they were in 2000, the US would be paying a little under $1.2 trillion per year just servicing the interest on public debt and agency debt. Technically speaking, that goes beyond "unrealistic" to "impossible". VtL, UST are fixed rates, not variable. This statement is completely inaccurate. Have a good one. He's theoretically right in the sense that about 90% of US debt has less than 5 years to maturity. But you're correct, government paper is always issued at a fixed rate.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 5, 2016 15:13:29 GMT -5
To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you. There is a solution to what you describe that doesn't involve government. Learn to garden and raise some meat. Have no debt and a house. Be part of a community of like-minded. Stop depending on the government now. Manage some of your energy needs, with small scale solar, wood stove. People lived for centuries without government pensions. Not bad advice, although I don't think it's going to be quite that easy. As prepared as you may be, you still have to contend with the legions who aren't, as well as government itself. Government tends to get very Robin Hood-ish in situations where some citizens are well-prepared to weather a storm and others are not.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 15:17:21 GMT -5
There is a solution to what you describe that doesn't involve government. Learn to garden and raise some meat. Have no debt and a house. Be part of a community of like-minded. Stop depending on the government now. Manage some of your energy needs, with small scale solar, wood stove. People lived for centuries without government pensions. Not bad advice, although I don't think it's going to be quite that easy. As prepared as you may be, you still have to contend with the legions who aren't, as well as government itself. Government tends to get very Robin Hood-ish in situations where some citizens are well-prepared to weather a storm and others are not. You've made my argument for the second amendment.
Also, you aren't sounding very conservative wanting to pile this mess on the backs of our children rather than dealing with it ourselves.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on Feb 5, 2016 15:38:52 GMT -5
To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you. There is a solution to what you describe that doesn't involve government. Learn to garden and raise some meat. Have no debt and a house. Be part of a community of like-minded. Stop depending on the government now. Manage some of your energy needs, with small scale solar, wood stove. People lived for centuries without government pensions. People also died 1-2 yrs after retirement. That doesn't happen anymore. An 80 year old is not going to be able to garden and raise cattle,
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,363
|
Post by movingforward on Feb 5, 2016 15:46:08 GMT -5
To heck with your kids. Who's going to need SS payouts? Who's relying on a pension? Who can't work as many hours? Who needs the most medical care? Whose fixed income is battered by inflation? Whose body and mind aren't what they used to be? I guarantee you the answer isn't "young people". It's the boomers and Gen X-ers. When the US defaults, it's going to be their safety net, pensions, Medicare, and seniors benefits wiped off the face of the Earth. And they're deluded if they think they'll survive on the goodwill or confiscatory taxation of younger generations. If you're healthy and you can work hard, you may be able to scrape out a living. Sick or can't work hard? I hope your kids love you. This is the same bunch who voted for free crap to get us into this situation; not my kids.
Ever hear the old saying "You reap what you sow"?
I am sick to death of hearing this... could we cut some waste in that arena, sure... but the majority of spending goes to the military so if you want get your undies all in a bunch about government spending then you should start there! www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 15:47:23 GMT -5
This is the same bunch who voted for free crap to get us into this situation; not my kids.
Ever hear the old saying "You reap what you sow"?
I am sick to death of hearing this... could we cut some waste in that arena, sure... but the majority of spending goes to the military so if you want get your undies all in a bunch about government spending then you should start there! www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/I have no problem cutting military spending. Foreign aid is another thing we could likely agree on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 16:20:27 GMT -5
cut $25 billion from the farm bill. $525 billion to go.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 5, 2016 16:48:35 GMT -5
19 Trillion, with a big ass "T" hickle! 1000 more than wheat you thought!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 16:51:43 GMT -5
Is invading Canada and plundering their natural resources an option for this exercise?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:16:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 16:54:42 GMT -5
19 Trillion, with a big ass "T" hickle! 1000 more than wheat you thought! I am trying to get to Virgil's $750 billion in cuts. I had it down to ~$550billion earlier in the thread. I need another $525billion in cuts now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2016 17:17:40 GMT -5
the projected budget deficit is $400-500B for this FY. military spending is $600B. cut military spending until the budget is balanced. you're welcome. You need to cut $750 billion. You can cut at most $550 billion from the military. Still $200 billion left to go. And you're really going to destroy America's army, navy, and airforce at the end of 2016 (which is what cutting the military budget by 100% would do)? It would mean laying off every last serviceman, disbanding the national guard, and abandoning bases and military assets, including aircraft carriers, tanks, and jets to whomever may find them. Just so we're clear. you are moving the goalposts. your OP did not mention anything about "preserving crucial infrastructure". so, yeah. cut it all the way to the bone. leave enough to maintain our nuclear arsenal and a few subs, and hold a fire sale for the balance. the cost of making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent is $340B/year. i think it is utterly irresponsible to NOT take our tax basis back to what it was before that buffoon entered office. if you want to talk sensibly, about both our military and about fiscal policy, then here is sensible: cut the military budget by a modest 2/3 and ELIMINATE the Bush Tax Cuts. that is $740B. you can liquidate Donald Trump for the last $10B. that is simple and sensible. but if you want to go with some utterly ridiculous and personal standard of fiscal "responsibility", then cut defense 90%, and balance the budget by selling existing military assets to the tune of $150B per year.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2016 17:21:23 GMT -5
i don't actually see why raising taxes is not a fiscally conservative thing to do when revenues are below historical norms. the historical norm is about 18% of GDP, and we are still below it- we have been since 2002, when W simultaneously went to war and cut taxes, the first president to ever engage in that act of stupidity in the history of the US, and hopefully the last. The restriction is to force some tough decisions. I can think of many scenarios where running a surplus would require cutting more than $750 billion out of the budget, hence imagine that you've already bumped taxes to 20% of GDP and $750 is still the amount you have to cut. the restriction forces some UNNECESSARY and IRRESPONSIBLE decisions. let's be clear about that.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 5, 2016 17:23:11 GMT -5
The foreign aid varies year depending on whom we make a new deal with, ally with, plan to keep military exercises with or in extreme cases, natural disaster striking at some part of the world. But mostly our foreign aid has a military connection. The only country in the world that we have constantly given since 1949 about $3 billion a year is Israel. Even that is mostly on military equipment or "accessories" In 2007 President Bush pledged a $30 billion FMF to Israel for the next 10 years in a lump sum. The Israelis are using the interest on that money to pay back some of their debt to US.
In 2015 Israel was the recipient of 55% of US FMF( FMF- foreign military financing). Also their deal was extended until 2028 so for another 10 years at $30 billion more.
The total of foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget so by comparison with what we are spending on anything else is infim, neglijable! Consider the fact that at the peak of Iraq war we were spending $12 billion a month in Iraq.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 5, 2016 17:25:46 GMT -5
DJ, the Donald is worth a mere $3-4 billion net so you are still a few billion short. But if Virgil insists, maybe we can talk Gates into donating some for the well being of this nation?!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2016 17:26:48 GMT -5
DJ, the Donald is worth a mere $3-4 billion net so you are still a few billion short. But if Virgil insists, maybe we can talk Gates into donating some for the well being of this nation?! let's liquidate Romney, too, then. edit: sure, add in Buffett and Gates if you want to have some Blue Flesh in there.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 5, 2016 17:41:44 GMT -5
Let's do the math on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and their increases in defense spending and see where the deficit stands.
When you cut taxes and then wage war, such as Bush, or dramatically raise defense spending because of the Russkies, such as Reagan, you get the perfect storm....doubled and tripled national debt.
But let's all blame Obama, those in need of assistance, and hungry children!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 5, 2016 17:52:16 GMT -5
Let's do the math on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and their increases in defense spending and see where the deficit stands.
When you cut taxes and then wage war, such as Bush, or dramatically raise defense spending because of the Russkies, such as Reagan, you get the perfect storm....doubled and tripled national debt.
But let's all blame Obama, those in need of assistance, and hungry children!! without any of those things happening, we would have massive surpluses by 2000. our debt/GDP would be well under 50% now. so, basically we are forcing ourselves into even worse choices for the bad choices we made. booooooooooooooooo!
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 5, 2016 18:06:08 GMT -5
So the allegedly 'fiscal conservatives' fucked us and now the alleged 'fiscal conservatives' are blaming the poor and their children. That's how it's always rolled.
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 5, 2016 18:06:33 GMT -5
cut $25 billion from the farm bill. $525 billion to go. I can't think of a single subsidy that shouldn't be eliminated.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2016 1:08:42 GMT -5
The restriction is to force some tough decisions. I can think of many scenarios where running a surplus would require cutting more than $750 billion out of the budget, hence imagine that you've already bumped taxes to 20% of GDP and $750 is still the amount you have to cut. the restriction forces some UNNECESSARY and IRRESPONSIBLE decisions. let's be clear about that. I know you do. You're also not a fiscal conservative. The exercise isn't really directed at you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2016 1:10:50 GMT -5
Let's do the math on the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and their increases in defense spending and see where the deficit stands.
When you cut taxes and then wage war, such as Bush, or dramatically raise defense spending because of the Russkies, such as Reagan, you get the perfect storm....doubled and tripled national debt.
But let's all blame Obama, those in need of assistance, and hungry children!! without any of those things happening, we would have massive surpluses by 2000. our debt/GDP would be well under 50% now. so, basically we are forcing ourselves into even worse choices for the bad choices we made. booooooooooooooooo! Taxes go up. Spending goes up more. There's not a western nation in existence where this isn't the iron-clad reality.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2016 12:34:16 GMT -5
the restriction forces some UNNECESSARY and IRRESPONSIBLE decisions. let's be clear about that. I know you do. You're also not a fiscal conservative. The exercise isn't really directed at you. it is not for you to say what i am. nor is it for me to say what you are, other than overly restrictive in an unhelpful fantasy reality kind of way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2016 12:35:37 GMT -5
without any of those things happening, we would have massive surpluses by 2000. our debt/GDP would be well under 50% now. so, basically we are forcing ourselves into even worse choices for the bad choices we made. booooooooooooooooo! Taxes go up. Spending goes up more. There's not a western nation in existence where this isn't the iron-clad reality. there you go again. moving the goalposts: you never said a thing about "future spending" in your OP. well, how about THIS: i would also institute a spending freeze until the budget reached a 1% GDP surplus, which would be committed to debt repayment. that makes me about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000X MORE of a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE than YOU.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Feb 6, 2016 14:36:14 GMT -5
I think that some misunderstand the notion of "fiscal conservatism" . Or maybe I am To my personal opinion fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily mean "stop spending" or " freeze spending" but it means spending money that you have or even if it means acumulating debt then you spend it on things that matter, that have some real impact in the conditions of life, standards and influence the future in a positive way. For that matter, education, healthcare, infrastructure, encironment protection, are the top of spending list. Military spending is a close follower. But there is such a variety of interpretation on "what's a must" and what we can deal without it that make it the real problem when a decision needs to be made. Republicans can call themselves all they want "fiscal conservatives" but the only president that run a surplus in the last 50 years is none other than Clinton and the next one as far as lower deficit compared to GDP is none other than Obama. That being said, who's the fiscal conservative now? Republicans or democrats?
|
|