Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Balance the Federal Budget

politics budget deficit

  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:01 AM

The board has been quiet lately, so I would like to rant about the Federal Budget deficit.  First, I would like to say that I am not the only person who cares.

 

http://www.gallup.co...et-deficit.aspx

 

I will not vote for any Presidential Candidate who does not promise to balance the budget.  Recent events in Greece have shown what happens to a country that refuses to balance it's budget.  Eventually, it destroys it's credit and ruins it's economy, sending the country into a depression.  I'm sick of excuses, delays, and bogus economic theories.  Let's just pay our bills and stop sending them to our grandchildren.



#2 HungryPoohBear

HungryPoohBear

    Black Bear

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kentucky, USA

Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:58 AM

I will go a step further.

 

1.) Balance the budget every year.

2.) Retire the nation's debt in 50 years.



#3 shooter

shooter

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2015 - 10:47 PM

LOL....if not for the massive deficits of 2009+, we would have seen a replay of the 30s.  The notion that the debt has to be "retired" is nonsense.  US public debt to GDP ratio is a bit high...but it is nothing compared to the debt in the private sector.  That is the real danger.  That is what caused the crisis.  The increase in public debt post 2008 was a tool to keep private sector debt from imploding completely like the 30s.   Also, in the late 30's...it was decided that they were through the worst of things, and they needed to reign in spending.  The result was a sharp and painful recession.  Private sector credit creation could still not stand on its own.  If you got your way...you would basically be saying...lets repeat 1937-1938 again.

 

When interet rates are effectively zero...and you borrow $1T and spend it, what is the net impact on the economy.  More importantly, when the money is not actually borrowed, but created through CB balance sheet expansion..what is the net effect on the economy?  Yeah yeah...I know what you will say...the debt will CRUSH is "some day".  Well Japans "2008" was in 1990.  They are 25 years post crisis...they have ballooned to their public debt to levels that utterly drawf ours...and yet...where is THEIR collapse?  If you are correct about the consequences of deficits...should we not have seen them in Japan?

 

They are literally 18 years ahead of us.  If Japan collapses tomorrow...what does that mean...do we have 18 years till we collapse?  Even if it were 1/3 that...do you think politicians and policy makes care about 6 years from now?  No..they will do eveyrhing possible to keep the game going, and deal with the long term in the long term.  That is reality.  You live in a simplistic fantasy world if you think balancing the budget will ever happen, or that it will lead to anything good in the immediate term.



#4 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 26 August 2015 - 09:06 AM

Sure shooter, Ben Bernanke saved the world.  It doesn't matter that he sold our country into perpetual slavery.  Japan is doing swell.  The Chinese are in a economic boom and Greece doesn't even exist.  I didn't say a word about retiring the Federal debt.  I said stop adding to it.  You apparently believe that money can be created without any value.  Well, it is clear that it can.  They just steal the value from the money that previously existed.  This is good?  This "saved the world from 1930's style depression".  You drank the Kool Aide, my friend.  Bernanke  saved the big banks, but he screwed the taxpayers forever.



#5 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 26 August 2015 - 10:31 AM

OMG, there's a red pill and a blue pill, right?  This guy must have got a hold of the wrong pill.

 

http://wallstreetbea...584&post=491612



#6 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 23 September 2015 - 11:07 AM

Oh dear,  there seems to be a disagreement in Washington DC over whether the government should have unlimited spending, or not.  Apparently Planned parenthood has been selling parts of aborted fetuses, and some people are objecting, saying that it is not a proper use of Gov't. funds.  Strangely, this could lead to a "Government Shutdown" (not a REAL government shutdown, just a partial shutdown).  Oh well, what did we expect from a Federal Government that hasn't passed a budget in years.  We can't expect them to do their job, can we?



#7 shooter

shooter

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2015 - 12:30 AM

Oh dear,  there seems to be a disagreement in Washington DC over whether the government should have unlimited spending, or not.  Apparently Planned parenthood has been selling parts of aborted fetuses, and some people are objecting, saying that it is not a proper use of Gov't. funds.  Strangely, this could lead to a "Government Shutdown" (not a REAL government shutdown, just a partial shutdown).  Oh well, what did we expect from a Federal Government that hasn't passed a budget in years.  We can't expect them to do their job, can we?

 

Are you such a fool that you do not realize their job is to get elected.  Period.  And they are very good at it.  The reason they will never balance the budget is if they do, they will lose their jobs because the eocnomy will crash.  They will then not get re-elected.  Go review what happened in 1938 when they thought we were through the worst of it, and they tightened up fiscal spending.  The delfationary headwinds we have now DWARF that time, because so little of our private debt has been liquidated.



#8 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 26 September 2015 - 09:44 PM

2 points.

 

point 1)   It is not 1938 or even close to similar to 1938.

 

point 2)   If the "deflationary headwinds" DWARF those of 1938, and those "headwinds" resulted in tightened fiscal spending and "what happened", then why shouldn't the same things (i.e. tightened fiscal spending and "what happened") happen again soon (only WORSE).

 

As for "getting re-elected", you may be right.  Two "representatives" from CT (John Larson and Rosa DeLauro) have served for a long time (Rosa 24 years, John 16 years).  That's a lot of re-elections.



#9 HungryPoohBear

HungryPoohBear

    Black Bear

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kentucky, USA

Posted 27 September 2015 - 11:46 AM

 

LOL....if not for the massive deficits of 2009+, we would have seen a replay of the 30s.  The notion that the debt has to be "retired" is nonsense.  US public debt to GDP ratio is a bit high...but it is nothing compared to the debt in the private sector.  That is the real danger.  That is what caused the crisis.  The increase in public debt post 2008 was a tool to keep private sector debt from imploding completely like the 30s.   Also, in the late 30's...it was decided that they were through the worst of things, and they needed to reign in spending.  The result was a sharp and painful recession.  Private sector credit creation could still not stand on its own.  If you got your way...you would basically be saying...lets repeat 1937-1938 again.

 

The debt needs to be retired.

 

Yes, I want a repeat of 1937-1938 again.

 

Cleanse the system of this awful mess!

 

If it means having a revolution, then have a revolution.

 



#10 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:23 AM

Ted Cruz says that Congress has "show votes".  The vote for a Continuing Resolution must be one of them.  Congress showed that:

 

1) It can't pass a budget - much less on time.

 

2)  It can't reduce spending.

 

3)  It CAN keep government open if it gives President Obama a "blank check" for every single spending item he wants.



#11 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:58 AM

I was a little too negative.  The "sequester" is still in place preventing the President from spending ALL the money exactly how he wants to.  Obama is crying and whining like a baby about the sequester.



#12 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 01 October 2015 - 10:10 AM

But it can't happen here (USA).  How it "happened" in Puerto Rico.

 

http://thehill.com/b...os-debt-crisis#



#13 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 21 October 2015 - 01:11 PM

Denninger goes nuts on Biden.

 

http://www.market-ti...www?post=230816

 

But Biden bowed out.  Maybe Obama and Hillary will step up and take the blame.



#14 shooter

shooter

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2016 - 07:41 PM

 

 

 

The debt needs to be retired.

 

Yes, I want a repeat of 1937-1938 again.

 

Cleanse the system of this awful mess!

 

If it means having a revolution, then have a revolution.

 

 

So you are calling for the debt deflation that played out from 1929-1945 to play out again...why?  Out of some twisted sense of economic fair play?  Sorry but you can not separate the geopolitical costs from the economic ones.  You can not predict what would happen in a complete credit system collapse.  The debt/credit bubble of 2008 drawfed 1929.  Only a sick mind would call to repeat the economic factors that were a primary factor in creating  a period of genocide and world war.  Some people here are just plain nuts.



#15 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 10 March 2016 - 09:02 AM

"Plain nuts"??  To me plain nuts would be taking on $19T of debt for little or no reason, it would be  destroying our grandchildren's future, it would be believing that money from the Government is "free".  I guess one person's idea of "common sense" is another person's "plain nuts".   It remains to be seen whether "debt deflation" is over, or is getting much worse.



#16 detachedbear

detachedbear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,334 posts

Posted 11 March 2016 - 12:10 AM

Shooter, if you are still in love with that neo-Keynesian BS, this video should bend your mind.  Note: it is almost a year old.

 



#17 Calvin Bear

Calvin Bear

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,085 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Australia
  • Interests:Food. Clothes. Security safes and vault boxes. Ambient music. Ideas. Sin.

Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:52 PM

And not only that, but velocity is obscured by the nature of the final aggregated number - it CANNOT represent that part of the liquidity provided by QE because this is essentially financialized 'money' in nature - going straight into digits on banks represented balance sheets for the purposes of liquidity and ultimate solvency - and not real domestic circulation. In my view, velocity is markedly worse than any 'official' number coming out right now.

 

No one can balance the budget anymore. The percentage that goes to military-associated institutions is too high and has become part of the lobby that runs the government and all of its functions and institutions. 

 

On the one hand it is certainly true that lowering oil prices have not organically stopped production - this again is to be blamed on Fed policies which have shown the way to all Central Bankers to produce rabbit-out-of-hat money to banks and their cronies. But on the other hand, the ARAMCO numbering system has been crippled by Turkey and its channeling of thieved oil into the world demand pool, especially out to China. OPEC, therefore, has been damaged, and the fundamental basis on which US-Saudi foreign (oil) policy has been previously able to determine the outcomes of hegemonic wars, has also been terminated. Hence, Libya, Syria, Iran - and the totally failed plan to out-propaganda Putin's Russia. Ukraine IS a failed State, in which the next proposed President - is actually a US citizen who previously worked for the State Department. Nothing could be more absurdly embarrassing but apparently, Washington doesn't blush...

 

It's too late to worry about whether or not people are crazy to call for the destruction of the system; the system already has destroyed itself and not even Tom Keene from Bloomberg seriously believes in the Stock Market anymore, even though he is compelled to make a show each day (he keeps talking about the good old days). His team is resorting to repeating the comments about Draghi's ties! We are meant to talk about 'point this' of a percent and 'zero point that' of a percent - as if these are earth-shattering indicators about where to invest next or where to sell. In fact, these numbers are all fake.

 

It is incumbent about every serious person now to consider what they will do to protect themselves and their families from the gathering momentum of utilities failures, failures of services delivery, breaking throw wear and tear of infrastructure, and the bankruptcy of Hollywood and major television studios.



#18 aussiebear

aussiebear

    dark side of the earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 13 March 2016 - 04:38 PM

So true. The Central Banks are too big to last.
"When the people lose faith, they do not then believe in nothing. They believe in anything."

#19 aussiebear

aussiebear

    dark side of the earth

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,297 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 13 March 2016 - 04:40 PM

." The percentage that goes to military-associated institutions is too high and has become part of the lobby that runs the government and all of its functions and institutions. "
"When the people lose faith, they do not then believe in nothing. They believe in anything."

#20 shooter

shooter

    Grizzly Bear

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,601 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2016 - 10:07 AM

Nothing at all about what Lacey Hunt said bends my mind.  He is saying deflation is still in control, which is exactly what I am saying.  And you want to balance the budget on top of this?  Deflation results in private sector debt contraction and destruction of wealth.  Running a budget deficit in the current environment forces money to be spent that would otherwise sit.  Balancing the budget will pull that money out of the system.  Again, do it, and we are in a depression over night.  We can argue the merits of doing that long term (take your bad medicine now) but the fact it, it will not happen.  If anything, the budget deficit will increase again in coming years.  

 

I would really love to see you explain, on an accounting basis, how reducing the deficit will improve things any time soon....






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users





Stock market portfolio giving you the runs? See Dr. Stool.
The Daily Stool - Stock Market Message Board
Stool's Gold- Gold and Precious Metals Forum
Look Out Below Message Board

The Al E. Greenspeuman designer line at Stoolmart. Get yours today! Click here now!
Get Mugged!