Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Help me out...

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why shouldn't the national debt as an issue be my number one issue for the next, and foreseeable elections?

I ask this in all honesty, and I'm not looking to have a big partisan fight on this, not at all, but I am truly befuddled by this issue not being the all important issue, by far than any other issue for the United States.

I've had conversations with people on this that have been quite unsatisfying, but typically it comes down to a few points:

1. It's just the way things have always been done, and we cannot change this problem.

2. (one of my favorites) It's not real money anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

3. It's not a big problem, it's only being made out to be a big problem for political reasons.

4. It's way too complicated for the average person to understand.

5. This problem really isn't a problem (diminish the issue).

All of these fail as far as arguments go. The issue is not that complicated, and when understood even in the most basic of terms, it's catastrophic.

What am I missing? I was told this morning that there obviously is something that I don't get about this issue since it seems to carry an absurd amount of weight with me when compared to all other issues. I wasn't told what it is that I'm missing on this issue, there must be some loophole that I missed.

Or is it that the solution to the problem is more of the problem?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 2:41:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's mainly a matter of political semantics.

Debt reduction isn't just about spending cuts (I know that's obvious with a moments retrospect, but this is politics we're talking about ). Job growth and tax revenue, as opposed to just the "cost" side of things, tend to get lost in the conversation of how to "reduce debt." The term implicitly focuses on the "reduction" side of things as opposed to increasing revenues or growth.

So when people say "ignore the debt" what they usually mean is that you shouldn't be focusing on just reducing government services or costs. Instead, your focus should be on raising revenues either through increased taxes, economic growth, employment, or pro-cyclical monetary policy.

It's a bit like how you can say "we need to focus on unemployment, not inflation" when any effect on one inevitably effects the other. It's not that people who focus on unemployment think inflation is irrelevant, only that the policy solutions aren't geared towards changing inflation.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 3:24:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 2:41:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's mainly a matter of political semantics.

Debt reduction isn't just about spending cuts (I know that's obvious with a moments retrospect, but this is politics we're talking about ). Job growth and tax revenue, as opposed to just the "cost" side of things, tend to get lost in the conversation of how to "reduce debt." The term implicitly focuses on the "reduction" side of things as opposed to increasing revenues or growth.

So when people say "ignore the debt" what they usually mean is that you shouldn't be focusing on just reducing government services or costs. Instead, your focus should be on raising revenues either through increased taxes, economic growth, employment, or pro-cyclical monetary policy.

It's a bit like how you can say "we need to focus on unemployment, not inflation" when any effect on one inevitably effects the other. It's not that people who focus on unemployment think inflation is irrelevant, only that the policy solutions aren't geared towards changing inflation.

So it's a combination of it being really complicated, and it's not that big of a problem.

If there is a constant variable in the equation that is pretty obvious, like spending, is that diminished by the other contributing factors like you mentioned? Is it then an issue that should be dismissed? Or are we going the route that it's all political, and it's how things have always been done, and no real effort CAN be made to fix the problem?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:23:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Innomen - It's been shown that the national debt is lowest when the taxes on the rich are higher (there are a lot of great photo charts on this showing the changes over time - I'll look for them). If diminishing the debt were your number 1 priority, why not support higher tax rates on the rich and/or corporations? I suppose you could suggest cutting spending, but the programs that we spend the most on are often the ones people don't want to cut funding for - like the military, social security and perhaps now health care. It's not realistic that cutting programs will significantly diminished the debt because funding from the big ones won't be cut. Republicans for instance target Planned Parenthood because they give out condoms... which is like 0.0005 of the budget. Also corporations (and thus company big wigs, a.k.a. the rich) still flourished even during periods of higher tax rates, so for someone who claims that his political opinions are essentially based on pragmatism and not rooted in abstract theory, it would seem to be that you would support Democratic economic ideals here. Even though philosophically speaking I am an anarchist, realistically in everyday conversation I tend to align myself with the Dems because Republican (the only other relevant ideology, realistically) economic ideals are bad and in my humble opinion just kinda dick.
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:10:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:23:03 PM, Danielle wrote:
Innomen - It's been shown that the national debt is lowest when the taxes on the rich are higher (there are a lot of great photo charts on this showing the changes over time - I'll look for them). If diminishing the debt were your number 1 priority, why not support higher tax rates on the rich and/or corporations? I suppose you could suggest cutting spending, but the programs that we spend the most on are often the ones people don't want to cut funding for - like the military, social security and perhaps now health care. It's not realistic that cutting programs will significantly diminished the debt because funding from the big ones won't be cut. Republicans for instance target Planned Parenthood because they give out condoms... which is like 0.0005 of the budget. Also corporations (and thus company big wigs, a.k.a. the rich) still flourished even during periods of higher tax rates, so for someone who claims that his political opinions are essentially based on pragmatism and not rooted in abstract theory, it would seem to be that you would support Democratic economic ideals here. Even though philosophically speaking I am an anarchist, realistically in everyday conversation I tend to align myself with the Dems because Republican (the only other relevant ideology, realistically) economic ideals are bad and in my humble opinion just kinda dick.

Okay, but my real question is about the weight of the issue. Aside from the solutions that either side may bring, do you feel that this problem is the biggest facing the country? I understand the politics of both sides, but that really shouldn't have a bearing on the weight of the issue itself.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:39:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:10:00 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:23:03 PM, Danielle wrote:
Innomen - It's been shown that the national debt is lowest when the taxes on the rich are higher (there are a lot of great photo charts on this showing the changes over time - I'll look for them). If diminishing the debt were your number 1 priority, why not support higher tax rates on the rich and/or corporations? I suppose you could suggest cutting spending, but the programs that we spend the most on are often the ones people don't want to cut funding for - like the military, social security and perhaps now health care. It's not realistic that cutting programs will significantly diminished the debt because funding from the big ones won't be cut. Republicans for instance target Planned Parenthood because they give out condoms... which is like 0.0005 of the budget. Also corporations (and thus company big wigs, a.k.a. the rich) still flourished even during periods of higher tax rates, so for someone who claims that his political opinions are essentially based on pragmatism and not rooted in abstract theory, it would seem to be that you would support Democratic economic ideals here. Even though philosophically speaking I am an anarchist, realistically in everyday conversation I tend to align myself with the Dems because Republican (the only other relevant ideology, realistically) economic ideals are bad and in my humble opinion just kinda dick.

Okay, but my real question is about the weight of the issue. Aside from the solutions that either side may bring, do you feel that this problem is the biggest facing the country? I understand the politics of both sides, but that really shouldn't have a bearing on the weight of the issue itself.

It seems to be a far greater issue from politics than that of anything practical. For me I view it as an issue of maintaining the integrity of the dollar. However, since the dollar is still far more stable and useful (due to being used for commodities) than nearly every other currency out there, it's not that big of a deal to me or on a global stage.

But China postures that it cares about this issue occasionally and would like to see the US show more economic responsibility, perhaps it's just a matter of time until we reach the point where people do view the dollar as a dying currency. Since most of the world is now in a state of symbiosis it's very difficult for me to see that happening though.
Debate.org Moderator
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:59:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1.) There is no need to raise taxes. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is low because of the recession. To be fair, the recession is also part of the reason government spending as a percentage of GDP is high. Once the recession ends, tax revenue will be restored to about 18 or 19% of GDP even with the Bush tax cuts in place. Spending, however, will remain higher. Don't forget, by the way, that spending was around 18% of GDP when Clinton left office. So, people who say we need higher taxes to fund government are arguing for a government much larger than the one Clinton left in 2000.

2.) Austerity can be successful in reducing long term debt and not doing too much short term damage to the economy (or even helping the short term economy) so long as it is based in spending cuts. Spending cuts can even be expansionary. Tax increases, on the other hand, fail to reduce the debt and do substantial harm to the economy. (http://www.economics.harvard.edu...)

3.) Debt reduction should be accompanied by pro growth policies such as revenue neutral tax reform that lowers tax rates and gets rid of loopholes, reduction of unnecessary regulations, expansion of free trade, and liberalization of labor markets. Pro growth structural reforms are very helpful with debt reduction. (http://www.nationalreview.com...)

4.) Large debt does harm the economy. So, more fiscal stimulus at large levels of debt will probably do more harm than good. (http://www.economics.harvard.edu...)

Moral of the story is that debt does hurt the economy. We need to have some fiscal consolidation. However, tax increases will only do more harm. Instead, we need long term spending reduction.

Likewise, pro growth structural reforms should be implemented as well.

On a final note, simply expanding the monetary base more and more is not a solution for debt or lack of growth, only a recipe for more inflation and less growth.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 6:41:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 2:31:57 PM, innomen wrote:
Why shouldn't the national debt as an issue be my number one issue for the next, and foreseeable elections?

I ask this in all honesty, and I'm not looking to have a big partisan fight on this, not at all, but I am truly befuddled by this issue not being the all important issue, by far than any other issue for the United States.

I've had conversations with people on this that have been quite unsatisfying, but typically it comes down to a few points:

1. It's just the way things have always been done, and we cannot change this problem.

2. (one of my favorites) It's not real money anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

3. It's not a big problem, it's only being made out to be a big problem for political reasons.

4. It's way too complicated for the average person to understand.

5. This problem really isn't a problem (diminish the issue).

All of these fail as far as arguments go. The issue is not that complicated, and when understood even in the most basic of terms, it's catastrophic.

What am I missing? I was told this morning that there obviously is something that I don't get about this issue since it seems to carry an absurd amount of weight with me when compared to all other issues. I wasn't told what it is that I'm missing on this issue, there must be some loophole that I missed.

Or is it that the solution to the problem is more of the problem?

The national debt is simply a focus for conventional minds that don't think critically and fundamentally about the inherent nature of the capitalist system and its pronounced proneness to experience recurring bouts of ill-health. That is, a government's national debt is most certainly not the ultimate and most determinative cause of our current or of any capitalist crisis, capitalism itself is the ultimate and most determinative cause of its crises. But, of course, this is one of those politically-incorrect, intellectually-treasonous truths that dare not be spoken, instead we prefer to gripe about and scapegoat them there fiscally irresponsible, tax and spend politicians.

Mm-hmm, we're quite thoroughly socioculturally conditioned to take our economic system and its supposed viability for granted, ergo we don't even think to look at it as a possible factor in its own frequent failures! Take the current Great Recession, for instance, it was clearly triggered by the sociopathically irresponsible speculation of the Wall Street elite, and the tendency for such instability-generating, recession-precipitating speculation with the grossly overaccumulated capital of the rich to occur is of course endemic in the capitalist system to its core, but on the conservative side you have market fundamentalists facilely passing the buck to the government, and on the liberal side the blame is conveniently assigned to specific Wall Street bad actors, no one is actually looking at the sick system itself as perhaps the ultimate source of the exceedingly acute symptoms of its impending demise!

To repeat myself, the root of the problem with our economy is indeed, and quite invariably, the fundamentally flawed and flagitious nature of capitalism, fixing our critical focus on the government, on its policies and debt, in such a way that capitalism itself never comes in for any deep scrutiny and is allowed to continue to visit pain on its working-class and poor victims is intellectually superficial-conformist; morally negligent-culpable; and downright stupid, in the colloquial definition of the word, i.e., persisting in the same empirically discredited thinking and expecting better results.

Well, to quote you, dear President innomen, if we cease and desist from our ideologically-driven stupidity "The issue is not that complicated, and when understood even in the most basic of terms, it's catastrophic", but, once more, the critical issue is not such matters as the national debt, deficit spending, the Federal Reserve, etc., no, the critical issue is our unworkable, disequilibrium-prone capitalist system. So, I ask you, shall we in fact leave off focusing on the debt and begin a national debate on the very nature of our economic system and its urgent need for a bit of radical reimagineering? Are you up for that, friend innomen, are we up for that as a society? I hope that we are, but fear that we aren't
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 6:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I guess solving the debt problem would require admitting where the problem came from. That's far from politically smart for the republicans and the democrats don't care about debt quite as much as they should.
Sapere Aude!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:09:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 6:44:16 PM, Apollo.11 wrote:
I guess solving the debt problem would require admitting where the problem came from. That's far from politically smart for the republicans and the democrats don't care about debt quite as much as they should.

Probably the most coherent of answers.

In asking the question about the weight of the issue, immediately the question became the solution to the issue. That's not what I'm asking at all.

I think that the truth is that the issue is diminished in magnitude on both sides in order to preserve the power of the status quo. A comprehensive approach to looking and solving the problem would probably mean political sacrifice on both ends, which is simply out of the question with those in charge. So it is in their vested interest to keep this issue from being the #1 campaign issue, or the #1 issue in the minds of Americans.

In some vague ways I agree with Charles, in that the current system is broken, but at the micro level he and I would disagree with where and why it's broken.

I believe that political greed is really the route to this problem, and the left right arguments are what sustain the status quo.
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 10:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.

It's 17 trillion dollars. And yeah, when the US loses it's tripple A status, that's a big deal.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 10:45:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nobody wants to be the party that ends entitlements, oversees adventures and everything else. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Also, as Keynes recognised, we live in the short run, and for politicians, that means ensuring economic health for 4/8 years. After that, it's the other guy's problem.

I should say I don't see debt as the most immediate concern. In fact, I'd even advocate increasing it in the short-term, because I think the govt can/should have a role in stimulating demand in a downturn. When the economy is booming again, this is when the parties should get together and work out how to cut as much as 10-20% from expenditure in a single election cycle.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 10:58:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
BTW, I should say that, just to clarify, I think it is a big issue (probably the biggest issue), just not the most pressing concern at the moment, in light of the economic downturn.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 11:07:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 10:45:38 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Nobody wants to be the party that ends entitlements, oversees adventures and everything else. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Also, as Keynes recognised, we live in the short run, and for politicians, that means ensuring economic health for 4/8 years. After that, it's the other guy's problem.

Know, Keynesian economics is about the "short run" markets are in disequilibrium. That's it.

I should say I don't see debt as the most immediate concern. In fact, I'd even advocate increasing it in the short-term, because I think the govt can/should have a role in stimulating demand in a downturn. When the economy is booming again, this is when the parties should get together and work out how to cut as much as 10-20% from expenditure in a single election cycle.

A) I don't necessarily believe that deficit spending is the solution to our economic problems.
B) Even If the US decides not to balance its balance now, why not cut FUTURE spending. There's no reason why the discussion and plans can't be implemented, even if they aren't going to be implemented today. Even Paul Ryan's plan has budget deficits in its first few years that its implemented.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 3:49:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 10:45:38 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Nobody wants to be the party that ends entitlements, oversees adventures and everything else. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. Also, as Keynes recognised, we live in the short run, and for politicians, that means ensuring economic health for 4/8 years. After that, it's the other guy's problem.

I should say I don't see debt as the most immediate concern. In fact, I'd even advocate increasing it in the short-term, because I think the govt can/should have a role in stimulating demand in a downturn. When the economy is booming again, this is when the parties should get together and work out how to cut as much as 10-20% from expenditure in a single election cycle.

You mean again. By this the previous stimuli should be taking effect when exactly? Do you not see human nature to be a massive problem in having the parties come together when the economy is booming? You expect measures to be taken to reign in spending when the economy is good, and taxes are coming in at higher levels? If they're not going to do it now, they surely won't do it then.
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:01:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 10:01:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.

It's 17 trillion dollars. And yeah, when the US loses it's tripple A status, that's a big deal.

Why, exactly?
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:15:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:01:42 PM, Platypus666 wrote:
At 5/17/2012 10:01:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.

It's 17 trillion dollars. And yeah, when the US loses it's tripple A status, that's a big deal.

Why, exactly?

Japan had a drop in its credit rating in the late 90's and it has not recovered yet. A drop in credit rating means that large investors will not invest in the country. It further has implications in the world stock markets where the US and other major economic countries play a major role, there is a general psychological impact, and a drop in market activities (as we are seeing now). It also promotes the idea of political instability where they, our government officials, are unable to get their house in order, and create measures of structure to prevent such things. It also makes it more difficult for the country to find crediters, since fewer people will invest in the country, so printing money without borrowing money is even worse, where the value of the dollar will diminish, and interest rates will increase.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the debt gets too big, move else. No government can stick its debt on you.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move else. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move elsewhere. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.

It would be horrible for those that invested so much in an abstract entity, but that's a risk they took.
And it would work by positive feedback: as each individual leaves the pressure on the others to leave increases.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:47:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move elsewhere. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.

It would be horrible for those that invested so much in an abstract entity, but that's a risk they took.
And it would work by positive feedback: as each individual leaves the pressure on the others to leave increases.

But there's negative feedback: housing prices would hit the floor!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:52:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:48:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:47:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move elsewhere. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.

It would be horrible for those that invested so much in an abstract entity, but that's a risk they took.
And it would work by positive feedback: as each individual leaves the pressure on the others to leave increases.

But there's negative feedback: housing prices would hit the floor!

You're right. That might outweigh the difference in debt immediately. What's the individual's current "share"?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:52:52 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:48:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:47:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move elsewhere. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.

It would be horrible for those that invested so much in an abstract entity, but that's a risk they took.
And it would work by positive feedback: as each individual leaves the pressure on the others to leave increases.

But there's negative feedback: housing prices would hit the floor!

You're right. That might outweigh the difference in debt immediately. What's the individual's current "share"?

About $55,000.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 5:08:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:58:00 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:52:52 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:48:40 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:47:50 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:27:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:25:38 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If the debt gets too big, move elsewhere. No government can stick its debt on you.

How exactly would that work, a whole country vacating.

It would be horrible for those that invested so much in an abstract entity, but that's a risk they took.
And it would work by positive feedback: as each individual leaves the pressure on the others to leave increases.

But there's negative feedback: housing prices would hit the floor!

You're right. That might outweigh the difference in debt immediately. What's the individual's current "share"?

About $55,000.

Nah, plenty of people could leave before the average property value drops $55,000 (or whatever it adjusts to). There would be a new balancing point. Anyways, most citizens don't calculate this because the government isn't going to drop the debt bomb on you all of the sudden.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2012 8:47:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What if the federal government implements laws against taking your wealth to other countries? Essentially claiming power over all your property that you own within American orders?
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 3:03:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/17/2012 4:15:23 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:01:42 PM, Platypus666 wrote:
At 5/17/2012 10:01:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.

It's 17 trillion dollars. And yeah, when the US loses it's tripple A status, that's a big deal.

Why, exactly?

Japan had a drop in its credit rating in the late 90's and it has not recovered yet. A drop in credit rating means that large investors will not invest in the country. It further has implications in the world stock markets where the US and other major economic countries play a major role, there is a general psychological impact, and a drop in market activities (as we are seeing now). It also promotes the idea of political instability where they, our government officials, are unable to get their house in order, and create measures of structure to prevent such things. It also makes it more difficult for the country to find crediters, since fewer people will invest in the country, so printing money without borrowing money is even worse, where the value of the dollar will diminish, and interest rates will increase.

Ah, that's fair. I didn't think about competing with other countries. But still. Single most important issue? I don't see anyone's lives at stake of the debt quite yet.
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 3:07:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 3:03:35 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:15:23 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:01:42 PM, Platypus666 wrote:
At 5/17/2012 10:01:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/17/2012 4:28:08 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
I don't think the debt issue is nearly as bad a problem as it is made out to be.
People freaked out when our rating went from AAA to AA but....that's still a really good rating. Better than most nations.
The truth is, we actually do a pretty good job paying off our debt and it's certainly not the most debt we have ever been in as percentage of GDP.
Really, it's not that bad of a problem.

It's 17 trillion dollars. And yeah, when the US loses it's tripple A status, that's a big deal.

Why, exactly?

Japan had a drop in its credit rating in the late 90's and it has not recovered yet. A drop in credit rating means that large investors will not invest in the country. It further has implications in the world stock markets where the US and other major economic countries play a major role, there is a general psychological impact, and a drop in market activities (as we are seeing now). It also promotes the idea of political instability where they, our government officials, are unable to get their house in order, and create measures of structure to prevent such things. It also makes it more difficult for the country to find crediters, since fewer people will invest in the country, so printing money without borrowing money is even worse, where the value of the dollar will diminish, and interest rates will increase.

Ah, that's fair. I didn't think about competing with other countries. But still. Single most important issue? I don't see anyone's lives at stake of the debt quite yet.

So since it's not a threat now, we shouldn't worry about the future? That's quite the present-oriented thinking.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 3:09:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 3:07:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
So since it's not a threat now, we shouldn't worry about the future? That's quite the present-oriented thinking.

Well, that's not what said. Just that it's not the single most important issue. Though, I suppose the level of importance of different issues depends on who you are.
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.