Everything in this quote is true.
Arguable.
And here you just stepped off the ledge.
Debt as a percentage of GDP was actually higher (slightly) during WW II than it is now. (Much higher, in fact, if one excludes debt owed by the government to its own agencies, e.g. SocSec. Right-wing idiots claim that debt paper is meaningless, so to be consistent should exclude it.)
The U.S. did recover from that high WW II debt. Details are debatable but some might attribute recovery in part to the high taxes on the rich during the Eisenhower boom years.
High debt … high taxes … economic boom … debt goes away. Good idea? Nah, Been there done that. Let’s try lowering taxes this time, spice things up, maybe it’s the “same difference.”
There is more than 1 way to default. Defaulting by printing so many dollars that the dollar becomes worthless is also a default. Essentially, if a loan is paid back in worthless paper, then it defaults.
Bill Gross Warns Dollar Default By Inflation
April 6, 2011 by Fortune
Richard Russell -
http://alshamy70.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/bill-gross-warns-dollar-default-by-inflation/
Marc Faber: The US Will Default By Inflation
Thursday, July 14th, 2011
http://www.wealthwire.com/news/economy/1451
Watching this all unfold and hearing the back and forth distortions something occurred to me. Why doesn’t our president and the Democrat leaders separate a vote of raising te debt ceiling from all negotiations and force the GOP to vote yay or nay on that one issue.
The public on both sides and the independents are sick of attached riders and stalled negotiations over deals as one issue is held hostage for the sake of another. Why not take a stand and say,
“We tried to negotiate. We can’t agree. Now it’s time to vote on raising the debt ceiling with zero attached to it. Vote yes or no on that one issue so we can get it done and move on. We won’t listen to any more bargaining or attaching other issues to this vote.”
Wouldn’t the general public appreciate that kind of directness and see it as real leadership? I would. And wouldn’t the GOP be forced to accept it or look incredibly bad? I think the Dems have an opportunity to lead, simplify, and subsequently gain a political advantage for doing so.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...92-503544.html 46% say raise the debt ceiling, 49% say don’t.
I’m not sure, but I think the Majority in the House of Representatives can control whether a proposal is even brought up for vote.
However, they can and should do this in the Senate, I think. But Democrats seem to lack gumption. Many of us who despise Republicans are (checks forum … no, this isn’t BBQ Pit) “dismayed” by Democrat behavior as well.
No, any bill that concerns revenue (including the management of the public debt) must originate in the House of Representatives.
The American economy in 1945 is entirely different than today. In 1945 America was a manufacturing economy that actually made things. We had industry and we made things that other people wanted. Today, our economy is almost entirely “spending”. “Spending” is not an economy. Spending does not create wealth.
If spending created wealth, then instead of spending 5 trillion, why not spend $50 trillion? If “Spending” was any good at all then we would have** Haiti** start spending ten times what it does now in order to become a rich island.
If American families have unemployed family members and they are having a hard time getting by, why not just give them government checks so they could spend $200,000 a year?
I agree with you that we had huge deficits in the 1930’s and 1940’s. What I dont see is that you dont understand what you yourself posted.
We had huge deficits in the 1930’s and the early 1940’s during which time Americans became poorer and Americans were not able to buy the things that they wanted. Americans were worse off while we were having huge federal deficits.
It was the ENDING of the huge deficits of World War 2 that gave us our wealth, it was the END of the huge deficits of the 1930’s and early 1940’s that gave us prosperity in the late 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s. Prosperity did not come to America until AFTER the war ended.
I think we can all agree that Americans did not become wealthy until after the huge deficits of the early 1940’s ended.
**U.S. consumer spending accounts for around 70 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. **
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/markets/consumerbubble/
Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economy
by Annie Baxter, Minnesota Public Radio
October 30, 2008
Complete nonsense. Even though we have to do something about deficits, we are not close to the point of which debt is an existential crisis for the United States. The amount we spend to pay interest on the debt is about one third of what we pay for the Department of Defense.
In 1953, we were spending about 8 times more to defend ourselves against the commie threat than we are spending on interest on the debt today.
Again, your effort to make debt out to be an existential crisis for the United States is pure hysteria. It’s a problem that can be fixed, it is not the end of the world.
I love cites that come from “King wolrd news blog” (sic). Every reputable thinker I know runs blogs replete with spelling errors.
Way back when this debate started they did exactly that - a “clean” debt ceiling increase in the House. Both parties voted it down, althought 97 Dems did vote for it.
The political problem is that “raising the debt limit” by itself is unpopular. Of course, so is cutting Medicare or Social Security. And raising taxes. Hence the McConnell fall-back plan.
Democrats want cuts, they just don’t want the massive entitlement cuts and they want them coupled with increased revenues through closing tax loopholes.
Your comments about manufacturing vs “spending”, however inarticulate, are not completely wrong. For example, I’d be delighted with public policy to increase taxes (since consumers just “spend” the money) and use the funds to manufacture improved infrastructure. How about you?
Your comments about the 30’s and 40’s are way off-base. That the economy improved while FDR ran deficits, then faltered when he stopped deficit spending is very well known, indeed cited over and over and over again in these threads.
And that American standard of living improved when moneys spent on bullets where spent instead on butter is so obvious, one wonders whether you’re some troll or self-parody.
Susann
For your information and possibly to improve your level of understanding, I want you to understand something:
I have personally filed bankruptcy in the past and I will tell you that it had virtually no impact whatever on my ability to buy anything I wanted nor did it have an impact on my ability to borrow money or acquire credit cards. In fact, I was able to finance a new car within six months of my filing and at a market rate of interest. Your jeremiads are just that and your pronouncements are basically nothing more than hot air. I sometimes think that you and Michelle Bachmann must be conjoined sisters.
The primary reason our economy boomed after WWII is that we won, and everybody else lost.
Yes, exactly, Keynesianism worked so well with the previous Depression, that’s why we now need to try it again.
Leaving aside the merits of Susanann’s take on the national debt, this is emphatically not the typical consumer bankruptcy experience.
As you are all clamoring for my view on this, I have decided to relent…
-
Debt ceiling must be raised. Period. Full stop. Even if the dreadful predictions of consequences are exaggerated, we simply cannot take that chance. Obama knows this, and it would be irresponsible and reckless not to do whatever has to be done. At this point, that entails letting some crazy ass melonfarmers believe they have won. Or even worse, letting them actually win. Clearly, the illusion is much to be preferred.
-
If the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, this could solve a lot of our problem. Therefore, promising “tax reform” later and spending cuts now can be effectively the compromise he needs. If he does nothing at all, those tax cuts will expire. Not soon enough, perhaps, but it is what it is, and he doesn’t have the power to make those cuts expire now as part of a deal, the rabid right won’t buy it, they will let the ship sink first.
He has to let them think they’ve won, which is only a little more distasteful than actually letting them win. Because he has to. (See item #1)
- Pencils have erasers. Cuts to entitlements may be part of the package, but can they be put in to effect before the next elections, when those entitlement cuts are likely to be the single most important issue? Having the veto pen and the Senate, can he slow them down? Sure.
So, basically, he is trading drama for reality, he is trading the appearance of total Republican victory while setting a big ol’ bear trap that they will step in.
So, if it works, he looks like a total tool, but he can stall and deal until the next elections, when he can fairly count on Dems retaking power in the House, when the erasers can come out. And he can also rely that the Dems who win will not be of the blue dead dog stripe. Good riddance!
Does this severely threaten his chances at a second term? Oh, hell, yeah, but it depends on which gibbering baboon the Pubbies pick, and how totally pissed off his base is. But even if the base won’t turn out to re-elect him, they will turn out to stop the gutting of SS and Medicare. He may lose and the country still win.
It would appear that something very remarkable has happened, we have elected a man who cares more about his country than his presidency. Ecce homo.
ladyfoxfyre, you’ve been here long enough to know that calling anyone an utter moron isn’t allowed on the SDMB, except in the Pit. Please desist from doing so.
Neither is the experience she posted.
I generally find unpersuasive the argument that one should fight hyperbole with hyperbole. It’s one step away from stupid v. stupid.
YMMV.