You owe $21 trillion

They are a hair farther on the spectrum, yes. Are they the standard? no. Republicans are democratic socialists.

The budget was busted starting with Reagan and the busting continues to the current day. That tracks perfectly with the Boomers ascension to political domination.

You could have, but didn’t. Ok. Sounds like words. The Boomers ballooned deficits and have not grappled with the structural problems of Social Security and Medicare.

I explained that to you. Others have picked up on the very simple argument. Perhaps it is a problem of postwar public education.

I hate the state. Boomers love the state and they will try to use it to expropriate the younger generations.

If you have not corrected yourself on the myth of the “Clinton” surplus, there is not much I can do at this point in your life.

Life is simple for you Boomers. Hate one party or the other. Explains the rise of comic books in the postwar era.

Even in the postwar pro-state era of the 1950s-1960s, the govt couldn’t maintain a high rate of taxation. It is not politically feasible. Simple as that.

I explained the rest. Others have picked up on the argument. Not complex.

That took care of the credibility of your argument tout de suite.

I rest my case.

George Wallace said, in 1968, that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. Nixon and Humphrey back then. So that’s how you swing - so out there that they seem the same to you.

Are you saying Reagan was a Boomer? :confused:

I wouldn’t even know how to pay Social Security more. Raising the cap would assuage the problem, and I’d vote for anyone who did it. I did vote for Reagan twice - I was stupid back then.

You explained nothing. My education was certainly better than yours.

Good. Like we used to say in the '70s - “Love it or leave it.” Or is there no other state you like better? You can always go off grid and live by yourself in the woods.

It was in all the papers - if maybe not on Fox News. Or whatever wingnut media you look at.

Well, you did explain who you hate - just about everyone.

You really should look at the tax rate for the rich during the 1950s. I think most people today would say the incremental tax rate then was too high, and drove inefficient behavior like tax shelters. But the government had no trouble maintaining them.
Government led by that Boomer Eisenhower, who clearly led the armies in WW II in his diapers.

The Soviet Communists, Europe’s Social Democrats, America’s Tea Party: all pretty much the same looney statism rebranded — is that right?

I really think you need to start a thread and present your manifesto. Dribbling out your teachings like this has left us students confused. While we’re waiting for class to begin, is there any preparatory reading we should do? Or Youtube watching? Alex Jones’ Infowars?

I don’t care about the shuffling of taxes. I care about tax revenue as a percent of GDP. Marginal tax rates tell you nothing about how many are paying them vs. dodging them. My metric of choice is a fairly clean, seemingly immutable statistic that tells you how much loot the government will be probably be able to pull out of the society. History tells us no more than 19 or 20%

Trying to link me with Wallace would be a petty rhetorical tactic befitting a Boomer.

Quite.

The Boomers dominated politics beginning around his administration and voted for him in droves.

See above. I will use your thrilling personal anecdotes to support my conclusions. You and other Boomers voted for budget busters over and over again from Reagan to Trump.

More talk about how altruistic you are please.

Lemur had a decent summary of it.

“Things Boomers say for $1000, Alex.”

Of course after the halcyon days of public education, the Boomers botched it horribly and found new ways to plunder the public till in the course of running it.

More libertarian tropes mixed with anecdotes, please.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

Even if your beloved Democrats did run a modest surplus or two, you offered this fact as a response to my claim that Keynesian deficit spending could be offset by running surpluses. This has never happened.

No, just the state.

And Boomers.

“History tells us” isn’t actually a reason why Americans couldn’t be taxed more. For example, before the New Deal, I’m willing to bet that government expenditures were less than the 17-ish percent average over the last few decades. So, just because government’s share of the economy was less during the 19th century, doesn’t mean that the New Deal was impossible.

I fully realize that you may respond, “That’s just something a New Deal-favoring statist would say!” I counter that it is also something that historians and economists would say.

I did? What’s the “it” you’re referring to?

If you just mean that things that can’t go on forever won’t go on forever, sure. So massive deficits forever aren’t sustainable, something will change. Maybe with robots and AI the economy will become so productive that we’ll be able to pay off the debt using the money our future hyper-wealthy descendants scrounge for their couch cushions. Maybe there will be a revolution or a conquest, and the debts of the United States of America will be as meaningful as the debts of the Confederacy. Maybe there will be a massive devaluation and bondholders will take a real-value haircut despite being paid back nominally in full. Maybe we’ll raise taxes on the rich a bit and cut the military budget a bit, and our deficit will magically vanish.

But what’s the point of defaulting on the debt today, March 26, 2018?

Why not try raising taxes and cutting spending? Oh, because raising taxes and cutting spending is politically impossible? Well, defaulting on the debt is politically impossible too. You think the donor class is going to support imploding the global economy just because current practices are unsustainable? What’s in it for them? Why would the oligarchs cut their own throats?

A complete fluke created by a massive stock market bubble. One time in the last 35 years or so? Yeah, it will never happen.

This hits me as being a little like suggesting that if people learn there is no gold behind dollar bills our currency would crash.

Hey guys? Don’t worry about it. I wrote a check; it’s all taken care of now. You’re welcome.

They might borrow the money for capital improvements or other investments that return more over time than the cost of interest. But any company that sees low interest rates as an excuse to raise their operating costs by giving out better salaries and pensions with borrowed money, or as an excuse to continue running a bloated operating budget with borrowed money rather than cutting costs will soon be an ex-company. Yet this is what is happening at the federal level - an increasingly larger percentage of the federal budget is going to mandatory spending (entitlements and interest), and that number is rising in unsustainable fashion.

And anyone who thought Republicans were serious about fixing this when they got into power just got a rude wake up call in the last budget. And since Democrats are no better, time to strap in and wait for the crisis to hit.

The last time inflation ran out of control, it took double-digit interest rates to get it under control. Today, every extra point of interest will cost the government an additional $200 billion. If interest rates went back to where they were in 1981, it would bankrupt the government. And unless things have changed since last I looked, the government maintains a lot of its debt in fairly short term instruments.

But while we’re worrying, it might be worth considering all the state and municipal debt as well. In many places cities are having to cut services and/or raise taxes because their public pensions are running out of control.

Then a Republican president was elected, taxes were cut, a war was started, a prescription drug benefit for seniors was enacted, and suddenly the deficits were back. Fate sure is funny, sometimes.

The big problems really come with default.

US Treasury notes are chosen because they are considered the safest place to put ones money. It is the hedge against disruption. If they aren’t safe after all, then investors will need to get their money out and find a different hedge.

This would eliminate confidence in other investments, too. People would need to get their money out of the stock and bond markets, leaving them devastated. In 2008, the recession hit stock markets by about 37%. But, a default could mean depression - not just a recession.

The world wide lack of confidence would not lead to easier loans, as any loan would of necessity be considered more risky - thus more expensive.

What expensive borrowing means is unemployment. Remember that the 2008 recession took us from 5% unemployment to over 9% unemployment. And, that is not a depression.

People here and throughout the world would be looking to get rid of their dollars, meaning that our dollars would lose a significant percent of their buying power as prices for everything domestic and foreign soar. That includes homeowner interest rates that can change, as the dollars of homeowners would not be worth as much.

For anyone nearing retirement, that means a huge hit to savings at the same time costs soar.

A default of only a few months would leave the government unable to cover SS payouts.

Banks live on other people’s money. In fact, they are in debt today at nearly $2T. If there were a default, percentages of that start disappearing. Banks could simply close. It’s not just a matter of high interest rates and lack of confidence - the banks could end up with nothing to loan.

Global markets, the IMF, China/Japan - these folks would all want their money back. Yes, we may default on that but they would absolutely get what they could. Surely this would have a strong downward pressure here, as even a marginal loss in confidence could lead to serious selloffs of treasury notes, stocks and bonds.

Any argument that we would only default “a little bit” would still have major ramifications of exactly the same type. And, the very fact that we’re willing to go there would tell those who invest that as it turns out, they overestimated the safety of US investments including treasury notes. And that would absolutely mean that investors would demande significantly higher return for such investments - making the borrowing done by our nation enormously expensive.

This whole direction is a loser. Any shaft we give our investors would be returned in full, but multiplied by the magnitude of our debt.

This whole idea of defaulting is about as profoundly stupid as can possibly be imagined.

Our entire financial world is designed to win when people follow the rules and fulfill their commitments.

It’s very different for guys like Trump and Kushner. They can stiff those people they owe, then use their connections to find some Russian oligarch to load them millions and have beauty contests.

This is just one of the ways that our government is NOT like a private business.

Again: To focus solely on government debt is to be short-sighted.

Companies like Chevron and Exxon have been borrowing money to pay dividends, while spending their profits on the shale-oil bubble. (One could reverse this: profits go to dividends, and borrowing is for fracking — what difference does it make?) In fact corporate debt is at an all-time high. GE’s long-term debt is well over $100 billion; Ford Motor’s long-term debt/equity ratio is 4.4. In 2007, total U.S. corporate bonds with BBB rating exceeded those with AA rating or better by a factor less than 1.4. By 2017 this ratio has soared to 4.0.

Students owe $1.5 Trillion in student loans, and another $1.5 Trillion in Car loans and credit card loans. A silver lining is that home loans, although approaching a record $15 trillion total, are not growing at the rapacious rate they did during the GWB bubble — young people are too far in debt to consider house ownership.

Much of this debt is owned by foreigners, who also own several tens of Trillions of $ of U.S. stocks and properties.

As I just pointed out, America’s struggling students have more debt than the entire Federal Government. America’s debt problem goes beyond Congress’ shenanigans. ‘Teh gummint id teh eevul’ may be a good soundbite, but it doesn’t contribute to debate.

If I extrapolate from your words, it appears you endorse borrowing to support the “capital improvement” oil companies make to the environment (never mind whether water contamination is an “improvement”) but do not endorse upholding the covenant Congress has made with retirees. You have no sympathy for low-income Americans; should I assume you will be just as stern when Chevron’s stockholders, now coddled by record dividends, come crying that the environmentalists are spoiling the shale-oil party? Or that a war is needed to force up the price of Saudi oil so frackers can compete?

Peculiar that it didn’t seem to occur to you to mention military spending — or tax cuts — as contributing to the problem. Well, at least you didn’t mention the trillions wasted on foreign aid! :slight_smile:

Next time, I won’t bother posting. I’ll iust ask you to do it for me, since you like putting words in my mouth so much.

I made a point about entitlement spending and debt, and suddenly I’m being accused of hating poor people, loving defense spending, wanting oil companies to pollute the oceans, loving screwing over poor people, something something shale oil, I have no empathy, I love Chevron stockholders, I want to go to war with Saudi Arabia…

Did I miss anything? Perhaps I like to kick puppies too? Or drink the blood of liberal babies?

I appear to have made the mistake of posting while being Sam Stone. Sorry if that triggered you into this flood of nonsense.

:confused: If my extrapolations of your position are incorrect, show us where.