[Big Mac]

The way the media, especially the financial media, and the financial markets have been carrying on for some time now, the EU is in a terrible financial crisis, which has been dubbed a debt crisis. Many conservative thinkers in the US have warned, however, that if the US doesn't massively reform its fiscal policy, we will very soon experience the same fate as the Europeans.

But in actuality, whose debt problem is worse between the EU and the US?

 

US Debt:GDP: 102%, soon to be 104% if we don't get rid of this Kenyan economics plan

In contrast, EU Debt:GDP: 87%

There is indeed a debt crisis, but unfortunately the world is focusing on the wrong one. True, there are EU states that are tremendously indebted, but then again the US has a number of very irresponsible, highly indebted states itself. The EU would be fine but for the fact that it's not as well integrated as the US is, while the US would be getting raped right now but for the fact that we're still to date the world's most trusted economy. That's definitely not going to last for long, though.

Do those numbers surprise? Do they make you reconsider anything about this election?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do those numbers surprise? Do they make you reconsider anything about this election?

Are any of the candidates actually proposing anything (that they'll actually *do* if elected) that would change those numbers?

[mduell]

The EU is not a unified system, the Debt:GDP varies wildly. In the US we don't attribute separate Debt:GDP to Mississippi and New York, and consider having one of them leave the union.

The EU Debt:GDP situation is worse in the near term, since some failures will occur, although this will reduce the Debt:GDP of the whole. The US will go on for some time without default, potentially being a larger problem long term.

Also Debt:GDP doesn't tell the whole story, see Japan.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Also Debt:GDP doesn't tell the whole story, see Japan.

I agree. Although Italy is high in debt, its citizens save a lot of money while in the US, citizens are in debt. I'm not trying to argue that Italy is necessarily in a better position, but that looking at the debt as measured in terms of the country's (/countries') GDPs alone is insufficient.

[The Final Shortcut]

Yeah. What he said. Germany alone lowers the EU debt/GDP ratio a ton. Chop a country like Greece out of the EU and those numbers flucuate significantly. It's tough to compare a federation of countries with another country.

I believe Canada is around mid-80s IIRC.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The way the media, especially the financial media, and the financial markets have been carrying on for some time now, the EU is in a terrible financial crisis, which has been dubbed a debt crisis. Many conservative thinkers in the US have warned,

Stopped reading here.

Why do you insist on carrying on this fantasy that only conservatives understand that the debt situation is not so good?

[turtle777]

The EU debt crisis is more immediate. Next, Japan will blow up, then the UK.

The US will be last. The reason is the reserve currency status of the USD. This will delay the blow, but will make it more potent once it blows up.

Most Western countries have unsustainable debt, so the coming crisis is merely a *when*, not *if*.

Gold and Silver, bitchez.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you insist on carrying on this fantasy that only conservatives understand that the debt situation is not so good?

Uh, because very, very few liberals care about US debt. A select few Democrat Congressman do - I can think of only a few names, and of them they usually pre-announce they're not running for reelection and link not running for reelection to being honest about the debt problem. Take, for instance, Senator Ben Nelson, who I was very disappointed to hear won't be seeking reelection. He's been very honest about the debt and basically has mirrored Republican colleagues in calling for reform. He knows that being honest about these issues makes it very difficult for him to be reelected as a Democrat. Similarly, look at Sentator Joe Liberman, who has also been upfront about the ticking debt bomb and who bolted from the Democratic Party to run as an Independent when he got primaried out of the Dem nomination by the increasingly left-wing Democrat voters of his state. Nelson and Lieberman are/were conservative Democrats in a Democratic Party that is shunning all forms of conservatism, even when conservatism should be manifestly the right stance as on this issue.

Is that good enough for you besson? If not, why don't you show me some other Democrats who are honest about the debt problem and confidently seeking reelection in that party? Please. I'll wait. . . Sorry, you can't do that. Only that select few brave Democrats and Tea Party Republicans are strong on this issue. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the leaders of the Congressional Democrats don't care whatsoever about debt and ever growing government, except to the extent they want more of it. Those allied with them want it too, and the Democratic Party has always been known for enforcing party unity and discipline. Those Democrats who don't hold to that party line are on the fringe of the party and vulnerable to defeat so they're increasingly leaving Congress without seeking reelection. That's what the Democrats are in 2012. It's not the party of JFK and RFK. It's even the party of Clinton (Bill). The modern Democratic Party as a whole is a left-wing, highly corrupt outfit, wedded to bankrupting Entitlements (and no sensible reform), wedded to growing enormous government with ever higher government spending, beholden to corrupt special interest (big unions, left-wing billionaire puppet masters) and highly deceitful in their interactions with the American public. Other than that, though, they're a nice bunch of gents.

Just because you desperately want to live in a world where political divides are artifical and meaningless distinctions, that unfortunately doesn't jive with reality. The reality of the situation is that there are very stark and increasing contrasts between Republicans and Democrats, on this most important issue as well as others. I would also proffer that you're attempting to argue with me (mildly discourteously) while your grasps on American politics, the debt debate and economic factors are, so to speak, lacking. (As I've stated many times in the past. . .)

The truth is, one can debate about how to cut down the debt. One can debate about the mix of spending cuts versus tax revenue increases (and how to achieve higher tax revenue - higher tax rates or lower rates with fewer deductions). But one cannot legitimately argue that debt doesn't matter (yet leftists do just that) and that ever expanding enormous government (as well as ever increasing Entitlement demands by a portion of the public) doesn't matter. A country that was built and became great based on limited government and individual liberty cannot endure if the new agenda is an ever growing, all empowered Entitlements state. These issues things matter a great deal, and we see that in the EU. The EU today is a sneak preview trailer of what is to come here. In fact, the EU (at least its worst states) represents the exemplification of the type of leftist economics that the Democratic Party aspires to foist on America. The EU's problems are a natural end result and culmination of left-wing economic leadership, and it's what we'll have here in short order if American fark themselves in November by reelecting an incompetent left-wing, class warfare, special interest president, Barack Osama.

Btw, I forgot to mention that the impetus for this thread was a comment by a Morningstar financial analyst who pointed out these debt ratios and argued a bullish case for Europe (Germany in particular, and it has been argued by others that Germany stands out economically from the rest of Western Europe because it undertook free market reforms a decade ago). The Morningstar analyst wasn't making a political point, he was making an economic one. Debt will be even higher if we don't have a new president in January, much higher than aggregate European debt.

Others pointed out that Europe's problems are more immediate because of the varying economies that make up the EU and because the EU isn't tightly integrated like the US. That's all true. The fact that Eurobonds don't exist yet and are still being contemplated means that it's still more of a fiscal confderacy and less of a united whole as compared to the US. And you have poorer economies, most notably Greece, dragging the zone down. But as a whole Europe's debt is tame compared to ours.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

US Debt:GDP: 102%, soon to be 104% if we don't get rid of this Kenyan economics plan.

Kenya has a debt to GDP ratio of only 49%. If you meant Keynesian, the U.S. doesn't follow a Keynesian economic plan, either. If it did, we wouldn't be in the mess.

[besson3c]

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is that good enough for you besson?

No, it isn't.

Your litmus test is messed up. Talking about reducing the debt and proposing cutting a bunch of stuff without accounting for their value is easy, but irresponsible.

The conversation needs to start in a framework of assessing value and ROI, if there is any.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Kenya has a debt to GDP ratio of only 49%. If you meant Keynesian, the U.S. doesn't follow a Keynesian economic plan, either. If it did, we wouldn't be in the mess.

Kenya has a weak currency with high inflation. It's good they have a low debt ratio, however. In truth, though, I called it Kenyan economics part as a play on worlds between Kenya and Keynesian and part in honor of Barack Obama's homeland. And it is his homeland, that's not a knock. Just read Dreams of My Father.

As for your claim that we wouldn't be in this mess if we were more Keynesian, you could be half right but most likely wrong. Barack Obama tried his best at Keynesian response to economic contraction. That was the Pelosi-Reed-Obama Stimu-Pork Act that cost $800 billion. It threw down the toilet hole, I contend, hundreds of billions of dollars. Was some of it useful? Perhaps. Was a lot of entirely wasteful and worthless give-aways to favored Democratic constituents? Certainly. Now if you're referring to the part of Keynesian economics that calls for raising taxes to pay off deficits created by downturn deficit over spending, we failed to do that. But there was no appetite, even on Obama's part, to raise taxes on anyone with this economic "recovery" being so weak and lame. I don't think the Keynesian model of raising taxes in recovery takes into account such an anemic so-called recovery. If we had raised taxes on a barely growing economy we would have certainly plunged back into recession. That's unquestionable. So maybe Keynes' prescription in that regard isn't suited for weak recoveries - perhaps it's only a realistic notion in a very robust snap back expansion. But the economy definitely got a ton of Keynesian stimulus downturn deficit spending by both Bush and Obama.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your litmus test is messed up. Talking about reducing the debt and proposing cutting a bunch of stuff without accounting for their value is easy, but irresponsible.

Where did I ever say proposing cutting a bunch of stuff without accounting for their value? You're putting words in my mouth because you have nothing of substance to argue against me here, besson, and you know it.

I also see you were mum in response to my challenge to bring forward throngs of Democrats who are upfront about the debt problems facing this country. You strongly contended that I was being unfair to the (liberal) Democrats, and then when I brought forward substantive support for my position you ignored my response. Good job. Remember when I suggested you stick to what you know, which obviously isn't politics? I reiterate that suggestion, but if you're fine with this type of interaction, some am I.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Where did I ever say proposing cutting a bunch of stuff without accounting for their value? You're putting words in my mouth because you have nothing of substance to argue against me here, besson, and you know it.

I also see you were mum in response to my challenge to bring forward throngs of Democrats who are upfront about the debt problems facing this country.

Which Republicans dare to utter the word "value", and speak about this in a practical, non-ideological way?

[Big Mac]

besson, I find it entertaining that you argue against me on one point and tell me I'm wrong, I bring overwhelming proof that I'm right and you were wrong to unkindly question me, and then you switch to an entirely different point and tell me I'm wrong again. You even put words in my mouth. Then you expect me to bring yet more proof to you to debunk your new claim against me, and you expect me to respond to your arguments on your terms. Why don't you ever bring proof or counter-proof to support your bold contentions? That's a rhetorical question, if you weren't aware. You're not winning many debate points here, friend.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson, I find it entertaining that you argue against me on one point and tell me I'm wrong, I bring substantial proof I'm right, and then you switch to an entirely different point and tell me I'm wrong. Then you expect me to bring yet more proof to you to debunk your new claim against me. Why don't you ever bring proof or counter-proof to support your claims? You're not winning many debate points here, friend.

Maybe you should stick to what you know, your often pointless threads where you convey some interest in productive conversation and entertaining different points of view when you actually don't? Preaching your point of view is not debating, it's ranting.

If you wish to have a productive conversation, it probably won't involve a headcount of Republicans that care about value and Democrats that care about the debt, because there is no real way for us to agree upon any of these measurements, but surely you can acknowledge that a discussion about value is necessary to have too, and that the Democrats are a little more likely to want to discuss value and the concept of investments?

Cutting certain things to certain extents is like deciding not to get an oil change for your car - it's great until it isn't. Productive conversation about debt reduction needs to involve an assessment of which programs this applies to, how much money they generate whether direct or indirect, how this is measured, how much money they cost, etc.

I'm sure there are all sorts of opportunities for debt reduction in this country, but what you are really frustrated at is the fact that nothing is happening because ideology and partisanship is trumping practicality. Real practicality doesn't have to be mired in partisan or ideological feces flinging, it either makes sense or it doesn't.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As for your claim that we wouldn't be in this mess if we were more Keynesian, you could be half right but most likely wrong. Barack Obama tried his best at Keynesian response to economic contraction. That was the Pelosi-Reed-Obama Stimu-Pork Act that cost $800 billion.

It's not Keynesian economics if you only institute half of the policy. We need to have first raised taxes during prosperous years to build our economic reserves, then use our reserves to offset taxes during a recession or depression to encourage growth. We never had a reserve in the first place, so piling on debt isn't Keynesian economics by any definition.

Our current 2 party system would never allow for it. Republicans would never want taxes in the first place, and Democrats are too spend thrift to allow a reserve to build.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe you should stick to what you know, your often pointless threads where you convey some interest in productive conversation and entertaining different points of view when you actually don't? Preaching your point of view is not debating, it's ranting.

Okay, besson, whatever you say. I'll just sidestep the pathetic return jab. Politics and economics are my academic fields of specialty and my profession. They're my passions, aside from Apple and tech more generally. I'm engaged in these fields on a daily basis. Perhaps I expect too much from you to want you to at least debate fairly. You're far out of your element and it's a grossly unfair fight. But let's look at how you attempt to argue against me aside from the most inane comments you make. There's a debt crisis in Europe and the US is objectively worse off. I bring it up. I bring proof of it. I bring proof to debunk your hollow sniping against me, then you change the subject, make more empty accusations against me, and then you go on to whine about me ranting. But I'm the one ranting, not you, is that what you're trying to convince people of? You're full of it here, and you're very close to me ignoring you right now, not that that matters much at all.

If you wish to have a productive conversation, it probably won't involve a headcount of Republicans that care about value and Democrats that care about the debt, because there is no real way for us to agree upon any of these measurements,

Anyone with any modicum of sense and honesty can see how to measure which party cares about deficits and debt and which party doesn't. If you don't think so, you're either laughably naive, willfully blind or amazingly partisan. I brought you ample proof and you still apparently can't see the qualitative and quantitative distinctions between the Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Absurdity or hilarity.

but surely you can acknowledge that a discussion about value is necessary to have too, and that the Democrats are a little more likely to want to discuss value and the concept of investments?

If you want to talk about value, we can talk about value. But you write off the problem, write off those working hard to solve it (even those few Dems courageous enough to take a principled stance that mirrors that of Republicans), and then change the subject because the debate doesn't suit you. Once again, good job. Proud of you.

Cutting certain things to certain extents is like deciding not to get an oil change for your car - it's great until it isn't. Productive conversation about debt reduction needs to involve an assessment of which programs this applies to, how much money they generate whether direct or indirect, how this is measured, and how much money they cost.

Do you want to have that debate? We can do that. But something tells me if we get on to that part of the topic, what to cut and what to do on taxes, you'll just change the topic because the terms of honest debate won't suit your agenda anymore. You've given me every reason to believe that's way you'd operate, based on your conduct in this thread.

Does government create value for the economy? Sometimes, it definitely does. I think the very purest example of that is the Internet, which wouldn't have been possible but for DoD investment. But would you argue with the point that irresponsible, enormous, deficit-ballooning, highly regulating, police state government also destroys economic value and harms the economy in many respects? That's what we have increasingly. If we have another term of Barack I think we'll honestly be hurtling to Soviet-style Socialism. Not even well managed Swedish Socialism. Soviet, bankrupt, worhtless currency, police state Socialism.

I'm sure there are all sorts of opportunities for debt reduction in this country, but what you are really frustrated at is the fact that nothing is happening because ideology and partisanship is trumping practicality.

That's one of the first fair statements you've made in this thread, which I can agree with to an extent. There is too high a level of partisanship on both sides. And that is frustrating. But just because that's the case doesn't mean that we can't rate the parties on their handling of the debt and make determinations as to which one is more responsible and which one is less responsible. We know that the Republican base is highly motivated on this issue. Republican leadership, especially that of the Tea Party members in the House and Senate, is hugely motivated on this front. That's why they were elected. And meanwhile, while there are a select few Democrats like the two I've mentioned, most Democrats have no desire to take the issue seriously whatsoever. That's what frustrates the f*** out of me because we're talking about the destruction of the country.

Real practicality doesn't have to be mired in partisan or ideological feces flinging, it either makes sense or it doesn't.

The problem is, while I know you dislike partianship, by failing to acknowledge the very real and therefore critical distinctions between the two parties and the fact that the Democrats as a party record on the issue represents a dereliction of duty, you reward the destructive behavior of the Democrats and help perpetuate the status quo.

When Pelosi took Congress over in 2006, she lambasted Republicans for their huge deficits and pledged she would correct the problem. I hope I don't have to educate anyone on what happened to deficits under her "leadership" especially when O came to Occupy the White House. Now Democrats don't talk about deficits except to lobby for squeezing the top end of income earners who already pay a massively disproportionate share of the tax burden. Our tax system is one of, if not the most, progressive tax schemes of all the industrialized countries. And in fact, the IRS could (as an absurd example) steal up to 100% of the income of the top income earners and not come close to paying for a single year's deficit, let alone the principle on the debt. Whereas, back in Rockefeller's day he could have paid for all the US debt in existence without endangering his capital base. The richest men today aren't nearly as rich as the tycoons of yesteryear, on a GDP percentage basis. The rich can't possibly be further squeezed as a solution to reckless enormous government. So the best the Democrats can offer is objectively failed policy. Do you see that besson? Do you see why it matters?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe you should stick to what you know

Seriously ? Oh the f*cking irony.

You should NOT participate in any thread about economics and finances, because you just can't stick to the disciplin at hand, and always mingle in your political views.

Besides, you're just way more knowledgable when it comes to music and computers. You don't have to excel in everything.

-t

[Big Mac]

That's exactly my point to him, which I've made for years, and I think it hurts his feelings very deeply to be told the truth. I don't like having to reiterate it, but as you know it gets annoying to have these same go-arounds with someone who isn't remotely qualified to be debating these issues and doesn't even debate at all fairly.

[turtle777]

Yeah, I know my post was akin to a Hail Mary

-t

[Athens]

The debt in Europe is worst for individual states that are 150+% GDP. You can't compare all of Europe as one unit like the US. The US is also in better shape because the US has much more wiggle room to make changes to correct the situation. Greece for example is in so much debt that the cuts needed just to break even are almost impossible let alone to make progress to reducing debt. The US has so much room through higher taxes, reduced spending, economic growth I have little fear in the US actually collapsing.

I think the bigger problems facing the US is off shore debt to China, trade imbalance of imports and exports and the destruction of the political and legal systems in favor for corporate control. All of those are a far greater threat to the US then the debt itself. The only reason the debt consumes so much focus is because its a bloody big number. But so is the US economy as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, besson, whatever you say. I'll just sidestep the pathetic return jab. Politics and economics are my academic fields of specialty and my profession. They're my passions, aside from Apple and tech more generally. I'm engaged in these fields on a daily basis. Perhaps I expect too much from you to want you to at least debate fairly.

I don't really give a smoke how qualified and awesome you are, to be honest. It's the internet, you are anonymous, that's how it works in case you haven't noticed, and this is so in any field.

You're far out of your element and it's a grossly unfair fight. But let's look at how you attempt to argue against me aside from the most inane comments you make. There's a debt crisis in Europe and the US is objectively worse off. I bring it up. I bring proof of it. I bring proof to debunk your hollow sniping against me, then you change the subject, make more empty accusations against me, and then you go on to whine about me ranting. But I'm the one ranting, not you, is that what you're trying to convince people of? You're full of it here, and you're very close to me ignoring you right now, not that that matters much at all.

Please keep your emotions in check, the intimidation attempts are really unnecessary. I get it, you're better than me. You're awesome, I suck. Cool?

I don't think I am changing the subject, I think you are just a little lost right now in choosing to ignore reasonable variables, and instead you are making the choice to cling to simplistic thinking and liberal boogeymen.

If you really want to solve the debt crisis you have to look at value and put pure ideology aside, period. This is absolutely on topic, and you seem disinterested in discussing this.

Anyone with any modicum of sense and honesty can see how to measure which party cares about deficits and debt and which party doesn't. If you don't think so, you're either laughably naive, willfully blind or amazingly partisan. I brought you ample proof and you still apparently can't see the qualitative and quantitative distinctions between the Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Absurdity or hilarity

What's absurdity and hilarity is how you seem unwilling to look at a vital variable. I don't care which party cares about what, I really don't. There is no way to measure this even if I wanted to go down the path of trying to prove something counter to what you've said about who cares more about what and why. I don't, that's a fool's game, and it is not interesting to me either.

My pointing this out was simple to try to nudge you into a different direction, because we've basically heard all of your points about how liberals don't care about the deficit and that it is important that we start cutting the deficit. This is a rerun in a different form.

You seem un-nudgeable though, whether it is something like this or simply getting you to try to paraphrase without editorial what a liberal position is (as I've tried to get you to do in the past). One can only conclude that if you are closed to thinking any way other than the same way you did when you created this thread, and you seem to become hostile at somebody introducing an important and absolutely valid variable that is outside of your wheelhouse, that you didn't create this thread for actual debate.

Therefore, let's just cut to the chase, this is just another rant thread, right?

If you want to talk about value, we can talk about value. But you write off the problem, write off those working hard to solve it (even those few Dems courageous enough to take a principled stance that mirrors that of Republicans), and then change the subject because the debate doesn't suit you. Once again, good job. Proud of you.

I do, although at this point I'm not sure if having this discussion with you will be a good use of anybody's time, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief so long as emotions are kept in check.

Do you want to have that debate? We can do that. But something tells me if we get on to that part of the topic, what to cut and what to do on taxes, you'll just change the topic because the terms of honest debate won't suit your agenda anymore. You've given me every reason to believe that's way you'd operate, based on your conduct in this thread.

Whatever. So, how about value?

Does government create value for the economy? Sometimes, it definitely does. I think the very purest example of that is the Internet, which wouldn't have been possible but for DoD investment. But would you argue with the point that irresponsible, enormous, deficit-ballooning, highly regulating, police state government also destroys economic value and harms the economy in many respects? That's what we have increasingly. If we have another term of Barack I think we'll honestly be hurtling to Soviet-style Socialism. Not even well managed Swedish Socialism. Soviet, bankrupt, worhtless currency, police state Socialism.

I guess this conversation is not going to work out. This started out great, but then you got into preaching and worked yourself up into a little rage with all of this hyperbolic nonsense about Obama before you even let me answer your highly leading question.

That's one of the first fair statements you've made in this thread, which I can agree with to an extent. There is too high a level of partisanship on both sides. And that is frustrating. But just because that's the case doesn't mean that we can't rate the parties on their handling of the debt and make determinations as to which one is more responsible and which one is less responsible. We know that the Republican base is highly motivated on this issue. Republican leadership, especially that of the Tea Party members in the House and Senate, is hugely motivated on this front. That's why they were elected. And meanwhile, while there are a select few Democrats like the two I've mentioned, most Democrats have no desire to take the issue seriously whatsoever. That's what frustrates the f*** out of me because we're talking about the destruction of the country.

Well, we can talk about this if you can keep your emotions in check. I get that you are frustrated, but maybe you shouldn't post when your frustration is boiling over?

The problem is, while I know you dislike partianship, by failing to acknowledge the very real and therefore critical distinctions between the two parties and the fact that the Democrats as a party record on the issue represents a dereliction of duty, you reward the destructive behavior of the Democrats and help perpetuate the status quo.

No. I just recognize that there is another huge variable to consider, which you've only paid brief lip service to in this thread. I thought you were interested in discussing this?

When Pelosi took Congress over in 2006, she lambasted Republicans for their huge deficits and pledged she would correct the problem. I hope I don't have to educate anyone on what happened to deficits under her "leadership" especially when O came to Occupy the White House. Now Democrats don't talk about deficits except to lobby for squeezing the top end of income earners who already pay a massively disproportionate share of the tax burden. Our tax system is one of, if not the most, progressive tax schemes of all the industrialized countries. And in fact, the IRS could (as an absurd example) steal up to 100% of the income of the top income earners and not come close to paying for a single year's deficit, let alone the principle on the debt. Whereas, back in Rockefeller's day he could have paid for all the US debt in existence without endangering his capital base. The richest men today aren't nearly as rich as the tycoons of yesteryear, on a GDP percentage basis. The rich can't possibly be further squeezed as a solution to reckless enormous government. So the best the Democrats can offer is objectively failed policy. Do you see that besson? Do you see why it matters?

Maybe we should leave US politicians out of the picture so that we can discuss this? I don't really have any interest in discussing Pelosi or any other politician with you. We can't have this conversation until we can talk about value in general terms without your frustrations (probably mostly related to these politicians and their behaviors) boiling over.

I'm not interested in trying to make you less hostile to Democrats, this is not interesting to me, but I would like to talk about value.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Seriously ? Oh the f*cking irony.

You should NOT participate in any thread about economics and finances, because you just can't stick to the disciplin at hand, and always mingle in your political views.

Besides, you're just way more knowledgable when it comes to music and computers. You don't have to excel in everything.

-t

You may be the most brilliant financial mind in this country, but nobody can see this or take it seriously when you can't control your emotions.

So far, my involvement in this thread, like most others, has been more about addressing flailing emotions than any particular subject matter. If we are able to have a sane and rational conversation that is outside of my area of knowledge and comfort, I often don't persist with my arguments until the bitter end, sometimes I step away and think about stuff, and sometimes I'm even persuaded. This happened the most with vintage ebuddy back in the day too. Perhaps there was a vintage besson3c too (or maybe I've always just consistently kicked ass, and have been better than Big Mac too)

However, when there is hyperbole, explosive emotions, and people just losing their necromancy I handle that very poorly. I don't know how to diffuse that or prevent it from happening in the first place, where avoidable.

So, if you want to "beat" besson3c, keep your emotions in check and floor me with all of your financial savviness.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's exactly my point to him, which I've made for years, and I think it hurts his feelings very deeply to be told the truth. I don't like having to reiterate it, but as you know it gets annoying to have these same go-arounds with someone who isn't remotely qualified to be debating these issues and doesn't even debate at all fairly.

Truth be told, you guys probably do more about finances and political machinery and details than I, but you both absolutely suck at keeping your emotions under control, which is why I often respond to stuff. I have a very low tolerance for lack of reasonableness, and it is very hard to remain reasonable when your posts are dripping in emotion, hyperbole, rant-like language, or anything resembling civil conversation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Value is irrelevant if you simply can't afford it. If you're already deep in debt, buying new shoes just because they're on a 50%-off rack and therefore a "great value" is totally dumb. It doesn't matter how great a "value" they legitimately are, you can't afford them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Value is irrelevant if you simply can't afford it. If you're already deep in debt, buying new shoes just because they're on a 50%-off rack and therefore a "great value" is totally dumb. It doesn't matter how great a "value" they legitimately are, you can't afford them.

That doesn't represent the entirety of the variable though. If your personal finances are tight and you need to drive a car, should you stop getting your oil changed?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You may be the most brilliant financial mind in this country, but nobody can see this or take it seriously when you can't control your emotions.

I can control my emotions.

This was a matter-of-fact STFU. I'm sorry that you always take this personallyl; it's not. I would tell anyone that comes with his political agenda and disturbes economic discussions to STFU. So don't flatter yourself.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That doesn't represent the entirety of the variable though. If your personal finances are tight and you need to drive a car, should you stop getting your oil changed?

If you can't afford to keep owning a car in the long run, it makes sense to sell the car before you buy the next oil change, that's for sure. Why keep buying oil changes on a car that's going to be repossessed in 3 years either way? You're going to have to go back to the bus, walking, biking, carpooling, hitching, or whatever, one way or another. It also doesn't make sense to take on even more liabilities when you can't even afford the ones you already have. You can't afford the payments on the car itself, but you raise your insurance coverage and premiums to make you debt problem even worse... that's not a good idea.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I can control my emotions.

This was a matter-of-fact STFU. I'm sorry that you always take this personallyl; it's not. I would tell anyone that comes with his political agenda and disturbes economic discussions to STFU. So don't flatter yourself.

-t

Do you consider this emotionally controlled?

Seriously ? Oh the f*cking irony.

Maybe you don't realize that this is pretty hostile sounding and thus emotional?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you can't afford to keep owning a car in the long run, it makes sense to sell the car before you buy the next oil change, that's for sure. Why keep buying oil changes on a car that's going to be repossessed in 3 years either way? You're going to have to go back to the bus, walking, biking, carpooling, hitching, or whatever, one way or another. It also doesn't make sense to take on even more liabilities when you can't even afford the ones you already have. You can't afford the payments on the car itself, but you raise your insurance coverage and premiums to make you debt problem even worse... that's not a good idea.

Your twisting the analogy to make a separate point which I don't disagree with, but had nothing to do with my point (I've noticed you tend to do this, and I recall confronting you about this in the past). Do you get my point I was trying to make, whether or not you like my choice of analogy?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your twisting the analogy to make a separate point which I don't disagree with, but had nothing to do with my point (I've noticed you tend to do this, and I recall confronting you about this in the past).

It's obvious you don't realize this, but that is the whole point of analogies. Just like you did moments before, when I used the tired old reductionist analogy of a household balance sheet to represent a nation's balance sheet, and you "twisted" it to ask about car ownership. There was nothing wrong with that when you did it, and there's nothing wrong with it when I do it. Except that when I did it, it was against you so apparently it was wrong after all

Do you get my point I was trying to make, whether or not you like my choice of analogy?

Yes, your point was a rationalization. It's easier for people to "need" a car, especially when it allows them to earn a wage that's greater than the costs of the car. But that's (i) not analogous when the "value" doesn't make more money but is simply a lifestyle upgrade, and (ii) not always true even in analogy-land because lots of people still manage to live a healthy modern life without the cost of car ownership (I am one of them).

The point you were trying to make is that some things that curmudgeons like me and Big Mac call luxuries are really necessities, like a car. However, you failed, because a car really isn't a necessity, and really is a luxury, in a lot of cases (like my case). The only reason it seems like a necessity is because of what I call "need inflation," where the more you have, the more you can't imagine living without. Well, sometimes you actually do have to tighten the old belt. In the analogy or out of it.

[el chupacabra]

edit

[hyteckit]

Stupid Reaganomics/trickle down economics.

We were paying down our debt after WWII when the top 5% were paying over 50% tax rate.

But then stupid Republicans took over and implemented trickle down economics by cutting tax rates for the rich.

Pres. Reagan alone tripled our national debt and ever since our national debt has skyrocketed.

Bush tax cuts under Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama extending the Bush tax cuts have only added to the debt crisis.

[turtle777]

Can someone just shut this stupid troll up.

-t

[hyteckit]

Look how the debt skyrocketed after 1981. Dumb Reaganomics. Then another big jump after Bush tax cuts.

[hyteckit]

Pres. Bush debt:

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Do those numbers surprise? Do they make you reconsider anything about this election?

How would reconsidering one's vote make any difference with the debt problem?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How would reconsidering one's vote make any difference with the debt problem?

Because Republican Presidents have proven track record of reducing national debt.

Look at Pres. Reagan, Pres. Bush Sr. and Pres. Bush Jr.

Pres. Reagan tripled the national debt and Pres. Bush Jr doubled the national debt.

[Athens]

What this means is Presidents that have "non" sexual relations with interns do a better job of managing the money then happily married presidents

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because Republican Presidents have proven track record of reducing national debt.

Look at Pres. Reagan, Pres. Bush Sr. and Pres. Bush Jr.

Pres. Reagan tripled the national debt and Pres. Bush Jr doubled the national debt.

Exact same pattern in Canada, conservative governments raise national debt while the left wing or central left governments for most of our history have paid down debt. Its a ideological issue. Our countries can't survive on ideological management that reject fact and science.

The concept of reducing taxes to spur growth is as backwards as it gets. Business will operate in any market that generates profit. Taxes have very little to do with that except for specialized industries that are mobile. Targeted tax cuts for those industries solve that problem. Consumers need paying jobs and excess money to grow the economy. Its as simple as that.

[Big Mac]

That's such an ignorant claim. Tax cuts have repeatedly demonstrated their worth throughout history as facilitators of higher economic growth and higher government tax revenue. Another thing that mentally challenged lefties don't understand is that the Bush tax cuts were highly successful, resulting in very low unemployment, strong growth and even a higher level of tax revenue collection than other recent presidents, including your beloved Clinton (who, btw, would have had large deficits himself if he had not been dragged kicking and screaming by Newt to balanced budgets and thus receives a portion of unmerited praise).

I think it was Uncle Skeleton, but I may be wrong, who wrote a while back that history will judge President W. much more favorably than everyone else has. I'm beginning to think that may be true.

[besson3c]

The point I was making that was evidently unclear was simple: certain expenses preserve things, and by doing so make things cheaper to maintain in the long run, sometimes even in the short run. Certain expenses (e.g. transportation infrastructure) allow the continuation of growth, and add substantially to our GDP. Certain expenses (such as education spending at the state level, federal student loan programs, etc.) help maintain the edge of an economy in the long run.

Before anybody has any business talking about cutting stuff and reducing our deficit, we need to agree upon what the precise value of the services offered by the government and their ROI, what would happen with the cuts that are being proposed, their impact, and all of this.

I'm completely uncomfortable with this whole attitude of cut and ask questions later on purely ideological grounds. We need to be asking the questions now. I'm not anti-cut at all, I'm just anti cutting of stuff that actually makes the government money or serves a money making/perserving purpose. From the sounds of it, unless I'm just wildly misunderstood, you'd think that this is irrational or something...

[Big Mac]

besson: The world financial system is imploding because of sovereign debt. It's striking every country that has mismanaged its finances. Right now the action is concentrated in the EU. Very soon it will happen here.

Any government program or agency nonessential to the core Constitutional mandates placed on the federal government should be cut in real dollar years or eliminated entirely until we get back into balance. The federal civilian workforce should be drastically reduced to cut the hyperinflation of government employees seen under Obama. And Entitlements need to be reformed to cut their budgets substantially. Period.

If we don't take action now, the US will fall so deeply into the abyss caused by its profligate spending that what is happening in the EU will seem tame compared to the carnage visited on the US and the world when the debt bomb here explodes. The US truly is the only global force for freedom and order in the world, but if we let ourselves go the way of the EU the ripple effects of our debt explosion will be all the more devastating to the entire world. Europe expects to be bailed out by the US, but the US won't be able to bail itself out of its own looming debt crisis, which is essentially guaranteed if we see another disastrous Obeezie term.

Everything else is just noise and nonsense. While you fret about ROI, the world is burning because the big government policies you favor are bankrupting nearly everyone. That's reality.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson: The world financial system is imploding because of sovereign debt. It's striking every country that has mismanaged its finances. Right now the action is concentrated in the EU. Very soon it will happen here.

Any government program or agency nonessential to the core Constitutional mandates placed on the federal government should be cut in real dollar years or eliminated entirely until we get back into balance. The federal civilian workforce should be drastically reduced to cut the hyperinflation of government employees seen under Obama. And Entitlements need to be reformed to cut their budgets substantially. Period.

Everything else is just noise and nonsense. While you fret about ROI, the world is burning because the big government policies you favor are bankrupting nearly everyone. That's reality.

Are you interested in reducing the debt? Are federal student loan programs part of the constitution? By making higher education unavailable to American people you will not be reducing debt, you'll just be passing it on to the next generation.

[Big Mac]

I'm amazed that you utterly fail to comprehend the core issue. No one will be seeking student loans if our runaway deficits and debt aren't addressed. The civilized world will collapse. Maybe that's part of the Left's ultimate agenda, the end of modern society.

[besson3c]

And addressing our runaway deficits is exactly what I'm trying to do here. You don't cut stuff like student loans in their entirety or whatever else we can agree upon is vital but not specifically in the constitution as a first resort, you save that for a last resort.

We just need to figure out what the first resort cuts should be, and that conversation stems around assessing value.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, I understand what your preoccupation (obsession) happens to be on this subject. It's one that is predicated on the notion that big government is highly beneficial. I take a very different view, but I'll agree with you that some non-essential government programs yield dividends. I just think that if we were to compare this to a house fire, we're yelling to put it out, whereas you're yelling that it's going to make the drapes and furniture smell if we manage to save the house.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Look how the debt skyrocketed after 1981. Dumb Reaganomics. Then another big jump after Bush tax cuts.

Your graph ends about 6T short of where we are today.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I understand what your preoccupation (obsession) happens to be on this subject. It's one that is predicated on the notion that big government is highly beneficial. I take a very different view, but I'll agree with you that some non-essential government programs yield dividends. I just think that if we were to compare this to a house fire, we're yelling to put it out, whereas you're yelling that it's going to make the drapes and furniture smell if we manage to save the house.

I'd say that I'm trying to put out the house fire, while you are running around saying that if this fire persists for another moment we will be facing a global collapse.

We aren't there yet. To prevent global collapse, or whatever the less hyperbolic version of this scenario would be, we need to take smart and measured steps. We can't even begin to discuss what those steps will be if we can't agree upon an assessment of value of the programs we have, and therefore which should make the first round of cuts.