http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=13439
Growth cuts debt cuts cause debt.
Where is the corporate news media? This message should be front and center.
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.
Since there is evidence to prove this as shown by the professor why don’t people believe the evidence but instead hold on to their ideology?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.
[/quote]
Are you more likely to buy a new car when your $30,000 in debt or when you have $30,000 in savings?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.
[/quote]
Are you more likely to buy a new car when your $30,000 in debt or when you have $30,000 in savings?
[/quote]
Does the economy of a nation function the same as a personal budget?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
[/quote]
Lol. Thanks for the laugh this fine Monday morning.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
[/quote]
Lol. Thanks for the laugh this fine Monday morning. [/quote]
He’s a communist. He’ll always have a revenue problem. Before it’s implemented, after it’s implemented and after it fails…
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.
[/quote]
Are you more likely to buy a new car when your $30,000 in debt or when you have $30,000 in savings?
[/quote]
This analogy doesn’t work when you can print your own money and you’ve convinced yourself that going into more debt will actually bring in more income than is currently coming in.
The idea that the existence of deficits will cause legislators to put a brake on spending is a myth. To the contrary, it’s been pedal to the metal since the 1980s (minus that brief detour during the Clinton years), with the worst offender being the party that claims to be fiscally conservative.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
[/quote]
Lol. Thanks for the laugh this fine Monday morning. [/quote]
He’s a communist. He’ll always have a revenue problem. Before it’s implemented, after it’s implemented and after it fails… [/quote]
And you’re a brainwashed moron.
You have no right to take out a loan in my daughter?s name. Period.
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
[/quote]
Lol. Thanks for the laugh this fine Monday morning. [/quote]
He’s a communist. He’ll always have a revenue problem. Before it’s implemented, after it’s implemented and after it fails… [/quote]
And you’re someone that’s actually read a history book and understands basic economics and human nature.
[/quote]
Fixed that for you. Feel free to continue to call names like an elementary school child, it does wonders for your arguments.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have no right to take out a loan in my daughter?s name. Period. [/quote]
Very good sentiment and statement, and I agree.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]
It isn’t “bad”. Using debt to finance a house isn’t “bad” for example.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]
It isn’t “bad”. Using debt to finance a house isn’t “bad” for example. [/quote]
Owing is still bad. If you removed the dept the situation would be better. That is, if you bought a house without debt. The debt is still bad. You are never better off because you owe someone.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]
It isn’t “bad”. Using debt to finance a house isn’t “bad” for example. [/quote]
I believe the distinction is between the government taking debt out and an individual, are two different situations. I could be wrong though.
That said, while I admire DD’s position, shit isn’t going to stop anytime soon, and no, we can’t tax our way out of it. Best you can do is keep your head down and make as much as you can, and teach her how to do the same. No matter who we elect this is going to be the norm, and unless some drastic development like the alternative to the internal combustion engine comes along we aren’t getting out from under this debt anytime soon.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]
It isn’t “bad”. Using debt to finance a house isn’t “bad” for example. [/quote]
Owing is still bad. [/quote]
No it isn’t. Debt is just a tool. Debt financing can be extremely helpful and down right vital in many cases.
[quote]
If you removed the dept the situation would be better. [/quote]
Sure, in a perfect world where money grows on trees.
Small business owner has what they think is a great idea, but doesn’t have the funds to back their start-up and isn’t able to convince any private investors. They are; however, able to secure a bank loan. Their idea turns out to be a huge success and the loan was a vital part of that opportunity to succeed.
How is that “bad”?
A kid fills out a FAFSA so he can afford to go to Johns Hopkins. He becomes a heart surgeon.
How is that “bad”?
[quote]
That is, if you bought a house without debt. The debt is still bad. You are never better off because you owe someone. [/quote]
This is short sighted and not rooted in reality.
If I can afford a house in a location with better schools, better job opportunities, less crime, etc… taking a loan out is worth it, imo.
Most of the Middle Class doesn’t have $300K just lying around to buy a house debt free…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Debt is not inherently a bad thing; although, most forms of debt are ill advised.
The real discussion, as it pertains to the national debt, should be centered on how much debt is too much. [/quote]
No, this is completely false. Dept is bad. It is always bad. The argument is if you can take actions that involve accruing debt and have the total outcome be positive. [/quote]
It isn’t “bad”. Using debt to finance a house isn’t “bad” for example. [/quote]
I believe the distinction is between the government taking debt out and an individual, are two different situations. I could be wrong though.
That said, while I admire DD’s position, shit isn’t going to stop anytime soon, and no, we can’t tax our way out of it. Best you can do is keep your head down and make as much as you can, and teach her how to do the same. No matter who we elect this is going to be the norm, and unless some drastic development like the alternative to the internal combustion engine comes along we aren’t getting out from under this debt anytime soon. [/quote]
I was talking in general, but even if you specifically say government debt is inherently bad I would still disagree.
Anyway, I obviously think we have a debt issue not a revenue issue and the deficit is way out of whack.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
We don’t have a budget problem, we have a revenue problem.
Balancing the budget causes loss in GDP.
Since there is evidence to prove this as shown by the professor why don’t people believe the evidence but instead hold on to their ideology?[/quote]
How much extra money will you donate to the federal government to fix the revenue problem? Every little bit extra you can give will help. After all if it is a revenue problem your extra revenue could be part of the solution.
Why wait for the government to mandate it when you can do it out of the goodness of your heart?
Thank you for your patriotic contribution. You could even consider working more hours to increase your contribution to ridding us of the revenue problem. You could try getting rid of Netflix, cutting down on fast food, etc. This will help you have more money to donate to the revenue problem.