Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I suspect that more than a bit of it is sour grapes over Hagel being one of the Republicans who realized that Gulf War II was a flustercuck and did not support the surge.
EDIT: Hagel is a grunt. He saw actual combat and understand's vet's issues. He's more likely to cut the wasteful military contractor pork and idiotic research projects than soldiers' salaries - which, I suspect, plays a big role in why the darlings of the defense industry lobbyists are going after him now.
edited 14th Feb '13 12:33:22 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/in-heated-libya-exchange-obama-challenges-romney
There. Found the whole "Read the Transcript thing"
I'm going to have to Phone either Fighteer, or Tomu to explain in more depth, but basically, our debt is fairly irrelevant. Unless it's growth-rate outstrips our GDP, we're good. (And it's not outstripping our GDP)
Furthermore, as a sovereign nation, we can print more currency at any time. It's not like we're at risk of going bankrupt. Certainly, if that's pursued over the long run, we'll hit inflation, but there's no indication we're anywhere near that point. Furthermore, inflation would likely be helpful, or at least not harmful to our economy at in the current liquidity trap we're in.
Because the only actual problem is Republicans refusing to pay the debts. While it may look large in today's numbers, it's actually only a small fraction of GDP and it keeps pace with inflation. As long as the US is a sovereign nation that controls it's own currency, it's a non-issue and a lot of it will clear up as soon as the economy improves. The only reason that the US lost it's credit rating is because the Republican's threatened to default. It's entirely manufactured to have something to use as political leverage. It's basic macro-economics.
And the biggest thing that the Federal Government owes money to is the Federal Government. A lot of the debt is book keeping fiction between agencies. Like the only reason the post office isn't wildly profitable is because they're required by law to have 70 years worth of pension payouts in reserve and they've been forbidden from touching any surplus that they have at any given time.
edited 14th Feb '13 12:45:38 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickHere's an article that gives a good basic overview. I'd recommend reading a lot of Paul Krugman, honestly. He can be...eye-opening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=0
When it helps support the global economy. Which is exactly what the US government having debt to issue does, much of the global economy relies on the trading of US debt bond. Fighter will have to explain how that all makes sense, but he's previously covered how US government debt is actually good for the global economy.
Personal debt and private debt are vastly different thing, first and foremost, because as a person, you can't print your own currency. Secondly, the governement has a responsibilty to spend it's money. It hurts the economy more to save than to spend. I'm trying to find the right Krugman actacle on the difference between public and private. Anyone want to PM Fighteer?
Here's a summary of him, I'll try to find the actual article.
http://thegeorgeanne.com/?p=475
Having some debt is honestly, realistically a good thing for a nation. (Now, there is such a thing as too much debt, but there's little to indicate we've reached that point yet.)
edited 14th Feb '13 1:00:54 PM by DrTentacles
I'm right here. You guys covered it fairly well. I don't really have the inclination to write out the exact same diatribe yet again, and we made a thread specifically to talk about economics, here
. My first attempt to summarize the principles of modern Keynes-inspired macroeconomics in that thread is here
.
I don't agree necessarily with everything this person said, but I'll just leave this:
I could care less what the GDP is — I care about Federal spending. Over the past 20 years, federal spending grew 71 percent faster than inflation. Entitlement spending more than doubled over the past 20 years, growing by 110 percent (after adjusting for inflation). Discretionary spending grew by 60 percent. Deficits have pushed up the debt each year since 2002 as federal spending exceeded revenue. Fiscal year 2012 marked the fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion deficits. The only reason we're not broke is that interest costs have remained manageable as interest rates have fallen to all-time lows.
In 1962, defense spending was nearly half the total federal budget (49 percent); Social Security and other mandatory programs were less than one-third of the budget (31 percent). Two major entitlement programs, Medicaid and Medicare, were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965. In 2012 entitlements were nearly 62 percent of total spending, while defense dropped to less than one-fifth (18.7 percent) of the budget.
We have a spending problem.
also this response to krugman:
PK, This is not post-WWII America. We don't have millions of cars to build in US factories nor millions of modest homes to build that will be purchased by eager, returning vets. We go have a glut of overweight pensions for public and private union workers. We do have a glut of obese, under-educated, unemployable non-vets who have never accomplished much. How many didn't or can't finish high school or college since the 70s, with math and writing standards far lower than in the 1940s and 1950s? Manufacturing jobs are overseas; everyone wants cheaper stuff and more of it. Underpriced, decent homes can't be sold because the people who would buy them (rent exceeds a mortgage), can't get a mortgage. But they can own a giant wide-screen HD TV.
Stop blaming the Republicans exclusively. There's plenty of blame for both sides. Congress will give itself yet another raise. I have a Democrat Congressman here in the Bronx who has done NOTHING of any significance or substance in 20 years. I can't find one bit of serious legislation that he has written. I seriously doubt that he has the intellectual fortitute to understand public debt, its benefits and ramifications. He's become wealthy over his years in Congress, though I'm not sure how. He owns a lovely home in suburban Maryland but still claims to live in the Bronx. He will be re-elected and he'll probably run unopposed. He's a lifer and that's not becuase of his party affiliation. Therein lies the problem. Blame Congress, all of it!
edited 14th Feb '13 1:10:31 PM by SecretLink
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”![]()
You know? We should just make a general copy-pasta of "Fighteer Channels Krugman-San" that we link/paste whenever this comes up. It's always nice to teach, expecially about something so very important and misunderstood, but it would be easier if we just had "debt 101"
And you're demonstrating a lack of understand. Federal spending growing faster than inflation is NOT A BAD THING.
Furthermore, "Entitlement" spending, as you put it, is not a bad thing. Give me anything to suggest it's a bad thing. Actually, it's a good think, at least better than defense spending, because Entitlement has a much higher economic multiplier effect.
Spending it's a problem. It's a solution.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:07:45 PM by DrTentacles
![]()
As you've proved that you know very little about economics (via assuming public and private debt are pretty much the same thing) I advise you go to the economics thread and educate yourself, rather than assuming you have all the answers.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:06:33 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe people who buy and sell bonds know what the people agonizing over the debt do not: as long as the United States has a functioning economy and a fiat currency, it can never default on its obligations, making U.S. currency the single safest in the world. The size of the debt is largely irrelevant to this picture.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:17:14 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ohsointocats: Do you want the short version or the long version?
The short version is that Medicare and Medicaid provide healthcare for two highly vulnerable segments of our population: the elderly and the poor. We have recognized (well, some of us have) healthcare as a basic human need along with food, housing, clothes, etc. A sick person is not a productive person, and the social and financial burden of uninsured people seeking healthcare is vast.
Both programs are perfectly sustainable in the long term as long as we're willing to raise the revenue to pay for them.
Republicans dislike them for a couple of reasons. First, they redistribute wealth, which is EVIL SOCIALISM. Second, they "encourage dependence on government", which is to say that they supposedly make people into lazy slackers who don't need to work. Third, they work, and Republicans cannot abide government programs that function efficiently, lest people stop thinking GOVERNMENT EVIL.
The push to defund and strip these programs of their coverage is no more and no less than an attempt to punish poor people for being poor while allowing the wealthy to keep more of their money, all the time preaching about the value of individual responsibility.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:15:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html?_r=0&gwh=337AF1D0CEC3B3ECF251565E5FA75FC3
Here's some from the ALMIGHTY KRUGMAN (tm)
Basically, because it goes against their interests, and offends their sensibilites. They like to cast it as a morality play where the PROFLIGATES avoid getting their JUST DUES for being MOOCHERS.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:15:10 PM by DrTentacles
There's a lot of indication that the government is not spending too much. It's spending too little. That's a big reason that recovery is taking so long. We aren't shoving enough money into the lower classes in order to jump start the economy again.
At least if you're interested in the country's long term economic health. The spending too much thing is really an act of fiction.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:17:47 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThough the best bit is the fact that it would be cheaper for you guys to have a National Health Service then continue with Medicare and Medicaid. the UK governed spends around 14-15% of its budget on the NHS, while you guys spend 22% of yours on Medicaid and Medicare, so if you're really worried about government spending on healthcare, you should push for a government run health service.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:20:20 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranMedicaid is the best one there, because it can negotiate drug costs with health care providers, whereas Medicare cannot. If we expanded Medicaid to cover the whole country, it would be, for all intents and purposes, the NHS or equivalent.
Also, percent of budget is a bit misleading, because the budget itself is a percentage of GDP that varies by nation. Think of it as "percent of GDP spent on healthcare" and it's a much more accurate figure.
edited 14th Feb '13 1:22:47 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

guess what's going to happen the next time there is a money problem? They are going to want to cut the Defense Department. and who would be the one in charge of this? A republican. Who is going to be blamed for "not supporting the troops?" Yep, a republican.
edited 14th Feb '13 12:32:43 PM by SecretLink
“ I am not insane… What I am saying is most true and reasonable”