4 ms·

Do what other economic immigrants do. Move to a high growth country. At some point, a lot of us in the US will be asking: "Is a trillion dollars in interest p

by NTDF9 8y ago

Do what other economic immigrants do. Move to a high growth country. At some point, a lot of us in the US will be asking: "Is a trillion dollars in interest payments every year, with social security cuts, medicare cuts, bad school funding, high taxes and abomination-level healthcare costs worth it?"

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
Or you could treat this as something other than a fait accompli, make sure your voter registration information is up to date, and vote on November 6. https://www.vote.org https://www.vote.org
- bluGill 8y ago
  Vote how? Both parties [with a chance of winning] will increase the debt. The exact amount will be different, as will the exact things they spend money on, and how/if they change taxes. However both will continue to spend more than they take in and blame the other party.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    This is nonsense considering the last time the Democrats controlled the budget that wasn't also during the worst financial crisis in decades, they balanced the budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl...
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      Because he made huge cuts to social welfare programs as he was required to do in order to get a budget passed through a heavily Republican congress. Taxes were also raised and military spending was held steady throughout the 90s.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      Not so fast. In 1993/4, Clinton had a plan to cut the budget, with the bulk of the cuts set to happen after he left office, even if he had two terms (which was not a given then). Then the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and they basically starved Clinton of money, and the result was not just a balanced budget, but a surplus. But Clinton doesn't get the credit - he wasn't going to do it on his own. Congress forced him to. For that matter, the previous Democratic president to balance the budget was Andrew Jackson, so don't act like the Democrats are the party who balances the budget. But Republicans only seem to care about financial prudence when they're not in power (or at least, not in the White House). If you actually care about a balanced budget and financial responsibility... the US may not be the right country for you. (Maybe Switzerland?)
      - sjg007 8y ago
        Republicans only care because it’s a wedge issue to get elected. But you are correct, they are the party of hypocrisy. The real problem is that nobody cares and that not enough people who do actually vote.
        thelasthuman 8y ago
        The real problem is both main stream political parties don't represent around 45% of the country. First Past The Post Voting- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Range Voting- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
      - yourbandsucks 8y ago
        LBJ was the only President since WWII to actually reduce government spending in a given year. Carter made the tough call of appointing Volcker and taking an economic hit to fix the inflation problem. Bill Clinton did in fact leave office with a budget surplus. He deserves at least 50% of the credit, maybe more, for keeping the government running effectively while being starved by the Republicans. Obama inherited a record deficit and economy in free-fall, he still managed to cut that deficit in half. I'll take that record on deficits over those of Reagan, GWB and Trump any day.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    One party has a historical record of both paying lip service to, and passing legislation the helps, the working class in times of economic strife. The other party happily ushers in an era of austerity and has an attitude of "not my problem" when people lose their jobs, health insurance and homes.
  - tzs 8y ago
    Yeah, but at least Democrats generally seem to get that you can't pair big spending increases with big tax cuts. Republicans don't seem to have figured that out yet. McConnell is all over the news today saying the big deficit increase just announced had nothing to do with the tax cuts or the big increase in military spending. He's trying to blame it almost all on not cutting social security and medicaid. Both parties like to drive toward cliffs, but the cliff the Democrats drive toward is farther away. I'd rather not be driving toward any cliff, but if I have to I'd prefer the farther one--that gives more time for someone to figure out a better course.
    - warmwaffles 8y ago
      > Yeah, but at least Democrats generally seem to get that you can't pair big spending increases with big tax cuts. That's gonna need citations. The way I see it, government spending has ALWAYS been increasing and taxes as well. Maybe both parties should stop sending money to countries for foreign aid and start paring back spending. note, this is from 2012, but still relevant because the upward trend is still happening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/lessons-from-the-decades-long-upward-march-of-government-spending/#53ba4dd92720 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/lessons-fr...
      - tzs 8y ago
        OK, let me revise that since I can't actually say that Democrats "get" that you can't pair big tax cuts with big tax increases. However, for whatever reason, Democrats don't seem to do big tax cuts coupled with big tax increases. In fact, I don't see offhand any major Democrat Federal tax cuts since the '60s (Johnson administration).
    - daxorid 8y ago
      The truly important thing to realize is that the 10y yield has fallen back to 3.15% already. What this tells us is that no matter how much debt we rack up, the rest of the world will fund our profligacy at whatever bid we demand not only at auction, but in secondary markets as well. No matter how much we anger China or KSA, they will buy our debt at any price, at any coupon, and beg for more. And of course our allied central banks like ECB, BOJ, SNB, will always be there at our beckon call. Politicians know this, and so they are not overly concerned with deficits. Given human nature, I wouldn't count on any politician, R or D, to care even the slightest bit about this until the rest of the world bothers to demand a non-negative real rate of return on their investments.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
This is somewhat tone deaf considering the difficulty level of migrating to other countries unless you are exceptionally skilled. More likely, the outcome will be (rightfully so) revolt.
- NTDF9 8y ago
  I hear you and that's the dire situation. Our whole economic system caters to stock owners while the vast majority of the population is not (and should not) be invested in that casino. But we (average citizens) vote to keep making the rich richer and then complain that the rich get richer at our expense? Something is off and most people don't even know it.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Run for office. Failing that, vote. Progress is everyone pushing in the right direction.
    - robertAngst 8y ago
      This is the solution they teach in school. I'm not sure it is realistic or works.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- thelasthuman 8y ago
  Funny how capital is free to move where it gets the most benefit, but not labor. Priorities.

by NTDF9 8y ago

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

Or you could treat this as something other than a fait accompli, make sure your voter registration information is up to date, and vote on November 6. https://www.vote.org https://www.vote.org

bluGill 8y ago
Vote how? Both parties [with a chance of winning] will increase the debt. The exact amount will be different, as will the exact things they spend money on, and how/if they change taxes. However both will continue to spend more than they take in and blame the other party.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  This is nonsense considering the last time the Democrats controlled the budget that wasn't also during the worst financial crisis in decades, they balanced the budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Cl...
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    Because he made huge cuts to social welfare programs as he was required to do in order to get a budget passed through a heavily Republican congress. Taxes were also raised and military spending was held steady throughout the 90s.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Not so fast. In 1993/4, Clinton had a plan to cut the budget, with the bulk of the cuts set to happen after he left office, even if he had two terms (which was not a given then). Then the Republicans took Congress in 1994, and they basically starved Clinton of money, and the result was not just a balanced budget, but a surplus. But Clinton doesn't get the credit - he wasn't going to do it on his own. Congress forced him to. For that matter, the previous Democratic president to balance the budget was Andrew Jackson, so don't act like the Democrats are the party who balances the budget. But Republicans only seem to care about financial prudence when they're not in power (or at least, not in the White House). If you actually care about a balanced budget and financial responsibility... the US may not be the right country for you. (Maybe Switzerland?)
    - sjg007 8y ago
      Republicans only care because it’s a wedge issue to get elected. But you are correct, they are the party of hypocrisy. The real problem is that nobody cares and that not enough people who do actually vote.
      - thelasthuman 8y ago
        The real problem is both main stream political parties don't represent around 45% of the country. First Past The Post Voting- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Range Voting- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3GFG0sXIig Single Transferable Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI Alternative Vote - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Mixed-Member Proportional Representation -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      LBJ was the only President since WWII to actually reduce government spending in a given year. Carter made the tough call of appointing Volcker and taking an economic hit to fix the inflation problem. Bill Clinton did in fact leave office with a budget surplus. He deserves at least 50% of the credit, maybe more, for keeping the government running effectively while being starved by the Republicans. Obama inherited a record deficit and economy in free-fall, he still managed to cut that deficit in half. I'll take that record on deficits over those of Reagan, GWB and Trump any day.
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  One party has a historical record of both paying lip service to, and passing legislation the helps, the working class in times of economic strife. The other party happily ushers in an era of austerity and has an attitude of "not my problem" when people lose their jobs, health insurance and homes.
- tzs 8y ago
  Yeah, but at least Democrats generally seem to get that you can't pair big spending increases with big tax cuts. Republicans don't seem to have figured that out yet. McConnell is all over the news today saying the big deficit increase just announced had nothing to do with the tax cuts or the big increase in military spending. He's trying to blame it almost all on not cutting social security and medicaid. Both parties like to drive toward cliffs, but the cliff the Democrats drive toward is farther away. I'd rather not be driving toward any cliff, but if I have to I'd prefer the farther one--that gives more time for someone to figure out a better course.
  - warmwaffles 8y ago
    > Yeah, but at least Democrats generally seem to get that you can't pair big spending increases with big tax cuts. That's gonna need citations. The way I see it, government spending has ALWAYS been increasing and taxes as well. Maybe both parties should stop sending money to countries for foreign aid and start paring back spending. note, this is from 2012, but still relevant because the upward trend is still happening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/lessons-from-the-decades-long-upward-march-of-government-spending/#53ba4dd92720 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/lessons-fr...
    - tzs 8y ago
      OK, let me revise that since I can't actually say that Democrats "get" that you can't pair big tax cuts with big tax increases. However, for whatever reason, Democrats don't seem to do big tax cuts coupled with big tax increases. In fact, I don't see offhand any major Democrat Federal tax cuts since the '60s (Johnson administration).
  - daxorid 8y ago
    The truly important thing to realize is that the 10y yield has fallen back to 3.15% already. What this tells us is that no matter how much debt we rack up, the rest of the world will fund our profligacy at whatever bid we demand not only at auction, but in secondary markets as well. No matter how much we anger China or KSA, they will buy our debt at any price, at any coupon, and beg for more. And of course our allied central banks like ECB, BOJ, SNB, will always be there at our beckon call. Politicians know this, and so they are not overly concerned with deficits. Given human nature, I wouldn't count on any politician, R or D, to care even the slightest bit about this until the rest of the world bothers to demand a non-negative real rate of return on their investments.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

This is somewhat tone deaf considering the difficulty level of migrating to other countries unless you are exceptionally skilled. More likely, the outcome will be (rightfully so) revolt.

NTDF9 8y ago
I hear you and that's the dire situation. Our whole economic system caters to stock owners while the vast majority of the population is not (and should not) be invested in that casino. But we (average citizens) vote to keep making the rich richer and then complain that the rich get richer at our expense? Something is off and most people don't even know it.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Run for office. Failing that, vote. Progress is everyone pushing in the right direction.
  - robertAngst 8y ago
    This is the solution they teach in school. I'm not sure it is realistic or works.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
thelasthuman 8y ago
Funny how capital is free to move where it gets the most benefit, but not labor. Priorities.