Elections 2016 New Hampshire Primary Discussion

[Jack V Savage]

So, the debt just hit $19T, we can keep going at this rate infinitely?

Yes.

Then, by that logic, liberals must be furious at the congress and Obama for jacking up the deficits and debt so high for the last seven years. Since, they love low deficits.

See above. We need higher deficits in the short term sometimes. But actually note that no president in decades has done as much to reduce long-term deficits as Obama.

And they must really hate Sanders for his spending plans to jack it up even higher.

Wrong. Sanders has no plans to jack deficits up higher. He plans to spend a lot more, but he plans to pay for it with higher taxes and to save in other areas. That illustrates my point. And FYI, a lot of analysts see problems with the projections supporting his claim to pay for everything, which is why a lot of liberals do have misgivings about him.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Yes.

So.... $25T, $50T, $100T national debts... won't hurt the economy? How about the value of the dollar through inflation? Any idea of the historic significance of other nations that succumbed to amazingly high debts and inflation?

Jack, you can't possibly be this neive.

See above. We need higher deficits in the short term sometimes. But actually note that no president in decades has done as much to reduce long-term deficits as Obama.

By spending the future tax revenue, now. As for paying off that debt... fuck it... leave it for the next leadership to deal with.

Wrong. Sanders has no plans to jack deficits up higher. He plans to spend a lot more, but he plans to pay for it with higher taxes and to save in other areas. That illustrates my point. And FYI, a lot of analysts see problems with the projections supporting his claim to pay for everything, which is why a lot of liberals do have misgivings about him.

He actually said in the latest debate 'We're going to make colleges tuition free, by taxing Wallstreet speculation.'

Wow. Any critical thinking bring up big questions?

How about, how much is the total annual sum of tuition for every public college throughout the nation? And exactly what taxes of Wallstreet could be made, without crashing it, that would pay for it all? How about the state revenues for all the college tuition? Because there are no federal colleges, but the states (which many are already hurting) need that income to provide services to citizens, including needed social and welfare programs.

 

[ucunc156]

deficits mean absolutely nothing. seriously GSM, as long as america is the number 1 military power in the world, they will continue to be the #1 country in the world and deficits will be nothing. When lenders actually have the power to collect on America (which they never will), then the deficits and/or lack of ability to pay them will be an issue.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So.... $25T, $50T, $100T national debts... won't hurt the economy? How about the value of the dollar through inflation?

Pretty much correct. It's certainly possible for debt to be high enough to put a drag on the economy or for countries to make decisions about reducing debt that would lead to higher inflation, but the absolute dollar amount isn't relevant to that. If you look at our ability to pay, it was considerably worse in the aftermath of the Reagan debt explosion than it is now (hence the bipartisan and successful prioritization of debt reduction at that time).

By spending the future tax revenue, now. As for paying off that debt... fuck it... leave it for the next leadership to deal with.

It is impossible to spend future resources now. But the short-term bump in deficits we got right after the GFC was instrumental in the U.S.'s recovery being so far superior to that of the rest of the developed world. And then the ACA is a massive long-term deficit reducer.

He actually said in the latest debate 'We're going to make colleges tuition free, by taxing Wallstreet speculation.'

Read that sentence again, more carefully. What do you think that bit after the comma means? Sanders is saying that he wants a new program and identifying a funding source for it. Exactly what Republican candidates do NOT do (that is, the propose revenue reductions with no specified spending cuts--that illustrates my point perfectly).

How about, how much is the total annual sum of tuition for every public college throughout the nation? And exactly what taxes of Wallstreet could be made, without crashing it, that would pay for it all? How about the state revenues for all the college tuition? Because there are no federal colleges, but the states (which many are already hurting) need that income to provide services to citizens, including needed social and welfare programs.

This is off track. Sanders proposes to provide $47B per year to states to pay for tuition (which does leave them responsible for another $23B) and he provides a plausible funding source for at least that $47B. Whether it's good policy or not or whether it would raise as much as projected is another debate. My point is just that because he believes in the program, he has an incentive to provide a plausible funding source for it. If a politician just wanted lower taxes or lower spending (as conservatives do), they have no similar incentive. They can just go ahead with the tax cuts and assume that deficits will pressure spending down.

deficits mean absolutely nothing. seriously GSM, as long as america is the number 1 military power in the world, they will continue to be the #1 country in the world and deficits will be nothing. When lenders actually have the power to collect on America (which they never will), then the deficits and/or lack of ability to pay them will be an issue.

That's wrong, too. U.S. debt is mostly held by Americans, and the gov't pays on schedule and has no reason not to. It's not like a loan shark or something. You buy bonds, you get your scheduled payments. You don't call someone and say, "you better pay up America, or I'm gonna break your legs" and then America says, "fuck you, come and get it."

 

[ucunc156]

debt exists whether you buy the bonds to pay it or not though. Its not like bond revenue dictates budgets or deficits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

debt exists whether you buy the bonds to pay it or not though. Its not like bond revenue dictates budgets or deficits.

What do you mean? Bonds are issued to cover deficits.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Pretty much correct.

If you're open to being wrong, and I won't ask you to admit it, watch this.

It is impossible to spend future resources now.

We're borrowing money now, to spend now, and counting on a time in the future that we have a tax revenue surplus so we can pay it back. Whenever that is, since deficits, large or small, are so popular among in Washington.

But the short-term bump in deficits we got right after the GFC was instrumental in the U.S.'s recovery being so far superior to that of the rest of the developed world. And then the ACA is a massive long-term deficit reducer.

Politicians alway promise spending money now to save money later, but it doesn't restrain future politicans to save that money. So, they fall flat, each and every time.

Read that sentence again, more carefully. What do you think that bit after the comma means? Sanders is saying that he wants a new program and identifying a funding source for it. Exactly what Republican candidates do NOT do (that is, the propose revenue reductions with no specified spending cuts--that illustrates my point perfectly).

*Facepalm*

And zero research into the costs of tuition, the realistic income from the tax, or the economic consequences of such a tax, have been made.

This is off track. Sanders proposes to provide $47B per year to states to pay for tuition (which does leave them responsible for another $23B) and he provides a plausible funding source for at least that $47B. Whether it's good policy or not or whether it would raise as much as projected is another debate. My point is just that because he believes in the program, he has an incentive to provide a plausible funding source for it. If a politician just wanted lower taxes or lower spending (as conservatives do), they have no similar incentive. They can just go ahead with the tax cuts and assume that deficits will pressure spending down.

Complete theory, and the real consequences will be disasterous.

And just believing in the program will make it work. He'll find the funding. Sure, and we just finshed discussing how we always have deficits, it's just a matter of how much.

Once you accept the reality that debt and inflation has consequences, you'll realise this utopia Bernie is promising is a complete impossibility, a fantasy, that has been tried and failed multiple times throughout world history.

Oh, but wait, this time will be different. It will work this time.

That's wrong, too. U.S. debt is mostly held by Americans, and the gov't pays on schedule and has no reason not to. It's not like a loan shark or something. You buy bonds, you get your scheduled payments. You don't call someone and say, "you better pay up America, or I'm gonna break your legs" and then America says, "fuck you, come and get it."

You do realise most of the debt the federal government is owed, is owed to the Federal Bank, right?

 

[theBLADE1]

a lot of analysts see problems with the projections supporting his claim to pay for everything, which is why a lot of liberals do have misgivings about him.

Have you seen this? I'm shocked CNN would even publish this at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html

 

[Jack V Savage]

If you're open to being wrong, and I won't ask you to admit it, watch this.

It's not showing up, but I'd prefer text anyway.

We're borrowing money now, to spend now, and counting on a time in the future that we have a tax revenue surplus so we can pay it back. Whenever that is, since deficits, large or small, are so popular among in Washington.

That's crazy. Washington actually has an irrational fear of deficits. Even at a time when it was obvious that we needed higher deficits, we had bipartisan agreement about lowering them.

Politicians alway promise spending money now to save money later, but it doesn't restrain future politicans to save that money. So, they fall flat, each and every time.

If that were true, deficits and debt would just continually rise. But that isn't the case.

*Facepalm*

And zero research into the costs of tuition, the realistic income from the tax, or the economic consequences of such a tax, have been made.

Look, if your analysis (which you haven't shown) differs from that of Sanders' team, that's fine and irrelevant to the point, which is that Sanders has an incentive to keep deficits down and thus proposes to pay for the programs he supports. Conservative politicians have no incentive to reduce deficits and thus don't pay for their giveaways.

You do realise most of the debt the federal government is owed, is owed to the Federal Bank, right?

You mean the Fed? It owns about 12% of federal debt. And what do you think the significance of that to the discussion is?

 

[ucunc156]

What do you mean? Bonds are issued to cover deficits.

understood. My point is that the deficits already exist at the time of bond creation. If nobody bought government bonds, those deficits would still exist.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

It's not showing up, but I'd prefer text anyway.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2RaWWW0eyE

That's crazy. Washington actually has an irrational fear of deficits. Even at a time when it was obvious that we needed higher deficits, we had bipartisan agreement about lowering them.

Yet, Democrats love to take credit for the few years of balanced budgets in the 90s.

If that were true, deficits and debt would just continually rise. But that isn't the case.

The debt has been continuing to rise, just at different rates.

Oh, some years it rises faster than others? Is that evidence of fiscal responsibility?

Look, if your analysis (which you haven't shown) differs from that of Sanders' team, that's fine and irrelevant to the point, which is that Sanders has an incentive to keep deficits down and thus proposes to pay for the programs he supports. Conservative politicians have no incentive to reduce deficits and thus don't pay for their giveaways.

So it's on me, not Bernie, to prove his programs have the possibility of being funded.

You, and Bernie, admit that his $52 billion is just a fraction of what it takes to provide this. The states will just have to pony up the dough, to the rate of $500 million per year per state, to fund the colleges.

This program will fall on it's face, and predicatably so, and idiots will still say we should do it.

You mean the Fed? It owns about 12% of federal debt. And what do you think the significance of that to the discussion is?

$2.4 Trillion of the $19 Trillion, which is less than I previously thought, but that's a big chunk. And as much of a stangle hold The Fed has over our economy, it can determine if we're ever able to pay it off.

 

[JDragon]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2RaWWW0eyE


$2.4 Trillion of the $19 Trillion, which is less than I previously thought, but that's a big chunk. And as much of a stangle hold The Fed has over our economy, it can determine if we're ever able to pay it off.

Why would you ever pay it off?

 

[JDragon]

LOL, Rubio just once again proved Christie right by providing a 25 second statement learnt by heart:

As he left a polling station in Derry, New Hampshire, Tuesday, Rubio dismissed concerns about his debate performance as a "media thing."

"Voters in New Hampshire are serious about, they understand what's at stake here," Rubio told CNN's Dana Bash. "The future of America is at stake."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/index.html

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Why would you ever pay it off?

It'd probably never be paid off, but the goal now is to keep it from rising to the point from having serious economic consequences.

 

[in the]

Dirty, secret confession to make - I want Trump to stay in the race longer. I think he's too thin-skinned to be President, but he is single handedly making this the most entertaining Presidential cycle we'll see in our lifetimes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=t2RaWWW0eyE

Cliffs?

Yet, Democrats love to take credit for the few years of balanced budgets in the 90s.

I don't get the "yet." As I've been saying, liberals have an interest in lowering deficits, while conservatives do not.

The debt has been continuing to rise, just at different rates.

Not really. Not unless you just look at absolute dollar amounts. If you look at any relevant measure, debt rises during wars and recessions and falls at other times.

So it's on me, not Bernie, to prove his programs have the possibility of being funded.

You're getting off topic again. You said that liberals (who I noted have an interest in lower deficits) should oppose Sanders, and I responded that Sanders has identified how he wants to pay for his plan. You might not like his plan, but that doesn't matter at all. Further, the states can fund their portion however they fund it, but that's not relevant to the federal debt.

$2.4 Trillion of the $19 Trillion, which is less than I previously thought, but that's a big chunk. And as much of a stangle hold The Fed has over our economy, it can determine if we're ever able to pay it off.

That's what I said. And I don't even get what you're trying to say. The Fed has no control over fiscal policy.

understood. My point is that the deficits already exist at the time of bond creation. If nobody bought government bonds, those deficits would still exist.

They would still owe the money in the impossible event that no one would put in a bid for bonds. I guess. ???

It'd probably never be paid off, but the goal now is to keep it from rising to the point from having serious economic consequences.

So you're definitely not voting Republican this time, right?

 

[Ibis]

The Establishment has this locked up.

 

[JDragon]

This is a blood bath once again

 

[Diamond Jim]

Wow. Looking at CNN's exit poll data Bernie will have a nice night. 40% says next president should be more liberal compared to 41% saying the same as Obama. 33% say income inequality most important compared to 8% terrorism.

50% of Republican voters say they feel betrayed by party.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Cliffs?

It's 10 minutes long. Short, sweet, and doesn't drag on. Just watch it.

I don't get the "yet." As I've been saying, liberals have an interest in lowering deficits, while conservatives do not.

Yet, liberals own the biggest deficits ever, under super majorities of the congress, and senate, with the most liberal President ever.

Fiscally responsible liberals is an oxymoron.

Not really. Not unless you just look at absolute dollar amounts. If you look at any relevant measure, debt rises during wars and recessions and falls at other times.

Not really? Point out to me when the national debt has gone down, and not just up.

You're getting off topic again. You said that liberals (who I noted have an interest in lower deficits) should oppose Sanders, and I responded that Sanders has identified how he wants to pay for his plan. You might not like his plan, but that doesn't matter at all. Further, the states can fund their portion however they fund it, but that's not relevant to the federal debt.

It's laughable that the entirety of all tuition of all public colleges can be paid with a tax on Wallstreet.

It's like saying the national debt would be paid off with an additional 1% sales tax.

That's what I said. And I don't even get what you're trying to say. The Fed has no control over fiscal policy.

I could link to a documentary about The Fed, but you wouldn't watch it, and you don't like being proved wrong.