20 Jul 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIt wouldn't kick the can that much further down the road; the projected deficit for the next fiscal year is $1.3 trillion which almost equals the entire amount of Treasury securities the Fed currently holds.
Well, I already said that selling ALL would be a problem because of that. The Fed should obviously keep a significant amount but I don't see it needing to sell ALL of them either anytime soon. It also has tons of other assets it might use, given the balance sheet expansion although I agree they are far from perfect substitutes.
Increasing the reserve requirement is a bad alternative, IMO. It's contractionary and that's not the idea.
20 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI completely agree, I also said that earlier to another poster...
It wouldn't kick the can that much further down the road; the projected deficit for the next fiscal year is $1.3 trillion which almost equals the entire amount of Treasury securities the Fed currently holds.
20 Jul 11
The whole point in Ron Paul bringing this up is to show that we can avoid economic disaster long enough to reduce spending if the will is there. The August 2nd deadline is artificial unless the fed wants the economic disaster that they warn about.
Raising the debt ceiling is stupid. We can't do this forever and expect things to be fine.
All we have to do is get serious about cutting military spending, but some people insist on running the country like an empire and putting our children and grandchildren into economic slavery while occupying much of the world.
It is amazing to me how most economists don't get it. It is like they have been conditioned to go down the road toward austerity. Then again, the real agenda here is probably to raise taxes. Either way we get screwed. I guess some people just deserve what they get, but it is a shame the rest of us must get dragged down with you clueless idiots. You know who you are!
20 Jul 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainYes, military spending needs to be way reduced. Reduce military spending by 10% per year for at least the next 5 years, until the overall military budget is decreased by nearly half. Then maybe continue to inch it down by 5% for another 5 years. This would save trillions over the course of the next decade, and would allow for overhauling infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and keeping Medicare and Social Security solvent for the foreseeable future.
The whole point in Ron Paul bringing this up is to show that we can avoid economic disaster long enough to reduce spending if the will is there. The August 2nd deadline is artificial unless the fed wants the economic disaster that they warn about.
Raising the debt ceiling is stupid. We can't do this forever and expect things to be fine.
All we have ...[text shortened]... s a shame the rest of us must get dragged down with you clueless idiots. You know who you are!
The slashing will have to be partially offset by intelligent spending elsewhere, though, because the "military-industrial complex" is quite real and is a pillar of the U.S. economy. This means increased funding of research and development, which is far more beneficial to people (and the economy) than building bombs anyway. There could be a renewed commitment to space exploration also, which always stimulates science education and creates scads of spinoff technologies with applications even in medicine.
Raising the retirement age incrementally up to 70 or 72 is also necessary to help keep Social Security solvent, though it'll have to be done in an incremental fashion and be phased in for people under 50, say. I know there's discussion about this in another thread. Anyway if we were to raise the retirement age too much too soon we'd wind up with a much greater unemployment problem among the young.
Also we could sell Alaska back to Russia.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI would agree with selling Alaska if Sarah Palin went with it. Forget about serious budget cuts to the military, it's not going to happen because of all the people it would put out of work. Also, you want to raise the retirement age to pay for space exploration?
Yes, military spending needs to be way reduced. Reduce military spending by 10% per year for at least the next 5 years, until the overall military budget is decreased by nearly half. Then maybe continue to inch it down by 5% for another 5 years. This would save trillions over the course of the next decade, and would allow for overhauling infrastructure ( ...[text shortened]... greater unemployment problem among the young.
Also we could sell Alaska back to Russia.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooDue to quantitative easing one could argue that we have already defaulted on our debt, yet our credit rating remains unchanged. Ron Paul's solution is no worse and no less temporary.
The problem is that the rating agencies will downgrade our credit rating for the long term, and we won't be able to sell bonds in the future because they won't be worth anything due to the rating. It sounds good, but it's amateur economics.
The bonds are worth less because of the fed's quantitative easing. Same result.
Why would the credit rating change with one and not the other?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainBecause the message we would be sending is that the bonds have no value. It won't even be a question of interpretation. By definition, it's exactly what we would be saying.
Due to quantitative easing one could argue that we have already defaulted on our debt, yet our credit rating remains unchanged. Ron Paul's solution is no worse and no less temporary.
The bonds are worth less because of the fed's quantitative easing. Same result.
Why would the credit rating change with one and not the other?
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by Kunsoothey don't have any value. but keep in mind that anybody who will be buying them will be using currency that has no value, so in the end, it makes no difference if we trade them for something of no value or if we destroy them.
Because the message we would be sending is that the bonds have no value. It won't even be a question of interpretation. By definition, it's exactly what we would be saying.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by dryhumpHow could you draw so nigh the point and still miss it? I propose increased space exploration (among other things) precisely so that cuts to the military will not put people out of work. This should have been crystal clear to anyone who can fog a mirror. I assume now we can strike your asinine interrogative from the record.
Forget about serious budget cuts to the military, it's not going to happen because of all the people it would put out of work. Also, you want to raise the retirement age to pay for space exploration?
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritMilitary spending is the Sacred Cow no one wants to seriously call into question in the seat of power of the U.S. Empire.
sounds ok, but i have to go with the military reduction myself. when in doubt, cut military spending. more than enough money tied up in there and no need to further enable the warmongers.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by Soothfastyes, a sure sign that everyone in both houses, the executive branch and judicial branch are bought and sold. the us government is completely compromised. the whole thing has to be shut down and rebooted.
Military spending is the Sacred Cow no one wants to seriously call into question in the seat of power of the U.S. Empire.
28 Jul 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI didn't miss the point, I just think you are seriously underestimating the scope of the problem when it comes to reducing the military budget. Also, if you are proposing spending the money saved on something else, then you're not really saving any money. I would rather see the money spent on infrastructure or education than the military myself, but government jobs are government jobs, they come out of the same revenue pool, regardless. Over 5 million people are directly and indirectly (through contracted work) employed by the pentagon, what politician has the courage to rock that boat?
How could you draw so nigh the point and still miss it? I propose increased space exploration (among other things) precisely so that cuts to the military will not put people out of work. This should have been crystal clear to anyone who can fog a mirror. I assume now we can strike your asinine interrogative from the record.