29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarWhat part of "steady decrease of the debt itself from about 1945 to 1975" don't you understand? The graph shows a clear decrease in debt, a far cry from normbenign's assertion that the US has been in the red for most fiscal years since WW2.
My reply was about what you said, not the link. Once again I see that you can't help but change the subject.
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI can see that you are unable to see what I'm saying.
What part of "steady decrease of the debt itself from about 1945 to 1975" don't you understand? The graph shows a clear decrease in debt, a far cry from normbenign's assertion that the US has been in the red for most fiscal years since WW2.
So I guess I'll play your game and let you change the subject:
How far back into history are we going to go when it comes to paying down debt? The government we see today is fundamentally different from the one in the 1950's. The kind of spending we are doing to day dwarfs what the government used to spend in the 1970's.
Do you believe that the US can continue to spend like it has spent GW and is now spending under Obama?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarWhy not? The deficit is caused mainly by massive reductions in taxes and excessive military spending. So raise taxes a bit to a reasonable level (with a top income tax bracket of at least 50%, still far short of historical highs - it was over 70% during 1936-1981), pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and slash military spending in half and there is your fiscal responsibility. Note that compared to most rich countries, government expenditure as a fraction of GDP is still low in the US, also under Obama.
I can see that you are unable to see what I'm saying.
So I guess I'll play your game and let you change the subject:
How far back into history are we going to go when it comes to paying down debt? The government we see today is fundamentally different from the one in the 1950's. The kind of spending we are doing to day dwarfs what the government used ...[text shortened]... ieve that the US can continue to spend like it has spent GW and is now spending under Obama?
29 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBlaming today's economic problems on the kind of government Spain had 35 years ago doesn't really deal with the issue.
Spain was a dictatorship until 1978 and is recovering from a housing market bubble. Why don't you compare the US to other rich countries?
Why talk about countries with less money? Because they run into the problem first. The richer countries just have more money to go further into debt. The end will be the same unless things change. No one is rich enough to perpectually spend money as if it was water.
If you want to look at richer countries, why are they making cuts? Here is a story about Germany's economic cutbacks:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,699229,00.html
Why is Germany cutting back if governments have no need to worry about money?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarHow did you infer from my comments that "governments have no need to worry about money"?
Blaming today's economic problems on the kind of government Spain had 35 years ago doesn't really deal with the issue.
Why talk about countries with less money? Because they run into the problem first. The richer countries just have more money to go further into debt. The end will be the same unless things change. No one is rich enough to perpectually ...[text shortened]... 29,00.html
Why is Germany cutting back if governments have no need to worry about money?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBy saying that the US doesn't spend as much as other rich countries you imply that the US should be spending as much as they do. Yet these very countries are making cutting back because they know they are spending too much and are headed for disaster.
How did you infer from my comments that "governments have no need to worry about money"?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarNo, in fact I said the U.S. should cut back significantly on defense spending. In general, it's obviously always good to look at where you can spend government money more efficiently, and cut spending where it is not needed or productive. Nevertheless, raising more revenue is also a way to cut deficits and may be a better way depending on the circumstances.
By saying that the US doesn't spend as much as other rich countries you imply that the US should be spending as much as they do. Yet these very countries are making cutting back because they know they are spending too much and are headed for disaster.
If you want to talk about "heading for disaster", take a look at Japan. It has accumulated a debt of over 200% of GDP and is still spending like mad. If the faeces is about to hit the air dispenser, it's there. The U.S. will be able to issue bonds for a long time before anyone will question whether or not the U.S. government will be able to pay back their debts.
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat good is a country that can't defend itself? You live in a world that is for the most part policed by the US. The US stemmed the tide against Russia and unlike the Korea, Europe was freed. Of course that does not mean that Russia will not attempt to reaquire its Empire and take over Europe while it is at it.
No, in fact I said the U.S. should cut back significantly on defense spending. In general, it's obviously always good to look at where you can spend government money more efficiently, and cut spending where it is not needed or productive. Nevertheless, raising more revenue is also a way to cut deficits and may be a better way depending on the circumstan ...[text shortened]... nyone will question whether or not the U.S. government will be able to pay back their debts.
I can definitely see where you can see things as you do. It is easy to say there's no need to have a strong military when your country doesn't have one. It's easy to come up with a false sense of security when someone else is fighting your battles.
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarHow are the Iraq and Afghanistan missions required for U.S. security, or Europe's for that matter? Besides, the U.S. will still have a very powerful military if it cuts it budget in half, but I guess you just like government spending.
What good is a country that can't defend itself? You live in a world that is for the most part policed by the US. The US stemmed the tide against Russia and unlike the Korea, Europe was freed. Of course that does not mean that Russia will not attempt to reaquire its Empire and take over Europe while it is at it.
I can definitely see where you can see th ...[text shortened]... s easy to come up with a false sense of security when someone else is fighting your battles.
29 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorra9/11 got us into Afganistan. Defending Kuwait and making an enemy out of Sadam got us into Iraq.
How are the Iraq and Afghanistan missions required for U.S. security, or Europe's for that matter? Besides, the U.S. will still have a very powerful military if it cuts it budget in half, but I guess you just like government spending.
As far as government spending, I don't mind it, as long as it fulfills a function of the government explicitly stated by the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not state that the government should use the power of taxation to raise money for charity.
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by EladarThe Constitution says the U.S. should fight aggressive wars not required to protect its own security?
9/11 got us into Afganistan. Defending Kuwait and making an enemy out of Sadam got us into Iraq.
As far as government spending, I don't mind it, as long as it fulfills a function of the government explicitly stated by the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not state that the government should use the power of taxation to raise money for charity.
By the way, did you miss some events between the first and second Gulf War?