Raising the Debt Ceiling

Tea partiers, What the fuck is wrong with you? You're about to cause the US treasury to default on its loans. Isn't that exactly the kind of shit a fiscal conservative would want to prevent?

The GOP showed they can destroy the US economy by preventing the government from raising its debt ceiling. So stocks fell.
But the government can do many things. It should think out ways to increase revenues and spending. Even if spenging cuts lower the rate of growth, the economy can grow. Military spending is not productive. When the government reduces the defense budget, the economy will not be damaged.

When stocks fall, people's assets depreciate. So the economy is damaged. Obama should not surrender to the GOP.

The ECB has started to buy large quantities of government bonds. If government bond yields are sufficiently lowered, the debt crisis will be over.

>>81
Your liberal narrative lacks substance. Stocks are falling because our economy is sinking. There isn't going to be any real growth no matter what we do if we ignore the deficit and trade deficit, not to mention the fact we are spend beyond our means to repay. Buying your way out of debt sounds nice on paper. Too bad for you that America noticed that scam. 

War is peace.
Slavery is freedom.
Spending is saving.

Welcome to negro ideology.

>>82
Your liberal narrative lacks substance.
Are you suggesting yours doesn't?
Welcome to negro ideology.
Ah, lacking substance confirmed.

>>80
>The Roosevelt administration increased spending greatly, and carried out good policies. So the US economy recovered from the Great Depression...
By the end of the 1940s, after WWII.

>>84
>thinks new deal ended the great depression
/facepalm

>>58
>>59
>>60
This doesn't make sense, individuals take out loans to make purchases like homes because they are unwilling to wait and save to do so, by saying the state is more like a business than an individual you are suggesting that they should not take out loans unless it is making capital investments that result in returns greater than the interest, such as roads and schools. The government's shareholders are also it's customers, so it's pointless to compete with private businesses for domestic capital reserves when it is more efficient to replace the burden caused by competition for capital with simple honest taxation which reflects the true cost of government spending.

>>86
Not really.  The government's shareholders are the *taxpayers.*  The government's customers are the *welfare recipients and beneficiaries of 'Affirmative Action.'*  These are two very, very different groups, and have been for generations.

>>83
Fact #1: Debt is never a good thing. It is a necessary evil, but not good for you. This is true at the personal, business and government level.

Fact #2: The more debt you have, the more interest you will have to pay each month. This payment on maintaining the interest of your debt saps resources that could have been used for better things.

Fact #3: If you can't afford to even maintain your interest payments, you fucked up. You didn't maintain a healthly budget. You didn't live within you means. You will go bankrupt. Your government will print more money and hyperinflation will fuck your nation hard.

Fact #4: There is no law or rule that says you can't have a balanced budget or a surplus. You may always owe money, but there is no rule that says you must let it accumulate for no fucking reason.

Truth: Live withing your means. Use an actual budget. There will be ups and downs, savings is a must. Invest wisely, without making huge risks. Deficit spending is for people planning on failing.

>>83
Keynesian economics definition: 80 year old economic theory often used by 12 year olds to justify buying toys you can't afford.  

Rule #1: Stimulate the economy by throwing money at your problems. Ignore the fact you might not get that money back in the long run.

Rule #2: Pretend that stimulus somehow permanently stimulates things. It doesn't in any way shape, form or fashion. It's temporary.

Rule #3: Pretend that debt doesn't cost you anything. Pretend that a massive deficit has no effect on economy.

Rule #4: If things get better, take credit even if it was going to get better anyway. If things get worse, claim you should have thrown more money at the problem.  

Rule #5: Keynesian economics uses a black box theory. Numbers don't mean anything. Apparently, the more you owe, the better you are somehow because all numbers are imaginary or something. The more you spend, the better things are because the results are ignored. Numbers don't exist, I assume under this theory. 

Truth: In short, if things are good in your economy, spend until you are broke. If your economy is bad, spend more money. If you don't get better, you didn't spend enough. Therefore, you can only go into infinite debt forever.

Negro ideology 101

>>88
Debt is never a good thing. It is a necessary evil, but not good for you. This is true at the personal, business and government level.
Anybody in their right mind wouldn't argue that "debt is a good thing". If they truly gave a shit, though, there would be non-stop diplomatic talks with Mainland China, Japan and the UK (the three largest debtors) asking these countries to forgo some (if not all) the debt the US has. I see nothing of the sort happening.
Fact #2:
Same above.
Fact #3: If you can't afford to even maintain your interest payments, you fucked up. You didn't maintain a healthly budget. You didn't live within you means. You will go bankrupt. Your government will print more money and hyperinflation will fuck your nation hard.Fact #4: There is no law or rule that says you can't have a balanced budget or a surplus. You may always owe money, but there is no rule that says you must let it accumulate for no fucking reason.I don't know of a single nation on Earth that truly lives within its means (meaning absolutely no debt at all), but sure, the US could do to going an approach of such. Defense spending is what saps up most spending, and both parties seem intent on never cutting that, ever (the small little puny cuts don't even remotely go far enough).

A lot of what it has to do with is the fact that the US barely has a manufacturing sector anymore. Spending and World War II during the FDR years were just catalysts (not the real reason) that got the US out of the Great Depression, the fact that the US had an actual manufacturing sector is what got it out of the Depression. Until people get the idea that you need a manufacturing base to survive economically through their thick skulls, you're doomed to failure.

>>89
I know this may be difficult for you to get, but there are many ways (state and non-state) to stimulate an economy. Hand waving about Keynesianism (Keynes was a douche anyway) isn't going to get you anywhere.

I meant "three largest creditors", not "debtors".

>>88
>>89

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED
Master Troll

Convice five people you're right using a strawman argument on /newpol/.

>>90
Why would anyone or country forgive a debt? That's retarded.
Also: Japan and UK have far more debt then the USA anyways.

>>91
>stimulating
loool still harping on these magical economic means with which tyranny and government intervention turn into positive things?

>>94
Why would anyone or country forgive a debt?
It's called negotiation, there's no rule that states the debt in and of itself is non-negotiable. Individuals and state governments have done this plenty of times in the past, there's no reason why the Federal government cannot do the same.

>>94
tyranny
You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means.

>>88
Fact #1: Myth.  Debt is not bad, bad debt is bad.
Fact #2: Disingenuous.  You could have used the money you're using to pay interest on other things, but the reason you're paying interest is that you already spent said money on said other things before you had it.
Fact #3: True, but hyperbolic.  The US was nowhere near being unable to afford to pay its interest, other than through its own stupidity in having a debt ceiling.
Fact #4: Gee, I don't know, does "the economy will be permanently and irreperably fucked if you do" count?
Truth: It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.

>>97
Liberals will continue to live in a fantasy land of delusions.
>It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.
lol, dumbest shit in the fucking world.

>>95
Why would anyone forgive someone elses debt? Certainly there is no point to do it to a out of control tyrannical government which is in debt due to socialist spending.

>>96
think you don't.

Businesses only take out loans if they believe the yield from the investments will exceed the interest, interest rates therefore reflect the supply and demand for capital. A business that can gain higher returns on an investment than another business will take loans with higher interest rates, so in a free market the capital will go towards the more profitable business.

State banks also have a profit motive, in theory the profit motive of the voters in the state that controls it, in reality of course this process is riddled with corruption not to mention inefficiency. State banks are at a motivational and practical disadvantage to private banks, they cannot compete and minus their ability to print money and use taxpayer money they are among the least profitable financial institutions gram per gram, taxpayers have to pick up the cost of the interest payments on the money they borrow and the money lost on poor investments. It is in their best interest to maintain a surplus to ensure that they are not paying extra tax to pay interest to foreign banks and corporations, if there is a disaster they can deplete the surplus, nothing of value will be lost.

For instance in total the government forked out 12.5 billion to save Chrysler and received 10.9 billion in return, if they had invested 12.5 billion in Goldman Sachs then they would have received 23 billion in June 2011 or $100 from every adult. The government might as well have reached into your pocket and took the money, not just from able bodied young adults but single mothers, the disabled and the elderly, muggers usually get less each robbery.

>>98
If you seriously think that the govt budget should be run like a personal checking account then you have no idea how government works.

>>100
He doesn't!

>It turns out that country-level economics do not work the same way as balancing your checkbook.

This is why we have 14+ trillion dollars in debt. It's same thing in the end, dumbass.

>>102
The amount of debt isn't important, because it can't be called in.  If you lend the government money via a 30-year bond, you're stuck with it for 30 years - you want the money sooner, you have to get someone else to buy you out.

>The amount of debt isn't important,

Sure....

You can not keep borrowing forever at levels of debt that not only obviously can not be paid back, but upon which the interest payments will eventually themselves be unpayable.

>>105
But defaulting on the debt isn't any fucking better. Some debt should be written off so interest payments don't get out of hand. Defaulting is not a viable alternative.

>>105
Evidently, as we've seen, it very fucking obviously can be paid back.

>>107
Let us know when that 14 trillion magically disappears. Somehow, I have a feeling we're be getting use to 20 trillion and then 30 trillion debt.

>>108
Actually, if you add up entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it adds up to something like $100 Trillion. The US is in the hole much deeper than people realize.

>>108
It will "magically disappear" when it comes due for repayment.  As things stand, the US is having no problems making its repayments, and isn't likely to have any such problems as long as Congress doesn't repeat the childish behaviour of the last four months.

ITT: people who don't understand how national debt works AT ALL.

>>111
This.  The national debt is not like your credit card.  You can't pay it off early, and the creditors can't come knocking on a live bond.

>>110, fiscal responsibility is not "childish".

The real childishness here is where you believe the government can borrow trillions forever, without consequence. You clearly feel that the government is magic money machine.

>>113
fiscal responsibility is not "childish".
No, but utterly refusing to increase revenue and trying to set the president up for failure is.

>>114
The President set himself up when he decided to ignore the deficit and refuses to address the spending that created it.

You can't increase revenue every time you run out of other people's money. Spending is the problem.

refuses to address the spending that created it.
That's just blatantly false.

You can't increase revenue every time you run out of other people's money. Spending is the problem.
Nice false dichotomy, dipshit. The dems' plan was to do both reduce spending and increase revenue and surprise! the Tea Party loons rejected it since they'd rather the country default than the president succeed.

>>116
>That's just blatantly false.

Reality says otherwise. Don't be a hater because it's a fact that your tax and spend monkey is an impotent little girl now. 

>loons rejected it since they'd rather the country default

You mean just like the WH and Dem controlled Senate threatened to do? Nice double standard. Dems had no actual plan to reduce anything until the Tea Party forced them to at gun point.

Obama tried your game and lost. He stood on the hill and declared he wouldn't move an inch. The Tea Party whipped out their dicks and asked him now many inches he wanted.

You can declare the world to be flat if you so desire, but your obvious biased OPINIONS won't win any elections. Ignore democracy at your own peril. :)

>>116
Spending is constantly increased by every administration. Even during the Clinton administration, despite balancing the budget, both democrat and republican parties managed to increase spending on an average of 14% each.

You're a loon yourself if you believe the Tea Party is purposely organizing to stop democrats from initiating any plan (that never existed or is refused to be brought on the table) just to spite Obama's efforts. It sounds like a scapegoat for their problems.

If the democrats were serious and wanted to work with republicans, they would at least propose REAL major spending cuts.

>>117
>>118
Prominent tea partiers have said flat out that their top priority is getting Obama out of office. I'd dig up a source but you're more interested in dick metaphors.

And my bad, it was Boehner that rejected Obama's deal even though it had more in cuts than he originally asked for. The Tea Partiers rejected even Boehner's plan and then passed a bullshit political stunt bill that had no chance of passing the Senate. Even Republicans didn't like it.

Here's where everyone stood on the issue:

Obama - moderate, slightly left leaning
>was ok with making sharp cuts in spending that could hurt our economic recovery if they were accompanied by tax increases on the wealthy

Boehner - right wing
>wanted spending cuts only, tax increases (or even just closing loopholes) were completely off the table

Tea Partiers - extreme right wing
>wanted a fuckton of spending cuts, more than any rational person

>>113
>>115
>>117
Seems like more people that don't understand that balancing the national economy does not work on the same principles as balancing your checkbook.  The accounting is entirely different.  For example, personal accounting has no externalities - money comes in, money goes out.  The national budget does not work in the same way, not least because personal debt is less rigid.