farewell to the dollar?

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

You are exactly right. This list would really be just a token. It would be *pretending* that we [emphasis mine] are concerned about the debt. But we're not even willing to fake it!

Who's "we"?

Although it sounds like a smart-aleck remark, it really isn't. I want you (all) to ponder which side you're on.

Bob, I'm going to take a wild guess here and daresay that you're a long way from Washington, you're not closely connected with the federal government, you're either working for a living or retired from working for a living, you don't live on a trust fund and you don't contribute to election campaigns.

In short, you're one of the 95%, not one of the decisionmakers.

Because in Washington, the federal debt is a good thing. It enables federal programs which contribute to re-election while concealing their true cost, which might hinder re-election.

But even more than that, the federal debt (more precisely, interest payment on the debt) takes money away from working people (taxpayers) and gives it to bankers, brokers and their ilk. (bondholders) Upward transfers of wealth are a good thing because they keep the riffraff in line. With a nest egg, without a comfortable lifestyle, working people get uppity and make demands of society. Take most of that away and they're too busy scratching out a living to have any time or energy left for activism. (just don't go too far, as happened after the 1929 crash and the Dust Bowl - people with nothing to lose can also get mighty uppity)

[BobR]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Who's "we"?

Although it sounds like a smart-aleck remark, it really isn't. I want you (all) to ponder which side you're on. Bob, I'm going to take a wild guess here and daresay that you're a long way from Washington, you're not closely connected with the federal government and you're either working for a living or retired from working for a living, you don't live on a trust fund and you don't contribute to election campaigns.

True! Well, I've given a few bucks to a couple political interest groups, but not much.

Originally Posted by drcampbell

In short, you're one of the 95%, not one of the decisionmakers.

True again!

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Because in Washington, the federal debt is a good thing. It enables federal programs which contribute to re-election while concealing their true cost, which might hinder re-election.

At first I was going to ask if the above was really true, but after I thought about it for a while, I understand what you were saying and I think that you are probably right!

Originally Posted by drcampbell

But even more than that, the federal debt (more precisely, interest payment on the debt) takes money away from working people (taxpayers) and gives it to bankers, brokers and their ilk. (bondholders) Upward transfers of wealth are a good thing because they keep the riffraff in line. ...

Great post Doug, but I stumbled on this last paragraph.

I don't understand how payments to interest on the debt can be viewed (even by our politicians!) as a good thing. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, a heckuva lot of that interest is going out of the country. Without the interest on the debt, there'd be more money left to spend on other things, many of which are pleasing to the voters.

I also don't understand the negative comment that payments on the debt takes away money from taxpayers and gives it to "ilk" such as bondholders.

What is the alternative? The bond market would collapse if people (or bankers, brokers, etc) did not get paid back for the money they loaned. As you pointed out, bond sales play a big role in funding our debt. Are you arguing that bondholders should be stiffed?

Great discussion!

[BigRed CC Dually]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

The sum total of that entire list - much of which looks like domestic investment - adds up to about 1/4 of 1% of the federal budget. Even if you did eliminate it all, you wouldn't make a dent.

Meanwhile, the annual spending there is less than what we're spending per week in Iraq. Or for a week's oil imports.

It`s a bit like trying to balance a household budget by eliminating chewing gum without considering mortgage interest, insurance, gasoline, electricity & natural gas.

True, but....."If you watch the pennys, the dollars will take care of themselves" If the mindset of our leaders was more frugal and didn't waste money on frivolous things like those above we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by BigRed CC Dually

True, but....."If you watch the pennys, the dollars will take care of themselves" If the mindset of our leaders was more frugal and didn't waste money on frivolous things like those above we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Nonsense. None of that gets our manufacturing back or keeps looters out of our Banking system.


Conservatives talk of freedom. Ok, so they vote for people who talk of such things. Their actions in the name of freedom are to then lower import taxes to allow imports to freely pour into the country under the guise that a "free market" is better. They then deregulate banking so that the bankers can excercise "freedom" and freely do with with our assets as they please.

You are now blaming "the government" and national debt for all the countries problems?

The problem is a Generation of people who don't want to and despise working for a living who have liquidated the nations assets in favor of easy money. It's a generation that hates working people who produce tangible things.

It's a generation that thinks derivative traders are precious and talented and that doctors and laborers need a pay cut.

It's a generation that thinks Bankers and "investors" are producers.

It's a generation that thinks that lower taxes so they can buy granite countertops or purchase a car with a leather interior is a more precious value to behold than putting man on mars or vigorously educating our youth.

This is the system you wanted and voted for. It's the system that reflects your "do nothing and let god sort it out" approach to running a country.

For Pete sake, your generation thinks that what Madoff did was merely the "free market" at work while calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BigRed CC Dually

True, but ... "If you watch the pennys, the dollars will take care of themselves" If the mindset of our leaders was more frugal and didn't waste money on frivolous things [emphasis mine] like those above we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Did you even look at the list? Even though it's clearly cherry-picked by an organization with an agenda, there's a lot of stuff I wouldn't label as "frivolous". For example:

Replace an engine in a boat owned & operated by the Corps of Engineers.
Improve public parks and other public spaces.
Repair & upgrade Amtrak equipment.
Retrofit light switches with occupant sensors/timers on an Army base. (a long-term investment in energy savings which will bring in more money than is spent)
Funding basic research. (otherwise, a lot of people would never be able to attend graduate school, which would mean no universities for the next generation)
Replace Buses, Bus Shelters and Trash Receptacles. (public transportation often makes the difference between getting back to work and collecting welfare)

Now I might be inclined to label "Expert DTV Installs" as a little frivolous, but remember that the US government brought in wheelbarrows full of cash by auctioning off the spectrum rights made available by DTV, so maybe spending that same money on DTV isn't completely ludicrous.

I might also be inclined to say that much of this should be funded at a state, county or municipal level, but right now, many states, counties and municipalities are themselves bankrupt. I would also say that Congress shouldn't be so "hands-on" when it comes to stuff like having a boat engine replaced, but that would be shaking the very foundation of official corruption. (aka. "constituent service", aka. "washing the other hand")


"There is really no such thing as "fiscal responsibility". There are only different spending priorities."
- Matt Abel, Attorney and Green Party candidate for US Senate, Michigan

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

I don't understand how payments to interest on the debt can be viewed (even by our politicians!) as a good thing. As you pointed out earlier in this thread, a heckuva lot of that interest is going out of the country. Without the interest on the debt, there'd be more money left to spend on other things, many of which are pleasing to the voters.

Getting re-elected is the priority. Federal largess may, indeed, be "pleasing to the voters", but voters will not necessarily make the connection between, say, the existence of the Interstate Highway system, federal spending, and any given member of Congress. (particularly if their local stretch is in bad repair) Targeted federal largess -- targeted directly at people who pay for re-election campaign propaganda -- is much more effective for getting yourself re-elected.

Originally Posted by BobR

I also don't understand the negative comment that payments on the debt takes away money from taxpayers and gives it to "ilk" such as bondholders.

"Ilk" isn't a negative comment. It just refers to a class of people with common characteristics.

Originally Posted by BobR

What is the alternative? The bond market would collapse if people (or bankers, brokers, etc) did not get paid back for the money they loaned. As you pointed out, bond sales play a big role in funding our debt. Are you arguing that bondholders should be stiffed? ...

I was looking at the bigger picture and thinking about reducing the overall debt, (and interest payments on the debt) not defaulting on existing debt.

But I also don't think paying to prop up the bond market should be a priority of the federal government. It's funny, how many of the people crowing about "free markets" are the very same people working behind the scenes to assure that their own investments are bailed out by great gobs of federal money.

[BobR]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

I was looking at the bigger picture and thinking about reducing the overall debt, (and interest payments on the debt) not defaulting on existing debt.

I'm with you there!

Originally Posted by drcampbell

But I also don't think paying to prop up the bond market should be a priority of the federal government. It's funny, how many of the people crowing about "free markets" are the very same people working behind the scenes to assure that their own investments are bailed out by great gobs of federal money.

I agree that the government should not prop up the bond market by, for instance, covering losses in the bond market due to companies that fail.

But what about paying off their own (treasury, savings, etc) bonds? Don't you agree that the government must stand behind their own debts, and that must be a priority? I would think that to fail to do so would invite an immediate collapse of our credit rating and dollar.

I've got to run for now.

I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

I'm with you there!
... But what about paying off their own (treasury, savings, etc) bonds? Don't you agree that the government must stand behind their own debts, and that must be a priority? I would think that to fail to do so would invite an immediate collapse of our credit rating and dollar.

No, I think the well being of the citizens should take priority over the well-being of the financial system. (which usually ends up meaning, in practice, the well-being of a very small number of moneychangers, usually at the expense of everybody else) But that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by BobR

I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.

Thanks for the thought, but I had mine six weeks ago. (my fiancée is Canadian)

[BobR]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

No, I think the well being of the citizens should take priority over the well-being of the financial system. (which usually ends up meaning, in practice, the well-being of a very small number of moneychangers, usually at the expense of everybody else) But that's just my opinion.

I don't see how stiffing our creditors wouldn't invite disaster for all of us?

I would think that doing so would work exactly once, and the "benefits" of having done this would be very short lived.

As soon as we stop paying our debts to bond holders, the market for our bonds would evaporate. We'd then print money like there's no tomorrow and the decline of the US dollar would go into overdrive. Inflation would take off and our economy would suffer greatly.

In this thread, I see people, companies or other groups that invest in US bonds called any number of negative terms. I don't understand this.

Our nation wants to borrow money and does this by offering bonds for sale. Buyers purchase the bonds on terms both parties agree on. But if the bond holders ask us to follow through on the terms of our agreement and pay them back, they are somehow selfish, evil, etc?

[checkthisout]

They can buy U.S. treasury bonds from the Government instead of high-risk mortgage bonds from Private parties.

It doesn't really matter what happens to the dollar as long as we are making the goods we are consuming.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

I don't see how stiffing our creditors wouldn't invite disaster for all of us? ...

I never advocated defaulting on T-bills, and I don't think anybody else has seriously advocated that, either. What I advocate is for the government get out of the habit of bailing out corporations which fall on hard times. (or cook the books to appear like hard times)

Arguing against a non-existent proposal really muddies the waters.

[Matt0987]

Originally Posted by zeroo

capitolism and lack of moral convictions may have ran its course here. so maybe we will have to change the game plan for our society. capitalism was great for founding a country, but it may not be able to sustain a nation.

Ya, lets have something like socialism or communism. It has worked so well for the Soviets, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and others.

Let's throw capitalism down the toilet and use those other, well established, systems.

[Matt0987]

Originally Posted by zeroo

I don't know but mixed with political lobbing could could result in multiple monopolies. When greed is allowed to run amuck in the government capitolism has reached it's limits. Don't you agree.

Again, the Soviet Union had no greed. And it worked really well. That is, again, the direction we need to go. Because it went so well.

[Matt0987]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

Pretty good so far.

Bush and his cronies are gone, we have someone who is willing to actually put a little mental exertion into his actions, health care for all Americans will soon be here, he hasn't started any wars under false pretenses and...........he's taking steps to keep big business from raping us again through their unbridled greed.

Not bad for only 9 months IMHO.

.

That's right. 9 months and we are in the worst economy of our country's history.

Now we are being raped by the government.

Now we have socialist egotists who want to control our lives down to what doctors we go to, what we drive, what we eat and how much of we eat.

They are looking for expanded power over our lives so they can macro & mirco manage every aspect of our lives.

What ever happened to the chants by the liberals telling us to keep the government out of our wombs. Yeah! Roe vs Wade!!!!! Well, stay away from my body. Let go to whatever doctor I want, when I want. I do not care to stand in line waiting for assistance like they do in England.

Remember Robin Hood? Read the story. He stole from the government and gave to the populus.

What we have here are the beginnings of the same conditions that brought on Hitler and the eventual second world war. A miserable economy, an elitist government, the confiscation of firearms, tyranny in the making. Obama, Pelosi, Barnie Frank, are perfect examples of facists.

Get out of my life! Get out of my pocket! Stay out of my health care!

[Matt0987]

Originally Posted by AK_Gandy

What I'm "ignoring" (or trying to anyway) is your ranting about how "progressives" have ruined this country when in fact, it's been the 'me first/greed is good/leave us alone to rip people off' conservatives that got us into this mess in the first place.


BTW - What is the opposite of 'Progressive?'


Yup - It's 'REGRESSIVE'


Main Entry: re·gress
Pronunciation: \ˈrē-ˌgres\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English regresse, from Anglo-French, from Latin regressus, from regredi to go back, from re- + gradi to go — more at grade
Date: 14th century
1 a : an act or the privilege of going or coming back b : reentry 1
2 : movement backward to a previous and especially worse or more primitive state or condition
3 : the act of reasoning backward


Sounds about right to me.



.

Conservatives are the ones trying to put the brakes on this downward spiral into the dark abyss. If it weren't for the greedy people the likes of Barney Frank we would not be in this mess. The democrats have been raping the country. Their excuse was that there was a lack of regulation. That gave them the oportunity to force financial institutions to take on bad paper generated by the government through Freedy Mac and Fanny Mae.

So, because there lacked regulation they had the right to ignore good business practices, give out loans to those who did not deserve them, and then force private organizations to take them on.

How bad is that?

No, it is only because of conservatives that this country may still exist in the next decade or two.