Thread: Obama National Debt

You know what we should do...

Every year, or even month, everyone in the U.S. should donate $30 to the government.

307,500,000 X $30 = $6,150,000,000


We could work it off. Of course, we would also have our regular taxes.

Also, that 6 Billion would go into just paying off the debt. Nothing else.

I'm so smart...

Hub for President!

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Blakeman

In the end everything becomes such a web of bureaucracy that we get a lot of undo corruption in the new 'system'. A simpler system can work, it is just thought of by some as antiquated.

I'm all ears eyes, what "simpler systems" do you speak of?

Look into how big the government was before the civil war. Undoubtedly you will tell me 'oh that won't work in today's society', but I believe we could get a lot closer to that and dump a lot of the useless additions to our fed and build up the states to compensate.

You haven't provided an example yet. You only point to a time of reference..... Again, what "simpler system" are you suggesting? Because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not believing that you are advocating a monetary system predating the 1860's..... You aren't, are you?

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Funny thing is, if we didn't have a Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

How so?

Who do we owe all this money to? The Federal Reserve.

All the debt that we have is because we burrow money from a Central Bank. That bank says pay us that dollar back with interest. Where do we get the money to pay off the interest? The Central Bank.

We spend money like it's free. But when we spend too much, we go ask the Federal Reserve for money. Thus getting us into more debt.

If congress did what the Constitution actually said, print and mint their own money instead of giving the job to some private bank. We would have a hard budget and would have to live by it. But since we have this private bank we can just go ask for money and they'll print it without hesitation. We just keep spending.

So our debt just grows and grows.

Edit: spelling factual errors.

The fed sets currency policy. They provide an elastic currency that can "expand or contract the amount of available currency as warranted by economic conditions". The fed ensures that one bank honors another bank's checks, basically the "banker's bank" providing credit liquidity to banks and ensuring solvency. I don't know about you, but I like knowing that I can go to my bank and withdraw and deposit just about any day of the week at just about any time such was not the case in 1907. Yeah bank runs don't seem so fun.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Oh, you mean what Congress is suppose to do?

Do you know what you are talking about? Did Congress not create and oversee the Fed? Does the Fed not answer to Congress? Do you truly believe that Congress would be so nimble enough to expand/contract the amount of currency available to the banks when needed on it's own in the time needed to perform such actions? Methinks you don't understand the job of the Fed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States

After Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the Fed was subordinated to the Executive Branch, where it remained until 1951, when the Fed and the Treasury department signed an accord granting the Fed full independence over monetary matters while leaving fiscal matters to the Treasury.

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Originally Posted by Blakeman

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by WorstPE

Funny thing is, if we didn't have a Federal Reserve, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

How so?

US was never set up to be a money lender, it is though so what Worst posted doesn't matter since if you start talking about how the fed shouldn't have debt or excess or a standing army then folks think you wear tin foil hats.

What?

How is that tin foil hat worthy?

A lot of folks think you are talking crazy if you bring up facts about how this country was supposed to run, opposed to how it is run.

Please embellish............ Because this isn't the first "national banking system" we've ever had.

Tell us how the founders wanted monetary policy to be run.....

And the First and Second bank of the United States were closed down. Each of those banks had charters. Each charter was for 20 years. The second bank of the US was actively opposed by Andrew Jackson.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

As you stated that was very simplistic and completely ignores the effects of taxation on the subsequent years industry figures. This is a major problem I have certain political positions. Not all industries operate with uniform margins. Any change to the overhead costs affects everything in the business model. Some industries can absorb such an increase, but that would not be globally true. Hence, my aversion to the usual "add a tax here, add a tax there' type of talk.

You are delving into more specifics here, which wasn't my point and why my description was intentionally simplistic. I was saying tax-and-spending isn't the problem, because you have revenue to spend. The problem comes in when you cut taxes and increase spending when you should be cutting spending.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Like I said, you have to believe that an entity with little to no pressure for efficiency is exceedingly efficient. I have seen no such evidence from the government in that regard.

And what have we seen from the banks? Efficiency and well-spent money? Self-regulation? No, we saw none of that and that is why we are where we are. Unlike you, I don't see the government as some huge evil that shouldn't be allowed to do anything. I see it as a valuable tool, and this could have been one use. We would have saw a far greater return on the money we invested and would have payed off that bailout far quicker.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Whilst I have yet to mention a specific political figure in this thread...I would say that major world events need to be considered before this gets reduced to a partisan thread. Fi we have a legitimate need to spend know then it is rational to think that the need has existed before as well.

This thread started out as a partisan political thread. Read the title. So you do believe there are rational reasons to increase spending? What would classify as a reason? A war? A major economic slowdown? If you do think we should spend, would you advocate tax increases, or how would you pay for that spending? I am just asking your personal opinion on this.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

You mean the just over 14% that has been spent? So if the crisis has been averted does that mean that the maligned tax cuts were 86% responsible for our stabilizing? Or more likely that the economy would have recovered anyway? (of course that would have served no political good for anyone )

Er, no. The tax cuts don't do anything to spur economic growth. Not like spending does. Yes, getting the money out has been slow at the start. It is picking up pace. Funding is also going to states, which limits the cuts they need to make and limit the taxes they may need to add. Most new jobs will come in 2010 and 2011. Without any form of stimulus, we would probably be in a depression right now and recovery would take a lot longer and be more painful. Like I said, I don't think the stimulus passed was perfect. I had my problems with it, but it was absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Do you seriously believe that business is greedy and wasteful while government is the holy grail of efficiency?

Never said or implied that. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. It would be like me asking you if you believed the free market can magically fix everything.