[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-23, 15:04, said:

Right now our national debt is almost $20T. (Try and tell me that's bullsh*t.) That's a few hundred thousand per taxpayer. Fortunately people are still lending our government money. If we start taking initiative on the climate change front, it will do no favors for our credit rating. We will only be able to fund climate change research and development as long as people are willing to support the US government. At some point, we might have to cough up that 20T because nobody will lend us money anymore. As a lawyer, you might be able to pay your share. Most of us can't pay our share. If you count unfunded Medicare and Social Security liabilities, the figure is much worse; a baby born today starts

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

Allow me to point out a couple of bits of misdirection that you seem to have been swayed by First, I understand that $20T sounds like a lot of debt, and when you divide by U.S. citizen it comes up to a lot. But consider that U.S. debt is not nor will ever be required to be repaid in a lump sum in a single year. Our debts are accumulated debts that come due over the course of many years. Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy. And third, the dollar is the world's reserve currency so it is in their national interest for foreign countries to own dollars via U.S. Treasury notes. Only by cutting off their own noses do countries refuse to buy U.S. debt.

In conclusion, the world is quite complicated and interlocking - someone who paints grim simplistic pictures of the world without explaining how these interdependencies are first nullified is someone who is selling a personal pet belief system and is not attempting to enlighten.

Self-education is much more difficult now than when I was younger - it takes a lot of digging to get to facts, it seems.

And one last comment which you raised to MikeH about the WSJ: the WSJ has had a good reputation but once it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch its reputation was tarnished - not because Murdoch is right wing but because he has a history with Fox of intervening from the top down to slant the information emanating from his stations to fit his personal political agenda. Almost immediately, the opinion page of the WSJ began to sound like Fox, so it is with trepidation one should watch for the same slant showing up within its non-opinion pages.

Murdoch also has controlling interest in the National Geographic Channel and others - my point simply being that it requires a lot of digging to stay on top of information and to determine what is fact and what is agenda-building faux news. It isn't easy.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-24, 13:46, said:

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me. It's a lot of money to pay back. We have to borrow money to pay the interest. Quantitative easing (printing money) isn't a sensible long-term solution. In the UK, successive governments have aggravated our condition by negotiating trillions of pounds worth of "off-the-books" "sweetheart" PFI (Private Finance Initiative) deals with cronies. IMO, we have bequeathed a horrendous liability to our children, especially when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-November-24, 19:39, said:

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me. It's a lot of money to pay back. We have to borrow money to pay the interest. Quantitative easing (printing money) isn't a sensible long-term solution. In the UK, successive governments have aggravated our condition by negotiating trillions of pounds worth of "off-the-books" "sweetheart" PFI (Private Finance Initiative) deals with cronies. IMO, we have bequeathed a horrendous liability to our children, especially when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes.

Again, I asked for specifics but writing, "when lenders begin to realize that the emperor can no longer afford any clothes" does not add anything specific to the discussion and indeed is simply a regurgitation of talking points.

Here is something better to work with. The Chinese government buys a large amount of U.S. Treasuries. Why do they do so, what is the benefit to them for doing so, and how does that contribute to a national security problem for the U.S.A.? Note, I'm not saying this arrangement is either good or bad - I am asking you - or Kaitlyn - to explain exactly what the Chinese (or other countries who buy the debt) would use that against us, the cost to them and us to do so - in other words, some specific reasons to fear the debt.

I am not saying the debt should not be reduced. It should be - at the proper time. What I am saying is that the national debt is not an immediate threat to national security and to think so is naive.

If you have valid information that undermines my position, I would like to hear it.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-24, 19:52, said:

If you have valid information that undermines my position, I would like to hear it.

I've no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are more accurate than mine.

[Al_U_Card]

nige1, on 2016-November-24, 20:14, said:

I have no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are better than mine.

Just about every crash, panic or depression was preceded by excessive debt and inverted debt/savings ratios. They, however, were only the pre-requisite. Once credit is restricted and/money supplies/circulation are reduced, hardship for most ensues. As we have seen in the past, only the financial institutions gain through repossessions or bankruptcy sale transactions. We never think that it could possibly happen to us...again....and again.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2016-November-24, 20:14, said:

I have no inside-knowledge and I'm not clairvoyant but I hope WinstonMs intuitions and premonitions, based on available information, are better than mine.

It doesn't require inside knowledge or mysticism to put together a reasoned "guess" why the Chinese might have a way to use our debt against us - just as there are reasonable restraints against them doing just such a thing. I have no more information than any informed citizen can have by reading and investigating both sides of the claims.

My point is that the right wing talking points about the debt are are not outright lie but they have a quite low probability of creating any kind of problem. Kaitlyn wrote about the right's talking point of division of the debt equals ($X) for each person in the U.S. which is accurate up to a point, and the point being that the debt does not come due all at once and that it is extremely unlikely ever to be called in in great sums ever anyway - the U.S. is not some hourly worker with a risky home loan - because there are repercussions to calling in a country's debt. We should work over time to reduce the debt, but there are more pressing concerns at the moment than a debt that is manageable.

I admit that I don't know for sure if debt will be or will not be a threat to national security. I am aware that the debt cannot come due all at once so the total number is not that scary when spread over many years. You seem to be saying that it is a threat, and I would like to know what specifically makes you think it is a threat. That it is a large scary number is not a valid reason - that you think country xyz may take action a or c despite d and e, those would be something concrete to talk about.

It's really pretty simple. You either have some reasons you can explain or you are simply restating right wing talking points.

I genuinely would like to know - either we have reason to be concerned right now about the debt or we don't. Explain to us why your position is one of immediate concern.

[Kaitlyn S]

I will respond to the questions asked of me when I have time, but in the spirit of Thanksgiving, I would like to give thanks to the Lord for being healthy enough to be here, and wealthy enough to have not only the necessities like food but luxuries like access to the Internet. Not everybody has both of those but most of the posters here do and should be likewise thankful.

[andrei]

nige1, on 2016-November-24, 19:39, said:

In spite of the profound insights, vouchsafed to us by WinstonM, The US and UK debt still worries me.

Let's look at some of his assertions.

Winstonm said:

But consider that U.S. debt is not nor will ever be required to be repaid in a lump sum in a single year. Our debts are accumulated debts that come due over the course of many years.

This is true, of course, but how about interest on debt? Isn't US paying any interest on it?
Yes, they do, a lot actually.
223 billion in 2015, more than Education/HUD/Transportation combined.
How about projections for the future, when interest rates are going to go up? Interest payments projected to double by 2019 and double again by 2026. Sure, the Feds will take care of it by keeping IR low forever.

Winstonm said:

Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.

Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so.

Winstonm said:

I am not saying the debt should not be reduced. It should be - at the proper time.

And when exactly is this proper time if not now when the rates are low and the payments are low?
When interest payment will reach 0.5T/year for sure the budget will be balanced and debt reduced.

[Winstonm]

andrei, on 2016-November-25, 09:03, said:

Let's look at some of his assertions.



This is true, of course, but how about interest on debt? Isn't US paying any interest on it?
Yes, they do, a lot actually.
223 billion in 2015, more than Education/HUD/Transportation combined.
How about projections for the future, when interest rates are going to go up? Interest payments projected to double by 2019 and double again by 2026. Sure, the Feds will take care of it by keeping IR low forever.



Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so.



And when exactly is this proper time if not now when the rates are low and the payments are low?
When interest payment will reach 0.5T/year for sure the budget will be balanced and debt reduced.

LoL.

Claim 2) Try looking up data before you regurgitate right wing claims and you might alter your views. https://www.treasury...nomicGrowth.pdf

Claims 1 and 3) Borrowing is encouraged when rates are low (that's why the Fed lowers rates during recessions). It is when rates are expensive that debt payments become attractive. You make a great point - the actual debt is really not relevant as it will never have to be repaid in a lump some so there is only the relatively small $223 billion in interest that we really have to concern ourselves with on an annual basis.

[y66]

Donald Trump's vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland:

Quote

As many Americans are trying to figure out what kind of president they have just elected, the people of Balmedie, a small village outside the once oil-rich city of Aberdeen, say they have a pretty good idea. In the 10 years since Mr. Trump first visited, vowing to build “the world’s greatest golf course” on an environmentally protected site featuring 4,000-year-old sand dunes, they have seen him lash out at anyone standing in his way. They say they watched him win public support for his golf course with grand promises, then watched him break them one by one.

A promised $1.25 billion investment has shrunk to what his opponents say is at most $50 million. Six thousand jobs have dwindled to 95. Two golf courses to one. An eight-story 450-room luxury hotel never materialized, nor did 950 time-share apartments. Instead, an existing manor house was converted into a 16-room boutique hotel. Trump International Golf Links, which opened in 2012, lost $1.36 million last year, according to public accounts.

“If America wants to know what is coming, it should study what happened here. It’s predictive,” said Martin Ford, a local government representative. “I have just seen him do in America, on a grander scale, precisely what he did here. He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised.”

Alex Salmond, a former first minister of Scotland whose government granted Mr. Trump planning permission in 2008, overruling local officials, now concedes the point, saying: “Balmedie got 10 cents on the dollar.”

Sarah Malone, who came to Mr. Trump’s attention after winning a local beauty pageant and is now a vice president of Trump International, disputed some of the figures publicly discussed about the project, saying that Mr. Trump invested about $125 million and that the golf course now employed 150 people.

“While other golf and leisure projects were shelved due to lack of funds,” she said, “Mr. Trump continued to forge ahead with his plans and has put the region on the global tourism map, and this resort plays a vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland.”

Mr. Salmond said that Mr. Trump’s impact on business in Scotland might actually be a net negative because his xenophobic comments have so appalled the Scottish establishment that the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, known simply as the R&A, is unlikely to award his other Scottish golf course, the world-renowned Trump Turnberry, another prestigious golf tournament like the Open anytime soon.

“I don’t see the R&A going back to Turnberry, which is a tragedy in itself,” Mr. Salmond said. “But it’s also a huge economic blow: Several hundred million pounds lost — or, in Trump terms, billions.”

Mr. Trump, whose mother emigrated from Scotland to New York in 1930, never showed any great interest in her place of birth. But in 2008, the same year he applied for planning permission in Balmedie, he visited the pebble-dashed cottage on the Isle of Lewis in Western Scotland where she grew up.

After emerging from his private jet and handing out copies of his book “How to Get Rich,” he reportedly told locals how Scottish he felt. “I feel very comfortable here,” Mr. Trump said before spending less than two minutes with his cousins in his mother’s homestead, The Guardian reported at the time. Within about three hours his private jet had taken off.

He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised? Say it isn't so Toto.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2016-November-25, 09:57, said:

Donald Trump's vital role in the economic prosperity of northeast Scotland:


He suckered the people and he suckered the politicians until he got what he wanted, and then he went back on pretty much everything he promised? Say it isn't so Toto.

From the beginning, my objection was not centered on Trump's policies, my objection was, and is, to Trump the person. And this means nothing can be done. It is very discouraging.

Reality has to be accepted, I plan to accept it. I am not yet prepared to say just what this will entail.

[andrei]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-25, 09:15, said:

Claim 2) Try looking up data before you regurgitate right wing claims and you might alter your views. https://www.treasury...nomicGrowth.pdf

You should read carefully what other people post here, try to understand the message and only after give an answer.

Your initial assertion was: "Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.", which I have quoted before my answer: "Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so."

My answer was a sarcastic comment to your assertion (note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).
US economy have expanded (at a very slow pace) in the last 8 years, but the debt have not automatically decreased. Quite the opposite I would say.

Winstonm, on 2016-November-25, 09:15, said:

Claims 1 and 3) Borrowing is encouraged when rates are low (that's why the Fed lowers rates during recessions). It is when rates are expensive that debt payments become attractive. You make a great point - the actual debt is really not relevant as it will never have to be repaid in a lump some so there is only the relatively small $223 billion in interest that we really have to concern ourselves with on an annual basis.

223 billion/year is not small, it is 6% of federal budget. And it is projected grow fast, outpacing Medicare or Social Security

[Winstonm]

andrei, on 2016-November-25, 14:20, said:

You should read carefully what other people post here, try to understand the message and only after give an answer.

Your initial assertion was: "Second, the debt will automatically decrease with an expansion of the economy.", which I have quoted before my answer: "Thank you for telling us that the economy is contracting for the last 8 years and continues to do so."

My answer was a sarcastic comment to your assertion (note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).
US economy have expanded (at a very slow pace) in the last 8 years, but the debt have not automatically decreased. Quite the opposite I would say.




223 billion/year is not small, it is 6% of federal budget. And it is projected grow fast, outpacing Medicare or Social Security

You guys are trying to make the debt out to be such an emergency but it turns out all you really have to toss out as your massive problem is the payment of 6% of the federal budget? Really? 6%?

As for your first claim - get a grip - in 2015 Medicare alone was 15% of the federal budget, about $540 billion. Combined with Medicaid the percentage was 24% of the federal budget.

Nice try but I get to call BS. Thanks for playing. If you guys really can't make the arguments for lowering the national debt, I can make it for you as there are good reasons to do so - but IMO there is no urgent need or panic about the debt.

[Al_U_Card]

Debt is easy (but dangerous when it runs your financial decision-making process) and saving is hard (when it deprives you of needed resources). A question of earning power and fiscal security. Our debt-based economy has enured us to accepting levels of debt that can, under appropriate circumstances, cause insolvency or worse. Interest based debt that comes from unbacked securities is the banks way of leading borrowers to indebted servitude. Why this is allowed or even accepted is quite the tour de force by the financial community and ranks right up there with leveraging and margin calls.

[Kaitlyn S]

andrei, on 2016-November-25, 14:20, said:

(note to self: no sarcasm anymore, people just don't get it).

The allegedly obtuse girl got it.

[Winstonm]

Really? That's all?

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-24, 13:46, said:

I am curious - and I think it would help you understand your own position - to clarify why you consider the national debt a big problem and how (specifically) would that debt turn into a national security problem - and equally importantly, is it even plausible to think it could happen?

Again, have to answer quickly. The problem as I see it is that while now lenders have faith that the USA can meet their debt obligations, if the USA makes a major commitment to climate control, enough of our lenders will lose that faith (thinking that we are biting off more than we can chew) that they will be unwilling to buy our debt. If one of our bond offerings is undersubscribed, we default and our economy falls apart as the government ceases to exist due to lack of funds.

It's not a great fear but it's possible. When I have more time, I'll discuss further.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-25, 21:06, said:

Again, have to answer quickly. The problem as I see it is that while now lenders have faith that the USA can meet their debt obligations, if the USA makes a major commitment to climate control, enough of our lenders will lose that faith (thinking that we are biting off more than we can chew) that they will be unwilling to buy our debt. If one of our bond offerings is undersubscribed, we default and our economy falls apart as the government ceases to exist due to lack of funds.

It's not a great fear but it's possible. When I have more time, I'll discuss further.

Your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Treasury auctions and the policies of the buyers makes it difficult if not impossible to have a discussion. I know it was written quickly, but the scenario you presented above is silly to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of monetary affairs.

Put simply, one cannot apply to countries and governments the same impulses that guide individuals and families as it applies to debt and monetary policies. Uncle Joe may fear that Bill's windmill might go broke so he won't lend him money; that fear does not apply to China buying U.S. t-bonds; China does not fear the U.S. going broke. It is a ludicrous idea.

[alok c]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-25, 23:26, said:

Your lack of understanding of the mechanisms of Treasury auctions and the policies of the buyers makes it difficult if not impossible to have a discussion. I know it was written quickly, but the scenario you presented above is silly to anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of monetary affairs.

Put simply, one cannot apply to countries and governments the same impulses that guide individuals and families as it applies to debt and monetary policies. Uncle Joe may fear that Bill's windmill might go broke so he won't lend him money; that fear does not apply to China buying U.S. t-bonds; China does not fear the U.S. going broke. It is a ludicrous idea.

Treasury Bond comes under the purview of sovereign guarantee.It's viability depends upon so many factors e.g stature of the country in the world,stature of economy,GDP,fiscal deficit,current a/c deficit,ratio of total loan to GDP,ratio of external loan to GDP,stability of the country etc.It is a very complecated excercise.Considering above factors(there are many others),US T-bond will be preferred destination for all countries in forciable future unless some adverse action is taken & the economy takes a nose dive.

[Al_U_Card]

alok c, on 2016-November-26, 07:29, said:

Treasury Bond comes under the purview of sovereign guarantee.It's viability depends upon so many factors e.g stature of the country in the world,stature of economy,GDP,fiscal deficit,current a/c deficit,ratio of total loan to GDP,ratio of external loan to GDP,stability of the country etc.It is a very complecated excercise.Considering above factors(there are many others),US T-bond will be preferred destination for all countries in forciable future unless some adverse action is taken & the economy takes a nose dive.

Let's not forget Trump's familiarity with going bankrupt to get out of financial difficulty...