The spending needs to stop

[myp]

This is a truly disturbing chart from the Washington Post concerning the debt that the government is building up. It really is scary:
http://www.politicalfray.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4&stc=1&d=1239594849

This is a video that puts the debt buildup into perspective by comparing it to other large spending packages throughout American history (adjusted for inflation):
[YOUTUBE]yREOUxo6Qdc[/YOUTUBE]

Does this seem acceptable to all of you Keynesians and people who think we need to throw trillions of dollars at the market? Our children will be paying for all of this- it isn't just going to go away.

 

[Sparks]

Spending got us into trouble, it makes no sense that it will get us out of trouble. But if the Republicans would not rein in spending, why would the traditional big government Democrats do it?

 

[DodgeFB]

Spending got us into trouble, it makes no sense that it will get us out of trouble. But if the Republicans would not rein in spending, why would the traditional big government Democrats do it?

It has to stop one way or the other. Eventually our money will be worthless and then (after it is too late) it will stop. Then what will ol throw more money at it do?

 

[The Parakeet]

Remember, most of this was just loans and investments in the companies. We'll get a good portion (if not a profit) back further down the road. It was also usually a way to stop further loss. I know that the loans to the auto industry were done partially because they saved money overall.

I've also heard that the budget is high because Obama's actually counting war costs. Bush always counted them as emergency expense so they weren't in the budget.

 

[GekiDan]

Well... I can say people can't stop spending money especially they need to buy food and other necessities. I think we can only minimize the spending costs but we can't definitely stop from spending. That's only my opinion.

 

[curious]

That chart makes me glad I don't have children and grandchidren. They are going to be the ones who pay the long term costs.

As far as the stereotype that Democrats spend and Republicans are fiscally responsible goes, it just doesn't wash. The Republicans spend more than they had. Bush came into a government that Clinton left with a balanced budget and a surplus, and proceeded to cut taxes and increase spending.

The Republicans always rant about how the Democrats 'tax and spend'. That is certainly better than the new Republican policy, which is 'don't tax and spend even more'.

 

[DodgeFB]

Remember, most of this was just loans and investments in the companies. We'll get a good portion (if not a profit) back further down the road. It was also usually a way to stop further loss. I know that the loans to the auto industry were done partially because they saved money overall.

I've also heard that the budget is high because Obama's actually counting war costs. Bush always counted them as emergency expense so they weren't in the budget.

We will get that money back just like we did the Social Security Fund when they spent it years ago. In my opinion it will never happen.

I am not even sure some of them want it back. They would rather keep the "control". Right or left we have some power hungry people running this country. It was bad. But now it is worse. We are on the down slide for now.

 

[The Parakeet]

Well some of it's preferred stock...so that comes back to us by default. It's basically a fancy loan. Plus more banks will hand the money back to get out from under the government's thumb as soon as they are healthy.

Social Security is definitely one screwed up thing though. It looks like it will hold on for your generation. We'll eventually have to make a decision about its future though.

 

[deanhills]

We will get that money back just like we did the Social Security Fund when they spent it years ago. In my opinion it will never happen.

Agreed. And I still wonder what the effect is going to be of 1.2-trillion! Are the people also going to be bailed out of debt, or only the BIG banks? And of course that means there will once again be a bubble in the making if the 1.2 trillion is not evenly distributed.

 

[Dirk]

"Investing in the future" is what Gordon Brown called it. Technically, yes, it would work, but it's difficult to buy your way out of a recession and the debt really builds up.

Thing is, companies should be spending more in a recession, not "tightening their belts". If their board is too brainless to identify a basic economic principle, we should let them fail. Recession is a means of removing inefficient and deadwood businesses.

If the Government wants to "help people" as it claims, then it should spend money on helping the PEOPLE, not the capitalists! The capitalists are the ones who failed in the first place, and they're just loving the injections of cash.

Government: "We don't understand what you're doing because our economists are nitwits, but here's an incredibly large amount of cash to help you with it." (Directs large truck of banknotes into car-park)

If we have to have capitalism (we don't), why do people not understand the basic principles of the world trade cycle?

 

[Glee]

With all these new eco-friendly programs going into effect and the Universal Health care system on the tips of Washingtons tongues, where do you think our politicians minds are at. Sure these things are fine (personally this eco-friendly stuff is garbage to me), but lets wait on them when we have the money to spare?

 

[DodgeFB]

With all these new eco-friendly programs going into effect and the Universal Health care system on the tips of Washingtons tongues, where do you think our politicians minds are at. Sure these things are fine (personally this eco-friendly stuff is garbage to me), but lets wait on them when we have the money to spare?

Here here!!

I do agree.

 

[curious]

"
If we have to have capitalism (we don't), why do people not understand the basic principles of the world trade cycle?

And the alternative you are proposing to capitalism is?

Ooops, you said carpark, so you must be British, a country most Americans think of as socialist.

 

[deanhills]

And the alternative you are proposing to capitalism is?

Ooops, you said carpark, so you must be British, a country most Americans think of as socialist.

Socialist and not doing that well either. I am wondering whether the UK is turning into a colony of the US. Investment wise anyway, as when the Banks in the US nearly failed, this rippled through to the UK. To me that told a story of its own.

 

[curious]

Socialist and not doing that well either. I am wondering whether the UK is turning into a colony of the US. Investment wise anyway, as when the Banks in the US nearly failed, this rippled through to the UK. To me that told a story of its own.

The UK had some unique problems of its own. At least we didn't have lots of people sending all their money off to Iceland because the interest rates were higher. Unless they have a lot of cash, most people in the US make sure they are covered by the FDIC. Once they get a balance over $100,000, they open an account at a different back, where the insurance limit will start all over. They would have been afraid of Iceland, I think.

 

[deanhills]

The UK had some unique problems of its own. At least we didn't have lots of people sending all their money off to Iceland because the interest rates were higher. Unless they have a lot of cash, most people in the US make sure they are covered by the FDIC. Once they get a balance over $100,000, they open an account at a different back, where the insurance limit will start all over. They would have been afraid of Iceland, I think.

That was pretty crazy. Seemed to have landed Iceland in problems too. Now that was really a bubble of bubbles in investments.

 

[Dirk]

And the alternative you are proposing to capitalism is?

Ooops, you said carpark, so you must be British, a country most Americans think of as socialist.

Fine, "parking lot" then, if you must. Though i don't concern myself over nationality (and i'm officially German).

Britain, socialist? *laughs* Good one, i should tell that one to my step-dad's employer! A welfare state is by no means socialist. I don't even class a social democracy as socialist.

I grew up in Britain, yes. And i'm a socialist, but veeery few people are around my level. Just under 2% in Britain agree with me, politically.

There are a lot of alternatives to capitalism, my friend. There's a centrally planned economy, with all or most industries nationalised (something i don't agree with). There's also a gift economy, which can follow a supply/demand structure or a basic bartering system. There is the decentralised distribution system, which works decently with both money and working directly with resources. There's a national protectionist economy. Individualist isolationist self-sustaining economies of various forms, usually centred on agriculture and small population:land availability ratio. And a communitarian economy, which usually goes alongside decentralised Government. State capitalism, as employed by the Soviet Union, works...

Those are alternatives - i don't necessarily agree with a lot of them. I could go on but i'm getting bored and you can combine a good few with one another. The fact is that at some point, people are going to realise that capitalism is inhumane and anti-democratic, among other things. As well as unsustainable. Nothing lasts forever and the reign of tyranny by a wealthy minority won't, either.

 

[deanhills]

There are a lot of alternatives to capitalism, my friend. There's a centrally planned economy, with all or most industries nationalised (something i don't agree with). There's also a gift economy, which can follow a supply/demand structure or a basic bartering system. There is the decentralised distribution system, which works decently with both money and working directly with resources. There's a national protectionist economy. Individualist isolationist self-sustaining economies of various forms, usually centred on agriculture and small population:land availability ratio. And a communitarian economy, which usually goes alongside decentralised Government. State capitalism, as employed by the Soviet Union, works...

Those are alternatives - i don't necessarily agree with a lot of them. I could go on but i'm getting bored and you can combine a good few with one another. The fact is that at some point, people are going to realise that capitalism is inhumane and anti-democratic, among other things. As well as unsustainable. Nothing lasts forever and the reign of tyranny by a wealthy minority won't, either.

Thanks for this posting Dirk. Learned quite a bit from it. Question for you. Do we really have capitalism in the US? The Banks for example are just too big to be described as capitalist (in my opinion anyway). And if one can bail them out, is that still capitalism. What system do you think does the US have at the moment?

 

[curious]

Fine, "parking lot" then, if you must. Though i don't concern myself over nationality (and i'm officially German).

Britain, socialist? *laughs* Good one, i should tell that one to my step-dad's employer! A welfare state is by no means socialist. I don't even class a social democracy as socialist.

I grew up in Britain, yes. And i'm a socialist, but veeery few people are around my level. Just under 2% in Britain agree with me, politically.

There are a lot of alternatives to capitalism, my friend. There's a centrally planned economy, with all or most industries nationalised (something i don't agree with). There's also a gift economy, which can follow a supply/demand structure or a basic bartering system. There is the decentralised distribution system, which works decently with both money and working directly with resources. There's a national protectionist economy. Individualist isolationist self-sustaining economies of various forms, usually centred on agriculture and small population:land availability ratio. And a communitarian economy, which usually goes alongside decentralised Government. State capitalism, as employed by the Soviet Union, works...

Those are alternatives - i don't necessarily agree with a lot of them. I could go on but i'm getting bored and you can combine a good few with one another. The fact is that at some point, people are going to realise that capitalism is inhumane and anti-democratic, among other things. As well as unsustainable. Nothing lasts forever and the reign of tyranny by a wealthy minority won't, either.

Thanks for pointing out that a welfare state isn't socialist. The Libertarians on the forum think that if we provide universal health care, that makes us a socialis country. Run, run, because the USSR had the world socialist in its name, so anything at all that it did must be bad. I wander if all libertarians refrain from Lasik surgery, since the basic technique represents the Soviet Union's one major medical advance not associated with the space program.

But I take issue with the Soviet Union having worked. They went belly up, remember? And our goal really is not to stand in line at stores because we heard a rumor they might have something, anything, to sell.

 

[The Parakeet]

Good post Dirk. Lots and lots of options that are all workable depending on what the people want.

The only truly bad thing would be a centralized economy similar to the Soviet Union. No central non-god body could ever outperform the market at directing priorities. History has shown that.

Everything else is just varying degrees of capitalism. Socialized medicine really isn't too much of a separation from capitalism though. Subsidizing something is generally seen as a minimally intrusive way to correct a market failure. If the people decide that the benefits of national healthcare outweigh individual tax costs...then that's just how it is.