CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
-
believer
Not at all. The public sees all politicians as corrupt and in it for one thing....the money.Footwedge wrote:Only the election of libertarians across the board would have any impact at all.
And the libertarian people are viewed as neandrathols.
If you think libertarians would somehow be immune from the power grabbing, back room dealing, lobbyists, corruption, etc. then your are a naive Neanderthal.
Therefore since the libertarians seem to suck at raising the capital needed to challenge the political status quo, I guess I have to keep picking the corrupt money grabbing politicians who are most likely able to meet my beliefs in less government, lower taxes, and strong national defense.
It certainly ain't the corrupt money grabbing brain-dead Big Government socialist twits currently in the drivers seat.
Besides if the libertarians suck at raising capital and marketing their "the porridge is just right" brand of politics, what makes you think they'd do such a wonderful job at national governance? The proof is in the - um - pudding. -
Writerbuckeye
Libertarians will end up making the same mistakes as everyone else if they ever get into power -- because power DOES corrupt.
That said, my point stands: I don't recall economists back when Perot was squawking on TV making some of the same dire predictions we're seeing now with regard to the percent of debt/GDP.
In any case...if the worst case scenario does happen and the Dems have continued to push through all these major spending plans despite the warnings -- they will get the blame.
That's how it works in Washington. -
majorspark
Quite true. Centralizing more and more of it in Washington will only make it worse. Power needs to be balanced. This is why I believe Washington needs to get smaller and restore the proper balance of power with the state governments intended by most of the founders. Everything does not have to be filtered through DC in order to get things done. In fact I would argue that in many cases it is a hindrance.Writerbuckeye wrote: Libertarians will end up making the same mistakes as everyone else if they ever get into power -- because power DOES corrupt. -
believer
That's the beauty of this thing. The Dems own 100% of this debacle.Writerbuckeye wrote:In any case...if the worst case scenario does happen and the Dems have continued to push through all these major spending plans despite the warnings -- they will get the blame.
Tip O'Neill was absolutely dead-on when he said, "All politics is local." It's s shame his own party can't see the wisdom in it.majorspark wrote:Quite true. Centralizing more and more of it in Washington will only make it worse. Power needs to be balanced. This is why I believe Washington needs to get smaller and restore the proper balance of power with the state governments intended by most of the founders. Everything does not have to be filtered through DC in order to get things done. In fact I would argue that in many cases it is a hindrance. -
Footwedgebeliever wrote:Footwedge wrote:Only the election of libertarians across the board would have any impact at all.
And the libertarian people are viewed as neandrathols.
OK.Not at all. The public sees all politicians as corrupt and in it for one thing....the money.
What I know is that libertarians would put an end to unnecessary spending. The country would be in a complete tailspin for 4 or 5 years. And then the financial house would be back in order. What's clear, neither the Dems nor the GOP have any inclination towards stopping the printing press. People will eventually start starving in this country....but "not on their watch"If you think libertarians would somehow be immune from the power grabbing, back room dealing, lobbyists, corruption, etc. then your are a naive Neanderthal.
Ron Paul was actually pretty damn good at raising capital in his presidential run. But most libertarians view running for governmental office as fundamentally counter to their own beliefs. As such, you will never see them en masse make a dent in the "base 2" or binary political structure.Therefore since the libertarians seem to suck at raising the capital needed to challenge the political status quo, I guess I have to keep picking the corrupt money grabbing politicians who are most likely able to meet my beliefs in less government, lower taxes, and strong national defense.
And again, you people cause my Miller Lite to shoot out my nose. Blame the "socialist twits" in office...versus the "socialist twits" that ran the show from 2000 through 2008.It certainly ain't the corrupt money grabbing brain-dead Big Government socialist twits currently in the drivers seat.
Reminds me of the Browns unis. They wear white jerseys on the road, and brown at home. Same shitty football team.
Redundant question...already answered above.Besides if the libertarians suck at raising capital and marketing their "the porridge is just right" brand of politics, what makes you think they'd do such a wonderful job at national governance? The proof is in the - um - pudding. -
I Wear Pants
I don't see how you think rich dudes in Columbus would make better choices than the rich dudes in DC currently do.majorspark wrote:
Quite true. Centralizing more and more of it in Washington will only make it worse. Power needs to be balanced. This is why I believe Washington needs to get smaller and restore the proper balance of power with the state governments intended by most of the founders. Everything does not have to be filtered through DC in order to get things done. In fact I would argue that in many cases it is a hindrance.Writerbuckeye wrote: Libertarians will end up making the same mistakes as everyone else if they ever get into power -- because power DOES corrupt. -
majorspark
Where did I compare DC and Columbus specifically? Can any government suck? Yes. Evan the smallest city council or township trustees can do some pretty stupid things. What are the chances they all suck at once? The smaller they are the easier they are to change.I Wear Pants wrote:
I don't see how you think rich dudes in Columbus would make better choices than the rich dudes in DC currently do.majorspark wrote:
Quite true. Centralizing more and more of it in Washington will only make it worse. Power needs to be balanced. This is why I believe Washington needs to get smaller and restore the proper balance of power with the state governments intended by most of the founders. Everything does not have to be filtered through DC in order to get things done. In fact I would argue that in many cases it is a hindrance.Writerbuckeye wrote: Libertarians will end up making the same mistakes as everyone else if they ever get into power -- because power DOES corrupt.
The more power is dispersed the less chance that greater power falls into the hands of a few corrupt individuals. Corporations literally have offices in DC just to lobby the feds. If you don't like what the boys in Columbus are up to you are free to move about the country. If the boys in Washington are blowing it... well?? -
CenterBHSFan
Footie,
What do you propose people to do about Bush NOW? It's a little late, dontcha think?
Or, maybe they're just tired of bitching about something that cannot be effected now anyway?
I don't know. What I do know is that I'm not going to hold on to Bush anymore than I will hold on to Obama after he's gone. Just like I don't hold on to any other President since I've been born.
Know what I mean?
Also,
WTF! Don't tell me!!! LOLReminds me of the Browns unis. They wear white jerseys on the road, and brown at home. Same shitty football team. -
Footwedge
I come here to learn some and to laugh some. The entertainment value is good.CenterBHSFan wrote: Footie,
What do you propose people to do about Bush NOW? It's a little late, dontcha think?
My replies have very little to do with Bush...just an overview what what's transpired in the course of my lifetime.
You and I are diametrically different. You claim to be a dem, yet demonstrate all conservative views, whether it be foreign or domestic. I, on the other hand, used to be a die hard GOPer, but now have changed my thnbking process on the party over the years.
And yet....nary a tense moment between us. Maybe you should be president, and I could be VP.
We would have the world operating in perfect unison. Utopia can be a reality. -
believer
After the lobbyists and special interest groups line their wallets methinks not but let's just agree to disagree.Footwedge wrote:What I know is that libertarians would put an end to unnecessary spending. -
Footwedge
And because they don't believe in special interest groups, that is the reason why they won't get elected in the first place.believer wrote:
After the lobbyists and special interest groups line their wallets methinks not but let's just agree to disagree.Footwedge wrote:What I know is that libertarians would put an end to unnecessary spending. -
believer
^^^EVERY politician can be bought at the right price.
-
bigmanbtI can tell ya one thing, if I was ever elected to Congress, as a Libertarian (or classical liberal) I would not accept a dime. My principles will not be compromised by anything. Money, power, fame, none of that matters to me. What matters to me is FREEDOM. If I am free, I'm happy. I do plan on running for office someday, but it's probably not wise to do so now at the age of 23.
In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. ~Thomas Jefferson -
believer
I used to have the same ideals at your age. But that idealism gave way to realism after 30 years of witnessing the non-stop idiocy infecting the DC Beltway. Hold on to that idealism as long as you can. If enough people like you stick with it maybe - just maybe - there is hope for this country's future.bigmanbt wrote: I can tell ya one thing, if I was ever elected to Congress, as a Libertarian (or classical liberal) I would not accept a dime. My principles will not be compromised by anything. Money, power, fame, none of that matters to me. What matters to me is FREEDOM. If I am free, I'm happy. I do plan on running for office someday, but it's probably not wise to do so now at the age of 23.
In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. ~Thomas Jefferson
Now back to reality...... -
ptown_trojans_1
As someone who has been "inside the beltway" for three years now, the idealism is fading. I see signs of hope, but largely realism of the corruption and ignorance of both sides is setting in.believer wrote:
I used to have the same ideals at your age. But that idealism gave way to realism after 30 years of witnessing the non-stop idiocy infecting the DC Beltway. Hold on to that idealism as long as you can. If enough people like you stick with it maybe - just maybe - there is hope for this country's future.bigmanbt wrote: I can tell ya one thing, if I was ever elected to Congress, as a Libertarian (or classical liberal) I would not accept a dime. My principles will not be compromised by anything. Money, power, fame, none of that matters to me. What matters to me is FREEDOM. If I am free, I'm happy. I do plan on running for office someday, but it's probably not wise to do so now at the age of 23.
In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. ~Thomas Jefferson
Now back to reality...... -
believer
^^^Transforming that growing realism into true "Hope & Change" is the key to the future. The kind of "Hope & Change" I see at the moment is pretty much "Dope & Strange."
-
Belly35
Sleepwalking towards disaster
Apr 8th 2010
From The Economist print edition
To prevent a looming economic disaster, Japan urgently needs radical change
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868024
Remember to add link-ptown
FOR years foreign observers gave warning that Japan’s combination of economic stagnation and rising public debt was unsustainable. Over the past two decades the country has stumbled in and out of deflation, slipped down the global league tables on many social indicators and amassed the largest gross public debt-to-GDP ratio in the world (a whopping 190%). Yet government-bond yields have remained stubbornly low and living standards, by and large, are high. Visit the country and you will see no outward sign of crisis. Politicians and policymakers have bickered and schemed, but have mostly chosen to leave things as they are.
That cannot go on much longer. The figures are getting worse. Japan urgently needs radical policies to tackle the problems, and new leaders to implement them.
Triple troubles
There are three big reasons why the crisis in Japan’s public finances will eventually come to a head. The first concerns government bonds. The state has for years relied on domestic savers to buy them. But as Japan’s people age and run down their savings, they will have less money to invest in government bonds. An IMF paper calculates that even if the savings rate remains close to where it is now, gross debt may exceed gross household assets by 2015. Japan might then have to rely on foreigners to finance its debt, and they will want much higher returns. That will, at the very least, provide an acute reality check. Goldman Sachs says some foreign investors are already positioning themselves for a “meltdown”.
The second, more immediate problem is deflation. Falling prices may have helped the government by providing its bondholders with invisible gains, but in other ways deflation is a menace. It pushes the debt-to-GDP ratio inexorably higher. As expectations of deflation become entrenched—35% of Japanese expect prices to be the same or lower in five years’ time—they will continue to depress consumption.
Third, despite the recent pick-up in global economic activity, Japan cannot count on foreign demand being strong enough for it to sustain export-led growth, as it did in the past decade. Without a stronger domestic economy, growth will not generate enough tax revenue to reduce the debt. One ominous sign is that in the 2010 budget implemented on April 1st, borrowing, at ¥44 trillion ($468 billion), is for the first time forecast to exceed tax revenues, at ¥37 trillion.
Japan’s efforts to tackle these problems have resembled a big whimper (see article). What is needed is a big bang. That means structural reforms to raise productivity, fiscal reforms to boost growth and a strong monetary stimulus, all at once, to shock the economy back to life. These could range from an overhaul of the tax code to deregulation of farming and the opening up of protected areas of the economy, such as transport and energy, to foreign competition. A sensible short-term aim for the government would be robust nominal GDP growth. That would help stop the debt-to-GDP ratio rising, and would also ensure that the authorities did not prematurely choke off a recovery because of concerns about inflation.
But all this assumes that policymakers want to be bold. The current crop is anything but. Last September, when almost 55 years of one-party rule came to an end, there were faint hopes that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPj) might take a fresh approach. It has not done so. Yukio Hatoyama, the prime minister, and his most influential backer, Ichiro Ozawa, have since been caught up in election-funding scandals that have shredded the government’s credibility. They are clinging to their jobs, more concerned with their own futures than that of the DPj, or indeed Japan.
Enlightened economic policymaking suffers most. Mr Hatoyama prevaricates over fiscal reform, arguing that Japan should wait until the next general election in 2013 before shaking up the tax system. He is wrong. Japan urgently needs cuts in business taxes, perhaps, as well as a gradually higher spending tax. The ousted Liberal Democrats are just as out of touch (see article). When a group of supposed reformers left the splintering party this week to set up a new outfit, it could have grabbed the fiscally conservative, business friendly centre. Instead it moved to the right, as if anti-immigrant nationalism were the tonic Japan needs.
It is time for more fiscally astute members of Mr Hatoyama’s government to set the agenda. The main opposition, too, needs regime change. Japan’s old guard worries that radical steps will precipitate an economic crisis, and so prefers the status quo. It does not realise how inherently dangerous the status quo is. -
BCBulldog
If that's not a cautionary tale, I don't know what it!! -
I Wear PantsBelly35 wrote: Sleepwalking towards disaster
Apr 8th 2010
From The Economist print edition
To prevent a looming economic disaster, Japan urgently needs radical change
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868024
Remember to add link-ptown
FOR years foreign observers gave warning that Japan’s combination of economic stagnation and rising public debt was unsustainable. Over the past two decades the country has stumbled in and out of deflation, slipped down the global league tables on many social indicators and amassed the largest gross public debt-to-GDP ratio in the world (a whopping 190%). Yet government-bond yields have remained stubbornly low and living standards, by and large, are high. Visit the country and you will see no outward sign of crisis. Politicians and policymakers have bickered and schemed, but have mostly chosen to leave things as they are.
That cannot go on much longer. The figures are getting worse. Japan urgently needs radical policies to tackle the problems, and new leaders to implement them.
Triple troubles
There are three big reasons why the crisis in Japan’s public finances will eventually come to a head. The first concerns government bonds. The state has for years relied on domestic savers to buy them. But as Japan’s people age and run down their savings, they will have less money to invest in government bonds. An IMF paper calculates that even if the savings rate remains close to where it is now, gross debt may exceed gross household assets by 2015. Japan might then have to rely on foreigners to finance its debt, and they will want much higher returns. That will, at the very least, provide an acute reality check. Goldman Sachs says some foreign investors are already positioning themselves for a “meltdown”.
The second, more immediate problem is deflation. Falling prices may have helped the government by providing its bondholders with invisible gains, but in other ways deflation is a menace. It pushes the debt-to-GDP ratio inexorably higher. As expectations of deflation become entrenched—35% of Japanese expect prices to be the same or lower in five years’ time—they will continue to depress consumption.
Third, despite the recent pick-up in global economic activity, Japan cannot count on foreign demand being strong enough for it to sustain export-led growth, as it did in the past decade. Without a stronger domestic economy, growth will not generate enough tax revenue to reduce the debt. One ominous sign is that in the 2010 budget implemented on April 1st, borrowing, at ¥44 trillion ($468 billion), is for the first time forecast to exceed tax revenues, at ¥37 trillion.
Japan’s efforts to tackle these problems have resembled a big whimper (see article). What is needed is a big bang. That means structural reforms to raise productivity, fiscal reforms to boost growth and a strong monetary stimulus, all at once, to shock the economy back to life. These could range from an overhaul of the tax code to deregulation of farming and the opening up of protected areas of the economy, such as transport and energy, to foreign competition. A sensible short-term aim for the government would be robust nominal GDP growth. That would help stop the debt-to-GDP ratio rising, and would also ensure that the authorities did not prematurely choke off a recovery because of concerns about inflation.
But all this assumes that policymakers want to be bold. The current crop is anything but. Last September, when almost 55 years of one-party rule came to an end, there were faint hopes that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPj) might take a fresh approach. It has not done so. Yukio Hatoyama, the prime minister, and his most influential backer, Ichiro Ozawa, have since been caught up in election-funding scandals that have shredded the government’s credibility. They are clinging to their jobs, more concerned with their own futures than that of the DPj, or indeed Japan.
Enlightened economic policymaking suffers most. Mr Hatoyama prevaricates over fiscal reform, arguing that Japan should wait until the next general election in 2013 before shaking up the tax system. He is wrong. Japan urgently needs cuts in business taxes, perhaps, as well as a gradually higher spending tax. The ousted Liberal Democrats are just as out of touch (see article). When a group of supposed reformers left the splintering party this week to set up a new outfit, it could have grabbed the fiscally conservative, business friendly centre. Instead it moved to the right, as if anti-immigrant nationalism were the tonic Japan needs.
It is time for more fiscally astute members of Mr Hatoyama’s government to set the agenda. The main opposition, too, needs regime change. Japan’s old guard worries that radical steps will precipitate an economic crisis, and so prefers the status quo. It does not realise how inherently dangerous the status quo is.