China’s economy the worst in 27yrs!

40 years? That goes back to when Reagan was elected. He inherited a stagflation mess from Jimmy Carter - do you cut him as much slack as you give obama for the economy Bush handed off? I seem to recall it was democrats who were the ones warning about deficits back then, not Republicans. Originally Posted by lustylad

no, it was the Republicans then, too. but I give Reagan credit for keeping Paul Volker as Fed Chairman, he is the Architect of the economic recovery back then.


sidebar: whoever loaded up and bought 30-year Treasuries around 1980, would have made a crap-load of money, with virtually no risk. who had time to worry about the hostages in Iran, fuck, how am I going to eat and fill up my gas tank?

but it's Accounting only.. what difference does it make if the Federal Government is "bankrupt"? they control the money supply, just create more. how is Trump crazy? paying back the borrowed money at cheap rates, after the added currency creates spending, jobs, assets? you can't borrow to prosperity, because you don't have Fiat currency power. but the US Government can't either, except to the extent the added spending creates wealth through spending.. it does that, granted it is minimal in today's economic climate. but the economy is very good, all of you agree on that.. so why the furrowed brows over Government spending? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

What the fuck are you talking about paying back borrowed money.
All the Gumment is doing is paying the interest on the principle...they aren't touching the principle. The principle is just growing bigger and bigger every day.

This shit is just a dog chasing its tail...borrow more money to pay the interest on the larger amount borrowed as your liability increases. This is just a vicious cycle.

When they don't have enough money to pay just the interest on the debt that is skyrocketing daily...what is the fucking answer then.

You say "just create more money"...I asked you why not print the 24 TRILLION and pay off the debt. PLEASE ANSWER THAT CHUNG!!
My question is when will the interest on the debt be so high that just paying that off will be a financial meltdown...because the debt isn't decreasing it's just getting higher alone the the interest owed.

Please tell me chung were has any country EVER spent their way to prosperity??

https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php...y_to_prosperit

I guess I should have pointed out that mildly increasing deficits do not matter because they get absorbed over time and when you are the one country in the history of the world able to print money and all the other suckers accept your currency you are temporarily winning the game until the day of reckoning. However, that day of reckoning will continue to be a slow motion train wreck, perhaps occurring over centuries and essentially the pain will be distributed to some winners and some losers.
I think with a sufficient number of inflation hedged assets such as productive real estate in economically viable areas you can protect your families interest adequately.

We have a fucked up country here that is actually propped up by our natural resources and our strong currency. Politicians want to spend money for the power it gives them and the chance to keep their job in "government service". You have a large group of people like me who do not want to pay any extra in taxes. Deficits ideally would at least not be expanded in boom times but we seem to not even be capable of holding them even.

It isn't like personal debt which I do not have. Personal debt wouldn't matter if I could legally print money and others legally took it, does it? Government debt isn't the same as personal debt, and it is also relative to what other governments are doing. Every government in the world runs deficits except maybe the Swiss and as a percentage of GDP we are not the worst so far. Everyone is playing chicken with this situation but since we have the strongest currency I think we will come out ahead.

To me the worst part of the debt isn't the eventual reckoning but the fact that it enables a class of shiftless and lazy assholes who do not work productively to live pretty well on unearned money. Deficit spending creates economic activity but since we use it to entice the world to come here for free goodies rather than hard work and sacrifice ultimately it will be like a resource curse similar to the countries that plundered their oil resources on partying and wild women rather than investing in the future.

I love wild women but I pay for that with my money. I wish we didn't run such huge deficits but no politician is going to get elected pushing austerity.

As I said before the best thing a person can do is accept the deficits and invest accordingly. Chung and I hardly agree on things but he is mostly right on this subject.

TARP helped the economy recover more than ARRA did in my opinion. TARP was launched under Bush and ARRA was signed by Obama in his first month in office (Feb. 2009). TARP didn't cost taxpayers a dime while ARRA added over $800 billion to the national debt. Most of ARRA was poorly spent. Little bang for the buck. Obama's economists inflated the expected Keynesian multipliers for politically favored spending categories like extended UC and federal transfers to fiscally profligate states run by dim-retards. Less than 12% of ARRA went to construction. As obama said, "we found out shovel ready didn't really mean shovel ready." What he meant was - I refused to cut through the red tape and fight the greenies who blocked all the truly worthwhile spending projects. So there are no Hoover Dams or Golden Gate bridges in obama's legacy. Just a weak and tepid recovery and misspent billions.

Instead of paying more careful attention to how ARRA was being spent/misspent, Obama was busy countering the recuperative effects of the stimulus by rolling out his mislabeled "Affordable Care Act" and a regulatory barrage that smothered the economy like a wet blanket. Originally Posted by lustylad

And just for additional upcoming election perspective. Didn't Obama put his "best man" on the handling of TARP and ARRA funds and how poorly they were delivered and actually used.

Can someone remind me of who that "best man" was?

And just for additional upcoming election perspective. Didn't Obama put his "best man" on the handling of TARP and ARRA funds and how poorly they were delivered and actually used.

Can someone remind me of who that "best man" was? Originally Posted by eccielover

The one he won’t endorse.

The one he won’t endorse. Originally Posted by bambino

Please tell me chung were has any country EVER spent their way to prosperity??
Originally Posted by bb1961

see fred's answer, he said it better than I could have

see fred's answer, he said it better than I could have Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Nice try Chung...when you have no answer point at the sky.
Please write to the Gumment and tell them to print the money to eliminate the debt...problem solved.
Don't forget to also ask them to print enough to take care of SS and Medicare so that there will NEVER be a insolvency problem.
Hell why do we need appropriations committees...just tell the treasury how much you need and...Walla!!
Spending is simple...just keep writing checks...no worries.
The Gumment can top a 100 TRILLION in no time ...if you let them.
Still haven't come up with that country chung...anybody please weigh-in.

Nice try Chung...when you have no answer point at the sky.
Please write to the Gumment and tell them to print the money to eliminate the debt...problem solved.
Don't forget to also ask them to print enough to take care of SS and Medicare so that there will NEVER be a insolvency problem.
Hell why do we need appropriations committees...just tell the treasury how much you need and...Walla!!
Spending is simple...just keep writing checks...no worries. Originally Posted by bb1961

no really, fred's answer was thorough and accurate.. he and I agree on this. the Government is printing enough to fund these programs.. what fred and I understand, and you don't (yet), is that this debt can roll over with little consequence to the economy.. this has been a 40 year policy, why has it not imploded yet?


your argument is predicated on the false idea, that the $24 trillion might be payable all at once, thus crippling our children and grandchildren. get over that notion.

no really, fred's answer was thorough and accurate.. he and I agree on this. the Government is printing enough to fund these programs.. what fred and I understand, and you don't (yet), is that this debt can roll over with little consequence to the economy.. this has been a 40 year policy, why has it not imploded yet?


your argument is predicated on the false idea, that the $24 trillion might be payable all at once, thus crippling our children and grandchildren. get over that notion. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Thank you kind sir.

people... please be careful of what terms you are using.

debt and deficit is not the same thing.

deficit doesn't matter too much...

but the debt however does.

it affects the purchasing value of the dollar. inflation may have been tamed, but it is still too high.

1970 = $100 would get you 2 cart loads of food.
2019 = $100 would get you 1/2 cart load of food.

think about that!

Carter didn't start the stagflation, Nixon started that, Carter only made it worse.

people... please be careful of what terms you are using.

debt and deficit is not the same thing.

deficit doesn't matter too much...

but the debt however does.

it affects the purchasing value of the dollar. inflation may have been tamed, but it is still too high.

1970 = $100 would get you 2 cart loads of food.
2019 = $100 would get you 1/2 cart load of food.

think about that!

Carter didn't start the stagflation, Nixon started that, Carter only made it worse. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Depends on where you shop.

$100 dollars at Central Market will just get you a basket full.

Debt is a cause of inflation so invest accordingly and let the government print the money that they waste rather than raise taxes.

1970 = $100 would get you 2 cart loads of food.
2019 = $100 would get you 1/2 cart load of food.

think about that!

Carter didn't start the stagflation, Nixon started that, Carter only made it worse. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

but you left out the fact that incomes are much higher! and I noticed you stopped after Nixon and Carter.. of course you did.. you had to. from Reagan forward, interest rates and inflation have been mild, DESPITE the ever-increasing deficit and debt! you know why? because growth has absorbed the increases, excess spending helped FUEL the growth. that's why Republicans and Democrats both unanimously agree to raise the debt ceiling when the time comes!

but you left out the fact that incomes are much higher! and I noticed you stopped after Nixon and Carter.. of course you did.. you had to. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I was correcting a posters mistake which regarding stagflation's origin with Jimmy Carter. that part wasn't correct.


incomes maybe higher, but the dollar was still devalued of its purchasing power.