Why Not Have a PERPETUAL U.S. Budget. The Shutdown Drama is Rediculous.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: carewemust

Whenever a politician of any party tells you that the US government is running out of money then they are either an idiot or they think you are an idiot (possibly both).

Mostly its the news media who are idiots. They're regurgitating the "will run out of money in ____hours unless..".

I think the media, politicians and even many economists are guilty of speaking down to the general public.

They assume that people are unable or unwilling to understand the actual economics.

It probably is more of "unwilling" than "unable", at this point. A FoxNews economist called it "getting into the weeds".

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: enlightenedservant


Thanks for explaining the intricacies of what happens after the government prints it's daily $564 million quota.

It's interesting that Bill Clinton was the last President to deliver a budget SURPLUS. But something went terribly wrong after he left office. According to this article, all the predictions of his surplus growing ever larger, deficits resumed, and ballooned.

What erased the Clinton Surplus: www.businessinsider.com...

There is a fairly convincing argument that the Clinton surplus was actually bad for the economy.

Government surpluses are only desirable under very limited circumstances.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

There is certainly no ticking time bomb.

It's comforting to know that the people who warn of an implosion every time the deficit ticks up another $1 Trillion, don't know what they're talking about. History thus far, has proven you to be correct. Thank-you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: enlightenedservant


Thanks for explaining the intricacies of what happens after the government prints it's daily $564 million quota.

It's interesting that Bill Clinton was the last President to deliver a budget SURPLUS. But something went terribly wrong after he left office. According to this article, all the predictions of his surplus growing ever larger, deficits resumed, and ballooned.

What erased the Clinton Surplus: www.businessinsider.com...

There is a fairly convincing argument that the Clinton surplus was actually bad for the economy.

Government surpluses are only desirable under very limited circumstances.

No wonder there's so much division within the Republican party over "deficit spending", as it's called. The Freedom Caucus wing HATES deficits so much, that they're willing to shut-down the government over "irresponsible spending". They need to talk to you, LOL.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey


The US government didn't run a continued surplus up to 1850 although it did in aggregate over the time period. Which is entirely irrelevant as neither the monetary system not economy are remotely comparable to almost 200 years ago.

We'll disagree on its relevancy.

There are no mental gymnastics required just an understanding of macroeconomics. You find only a tiny minority of professional economists who would support a balanced budget. The debate is around levels and composition of deficit and debt, not that there should be none.

Well, considering that I cited...and I'll quote..."Yes, there are plenty of approaches with mental gymnastics that will show that government debt and over-spending is "a good thing," but it's not, and especially not in the extremes that we're doing it currently," I noted that I was talking about the extraordinary extremes at which we are operating at a deficit and accumulating debt. A little, that we pay back in appropriate timelines, is generally okay, but not what we're doing now.

Also, citing that there is only a "tiny minority" of professionals who support my stance is irrelevant--it's a logical fallacy to pretend that because a majority agrees with something, that it must be best. In my profession, the vast majority of people do their jobs terribly or only at barely-acceptable competency levels. That doesn't mean that the quality of their work is best.

I would say it is entirely the governments responsibility to stimulate the economy as required and evidence of last 80 years would certainly support that.

Okie dokie...but no, the evidence doesn't support that federal meddling and manipulation of the American economy has had a net positive effect. Of course, again, opinions differ, so you have yours, and I'll have mine.

Counter cyclical spending is well understood in economics, the issue has been it's under use. Largely as a result of politicians believing or pretending to believe the myth that Government budgets are like households.

Counter-cyclical spending is BS in a country that runs on a perpetual deficit and has a 613% ITD ratio. I could cite specifics and theories as to why, but your qualifications in economics should allow you to understand that.

In terms if I should be discussing fiscal policy. You will I trust forgive me if I value my qualification in economics and years working in financial services over the opinion of random bloke online.

You are forgiven.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

Actually, many Americans care, but unfortunately for the country (as proven in who gets repeatedly elected in certain areas of the country), most care with their emotions and not with their brains.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

People have figured that out for a long time, now, but it's at the expense of future generations and possibly the viability of the nation...and we have very few politicians willing to speak out on it AND constructively act on it. Yet, here in this thread, we have claimed professional economists trying to tell me that debt and deficit spending is better than a balanced budget, and that bail-outs of the economy during slow and low times in the economy are great and appropriate things.

It defies all logic, yet here it is.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

No, because we don't really know when our masters (the lenders) will come calling for their money in full, which is a possibility any time that you willfully become the slave to the lender. (that's improbably, but it could happen)

Hell, now that I read further down in the thread, you have a professional economist telling you that there's no ticking time bomb. Well, I guess that settles it, then.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Differences of opinion are welcome although only one us has described people with a different option as idiots.

I can provide links to people who believe the world is flat, doesn't make it an educated opinion.

There is a difference between the majority opinion and an overwhelmingly academic and professional consensus, so no not a logical fallacy. The fallacy is the believe that governent budgets are comparable to households.

There is also a clear difference between being critical of government policy and believing that doing nothing (which isn't a real option anyway) is best.

I didn't believe I said anything about needing bigger bailouts. (which were only a small part of deficit spending anyway).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

Actually, many Americans care, but unfortunately for the country (as proven in who gets repeatedly elected in certain areas of the country), most care with their emotions and not with their brains.

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

People have figured that out for a long time, now, but it's at the expense of future generations and possibly the viability of the nation...and we have very few politicians willing to speak out on it AND constructively act on it. Yet, here in this thread, we have claimed professional economists trying to tell me that debt and deficit spending is better than a balanced budget, and that bail-outs of the economy during slow and low times in the economy are great and appropriate things.

It defies all logic, yet here it is.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

No, because we don't really know when our masters (the lenders) will come calling for their money in full, which is a possibility any time that you willfully become the slave to the lender. (that's improbably, but it could happen)

Hell, now that I read further down in the thread, you have a professional economist telling you that there's no ticking time bomb. Well, I guess that settles it, then.

You do know that it isn't possible for anyone to come calling for the national debt in full don't you?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Differences of opinion are welcome although only one us has described people with a different option as idiots.

That still doesn't mean that people can't have different opinions. I'm just more direct in my comments, but don't think that a thinly veiled 'I'll trust my credentials over some random bloke on the internet' comment doesn't come with the "idiot" implication attached to it.

I can provide links to people who believe the world is flat, doesn't make it an educated opinion.

Right, which harkens back to my point that using logical fallacies makes a point irrelevant, especially when it concerns economic theories, where a different theory is a dime-a-dozen in the modern world.

I wasn't trying to say that I have an infallible approach to the problem by stating that I could provide a lot of differing links, that was only to point out that this isn't a new idea, nor is it without its merit.

There is a difference between the majority opinion and an overwhelmingly academic and professional consensus, so no not a logical fallacy. The fallacy is the believe that governent budgets are comparable to households.

Yes, utilizing the bandwagon argument and the appeal-to-authority aspect in an argument are both logical fallacies.


And no, it's not a fallacy to compare similar approaches to government and household fiscal policy, but again, you are absolutely able to hold your own opinion.

There is also a clear difference between being critical of government policy and believing that doing nothing (which isn't a real option anyway) is best.

I didn't believe I said anything about needing bigger bailouts. (which were only a small part of deficit spending anyway).

You specifically cited "counter cyclical spending,' which in and of itself talks about the government 'investing money" (bailing out) parts of the national economy during 'hard times.' You also noted that "the issue is its under use," implying that we should be doing more, or larger bailout,s during rough times in the economy.

If I've misunderstood your meaning, please elaborate, because it seems pretty cut and dry.

Also, citing something as being "only a small part of deficit spending anyway" is a lazy approach to the problem. We might as well do nothing, then, because any measurable adjustments to things that are a large part of deficit spending would be too much of a shock to the system all at once in the U.S., so why even bother trying to chip away at the problem...right?

The status quo as to how the federal government treats its revenue, deficit, and debt is a piss-poor example of how to do things. That's a pretty simple claim to prove--what the fix is, I suppose, is up for debate.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

You do know that it isn't possible for anyone to come calling for the national debt in full don't you?

Sure, just like I know that it isn't possible for anyone to shoot up a school because there are laws and policies against that happening.

If there's nothing that I haven't figured out through my experiences in life, it's that there isn't anything that "isn't possible" when it comes to people/nations and their money.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be."

That's sound advice, for individuals, households, businesses, municipalities, and nations. You are free to differ in opinion.

Best regards, as I don't think that this debate will end up going anywhere constructive.

a reply to: carewemust

Most wealthy investors & powerful institutions would never want the US to pay off all of its federal debt because it's one of the safest investments on the planet.

Look at this chart for a second (HERE). While these rates usually aren't enough to overcome inflation, it's still one of the easiest and safest ways to maintain the value of your money. And remember, we're talking about companies and sovereign wealth funds that manage 100s of millions of dollars to 10s of billions of dollars. They literally can't afford to lose 10% or more of the value of their assets just because of a market "correction".

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, most Americans don't care as much as you do. Elected politicians continually overspend with almost no blow-back from the public.

I've heard warnings about how our deficit is a "ticking time bomb" for a couple of decades now. Has anyone stated when that time-bomb will explode?

No, because we don't really know when our masters (the lenders) will come calling for their money in full, which is a possibility any time that you willfully become the slave to the lender. (that's improbably, but it could happen)

Hell, now that I read further down in the thread, you have a professional economist telling you that there's no ticking time bomb. Well, I guess that settles it, then.

Is there no other country that has run up a huge deficit to the point where the "bomb" exploded? History might teach us something.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thank-you for explaining why stable long-term Treasury notes (even at 1.6%) are appealing to large investors. I have a couple of additional questions, but they'd keep this thread off-topic.


What's more concerning to me is why Congress is attempting to do a spending bill with a duration that could range from 5 days, to 30 days. And why there's so much Congressional drama associated with such a small item. In 5 - 30 days, we'll be right back where we are today... bickering...threatening..etc.

a reply to: carewemust

They refuse to pass a real budget. On December 7th they passed a continuing resolution that kept the govt open through December 22nd (HERE). Then on December 21st they passed another continuing resolution that lasted until this current "crisis" (HERE).

From my perspective, it looks like they're going to keep doing this as a negotiation tactic until they can pressure Democrats into helping them pass a comprehensive Republican budget. In other words, I don't think Repubs have the votes among their own caucus to push through their initiatives, as the continued failed Obamacare repeals proved. But instead of real bipartisanship (allowing both parties to create a budget that pleases everyone), Republicans seem to be using the CHIP program as the "carrot" to get Democratic support this time.

But Democrats so far are holding out for DACA legislation as well as the funding of CHIP for 5 or 6 years. Democrats seem to be banking on the fact that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and will be blamed for any shutdown or for CHIP not getting funded, while Republicans seem to be banking on the fact that Democrats don't want the federal govt to be shut down. We'll see in a few days what happens (I'm expecting it to pass).

a reply to: carewemust

Right, shut downs are detrimental to certain workers regardless of which party pushes for them. The last shutdown was perpetuated by conservatives, and this one seems to be Democrats that are doing it, despite controlling neither the House, Senate, or Presidency. I could be wrong, but I got the impression that this time around, Trump and Republicans were trying to keep the government running.

a reply to: carewemust

Here is an example:

Yes, governments CAN go bankrupt. And no, it’s NOT impossible…

In the year 1517, one of the most important innovations in financial history was invented in Amsterdam: the government bond.

It was a pretty revolutionary concept.

Governments had been borrowing money for thousands of years… quite often at the point of a sword.

Italian city-states like Venice and Florence had been famously demanding “forced loans” from their wealthy citizens for centuries.

But the Dutch figured out how to turn government loans into an “investment”.

It caught on slowly. But eventually government bonds became an extremely popular asset class.

Secondary markets developed where people who owned bonds could sell them to other investors.

Even simple coffee shops turned into financial exchanges where investors and traders would buy and sell bonds.

In time, the government realized that its creditworthiness was paramount, and the Dutch developed a reputation as being a rock-solid bet.

This practice caught on across the world. International markets developed.

English investors bought French bonds. French investors bought Dutch bonds. Dutch investors bought American bonds.

(By 1803, Dutch investors owned a full 25% of US federal debt. By comparison, the Chinese own about 5.5% of US debt today.)

Throughout it all, debt levels kept rising.

The Dutch government used government bonds to live beyond its means, borrowing money to fund everything imaginable– wars, infrastructure, and ballooning deficits.

But people kept buying the bonds, convinced that the Dutch government will never default.

Everyone was brainwashed; the mere suggestion that the Dutch government would default was tantamount to blasphemy.

It didn’t matter that the debt level was so high that by the early 1800s the Dutch government was spending 68% of tax revenue just to service the debt.

Well, in 1814 the impossible happened: the Dutch government defaulted.

And the effects were devastating.

www.sovereignman.com...

So if you think about it Dutch bonds blew up with interest on the bonds hit 68% of tax revenue, and if you looked at our finances today we are worse shape. Because, nearly 78% of our tax revenues are going to meet entitlement spending and interest on the debt.

The Dutch didn't have entitlement spending like we have today, so we've actually pushed the bubble further than they have.

CNN Headline Tonight: No Clear Path to Avoid Government Shutting Down.

CNN Headline on 11/7/2016: No Clear Path to Trump Victory.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Interest on US debt is a single figure % of spending and no adding on mandatory government spending is not the same.

The Dutch guilder was on a metal standard. Countries that borrow against a redemmable currency can unwilling default. Countries that borrow foreign currencies can also unwillingly default. Neither applies to the US.

There was also a little skirmish called the Napoleonic wars that happened around then which had a fairly significant impact on the Netherlands.

Countries which issue there own fiat currency do not really borrow their own money from anyone (who would they borrow from?). Instead they are exchanging a non interest bearing form of money for an interest bearing one.

There is good debate about if the process is necessary, beneficial or detrimental. However it is not borrowing in the sense that an individual or a government that does not issue it's own currency does.

This is hilarious. The republicans have the house, the senate, and the presidency. And they are begging and stomping their little feet for the Democrats to come to their rescue. Ain’t that just like a republican, gimme more.