You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #32: Your post reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy's reply to the repo man - "Oh, you'll take a check!?" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
OmahaBlueDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-23-11 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Your post reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy's reply to the repo man - "Oh, you'll take a check!?"
If the Federal government does not need to borrow, then why do we do it? Hell, why don't we simply authorize the Treasury print up 14,000 One-Billion dollar bills and pay everyone off? Problem solved.

The true constraint to Federal spending is gross domestic product. We do not have an infinite capacity to either spend or produce money. Imagine a homeowner with a valuable property and a home equity line of credit. They can keep borrowing, but at some point, no matter how vaulable their property is, they will outstrip the ability of their income to support the payments. Have we reached that point? Maybe or maybe not. The bottom line is that if we don't need to borrow, we shouldn't do it, and we should especially not borrow from foreign powers. If the fact is we do need to borrow, it should be a temporary state of affairs, and we should attempt to pay back the debt in the agreed-upon timeframe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Would you support a Balanced Budget Amendment and a cap on fed spending IF........ OmahaBlueDog  Jul-23-11 04:53 PM   #0 
  - I could never support a balanced budget amendment. In case  shraby   Jul-23-11 04:57 PM   #1 
  - The Balanced Budget Amendment proposals include an emergency override option  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 04:59 PM   #3 
  - States do not have the luxury of being able to print their own money like the fedgov does.  Cool Logic   Jul-23-11 05:18 PM   #14 
  - Any future crisis and social programs will be the first to go...  Fearless   Jul-23-11 04:59 PM   #2 
  - True, but if the budget were balanced and the debt started paying down  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 05:03 PM   #6 
     - That would only be true if Republicans didn't exist.  Fearless   Jul-23-11 05:06 PM   #8 
        - OK, suppose there were built in protections for Medicare, for example  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 05:08 PM   #9 
           - If say the Amendment precluded social programs then I would agree...  Fearless   Jul-23-11 05:16 PM   #12 
  - The largest defense expenditures are personnel costs.  MADem   Jul-23-11 05:01 PM   #4 
  - Prove it.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Jul-23-11 05:10 PM   #10 
     - Here ya go, add it all up.  MADem   Jul-23-11 10:01 PM   #35 
        - Operations and maintenance cost 33% more than personnel.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Jul-24-11 10:36 AM   #44 
           - You need to break down your O and M, though and weed out the "personnel" elements.  MADem   Jul-25-11 12:45 AM   #47 
              - Double booking horseshit.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Jul-25-11 04:55 PM   #48 
  - Constitutional Amendments are not tools to fix short term political problems  ThomWV   Jul-23-11 05:01 PM   #5 
  - We've been in debt as a nation now for a very long time.  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 05:04 PM   #7 
  - OK - if you want a balanced budget ammendment then...  Taverner   Jul-23-11 05:12 PM   #11 
  - So, if I understand correctly, you'd support it if the balancing were mostly on the revenue side  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 05:17 PM   #13 
     - And perhaps add FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights  Taverner   Jul-23-11 05:21 PM   #15 
  - No.  Chan790   Jul-23-11 05:29 PM   #16 
  - I don't think that Keynes ever envisioned deficit spending becoming the norm  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 06:42 PM   #20 
  - a balanced budget amendment  bowens43   Jul-23-11 05:40 PM   #17 
  - Consistently spending more than you take in is smart? That's just nuts.  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 06:56 PM   #24 
  - A balanced budget amendment is a very bad idea.  SheilaT   Jul-23-11 06:31 PM   #18 
  - I agree that we need to collect more revenue. I don't see how balancing the books is bad  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 06:44 PM   #22 
     - Balancing the books is bad in times of private sector de-leveraging.  girl gone mad   Jul-23-11 07:03 PM   #26 
        - No, Cutting spending is bad in times of private sector de-leveraging.  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 07:27 PM   #30 
           - Cutting spending and raising taxes are both bad moves in a downturn.  girl gone mad   Jul-23-11 07:35 PM   #31 
  - I wouldn't support a balanced budget amendment AT ALL  jmowreader   Jul-23-11 06:41 PM   #19 
  - In some states, where balanced budgeting is the law, the solution for this is a "rainy day" fund  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 06:51 PM   #23 
     - State governments are actually constrained in spending.  girl gone mad   Jul-23-11 07:08 PM   #27 
     - The Feds cannot endlessly accumulate debt nor can they simply print their way out  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 07:21 PM   #28 
        - The federal government doesn't need to borrow at all.  girl gone mad   Jul-23-11 07:25 PM   #29 
           - Your post reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy's reply to the repo man - "Oh, you'll take a check!?"  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 09:16 PM   #32 
              - Our borrowing is largely a gold standard relic..  girl gone mad   Jul-23-11 09:36 PM   #34 
                 - Your mistake is believing that there is any difference between any kind of debt  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 11:00 PM   #36 
                    - No, all debt is not the same.  girl gone mad   Jul-24-11 12:41 AM   #39 
                       - But if Timmy printed up the bills, the money would be devalued, and we'd have inflation  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-24-11 01:30 AM   #41 
                          - So we are in agreement that..  girl gone mad   Jul-24-11 02:30 AM   #43 
                             - I'll agree that it is one restraint  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-24-11 01:08 PM   #45 
     - Idaho has a rainy day fund...  jmowreader   Jul-24-11 12:01 AM   #38 
  - I'm unsure and will continue to read the replies to your thread. It's interesting so far.  KittyWampus   Jul-23-11 06:43 PM   #21 
  - Thanks  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 06:58 PM   #25 
  - The balancEd budget proposed is simply a cap on raising rich peoples taxes.  grahamhgreen   Jul-23-11 09:27 PM   #33 
  - Not necessarily  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-23-11 11:02 PM   #37 
     - I meant the specific proposal they now have on the table.  grahamhgreen   Jul-24-11 12:55 AM   #40 
        - Fair enough  OmahaBlueDog   Jul-24-11 01:31 AM   #42 
  - We would also need to do a few other things  booley   Jul-24-11 01:31 PM   #46 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC