[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 9:46 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question Today we still are in the land of timid little sheep politicians. Some are a bit braver than others. But still sheep, not lions. Could a lion get elected? Your following point illustrates why even the best politicians have to perform a balancing act between truth and pragmatism. Maybe when the public is educated sufficiently to understand it -- then the message will not be all dumbed down to 10 seconds sound bits -- and winks. And America (or its successors) will seriously look to competence, vision, integrity, facts and courage to tell them. And to proactively paint a real vision of the future -- not a reaction to polls. Gentlemen, your discussions have addressed the current situation in the world. There is fear in the world markets as to where the next misfortune will lie. But that is typical of the those who are attached to the world of phenominal existence. The situation in the USA is not as dire as people may think. We are now in the process of a major paradigm shift. The country is looking for someone who can disengage from the mistakes of the prior administrative administration. In jyotish, this paradigm shift is understood in the change of dashas or major period related to the USA jyotish chart. In November 2008, the USA will enter into a new phase of Mars. As indicated in the chart, the Mars period will augur a change in perception of the American's consciousness. It will be a sharp departure from the past administration's assumptions and expectations. Since the USA is the most influential country in the world in matters of economics, the change will be felt throughout the rest of the world. The election process that we are undergoing right now is part of that change. We as a nation is undergoing a major change in national consciousness. Thus, it is vital that the right candidates are elected in the executive positions to carry the country through its natural progression. The choice that the Americans make will be representative of its own national consciousness. In any case, the state of world affairs will follow suit. JR
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 1:23 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people? Ron Paul, but look where it got him. Well Ross Perot also in the 1992 election But, as in most things in life, you can't isolate one of many factors and draw conclusions about causation. That is, was there ANYTHING else about Paul and Perot that contributed to their losses? I think a lot. Some day -- a candidate will have the whole package -- and the courage to tell the truth about the budget deficits, national debt, foreign holds of debt, greenhouse gases and climate change, the need for energy independence and a REAL plan to achieve it, social security, medicare, etc ... Today we still are in the land of timid little sheep politicians. Some are a bit braver than others. But still sheep, not lions. Maybe when the public is educated sufficiently to understand it -- then the message will not be all dumbed down to 10 seconds sound bits -- and winks. And America (or its successors) will seriously look to competence, vision, integrity, facts and courage to tell them. And to proactively paint a real vision of the future -- not a reaction to polls.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 9:46 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question Today we still are in the land of timid little sheep politicians. Some are a bit braver than others. But still sheep, not lions. Could a lion get elected? Your following point illustrates why even the best politicians have to perform a balancing act between truth and pragmatism. Maybe when the public is educated sufficiently to understand it -- then the message will not be all dumbed down to 10 seconds sound bits -- and winks. And America (or its successors) will seriously look to competence, vision, integrity, facts and courage to tell them. And to proactively paint a real vision of the future -- not a reaction to polls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of new.morning Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 9:46 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question Today we still are in the land of timid little sheep politicians. Some are a bit braver than others. But still sheep, not lions. Could a lion get elected? Your following point illustrates why even the best politicians have to perform a balancing act between truth and pragmatism. Not at current time. The poorly educated, poor reasoning skills, high cognitive errors and bias of much of the populance points to how bad Americas education system is. And the need to dumb things down -- and to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Massive infusion of funding into education and in 20-30 years things will improve -- hopefully to the level below. (Work now for better schools and next time around -- we may get a far better education -- as well our peers.) Or massive shift in world consciousness -- whatever that is or means -- if it is real an substantive, Even then, education is critical I think. Maybe when the public is educated sufficiently to understand it -- then the message will not be all dumbed down to 10 seconds sound bits -- and winks. And America (or its successors) will seriously look to competence, vision, integrity, facts and courage to tell them. And to proactively paint a real vision of the future -- not a reaction to polls.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the national debt--but not by much. In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to the national debt. Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that the party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much to bear for any country. There should be a goal to at least reduce the debt by half in about 25 years. Once that's reached, there should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the national debt--but not by much. In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to the national debt. Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that the party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much to bear for any country. Really? -- what about a country with a GDP of 500 trillion? Or a country with a billion people? There should be a goal to at least reduce the debt by half in about 25 years. Based on yur inner world guide to a sound economy? Once that's reached, there should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. So in follows that the economy will be strongest if there is no national debt? pay for all bridges, highways, schools, buildings, in cash. Pay as you go? That would produce a stronger economy, everything else being equal than one with some debt? Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. You get big Palin points for skirting the question: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt Which is fine. Your points will go over big with hockey moms and Nascar dads everywhere. But you seem to be indicating that various debt levels as a % of GDP are all equally bad. It might be instructive to think about the questions and ponderif some levels of debt, at an appropriate level of GDP, might yield a more productive and robust economy, with higher income and wages than an economy with no federal debt. Do you favor no personal debt. Buy a house in all cash? And if building an apartment building to rent out homes for others -- this should be done in all upfront cash? Another question (which of course you don't need to answer -- but might be instructive if you try): is going into (more) debt ok or better than reducing debt, during a recession? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the national debt--but not by much. In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to the national debt. Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that the party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
Graph of national debt as % of GDP http://wasatchecon.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-national-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.html http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/165539.php As I pointed out yesterday, the debt / GNP ratio was lowest (in modern era) under Carter. Was the economy strongest during the Carter years? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much to bear for any country. Really? -- what about a country with a GDP of 500 trillion? Or a country with a billion people? There should be a goal to at least reduce the debt by half in about 25 years. Based on yur inner world guide to a sound economy? Once that's reached, there should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. So in follows that the economy will be strongest if there is no national debt? pay for all bridges, highways, schools, buildings, in cash. Pay as you go? That would produce a stronger economy, everything else being equal than one with some debt? Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. You get big Palin points for skirting the question: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt Which is fine. Your points will go over big with hockey moms and Nascar dads everywhere. But you seem to be indicating that various debt levels as a % of GDP are all equally bad. It might be instructive to think about the questions and ponderif some levels of debt, at an appropriate level of GDP, might yield a more productive and robust economy, with higher income and wages than an economy with no federal debt. Do you favor no personal debt. Buy a house in all cash? And if building an apartment building to rent out homes for others -- this should be done in all upfront cash? Another question (which of course you don't need to answer -- but might be instructive if you try): is going into (more) debt ok or better than reducing debt, during a recession? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the national debt--but not by much. In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to the national debt. Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that the party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much to bear for any country. Really? -- what about a country with a GDP of 500 trillion? Or a country with a billion people? Some economists like to play the numbers game by taking ratios for analyses. For my taste, a debt is a debt no matter how you take it. The ideal situation is to have zero debt. There should be a goal to at least reduce the debt by half in about 25 years. Based on yur inner world guide to a sound economy? Once that's reached, there should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. So in follows that the economy will be strongest if there is no national debt? pay for all bridges, highways, schools, buildings, in cash. Pay as you go? That would produce a stronger economy, everything else being equal than one with some debt? Ideally, yes. But in the real world one has to borrow money to pay for big ticket items--those that are essential. Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. You get big Palin points for skirting the question: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt I proposed to cut the national debt in half at first to relieve the debt burden. You can figure out the ratio to around 30 percent or so. Once that goal is reached, the debt ratio can be reduced to 15 percent. The idea is to reduce the excessive debt that the US has now. The ideal is zero debt. IMO, the US was able to function without any debt in its past economic history. Which is fine. Your points will go over big with hockey moms and Nascar dads everywhere. But you seem to be indicating that various debt levels as a % of GDP are all equally bad. It might be instructive to think about the questions and ponderif some levels of debt, at an appropriate level of GDP, might yield a more productive and robust economy, with higher income and wages than an economy with no federal debt. Do you favor no personal debt. Buy a house in all cash? And if building an apartment building to rent out homes for others -- this should be done in all upfront cash? Personally, I would prefer NOT to have any debt. If you don't have the money to buy a house, you can borrow the money. But you should make sure that you can pay for the mortgage payments. It's common sense. Another question (which of course you don't need to answer -- but might be instructive if you try): is going into (more) debt ok or better than reducing debt, during a recession? At the national level, the principles become more complicated. The government has the responsibility to stimulate the economy. This was done in the past by work projects, such as those made during the Great Depression Era. As such, it was necessary to incur debt to stimulate the economy. Currently, the situation is similar. However, the indebtedness is made upfront, before the entire financial institutions collapse. So, in short, I am in favor of the bailout plan that was passed by Congress. Nonetheless, there should be an overall goal to reduce the national debt sometime in the near future. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the national debt--but not by much. In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to the national debt. Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that the party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The USA National Debt-- An Unaddressed Question
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much to bear for any country. Really? -- what about a country with a GDP of 500 trillion? Or a country with a billion people? Some economists like to play the numbers game by taking ratios for analyses. Holy shit. you are out palining Paling. My hats off to you. yea I mean like all ratios in economics are games. meant to decieve and not clarify, You are SO right on. How did you figure out this conspiracy against hard workin americans perpetrated by economists? You are one smart brainiac! For my taste, debt is a debt no matter how you take it. The ideal situation is to have zero debt. Welcome to the caveman economy. Can't wait to har your grand theories on savings and investments. There should be a goal to at least reduce the debt by half in about 25 years. Based on yur inner world guide to a sound economy? Once that's reached, there should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. So in follows that the economy will be strongest if there is no national debt? pay for all bridges, highways, schools, buildings, in cash. Pay as you go? That would produce a stronger economy, everything else being equal than one with some debt? Ideally, yes. But in the real world one has to borrow money to pay for big ticket items--those that are essential. Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. You get big Palin points for skirting the question: What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? 1) Total federal (public) debt 2) Foreign holding of federal debt I proposed to cut the national debt in half at first to relieve the debt burden. You can figure out the ratio to around 30 percent or so. Once that goal is reached, the debt ratio can be reduced to 15 percent. The idea is to reduce the excessive debt that the US has now. The ideal is zero debt. IMO, the US was able to function without any debt in its past economic history. Which is fine. Your points will go over big with hockey moms and Nascar dads everywhere. But you seem to be indicating that various debt levels as a % of GDP are all equally bad. It might be instructive to think about the questions and ponderif some levels of debt, at an appropriate level of GDP, might yield a more productive and robust economy, with higher income and wages than an economy with no federal debt. Do you favor no personal debt. Buy a house in all cash? And if building an apartment building to rent out homes for others -- this should be done in all upfront cash? Personally, I would prefer NOT to have any debt. If you don't have the money to buy a house, you can borrow the money. But you should make sure that you can pay for the mortgage payments. It's common sense. Another question (which of course you don't need to answer -- but might be instructive if you try): is going into (more) debt ok or better than reducing debt, during a recession? At the national level, the principles become more complicated. The government has the responsibility to stimulate the economy. This was done in the past by work projects, such as those made during the Great Depression Era. As such, it was necessary to incur debt to stimulate the economy. Currently, the situation is similar. However, the indebtedness is made upfront, before the entire financial institutions collapse. So, in short, I am in favor of the bailout plan that was passed by Congress. Nonetheless, there should be an overall goal to reduce the national debt sometime in the near future. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: To All: It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today and the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA national debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently forget to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer that cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped reduce the
