Joe Biden 2021

[Eskimohorn 5675]

We spend about 40% of the world’s military expenditures

We consume about 40% of the world’s drugs

We consume about 16% of the world’s electricity

We incarcerate about 20% of the world’s prison population

We’re 4% of the world’s population

We’re gonna have a massive debt and other problems as long as people, factions, and other countries fund our “democracy”

[Anastasis 23699]

1 minute ago, Eskimohorn said:

We spend about 40% of the world’s military expenditures

We consume about 40% of the world’s drugs

We consume about 16% of the world’s electricity

We incarcerate about 20% of the world’s prison population

We’re 4% of the world’s population

We’re gonna have a massive debt and other problems as long as people, factions, and other countries fund our “democracy”

The electricity doesn't bother me so much.  We are a highly technological society compared to some of the countries driving global population. The rest, well...

Edited September 30, 2021 by Anastasis

[DonkeyCigars 143]

17 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Why are most topics on this forum combined into massive meta threads?

If I want to read what people are saying about the spending plan, it seems like I should be able to come to this forum and click a thread titled “2021 Social Spending Plan”. Instead, I have to hunt around for it and eventually figure out it’s hidden in a thread titled “Joe Biden 2021” which has 6,300+ posts and a month ago was discussing Afghanistan and a month from now will be discussing Covid again. Then if the social spending plan becomes relevant again in 6 months, it’s very difficult to reference the present discussion because it’s buried 2,000 posts upstream.

This is absurd. I don’t get it.

Agree. It's like most people on here don't use slack or slack channel etiquette. 

[Js1 86939]

39 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I must have missed something.  Isn't the 3.5T spending bill going to be fully paid for?  Why are people even discussing debt?  Is the debt concern with this bill just a talking point to fire up the rubes, when the real concern of their puppet masters are that the wealthy will pay for the 3.5T spending bill? 

Well GRUHorn laughed at this post, which means it's likely correct.  It's far more funded than the Bush Tax Cuts.  Or the Trump Tax Cuts.  Or the Iraq War.  All of which were going to pay for themselves - eventually, sometime, in the future, down the line, ya know. 

[EuroHorn 3287]

35 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Why are most topics on this forum combined into massive meta threads?

If I want to read what people are saying about the spending plan, it seems like I should be able to come to this forum and click a thread titled “2021 Social Spending Plan”. Instead, I have to hunt around for it and eventually figure out it’s hidden in a thread titled “Joe Biden 2021” which has 6,300+ posts and a month ago was discussing Afghanistan and a month from now will be discussing Covid again. Then if the social spending plan becomes relevant again in 6 months, it’s very difficult to reference the present discussion because it’s buried 2,000 posts upstream.

This is absurd. I don’t get it.

But if you want to bitch about trump on a certain topic you can find it easily

[F250 29173]

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

All of this. But it won’t matter. Read the replies to this. They don’t get it. They never will.

“Fiscal conservatives” are dehydrated fools, reconstituted only when sprinkled with the moisture of a Democratic President/Congress, then instantly desiccating the moment the GQP takes over. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Everyone here has been around long enough to see this cycle play out multiple times. The HW administration was the last Republican administration to adhere to fiscally responsible practices. He bit the bullet to clean up all the Reagan debt and maybe he was just unfortunate enough to fall into that cycle of coming in after a Republican spending spree. HW was never big on Reaganomics.

Dubya and Trump on the other hand were all about quitting your job while running up the credit card bill.

[Brisketexan 106618]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

Everyone here has been around long enough to see this cycle play out multiple times. The HW administration was the last Republican administration to adhere to fiscally responsible practices. He bit the bullet to clean up all the Reagan debt and maybe he was just unfortunate enough to fall into that cycle of coming in after a Republican spending spree. HW was never big on Reaganomics.

Dubya and Trump on the other hand were all about quitting your job while running up the credit card bill.

Yep.  Oh, and another thing -- "austerity" doesn't mean "reduced/no new gov't spending."  "Austerity" means "cutting government spending on actual human beings," almost always diverting the spending/benefits to large moneyed interests.

That's how you can have "austerity" which results in larger budgets and/or deficits overall, but the recipe is a combination of 1) changes to tax policy that favor the top tier/corporations and reduce revenue (see $2 trillion tax cut), 2) continued bloated spending on defense, subsidies to already highly profitable industries, etc., and 3) reduced per capita spending on things like education, infrastructure, etc.

That has been the model in the US and the UK for 40-50 years.  It is a point on which I differ from the Economist, which still generally favors that model, although even they acknowledge that the sharp edges of it should be sanded down.

It comes down to what we take in as revenue (which we have recently reduced) and what we spend it on in terms of two categories: 1) O&M, and 2) capital investments.  We are really good at spending on O&M.  But we are super shitty at spending on capital investments, which is really stupid, as those things yield dividends for years to come.  Infrastructure is a capital investment -- part of our commercial strength, for example, is a robust transportation system (highways, airports, etc.).  Our last concerted, broad investment in our transportation system was decades ago.  And an even bigger part of our capital is our human capital.  Healthy, educated, safe citizens make for an incredibly productive society, which yields greater earning and prosperity.  But instead of investing in our capital, we are consuming it.  That's what Washpark means by "consuming our seed stock."

None of this will matter.  The Repubs will win.  They always do.  Because deficits don't matter when when they benefit the wealthy, but they SUPER-matter when they benefit the country as a whole.  That's just the way it is in the United States of the Broken Brained.

[mchookem 16728]

1 hour ago, wild_turkey said:

Why are most topics on this forum combined into massive meta threads?

If I want to read what people are saying about the spending plan, it seems like I should be able to come to this forum and click a thread titled “2021 Social Spending Plan”. Instead, I have to hunt around for it and eventually figure out it’s hidden in a thread titled “Joe Biden 2021” which has 6,300+ posts and a month ago was discussing Afghanistan and a month from now will be discussing Covid again. Then if the social spending plan becomes relevant again in 6 months, it’s very difficult to reference the present discussion because it’s buried 2,000 posts upstream.

This is absurd. I don’t get it.

i mean, you can start a thread...

[gmr548 16681]

They turtle.

Don’t Tom Herman the CR

[DonkeyCigars 143]

Just heard on CNN that the pundits aren't bullish on this deal getting made today on the $3.5T because the progressives already feel like they have compromised because they wanted $6T in spending (wow!) and there is nothing left to compromise on or talk about. I feel like today will be entertaining political theatre if you are into that sort of thing, like @Js1 and those political junkies on here.

['stache 22116]

On 9/28/2021 at 3:36 PM, wildcat09 said:

The so-called "moderates" are tanking Biden's agenda because apparently they're fucking idiots who think it's good politics to run against their own party's extremely popular policy proposals and the President who ran on them.

Of course, a cynical person might wonder why they've learned nothing from the moderates who tried this under Obama, who at least opposed policies that were less overwhelmingly popular, and then got absolutely boatraced out of office in the 2010 midterms, and whether it might be that they're actually ok with losing their seats because they know they'll be rewarded with cushy gigs from the companies and lobbyists whose bidding they're currently doing.

It's overwhelmingly popular, the problem is that the Senate is completely unrepresentative, with small states in the south and west dominating policy. The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 D's represent 41 million more people than the Rs. Manchin and Synema are in states that aren't overwhelmingly liberal, so they have to play the "moderate" or lose their jobs. The Senate and its effect on the electoral college is going to be the end of this country as we know it. It is not sustainable in today's environment.

Edited September 30, 2021 by 'stache

[wildcat09 29556]

31 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's overwhelmingly popular, the problem is that the Senate is completely unrepresentative, with small states in the south and west dominating policy. The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 D's represent 41 million more people than the Rs. Manchin and Synema are in states that aren't overwhelmingly liberal, so they have to play the "moderate" or lose their jobs. The Senate and its effect on the electoral college is going to be the end of this country as we know it. It is not sustainable in today's environment.

I agree with your post generally, but that's absolutely not what is going on here with Sinema and probably not Manchin either. Sinema probably should appear to be a moderate on some things, particularly guns. But the "look I have no actual policy priorities and am obviously just trying to appear to be moderate" doesn't actually work on any voters. Virtually all of the things in the reconciliation bill are very popular, even with centrist voters, and are things Biden and the moderate Democrats ran on last year. We're talking an expanded child tax credit, paid leave, child care subsidies, adding dental, vision and hearing to medicare, medicare drug price negotiation, etc.. Nobody but die hard Republicans opposes this shit. She's not just pissing off the base here, she's infuriating everyone who voted for her and might actually consider voting for her in the future. She's nuking her political career from orbit. 

As for Manchin, he's a fucking coal baron. He's not worried about appearing moderate, he's worried about his pockets.

Edited September 30, 2021 by wildcat09

[DonkeyCigars 143]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I agree with your post generally, but that's absolutely not what is going on here with Sinema and probably not Manchin either. Sinema probably should appear to be a moderate on some things, particularly guns. But the "look I have no actual policy priorities and am obviously just trying to appear to be moderate" doesn't actually work on any voters. Virtually all of the things in the reconciliation bill are very popular, even with centrist voters, and are things Biden and the moderate Democrats ran on last year. We're talking an expanded child tax credit, paid leave, child care subsidies, adding dental, vision and hearing to medicare, medicare drug price negotiation, etc.. Nobody but die hard Republicans opposes this shit. She's not just pissing off the base here, she's infuriating everyone who voted for her and might actually consider voting for her in the future. She's nuking her political career from orbit. 

As for Manchin, he's a fucking coal baron. He's not worried about appearing moderate, he's worried about his pockets.

And CNN today is making the point when Manchin first started obstructing, nobody took him serious and thought he was posturing (and you heard that here too). When he asked for the pause in August, nobody took him serious and thought he was posturing.

He is showing he was serious.

How can one be more clear that he is serious? When someone shows or tells you who they are and what they want, believe them.

Edited September 30, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[David Dennison 19441]

42 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Just heard on CNN that the pundits aren't bullish on this deal getting made today on the $3.5T because the progressives already feel like they have compromised because they wanted $6T in spending (wow!) and there is nothing left to compromise on or talk about. I feel like today will be entertaining political theatre if you are into that sort of thing, like @Js1 and those political junkies on here.

Pundits are creating drama.

They'll get it done.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Pundits are creating drama.

They'll get it done.

Bold prediction, I like it!

It looks like 100% the government shut down will be avoided, at the very least.

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Pundits are creating drama.

They'll get it done.

I stopped visiting the CNN website for this very reason. The old adage if it’s free then you’re the product. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

We've all been alive long enough in our adult lives to literally see the failed results of bullshit Republican fiscal arguments. MULTIPLE TIMES

But here we are again. Clutching our pearls. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

We've all been alive long enough in our adult lives to literally see the failed results of bullshit Republican fiscal arguments. MULTIPLE TIMES

But here we are again. Clutching our pearls. 

But also, the flip side, is we have all lived long enough to see failed and massively wasteful and inefficient welfare/entitlement programs multiple times. 

The most succesful socialist/welfare/entitlement program, as is often mentioned, is the military and the defense program.

[Js1 86939]

27 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I agree with your post generally, but that's absolutely not what is going on here with Sinema and probably not Manchin either. Sinema probably should appear to be a moderate on some things, particularly guns. But the "look I have no actual policy priorities and am obviously just trying to appear to be moderate" doesn't actually work on any voters. Virtually all of the things in the reconciliation bill are very popular, even with centrist voters, and are things Biden and the moderate Democrats ran on last year. We're talking an expanded child tax credit, paid leave, child care subsidies, adding dental, vision and hearing to medicare, medicare drug price negotiation, etc.. Nobody but die hard Republicans opposes this shit. She's not just pissing off the base here, she's infuriating everyone who voted for her and might actually consider voting for her in the future. She's nuking her political career from orbit. 

As for Manchin, he's a fucking coal baron. He's not worried about appearing moderate, he's worried about his pockets.

I have to mostly disagree with your take on Sinema nuking her political career.

The same shit was said for many cycles about John McCain - the base hates him, he is susceptible to a primary challenge, Dems/Independents won't vote for him in the general.  Arizona is Arizona - they eat this "Mavericky independent!" shit up.  She's still above water with Dems and independents can vote in Arizona's Dem primary and are 2nd in Arizona in terms of voter registration (34.72 R, 32.6 I, 31.82 D). 

It truly remains to be seen if this is actually going to hurt her come 2024 and with it being a presidential year the next time she is up, probably says a lot more about if she will prevail or not than what internet/Twitter liberals think of her.   

What also happens in 2022 matters most for her - if Dems go into 2024 after winning NC, WI, PA and holding NV, AZ, GA and NH and have a 53-47 advantage, there might be more of an appetite to try to knock her out in a primary.  If it's 52-48 or 51-49, with Brown (OH), Tester (MT) and Manchin (WV) up in 2024,  she literally could be the person preventing a Republican senate. 

The CW of her political demise is not a good one.  Too many factors and she is too busy being the female John McCain and ingratiating herself to independent/McCain Republicans in her state. 

[elfenix 34658]

12 hours ago, Satoshi said:

This is the CR. Standard operating procedure.

The better place for inflation and deficit discussion is the 6thSJ thread as you know. But if anything slightly political is mentioned you get referred over here for non productive discussion. Just how it works around here. 
 

 

11 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

 

11 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Oh, I get it.  It just isn't the own that you think it is.

 

 

4 hours ago, StruggleBus said:

Lol

 

[wildcat09 29556]

The fact that she’s trying to be the female John McCain doesn’t mean it’s a good political strategy for a Democrat in 2021.

The thing about McCain is that he wasn’t actually a maverick at all and fell in line with the party on everything it cared about, until he was literally on death’s door and the party wasn’t even sure it wanted to take healthcare away from tens of millions of people.

[elfenix 34658]

14 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

A big chunk of this board enthusiastically supports the $3.5T plan. I still can’t wrap my head around the numbers.

3.5T / X = Y%

anyone want to say what X is?  the LiBeRaL mEdIa has been really bad at mentioning it so you get this huge number with no context. 

also, infrastructure spending tends to increase X but dynamic scoring is fraught so we don't really consider that. 

[Brisketexan 106618]

13 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

But also, the flip side, is we have all lived long enough to see failed and massively wasteful and inefficient welfare/entitlement programs multiple times. 

The most succesful socialist/welfare/entitlement program, as is often mentioned, is the military and the defense program.

Incorrect.  It is publicly funded education.  It yields both near-term benefits and long-term dividends.  Yet, your side is completely at war against it, functionally seeking to abolish it.  Well-done.

[Blotto 23974]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Incorrect.  It is publicly funded education.  It yields both near-term benefits and long-term dividends.  Yet, your side is completely at war against it, functionally seeking to abolish it.  Well-done.

and without it, you end up with tens of millions of people who have no real means of contributing to our society. Maybe they can work a retail job for piss wages  but thats the best most can hope for. So the burden on the other welfare programs spirals ever higher.  Its almost like those in power want a society of morons with nothing better to do with their time than upvote each others mindless bullshit on social media. idiocray by design. 

[wildcat09 29556]

The idea that welfare programs "failed" is just a pure lie too. Poverty decreased sharply after welfare programs were enacted. That it wasn't eliminated entirely doesn't mean welfare failed.

[Captainant 28385]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that welfare programs "failed" is just a pure lie too. Poverty decreased sharply after welfare programs were enacted. That it wasn't eliminated entirely doesn't mean welfare failed.

It's amazing how the same people who fall for the COVID fallacy of "if it's not 100% effective, there's no point of it" are just reusing the same lame thought pattern from the rest of their regressive worldview. 

Finally, some consistency from the right!

[Js1 86939]

I am a-ok with Manchin's "$1.5T now" approach.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  Reconciliation comes once a year.  Technically, Dems still have one for FY2023 to use between October 1, 2022 and the midterms next year. 

Pass it now
Win more seats
Pass more with a bigger majority

[wildcat09 29556]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I am a-ok with Manchin's "$1.5T now" approach.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  Reconciliation comes once a year.  Technically, Dems still have one for FY2023 to use between October 1, 2022 and the midterms next year. 

Pass it now
Win more seats
Pass more with a bigger majority

Also, his letter establishes a floor on what he'll agree to, not a ceiling. Plus they can always say that the tax credits aren't spending, though some of his other terms limit the wiggle room there. If something near this gets him on board with the two track approach, I think the progressives likely agree. Sinema is the bigger problem, because she's clearly just taking bribes to tank the reconciliation bill.

[Js1 86939]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Also, his letter establishes a floor on what he'll agree to, not a ceiling. Plus they can always say that the tax credits aren't spending, though some of his other terms limit the wiggle room there. If something near this gets him on board with the two track approach, I think the progressives likely agree. Sinema is the bigger problem, because she's clearly just taking bribes to tank the reconciliation bill.

Yeah, he'll get there.  I think the closer to $1.5T, the more Sinema will be on board.  I think $3.5T is just freaking them out.  

[Zonahorn 8079]

19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I am a-ok with Manchin's "$1.5T now" approach.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.  Reconciliation comes once a year.  Technically, Dems still have one for FY2023 to use between October 1, 2022 and the midterms next year. 

Pass it now
Win more seats
Pass more with a bigger majority

Joe's wish list is a non-starter

[Satoshi 129]

5 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

No, as I listed above the question is not how to pay for the 3.5T. It's how to address the massive deficit spending that is already happening, PLUS the massive underfunding of social security and medicare. It is disengenious to say that everything is being paid for, while at the same time still having these huge financial holes.

 

The long term debt/deficit predicament of our country can be addressed in 3 possible ways. 
 

1-reform. Lol good luck with that. 
2-default. Will never happen while we are the reserve currency. 
3-inflation. Debt monetization via increasing Fed purchases of USTs. Ding ding ding. 
 

The effects of following path 3 can be debated, but I don’t see any other way to deal with the actual numbers. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But also, the flip side, is we have all lived long enough to see failed and massively wasteful and inefficient welfare/entitlement programs multiple times. 

The most succesful socialist/welfare/entitlement program, as is often mentioned, is the military and the defense program.

Name one failed welfare/entitlement program. PLEASE

And I will give you two guesses as to a reason why any social program is wasteful and inefficient. Hint: Look in the mirror

[Captainant 28385]

13 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

The long term debt/deficit predicament of our country can be addressed in 3 possible ways. 
 

1-reform. Lol good luck with that. 
2-default. Will never happen while we are the reserve currency. 
3-inflation. Debt monetization via increasing Fed purchases of USTs. Ding ding ding. 
 

The effects of following path 3 can be debated, but I don’t see any other way to deal with the actual numbers. 

Deficit of our recent history:

Reagan: 70B -> 175B

Bush: 175B -> 300B

Clinton: 300B -> 0

Bush2: 0 -> 1200B

Obama: 1200B -> 600B

Trump: 600B -> 3300B (in just 4 years!)

 

Fuck outta here with acting like you give a fuck about the national debt. Everyone you vote for makes it worse. 

[washparkhorn 9967]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The co-Presidents of the United States of America.

[jimmyjazz 46972]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Deficit of our recent history:

Reagan: 70B -> 175B

Bush: 175B -> 300B

Clinton: 300B -> 0

Bush2: 0 -> 1200B

Obama: 1200B -> 600B

Trump: 600B -> 3300B (in just 4 years!)

 

Fuck outta here with acting like you give a fuck about the national debt. Everyone you vote for makes it worse. 

. . . and before we get the "but but but covid!!!", let's acknowledge the growing deficit during the Trump administration BEFORE 2020.

 

Oh, and let's not ignore that Trump not only promised to get the deficit to $0 in two terms, he promised to get the NATIONAL DEBT to $0 in two terms.  Of course the rubes fell for it.  Republicans and "conservatives" are the easiest fucking marks.

[washparkhorn 9967]

 

[Satoshi 129]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Deficit of our recent history:

Reagan: 70B -> 175B

Bush: 175B -> 300B

Clinton: 300B -> 0

Bush2: 0 -> 1200B

Obama: 1200B -> 600B

Trump: 600B -> 3300B (in just 4 years!)

 

Fuck outta here with acting like you give a fuck about the national debt. Everyone you vote for makes it worse. 

 

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and before we get the "but but but covid!!!", let's acknowledge the growing deficit during the Trump administration BEFORE 2020.

 

Oh, and let's not ignore that Trump not only promised to get the deficit to $0 in two terms, he promised to get the NATIONAL DEBT to $0 in two terms.  Of course the rubes fell for it.  Republicans and "conservatives" are the easiest fucking marks.

I made no mention of political affiliation. Passed no judgment on either. Both parties spend freely for what they want. It is inevitable. 
 

I’ve been clear on this repeatedly. 

[jimmyjazz 46972]

Just now, Satoshi said:

 

I made no mention of political affiliation. Passed no judgment on either. Both parties spend freely for what they want. It is inevitable. 
 

I’ve been clear on this repeatedly. 

Not prior to November of 2020 you haven't "been clear on this repeatedly".  You never said a fucking word.

[Satoshi 129]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not prior to November of 2020 you haven't "been clear on this repeatedly".  You never said a fucking word.

My dude. I’m the most frequent poster on the Bitcoin thread. My user name is Satoshi. My stance on central bank enabled government profligacy is self evident. Regardless of party. 

[elfenix 34658]

12 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Both parties spend freely for what they want.

but the democrats pay for it and the republicans borrow it, so your bothsides about this vis-a-vis the debt is bullshit.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

My dude. I’m the most frequent poster on the Bitcoin thread. My user name is Satoshi. My stance on central bank enabled government profligacy is self evident. Regardless of party. 

Actually you’re a propaganda spewing pro-trump anti-vaccine troll asshole on his third or fourth handle. 
 

But of course you knew that. 

[Eskimohorn 5675]

My dude. I’m the most frequent poster on the Bitcoin thread. My user name is Satoshi. My stance on central bank enabled government profligacy is self evident. Regardless of party. 

Part of the private profligacy is enabling and overseeing government profligacy.

[Foosters 18224]

9 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

 My user name is Satoshi. 

Well, it is now.

[Incredulity 11861]

34 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Name one failed welfare/entitlement program. PLEASE

 

Subsidized housing has been a disaster.   Both with the mega "projects" and current Section 8 format.

[babysdaddy 2731]

BT sure has been silent on the bills and mod vs progressive battle raging in DC.

 

Debt and deficit spending are interesting discussions.  Debasement of the US Dollar is clearly a goal of the government because debt is static and 'paying it back' (won't ever happen) is just adjusting the ratio of debt/gdp.  As long gdp grows in nominal terms then our debt ratio becomes smaller or grows less fast.  Over the past decade, debt and deficit spending have not impacted interest rates. If they don't matter, then Washpark is right in that the $3.5T number really doesn't cost that much to finance.  That also brings in another thought in that if debt and deficit spending do not matter, then why levy income taxes at all? 

[jimmyjazz 46972]

18 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Debt and deficit spending are interesting discussions.  Debasement of the US Dollar is clearly a goal of the government because debt is static and 'paying it back' (won't ever happen) is just adjusting the ratio of debt/gdp.  As long gdp grows in nominal terms then our debt ratio becomes smaller or grows less fast.  Over the past decade, debt and deficit spending have not impacted interest rates. If they don't matter, then Washpark is right in that the $3.5T number really doesn't cost that much to finance.  That also brings in another thought in that if debt and deficit spending do not matter, then why levy income taxes at all? 

I'm no economist, and I don't even have a great handle on the viewpoints of the different schools, but I absolutely recall my undergrad Macro course and the prof saying "US debt doesn't matter".  This was 1981, so things could change, but there has certainly been theory promulgated in the context of the debt enumerated in the world's base currency and its importance.

I have definitely experienced this fire drill over and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and nothing ever seems to change, despite interest rates, etc.

[Js1 86939]

4 hours ago, Zonahorn said:

Joe's wish list is a non-starter

I really like the idea of, instead of $3.5T for 10 years, going for $1.75T (or similar) for 5 years.  Impact felt sooner, price tag lower, go for bigger later when 2 Dems can't derail the whole agenda. 

[elfenix 34658]

the debt itself doesn't directly matter.  interest on the debt can matter to the extent it helps drive annual deficits.  deficits might matter if they drove inflation, but the evidence is that the US and world economic system not only can absorb US deficits but they actually need US deficits because the financial system goes haywire if there's not enough new US bonds floating around as collateral for everything. 

[workswithseed 2201]

39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm no economist, and I don't even have a great handle on the viewpoints of the different schools, but I absolutely recall my undergrad Macro course and the prof saying "US debt doesn't matter".  This was 1981, so things could change, but there has certainly been theory promulgated in the context of the debt enumerated in the world's base currency and its importance.

I have definitely experienced this fire drill over and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and nothing ever seems to change, despite interest rates, etc.

It doesn't matter as long as the dollar is reserved currency.

[Captainant 28385]

15 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

It doesn't matter as long as the dollar is reserved currency.

ya know, it'll really hurt the standing of the USD as a reserve currency if we stop paying our federal debt obligations.