i am willing to reconsider my opinion if you prove my facts to be wrong as i have proved your facts to be...aren't you willing to reconsider your opinion, or is your mind made up based on erroneous information?
Printable View
i am willing to reconsider my opinion if you prove my facts to be wrong as i have proved your facts to be...aren't you willing to reconsider your opinion, or is your mind made up based on erroneous information?
increase in the national debt from september 15 to october 2: $515 billion...that doesn't include the $700 billion bailout bill signed on october 3
interest expense on the national debt for fiscal year ending september 30, 2008: $451 billion
There is only one politician in America who has tried to do anything about the national debt and thats Ron Paul. Bush has never tried to get the national debt. His buddies are making too much money off of it. If we truely want to do something with the national debt we will need libertarian leadership. The other parties just don't care. What we need is a president that would just say "No more foreign aid except for humanitarian causes and then just say we're going to default on all outstanding loans". We would be on firm financial ground the first year.
Maladroit, as i have explained in a previous post; the national debt is not as bad as it has been in previous times (as a percentage of GDP). I believe in the late 1940's, early 1950's, the deficit was 120% of GDP. That is a testament as to how things can or will change. What is your argument in regards to treasury deficit?
Secondly, using gross domestic product per capita is skewing the information a tad bit, and i will explain.
When a person makes say $100,000 per year, they do not at all have that nominal value at their disposal. Instead, the majority (sadly) of Americans have to pay a series of direct and indirect factors of taxation. An example of direct taxation would be social security tax, which was 7.65% of the first $97,500 of gross earnings in a given year. An indirect tax for example, is 7% tax on all goods sold in the state of Indiana. The rest of the money after taxation is called disposable income, of which only two options present themselves as far as action goes. You can spend, or save disposable income.
I am not an expert on Canadian economics, but i am inclined to believe that Canadians have much less of a disposable income. That means less for spending, less for saving. This is also an indication of the balancing mechanisms used to analyze situations such as these.
Being that Canadians, as a whole pay a higher % of their earnings to taxes, their governmental deficit is going to be lower. The question remains, does a low governmental deficit effect the standard of living of its citizens? Of course, the answer is absolutely NO. One of the reasons their deficit spending seems small is because there is less disposable income allocated towards their citizenry. Other factors to consider are population, income transfer rates, national defense, and of course net tax money collected. Does Canada get a free ride when taking national defense expenditures into consideration? I mean, they are neighbors and trading partners to the worlds hegemon. Without the presence of the US, i am also inclined to believe that Canada and all of our allies would have to pump a considerable amount into national defense.
With that being said, i again ask what is your point? Are you saying that having a high deficit reduces the standard of living in a respective country? Or, are you saying that having a high deficit is bad? If it is the second conclusion, you will have to do much more than state the problem; you are going to have to offer some hypothesis as to why it is bad.
In closing, i want to clear something up. The national debt tracker you used as a source takes into account the national debt as of now in 2008, yet 2008 GDP figures have yet to be released because.... it is still 2008. While i do applaud you for taking the time to calculate such figures, your final result is subject to change, and therefore incorrect.
A couple things to note:Quote:
Originally Posted by killerweed420
Ron Paul (my write in vote this year) calls for a heavy transition into sound government spending, as well as a constitutional tax policy.
The majority of tax money is spent on income transfers, ie, unemployment, welfare, social security etc... The next biggest chunk is national defense. Dr. Paul calls for the removal of US military bases around the world. This is estimated to save over $300 billion annually. He also proposes the removal of several governmental programs, such as the department of education.
Yet Dr. Paul is a man of principle. He would not just cut social security, cut unemployment benefits, and put people into the shiter. Instead, it would require a lengthy transition (ten years IMHO) to reestablish the economy and market psychology.
On the downside. American withdraw from foreign lands will require those sovereign nations to put up more money for their own national defense. By doing so, the production possibilities frontier would shift, therefore cutting consumption for citizens. The effects would probably lead to a short world wide recession, of which America would be partially shielded due to low taxes, and stable monetary policy. One thing is for sure, you would see a whole new fucking world:jointsmile:
i'll let your man ron paul explain why he thinks national debt is a threat to the united states...i have a lot to add to his simplistic analysis, but in fairness to mr paul, he probably had to dumb it down to avoid being labelled an egghead elitist:
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
Unlike ordinary debts, however, government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money-- they??re repaid by you and future generations.
The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. It??s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.
Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the world??s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks ??Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.? Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about ??A kind of global balance of financial terror,? noting our dependency on ??the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries.?
Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do ??whatever it takes? to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. We??re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors.
"i am inclined to believe that Canadians have much less of a disposable income."
- i am inclined to believe that you don't know, and i'm not going to look it up for you
"That means less for spending, less for saving. "
- according to the federal reserve, canadians have had a higher personal saving rate than americans for decades...that adds up:
FRBSF: Economic Letter - What's Behind the Low Personal Saving Rate? (03/29/2002)
"Does Canada get a free ride when taking national defense expenditures into consideration? "
- free ride? HA! canada was fighting in WWII for two years before uncle sam developed a spine...canada fought in the korean war...despite it's tiny military, canada has provided a lot more peacekeeping man-hours for united nations missions than the usa but you don't hear anyone accusing the usa of getting a free ride on canada's peacekeeping coat tails...on a per capita basis, more than twice as many canadian troops have died in afghanistan than US troops have died in iraq...we're not getting a "free ride", especially when you take into consideration that we're not constantly making enemies by smashing defenseless countries against the wall to show the rest of the world we mean business (that is not a worthwhile military expenditure)...canada did not request nor need the usa to protect it from vietnam, cambodia, laos, nicaragua, panama, grenada, haiti, cuba, guatemala, libya, and iraq
"Being that Canadians, as a whole pay a higher % of their earnings to taxes, their governmental deficit is going to be lower."
- it also helps that we don't spend $621 billion on the military, and $451 billion on interest on the national debt, and $400 million on a presidential election campaign...we pay higher taxes, but we don't pay anything for health care....i am inclined to believe that if you added in the per capita cost of US heath insurance to US per capita taxes, canadians would come out ahead
"Are you saying that having a high deficit reduces the standard of living in a respective country?"
- ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living
"While i do applaud you for taking the time to calculate such figures, your final result is subject to change, and therefore incorrect."
- fair enough...go back to dec 31 2007 when the national debt was $9.2 trillion and the GDP was $13.8 trillion to get a 67% debt to GDP ratio....the national debt has increased by $1 trillion since then, but the GDP certainly has not, so the debt to GDP ratio is going to shoot up in 2008
I really have no idea what the Canadian tax rates encompass. Being as you are the expert of Canada, maybe you can fill us all in:thumbsup: You can start with net budget outlays.Quote:
Originally Posted by maladroit
Old data, on top of that you are attempting to skew statistics. Maybe it is because you do not know any better. Tell me, does your "source" account the massive annuities/401k/mma that Americans are heavily invested into? Of course not because the US BEA excludes investment accounts. Investment accounts make up the majority of US savings.Quote:
- according to the federal reserve, canadians have had a higher personal saving rate than americans for decades...that adds up:
FRBSF: Economic Letter - What's Behind the Low Personal Saving Rate? (03/29/2002)
You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense. My original statement was based on a production possibility frontier, and nothing else.Quote:
- free ride? HA! canada was fighting in WWII for two years before uncle sam developed a spine...canada fought in the korean war...despite it's tiny military, canada has provided a lot more peacekeeping man-hours for united nations missions than the usa but you don't hear anyone accusing the usa of getting a free ride on canada's peacekeeping coat tails...on a per capita basis, more than twice as many canadian troops have died in afghanistan than US troops have died in iraq...we're not getting a "free ride", especially when you take into consideration that we're not constantly making enemies by smashing defenseless countries against the wall to show the rest of the world we mean business (that is not a worthwhile military expenditure)...canada did not request nor need the usa to protect it from vietnam, cambodia, laos, nicaragua, panama, grenada, haiti, cuba, guatemala, libya, and iraq
No, instead you "free ride" on the coat tails of the American armed forces. Besides, your reply is a logical fallacy, more specifically a red herring. You bring up a trying subject in regards to US health care. That is because you are in essence, trying to compare an apple to a t-bone steak. Yes they are both health care systems, but given the immense complications in regards to governmental intervention in our health care system, and the priorities of certain individuals, your comparison must encompass much more than per capita analysis.Quote:
it also helps that we don't spend $621 billion on the military, and $451 billion on interest on the national debt, and $400 million on a presidential election campaign...we pay higher taxes, but we don't pay anything for health care....i am inclined to believe that if you added in the per capita cost of US heath insurance to US per capita taxes, canadians would come out ahead
Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before.Quote:
ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living
That is not the point. You obviously need to touch up on infrastructure funding methods in the US. The highway system was created in the US as logistics terminal for potential invasion. Our highway system is quite genius really, and it is completely funded through fuel taxes.
In a neo-liberal/socialist sense, what you are saying would be true. But the fact of the matter is governmental failure is far more prevalent than market failure. An example would be your health care system, where waiting lists and casualties resulting form them increase as the years pass.
Question for you. Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary? I believe it has not, as we were able to pump the entire GDP of Canada into our economy as a "primer" in the span of 1 year. That really says something of the power and magnitude of the United States.
Most likely it will. You have failed to prove or show that a high US deficit will lower our standard of living. At best, you might be able to correlate a currency debasement, yet such instances are cyclical as capital flows in and out based on supply and demand.Quote:
fair enough...go back to dec 31 2007 when the national debt was $9.2 trillion and the GDP was $13.8 trillion to get a 67% debt to GDP ratio....the national debt has increased by $1 trillion since then, but the GDP certainly has not, so the debt to GDP ratio is going to shoot up in 2008
The bottom line: If the US suffers, everyone else will suffer even more.
"Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before."
- labels are strawmen (read: ANOTHER of your logical fallacies)...i am not a socialist...a socialist is someone who thinks the government should take control of the means of production - like president george w bush who nationalized half of wall street! have you correctly labeled george bush a socialist?
socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
You need to read into the context of what i was saying in that particular segment.
Getting right down to the nitty gritty, my calling you on your so called capitalist intent is allowed based on two points.Quote:
Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before.
That is not the point.
1.) You did in fact call yourself a capitalist, therefore you have played the label game rendering my further labeling of you contentious.
2.) That was not the thesis of my statement (calling you a socialist).
Barak Obama is IMHO a socialist, more so what i would call a neo-socialist. Reason be, he desires to implement more governmental intervention with respects to all facets of American life. Equity, education, and health care are primary strangle holds based on socialist innuendo. Furthermore, there are many socialist aspects at work such as universal health care, in that most, if not all devoted socialists believe it to be superior to a localized free market alternative. Better has yet to be defined by acceptance universally.
I was implicating that you are a bit confused as to what a pro market orientated person believes as opposed to what a socialist (pro government) orientated person does. If you are a capitalist, you have to believe that markets take care of things by way of invisible hand. On the contrary, if you believe that markets are not self correcting, than you are a new aged socialist (neo-socialist).