for those that think we can just print our way out of debt...

who told you to say the rich clip coupons rather than invent iphones???

 

let me know when you see Democrats moving to make debt illegal. What does that teach you?

 

and is there a problem?? if so what is it??

 

You are wrong (as usual). We would only need to print up $16T. We could just cancel intergovernmental holdings as stated debt.

 

Its incredibly easy when you literally make up quotes by me like "paper money is crap." I never said that.

 

Unfortunately Republicans never actually vote to make it illegal when they are in power so inaction is the same as not wanting it because nothing happens either way. In fact they usually end up radically increasing the debt because of their wars and tax cuts for billionaires.

 

As per dick Cheney and supply side economics of reagan... deficits and therefore debt does not matter... not my opinion tho

 

You dont print your own money. You print everyone elses like china, russia, mexico etc... that way they inflate and we get to spend it.

 

Brw
I do not recall reading any forum post claiming that we could print our way outta debt. I guess it should be pretty easy to provide a dozen quotes. Or even onesie

 

"Intergovernmental holdings". You mean federal worker's pensions and Social Security?
Do you people have any idea what these "intergovernmental holdings" actually consist of?

These are ultimately debts or obligations owed to people, not just government departments. When the Department of Fish & Game is setting aside pension funds for its workers in the form of Treasury bonds, it's not really fair to just call that "intergovernmental debt".

 

The money the government owes itself. We can just make those future budget items as needed. We have $130T in unfunded liabilities. What will the technicalities matter when we are cutting down cotton fields to print money.

 

The money the government owes to itself which has been set aside for old people after their retirement.

And that number will be even higher if those savings accounts suddenly dry up.

Still want to cancel that intergovernmental debt?

 

Yep. There is no difference is saying the government owes it to old people than there is saying the government owes it to Japan. Government debt is just a placeholder in the financial statements. Print it all away.

 

obviously they would vote 100% for it if there was enough support for it. Do you understand?

 

If they really wanted it to be illegal then why did they massively increase the debt when they were in power instead of banning debt spending? You are so naive believing that politicians will actually follow their promises.

 

And I see that this discussion is drifting off topic.

Can we all agree the government can't print its way out of debt? That that's not really a viable option?
Every time I have brought up that debt is something we need to worry about, there has always been some stupid poster that says "no need to worry, the government can just print its way out of debt".

 

if there is enough support they have to do it or lose their seats. Do you understand?

 

they increase debt because their was not enough support to do otherwise. Make sense now?

 

to get out of debt they will need to print money, raise taxes, reduce spending, wait for boomers to die off, grow the economy, and elect more Republicans and Libertarians.

 

Many people don't know this but this was one of the reasons why there were many Republican lawmakers who wanted more immigration. They thought a bigger population would mean a bigger tax base that would be able to help pay down the debt.

What they would not realize until many years later is that the tax base does not automatically rise in proportion to the size of the population, and in many cases having more people just becomes more of a liability (when there's not enough good paying jobs to go around for all and the unemployment rate goes up). But again, these politicians didn't think about this.

 

Well Republicans have never actually made the effort when they were in power in fact they have done the complete opposite. I guess if there is enough support then they will try to get it passed but they have never tried so you know what that means.

 

So when there isn't enough support to ban the debt even when they wanted to they then decide the only other option is to double it instead? How does this make any sense?

 

it makes sense for a politician to do what keeps him in office. If there was enough support for a debt ceiling cap at current levels politicians could do it tomorrow. Got it now??

 

wrong of course. Newt passed BBA in House and it fell one short in Senate. In end they got blamed for govt shutdowns debt ceiling caps etc so backed way off because support was not there. Make sense now?

 

if you have evidence of that I will pay you $10,000. Bet?