Judge Jury & Executioner

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Pukie? lol...

Taking out a mortgage to afford a home you cannot buy in cash is not Keynesian. The Keynesian equivalent to your analogy would be saying "well, I can't afford the mortgage I'm in currently, so let me take out a HELOC to cover those payments."

Debt is not bad. Too much debt is bad.

I'm just pointing out that pucrum is wrong. Go ahead and spin for your buddy.

The Keynesian "equivalent" is realizing you can't afford your mortgage because of a loss of income, so you spend money on, eg., a haircut, a suit, night school, and some interview coaching, so you can get a better paying work.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

No I'm not, I said your use of the story is as analogy.

Then you're confused on the analogy. Either way, you incorrectly applied the parable to what I was inferring.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Then you're confused on the analogy. Either way, you incorrectly applied the parable to what I was inferring.

But at the end of the day, people have been predicting the end of America for nearly two centuries. You're merely a newcomer.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

I'm just pointing out that pucrum is wrong. Go ahead and spin for your buddy.

The Keynesian "equivalent" is realizing you can't afford your mortgage because of a loss of income, so you spend money on, eg., a haircut, a suit, night school, and some interview coaching, so you can get a better paying work.

Perhaps, but you'd have to take out a loan to spend on the suit, night school, etc...it would require more debt taking on, as the country is already spending money it does not possess.

The right choice would not have been purchasing a house you could not afford in the first place.

And Lucrum had nothing to do with my original comment, so I'm not sure what "buddy spinning" you're referring to.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

But at the end of the day, people have been predicting the end of America for nearly two centuries.

I haven't. As you say, I just recently got on that train, so putting me in the doomsday group isn't entirely accurate. I'm pointing to some massive changes on the horizon to the way this country operates. And prior to the 2006 time frame, I was a grasshopper like you.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

...And Lucrum had nothing to do with my original comment, so I'm not sure what "buddy spinning" you're referring to.

With so many on ignore, rectum is frequently out of the loop.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Perhaps, but you'd have to take out a loan to spend on the suit, night school, etc...it would require more debt taking on, as the country is already spending money it does not possess.

The right choice would not have been purchasing a house you could not afford in the first place.

And Lucrum had nothing to do with my original comment, so I'm not sure what "buddy spinning" you're referring to.

Yes it would be more debt, but if your odds of getting a better paying job are as good as the odds that Americans are going to get up tomorrow, work, and pay taxes, then that debt will get paid.

 

[Fractals 'R Us]

Quote from Humpy:

Let's hope the days of George Bush are firmly in the past where 1 man makes those life threatening judgements all on his own.

Are you one ignorant fu%^er or what? Nearly the entire US Senate and House approved going to the ME to f%^k up Afghanistan. They won't admit it now, the Democrats on the whole don't want that bit of history in our thinking I'm sure. They might lose the anti-war vote!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Lucrum:

I'd be interested to hear AAA's explanation as well.

If I was in debt to the tune of roughly three times my annual income I'd certainly consider myself broke.

Bankrupt implies a financial situation where one's liabilities are in excess of one's assets and ability to finance debt service on those liabilities.

All of the US's liabilities are denoted in dollars, for which the Treasury has a printing press. The ability to service debt, by monetizing it if necessary, is unquestioned. Furthermore, a simplistic cash flow analysis ignores the vast assets carried off balance sheet by the government. Land, minerals, etc are worth trillions.

Moreover, the congress can eliminate a huge swath of liabilities with a vote by repealing entitlement programs or other expenditures.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Bankrupt implies a financial situation where one's liabilities are in excess of one's assets and ability to finance debt service on those liabilities.

All of the US's liabilities are denoted in dollars, for which the Treasury has a printing press. The ability to service debt, by monetizing it if necessary, is unquestioned. Furthermore, a simplistic cash flow analysis ignores the vast assets carried off balance sheet by the government. Land, minerals, etc are worth trillions.

Moreover, the congress can eliminate a huge swath of liabilities with a vote by repealing entitlement programs or other expenditures.

All of these are true. The US can print/devalue it's way out of debt, at massive cost to their citizens. Or they could change legislation to fix a lot of it.

But in absence of either of those options, the US does indeed have more liabilities than they are capable of paying back. Said in another fashion, they are bankrupt.