Does that analogy really fit, though? I mean, if the US dies, it won't be passing its debt on to its children, right?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What If: We got all the good ideas worldwide, payed a little more to implement them?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
it passes it's debt on everyday. The debt lives on, the people who borrowed die off.Does that analogy really fit, though? I mean, if the US dies, it won't be passing its debt on to its children, right?
Exactly. And in some cases, those who die off pass their government bonds on to their children. You could say they pass on both the debt and the means to pay it!it passes it's debt on everyday. The debt lives on, the people who borrowed die off.
if the USA Government was a money producing asset I wouldn't mind owning some debt. Or better yet stock. But it's been a long time since the USA Government turned a profit. I can think of better investments. Republicans want to treat the government like a business. You and your crowd are good examples of why that is a bad idea. Betting for or against the government is good for lucrative contracts and short term profits, but not a sustainable investment idea.Exactly. And in some cases, those who die off pass their government bonds on to their children. You could say they pass on both the debt and the means to pay it!
Betting on the government is like betting on the referees. It works as long as they are crooked.
And today, one side is betting on the government referees and the other side is betting on the players. And we all end up just betting on the size of the bribe.
Last edited:
1. considering the debt is related to the Debt in GDP... you pick an odd measure.
2. regarding the sequester... I remember govt drones saying it would destroy the economy.
I see lucrum descibed it as obama forrest gumping himself into the sequester.
2. regarding the sequester... I remember govt drones saying it would destroy the economy.
I see lucrum descibed it as obama forrest gumping himself into the sequester.
You have to relate debt to ability to pay. If I say, "I'm in debt $1 million", how would you react? You might relate the number to your own ability to pay it, first, to judge how "big" it is. If it seems big to you, you probably next assume that my income is sufficient to pay it. Maybe you'd think it's long term debt, like a mortgage, so I'm simply in debt much like everyone else. A number without any reference to income is meaningless.
I guess we're done here, since I don't believe government should turn a profit.if the USA Government was a money producing asset I wouldn't mind owning some debt. Or better yet stock. But it's been a long time since the USA Government turned a profit. I can think of better investments. Republicans want to treat the government like a business. You and your crowd are good examples of why that is a bad idea. Betting for or against the government is good for lucrative contracts and short term profits, but not a sustainable investment idea.
Betting on the government is like betting on the referees. It works as long as they are crooked.
And today, one side is betting on the government referees and the other side is betting on the players. And we all end up just betting on the size of the bribe.
There is nothing odd about it. Trump owes millions, but his income is in the millions and his worth is in billions. This is how his creditors decide on whether to loan him money or not: his ability to repay.consider the debt is related to the Debt in GDP... you pick an odd measure.
and I don't believe it should turn a lossI guess we're done here, since I don't believe government should turn a profit.
Which is why we try to keep our debt at sustainable levels.and I don't believe it should turn a loss
you purposefully missed the point. as your debt is hidden in the debt.
its a bit of a joke to look at an increase A as a percent of A plus B because A could overwhelm b. you need a better break down.
Now you could be correct... maybe our debt is holding steady vs the private economy... but your ratio does not really show us much.
its a bit of a joke to look at an increase A as a percent of A plus B because A could overwhelm b. you need a better break down.
Now you could be correct... maybe our debt is holding steady vs the private economy... but your ratio does not really show us much.
1. considering the debt is related to the Debt in GDP... you pick an odd measure.
2. regarding the sequester... I remember govt drones saying it would destroy the economy.
I see lucrum descibed it as obama forrest gumping himself into the sequester.
Last edited: