Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Endless borrowing would not be disastrous. Go study some economics. The budget of the Federal government doesn't need to be run like your household budget.
Borrowing for the Household budgets arent disasterous either if its used properly, so yes, government budgets need to be run like household budgets because if they arent, you get the same outcome.. BANKRUPTCY...
Borrowing for the Household budgets arent disasterous either if its used properly, so yes, government budgets need to be run like household budgets because if they arent, you get the same outcome.. BANKRUPTCY...
Well i just look at recent economic history of the US. Every time the federal government tried to balance the budget and cut deficit spending we enter into a recession. The most recent example is Clinton in 2000. The next year we entered a recession. If balance budget = recession, why would I want it?
President Regan showed that running huge deficits is not bad as long as the total economy is growing faster than the government debt. He ran huge deficits but growth in the private sector and the total economy was tremendous.
I think that the deficits do not harm economic growth at all. We need to worry less about deficits and more about how to create incentives for the private sector to create jobs and expand.
Actually, Clinton's and the Republican Congress created the longest period of economic expansion in US history. All of this with a "relatively" balanced budget. It wasn't until a vicious combination of dot-com bubble busting, the end of a business cycle, and the September 11 attacks that brought it to an end. It's speculated that if the 09/11 attacks had not occurred, there may have been no recession at all (highly doubtful).
So no. balanced budgets do not cause recessions.
[edit] Having some mild debt and mild deficit spending is OK - but that's in the 1-2% (maybe 3%) range.
Well i just look at recent economic history of the US. Every time the federal government tried to balance the budget and cut deficit spending we enter into a recession. The most recent example is Clinton in 2000. The next year we entered a recession. If balance budget = recession, why would I want it?
President Regan showed that running huge deficits is not bad as long as the total economy is growing faster than the government debt. He ran huge deficits but growth in the private sector and the total economy was tremendous.
I think that the deficits do not harm economic growth at all. We need to worry less about deficits and more about how to create incentives for the private sector to create jobs and expand.
That is ridiculous thinking.
OK, you have the family check book. You have a thousand dollars in and you write monthly checks for ten thousand.
How long would you personally last before you are refused credit and would dry up?
Our nation has been pulling this for forty years and we have hit a wall.
Government has NOTHING regarding their budget to do with economic growth since the government itself is nothing more than a draw on expenses against tax paying dollars.
ONLY the private side makes tax money, makes something and is the only side that should be inspired to grow.
Actually, Clinton's and the Republican Congress created the longest period of economic expansion in US history. All of this with a "relatively" balanced budget. It wasn't until a vicious combination of dot-com bubble busting, the end of a business cycle, and the September 11 attacks that brought it to an end. It's speculated that if the 09/11 attacks had not occurred, there may have been no recession at all (highly doubtful).
So no. balanced budgets do not cause recessions.
[edit] Having some mild debt and mild deficit spending is OK - but that's in the 1-2% (maybe 3%) range.
True, but keep in mind that during that period everyone had unrealistic expectations about what the INTERNET meant to the future of business. People were way over-paying for tech stock and in the end we had a crash.
None of this was Clinton or Republican's fault, but sometimes expectations are wrong and all that happened there was we were riding a tech stock market bubble for a while that would never last the face of reality.
I will support a balanced budget if the tariffs, excise taxes and income tax on the top 5% are raised enough to cover current expenses and pay down the debt.
Borrowing for the Household budgets arent disasterous either if its used properly, so yes, government budgets need to be run like household budgets because if they arent, you get the same outcome.. BANKRUPTCY...
OK, how does far outspending what you take in for decades not lead the nation to financial disaster? Explain please.
How does this get paid back without a balanced budget amendment?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
