<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>CapitalistMarks &#187; federal deficit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://capitalistmarks.com/tag/federal-deficit/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://capitalistmarks.com</link>
	<description>Economic musings and more from Scott Hogan</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:53:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Debt really is a burden.</title>
		<link>http://capitalistmarks.com/political-munglings/2010/02/debt-really-is-a-burden</link>
		<comments>http://capitalistmarks.com/political-munglings/2010/02/debt-really-is-a-burden#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>scott</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[economic daydreaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political munglings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizen politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cost of war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt burden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt carrying costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics and economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://capitalistmarks.com/?p=1051</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Economics is about politics.  The vice-versa isn't necessarily true.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a reason that economists, and average Joe&#8217;s, call America&#8217;s debt a burden.  Because it really is a burden: a load that is difficult to bear, something that is oppressive.</p>
<p>Need I go further?  Apparently so, as our leaders in Washington seem to share the opinion that in all cases regarding re-election increasing debt is an okay thing.</p>
<p>Hence, to help get re-elected the majority democratic House increased the &#8216;legal&#8217; debt limit of our wonderful nation to $14.2 trillion.  And then Obama signed the new &#8216;legal&#8217; debt limit into law.  That was the easy thing to do.  The hard thing?  Balance the freakin&#8217; budget you knuckleheads!!</p>
<p>What does the new debt ceiling accomplish?</p>
<p>For one thing the democrats in Washington (the &#8216;never met a government transfer payment too large or too extravagant to pass&#8217; democrats) now have clear sailing to spend about $1.5 trillion MORE than they already have.  And, if history is any indicator, they will spend it fast and furiously with no consideration for the long-term consequences or their misguided selfish and &#8217;socialist&#8217; tendencies.</p>
<p>As I have said many times in the past, I am neither democrat nor republican (though I clearly lean toward the conservative side of nearly all fiscal issues).  Yet, when I see gross incompetence and even grosser ignorance I do not hesitate to call a spade a spade.</p>
<p>Therefor here I go.</p>
<p>The democrat majority in the House and the Senate, with a little &#8216;egging on&#8217; from the democrat White House, are on a spend and expand (as in government) spree the likes of which we have <em>never</em> seen.</p>
<p>Nearly everyone in D.C. agrees that the current recession is either out or on its way.  Yet Demo&#8217;s are hustling through the House yet another stimulus.  And, as evidence that the public is rejecting their already extravagant spending, they insist on adding more $$ to pretend to create jobs and to do so without consulting (read &#8216;listen to&#8217;) their cohorts on the right.  This has nothing to do with really creating employment since any results would be many months (here read &#8216;after the coming election&#8217;) from being proven.  They are doing it just for show and for votes.</p>
<p>I hope the American people see through this sham.  Brought to you by the same people that promised unemployment of 8% or less if the $758 Billion stimulus bill was passed (it is at or near 10% now).</p>
<p>So who are we to trust?  Not the republicans, sadly, those guys brought a tripling and quadrupling of our deficit during the Bush years.  Fiscal conservatives? Hardly!</p>
<p>We must all recognize that our debt really does matter.  China owns a chunk of it.  So does Saudi Arabia.  Does anyone in their right mind think those dudes are our &#8216;freinds&#8217;?  Hardly!  What if the bank that owned your mortgage hated your guts . . . do you think for a second that they would &#8216;work&#8217; it out with you?</p>
<p>On top of that is the cost of servicing any debt we &#8216;bear&#8217; in that burden.  At current interest rates that cost is normatively low . . . but who expects interest rates to remain at all-time record lows?  No one outside of the Washington beltway.  Debt service could soon be HUGE!</p>
<p>You and I can&#8217;t operate our lives at a deficit &#8212; not for long anyway.  Cities and counties can&#8217;t either.  Most states can&#8217;t by law (even with Arnold the &#8216;Gobernator&#8217;  at the helm).</p>
<p>So how can the federal government?</p>
<p>Because of war goes the historical party line.</p>
<p>Yet the costs of the &#8216;wars&#8217; we are in now are only a small part of our federal budget.   Don&#8217;t buy that old argument today.  We <em>always</em> have high defense costs and the incremental costs of the current  &#8217;wars&#8217; are really small overall &#8212; even though in the tens of billions of $$.   The federal budget for next year is over $3.5 trillion  and annual &#8216;war&#8217; costs are less than 3% of that.</p>
<p>Government spending is totally OUT OF CONTROL.</p>
<p>We can&#8217;t continue with the current debt burden.  Politicians aren&#8217;t going to do anything but talk and ignore the problem.  They are &#8216;professionals&#8217; after all . . . too smart to listen to you and I.</p>
<p>Solutions?  Get citizen politicians to serve for one or two terms.  Let them handle the purse strings like they would their own.  Tight and conservative.</p>
<p>Economics is too often about politics.  The vice-versa isn&#8217;t necessarily true.</p>
<p>Vote against ALL incumbents and for citizen leaders willing to serve for ONLY a few years.</p>
<p>I bet you that if we all do this the whole &#8216;burden&#8217; issue will be moot in a decade.</p>
<p>And if you don&#8217;t think your voice can be heard then you are wrong.</p>
<p>United we stand . . .  divided we fall (and the fall would be much greater than any you ever heard of in the stock markets).</p>
<p>thanks to flickr&#8217;s <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/azrainman/1798824344/">azrainman</a> for the photo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://capitalistmarks.com/political-munglings/2010/02/debt-really-is-a-burden/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

