Posted on 04/16/2007 1:32:37 AM PDT by cva66snipe
You work for Nancy Pelosi don't you.
L
``The way to neutralize this is to send money to nobody,’’ Paul said. Most American foreign aid never gets to the poor people it’s intended to help, Paul charged.
End foreign welfare. NOW!
You can name call all you want, but a lot of conservative presidents have approved foreign aid packages.
That doesn't make it Constitutional.
L
Again, it falls under “foreign policy.”
Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected to anything outside of his current district.
None.
Paying off the mortgage MEANS having a balanced national budget and having government live within it's means. Now I don't have a fancy diploma from Liberal U but I do understand that IF I spend more than I take in I quickly have payments I can not even make the interest on. That means eventually bankruptcy. But I don't think you even actually read the article anyway.
Unfortunately our governments unauthorized charity has helped keep many nations oppressed. In doing so it is sponsoring dictators who rob, steal, or take the money, grain, or whatever and sell it for their own profit.
But I don’t think you really read and understood my reply.
You would have to understand how federal debt comes into existence.
Thanks for posting this. Paul's constitutional conservative position is a desparately needed voice of reason.
I would rather that the feds let us just keep our earnings in the first place rather than redistribute it around the world.
If there was an answer, it was negative.
The same way all debt does. Debt can only exist if you owe. To owe you either have to borrow money and owe or acquire a debt from services. Now when the Incoming funds is than the Outgoing debt is acquired. Why should we be acquiring more debt and giving away money to foreign nations when we as a nation have an ever increasing debt of which our grandkids will be paying off unless it is brought under control.
True some things must due to high initial cost of a item have payments made to the loaners. Our government must learn to live withing OUR MEANS and stop spending on ridiculous pork which it has no authority to fund.
Hint: No, it won't. NO, MARTHA, IT REALLY WON'T! Have you ever taken the Series 7 General Securities Exam? I scored a 96. My former Human Resources director told me it was the highest score she'd ever seen. (Granted, I know people who have scored a perfect 100. But they teach the Series 7, and regularly re-test to keep their edge).
Let's say we cut the US Federal Budget across the board by 40% tomorrow (to $1.7 Trillion dollars, roughly as large as the biggest of the CLINTON Budgets), and we cut all Federal taxes by 10% across the board also (to roughly $2.2 Trillion). At that point, we're running a Federal Budget Surplus of $500 Billion per year -- enough to pay off all Federal debt in about 18 years (ceteris paribus, of course -- We'll assume that all future receipts and outlays rise together in concert at a rate equal to inflation, and that any "excess revenues" generated from economic growth are returned to the Taxpayers in additional tax cuts.)
Those with an understanding of the CAPITAL MARKETS understand that if the Federal Government is "Paying off the country's mortgage", i.e., redeeming $500 Billion per year in Federal Debt (Treasury Bonds) and not issuing new Federal Debt (Treasury Bonds) for sale, the Federal Government is returning $500 Billion dollars per year in Cash ("liquidity") to the former Bond-holders.
Now, MARTHA... if there's $500 Billion in Cash being returned to the former Bond-holders, and no new Federal Debt, here's your $64,000 question: where is that money going to go? Unless you think that the average Treasury Bond investor (who is generally looking for the safest investment he can find) is likely to go blow his wad in Vegas or online Stock Market day-trading, the correct answer is: interest-bearing Bank Deposits. Savings, CDs, Money Market Accounts -- if the ultra-conservative "safe money" investor cannot invest his money in Federal Debt (because President Ron Paul is paying it off), he will put his money in interest-bearing Bank Deposits.
So, now, what you have is a Banking System which is, in fact, being flooded with an additional $500 Billion per year in NEW Liquidity -- that is to say, $500 Billion per year in New Deposits from former Federal Bond-holders whose Bonds are being redeemed in Cash and are looking for interest-bearing accounts in which to stash that money. And what are those Banks going to do with that $500 Billion per year in New Deposits? Well, they're going to attempt to lend it out at a 3-6-3 profit, of course, according to the Banker's Rule: "Borrow at 3, Lend at 6, Golf at 3".
They're going to Lend out that $500 Billion per year New Deposit base to Home-Buyers, Small Businessmen, Farmers, Commercial Developers, Investors, Speculators -- everyone who makes this great country profitable and financially delightful in which to live.
As cva66snipe said:
The fact is, I'll take cva66snipe's home-spun wisdom over your supposed knowledge of "how federal debt comes into existence" any day of the week (and I've probably got you beat on that, anyway -- just off the top of your head, how would you construct an equity-index-option credit time spread assuming matching strike prices? What's your maximum upside? What's your maximum downside?).
What you don't seem to recognize is the fact that WHENEVER the US Federal Government runs a Deficit, it must find investors with Cash on hand to purchase its Bonds, and it thus operates as a rapacious competitor in the Capital Markets: sucking money out of the pool of available investment capital (which could be better invested in Private profitable enterprises) and away from Bank Deposits (fairly directly) -- and as long as the Federal Government has Trillions of Dollars of National Debt, it must exact Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year in Taxes from the Economy, AGAIN sucking money out of the pool of available investment capital and therefore away from Bank Deposits (somewhat more indirectly).
The fact is, "Paying off the Country's Mortgage" (i.e., redeeming Federal Debt in Cash) would flood the Banking system with New Depositors flush with New Cash Deposits, and could touch off an incredible self-reinforcing Economic Expansion which would make the Roaring Twenties look like the Great Depression by comparison.
But, of course, you'd have to have an understanding of the Capital Markets to understand that. For cva66snipe, it is enough to know that "You cannot forever Spend more than you Get, without expecting eventual Disaster". But if that's all he knows about Macro-Economic Public Finance, it is enough... because he's right.
Best, OP
“The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender” - Proverbs
Amen!
Sadly, that's also true.
That's the defense for every political philosophy...Ezra Pound admired Italy's fascists because they made the trains run on time. You have to come up with something more distinctive, I'm afraid.
If you tell enough people they belong on the other side enough times, they will eventually start to believe it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.