Democratic policies are better for the economy than Republican policies.

[pondwater]

Yes, printing money causes inflation, and printing a lot of money in a short time creates hyperinflation.  But that isn't the same thing as debt.  So the statement "Printing money causes debt" is categorically false.  Debt may be bad, and inflation may be bad, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.  Words matter.

And while we're on the subject of Things That Are Bad: however bad inflation (or even hyperinflation) might be, it is unquestionable that outright refusing to pay your debt (i.e. refusing to raise the debt ceiling) is far worse.  Inflation means that the payment for the debt has reduced value; refusal to pay the debt means the payment has zero value (because there is no payment).

I don't have time to argue semantics with you. The government can't and won't print $22 trillion to pay off the debt, it would be catastrophic. It's hard to fathom that someone would suggest such non sense instead of just being responsible and paying your debt down while spending less than you take in. That's some AOC level stupidity right there, LMFAO...

[Tenshot13]

^^^Yes, let's add another $93 Trillion to our debt (New Green Deal), we can just print more money!

[Dave Gray]

You guys are being weird.

He's not suggesting we print the money.  He's just saying (correctly) that printing money doesn't create debt.  And also, that the govt has options that individuals do not.

You could also do a combination of paying some of the debt and printing the rest, which wasn't discussed.

[pondwater]

You guys are being weird.

He's not suggesting we print the money.  He's just saying (correctly) that printing money doesn't create debt.  And also, that the govt has options that individuals do not.

You could also do a combination of paying some of the debt and printing the rest, which wasn't discussed.

Besides being responsible and paying what you owe and spending less than you take in, I'd like to hear the other options(plural) that the government has. Printing $22 trillion out of thin air isn't a realistic or viable option.

[Spider-Dan]

The government can't and won't print $22 trillion to pay off the debt, it would be catastrophic. It's hard to fathom that someone would suggest such non sense instead of just being responsible and paying your debt down while spending less than you take in.

Let's be clear about two things:

1) I don't think it's necessary to pay down the debt all at once (or ever, really).  As Dick Cheney put it, "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." The "national debt" is a rhetorical crutch that is only trotted out when someone wants to argue against funding some program they disagree with anyway.

2) Your preferred alternative to paying off the debt by printing more money is... to simply refuse to pay our debts, which would be FAR worse than minting a $22T coin.  So I find it rather ridiculous that you are accusing me of having nonsensical solutions; your solution would detonate the economy instantly.

[pondwater]

Let's be clear about two things:

1) I don't think it's necessary to pay down the debt all at once (or ever, really).  As Dick Cheney put it, "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." The "national debt" is a rhetorical crutch that is only trotted out when someone wants to argue against funding some program they disagree with anyway.

2) Your preferred alternative to paying off the debt by printing more money is... to simply refuse to pay our debts, which would be FAR worse than minting a $22T coin.  So I find it rather ridiculous that you are accusing me of having nonsensical solutions; your solution would detonate the economy instantly.

No, you either can't read or refuse to read. My last 2-3 posts have stated my preferred method to pay off the debt is to actually pay off the debt. Spend less than you make and pay down the debt.

But from reading your #1 point above, it seem as though you think we can just keep spending more than we have and racking up debt and not worry about it because it's just a crutch and not real. You don't live in reality anymore, go see a therapist.

[Fau Teixeira]

We could never pay the debt off .. if we did that there would be no money in circulation at all. our cash is backed by debt .. that's what it is. I don't know that people understand the relationship between debt and currency. debt = currency .. no debt .. = no currency

[Spider-Dan]

pondwater, you have repeatedly stated that refusing to pay our debts is preferable to printing extra money to pay it off.  This is crazy.

As for the danger of the debt: my actual point is that no one (including you) believes it is a real problem.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Do you oppose the Trump tax cuts that exploded the debt?  How about our military spending that eclipses nearly all of the rest of the world combined?

Like I said: the only time people care about "the national debt" is when talking about cutting programs they already oppose ideologically.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

actually spending less or printing money is not the only two options, raising taxes (or at least not cutting them)

And while I agree printng money can cause inflation, the examples always given are of countries in which the debt was primarily not in the countries own currency.

If Venuzula owes its debt in US dollars, printing more Venuzalian dollars won’t retire the debt because the value if V$ will drop relative to US$ and the debt.  OTOH if the debt is in your own country while inflation will occur and the currency will fall in value relative to other currencies the debt will be retired and you will have a clean slate. 

[Spider-Dan]

Let me add a bit to my previous post, as I know it seems "reasonable" to care about the debt/deficit:

When I first started following politics, I also believed that the responsible thing to do is to pay down the national debt.  And then as I learned more, I found out that in the '90s under Clinton, we were actually running a surplus!  We were on the way to paying off the debt.

So what was the first thing that Republicans - the party of fiscal responsibility - did when W became President?  They said that "running a surplus means we are taxing the people too much" and immediately cut taxes until we were back in deficit, naturally followed with a lot of furrowed brows about how we can't afford Social Security.

NO.
ONE.
CARES.
ABOUT.
THE.
DEFICIT.

If you take power, and you allow the opposition to deficit-shame you into not enacting your policy priorities, you're a sucker.  Because the moment they take power, they will happily explode the deficit to enact THEIR policy priorities.

[pondwater]

Let me add a bit to my previous post, as I know it seems "reasonable" to care about the debt/deficit:

When I first started following politics, I also believed that the responsible thing to do is to pay down the national debt.  And then as I learned more, I found out that in the '90s under Clinton, we were actually running a surplus!  We were on the way to paying off the debt.

So what was the first thing that Republicans - the party of fiscal responsibility - did when W became President?  They said that "running a surplus means we are taxing the people too much" and immediately cut taxes until we were back in deficit, naturally followed with a lot of furrowed brows about how we can't afford Social Security.

NO.
ONE.
CARES.
ABOUT.
THE.
DEFICIT.

If you take power, and you allow the opposition to deficit-shame you into not enacting your policy priorities, you're a sucker.  Because the moment they take power, they will happily explode the deficit to enact THEIR policy priorities.

If you say so

[masterfins]

Let me add a bit to my previous post, as I know it seems "reasonable" to care about the debt/deficit:

When I first started following politics, I also believed that the responsible thing to do is to pay down the national debt.  And then as I learned more, I found out that in the '90s under Clinton, we were actually running a surplus!  We were on the way to paying off the debt.

So what was the first thing that Republicans - the party of fiscal responsibility - did when W became President?  They said that "running a surplus means we are taxing the people too much" and immediately cut taxes until we were back in deficit, naturally followed with a lot of furrowed brows about how we can't afford Social Security.

NO.
ONE.
CARES.
ABOUT.
THE.
DEFICIT.

If you take power, and you allow the opposition to deficit-shame you into not enacting your policy priorities, you're a sucker.  Because the moment they take power, they will happily explode the deficit to enact THEIR policy priorities.

I agree with your comments here for the most part, and I hope what I'm about to say won't create a major thread hijack...but the deficit is like global warming.  Most people don't really care about either one, but if both are allowed to go unchecked sooner or later it will lead to a world wide disaster.  It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but both issues can affect all of us on some minor levels now, whether we agree on the reason or not.  It is better to try and be fiscally responsible when prudent, and to try and work towards reducing greenhouse emissions, and to use renewable energy when possible.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think that's a good comparison.

Once most of the world departed the gold standard and moved to fiat currency, "money" is almost entirely psychological.  It is whatever the people who hold it agree it is.  So one country can simply forgive debt owed by another, and a third country can create a whole bunch of money out of nothing, or destroy it.  Under our current system, money is an infinite resource, restrained only by the willingness of various countries to create more.  Our current system will be perfectly fine as long as people believe it is fine; it is only a panic that can cause the system to collapse.  In short, it's a system based on psychology.

In contrast, climate change is tied to objective scientific measurements and outcomes that are outside of the political system.  No matter how much you believe climate change is a hoax, it won't stop your home from burning down in a wildfire, or being flooded in a hurricane.

But the analogy could be similar, I suppose.  If the world was still on a gold standard, and there was some sort of "gold rot" that turned gold into lead (but that certain political groups did not recognize as real), then that would make the economic and environmental comparisons more alike.  But even then, we would always have the option to switch to a different standard like silver... whereas we can't switch to a different planet.