[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]
1) If interest rate only go up by a factor of 4 (not unrealistic given how low they are now), we are completely screwed.

[/quote]

Well, maybe not exactly. It would be detrimental, but US Govt bonds aren’t callable. I believe average maturity on outstanding government debt is about 5 years. (I have no idea how the inter-governmental debt figures into that average, like the special issue bonds for SS OAB.) So if rates go up by a factor of 4, interest paid will not suddently get quadrupled. The interest on long-term debt won’t change at all. It will increase expenditures for new bonds, but not by a factor of 4. Some of those bonds coming due were issued 10 years ago and more when rates were significantly higher than they are today.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]
1) If interest rate only go up by a factor of 4 (not unrealistic given how low they are now), we are completely screwed.

[/quote]

Well, maybe not exactly. It would be detrimental, but US Govt bonds aren’t callable. I believe average maturity on outstanding government debt is about 5 years. (I have no idea how the inter-governmental debt figures into that average, like the special issue bonds for SS OAB.) So if rates go up by a factor of 4, interest paid will not suddently get quadrupled. The interest on long-term debt won’t change at all. It will increase expenditures for new bonds, but not by a factor of 4. Some of those bonds coming due were issued 10 years ago and more when rates were significantly higher than they are today.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]
1) If interest rate only go up by a factor of 4 (not unrealistic given how low they are now), we are completely screwed.

[/quote]

Well, maybe not exactly. It would be detrimental, but US Govt bonds aren’t callable. I believe average maturity on outstanding government debt is about 5 years. (I have no idea how the inter-governmental debt figures into that average, like the special issue bonds for SS OAB.) So if rates go up by a factor of 4, interest paid will not suddently get quadrupled. The interest on long-term debt won’t change at all. It will increase expenditures for new bonds, but not by a factor of 4. Some of those bonds coming due were issued 10 years ago and more when rates were significantly higher than they are today.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sreeb]
1) If interest rate only go up by a factor of 4 (not unrealistic given how low they are now), we are completely screwed.

[/quote]

Well, maybe not exactly. It would be detrimental, but US Govt bonds aren’t callable. I believe average maturity on outstanding government debt is about 5 years. (I have no idea how the inter-governmental debt figures into that average, like the special issue bonds for SS OAB.) So if rates go up by a factor of 4, interest paid will not suddently get quadrupled. The interest on long-term debt won’t change at all. It will increase expenditures for new bonds, but not by a factor of 4. Some of those bonds coming due were issued 10 years ago and more when rates were significantly higher than they are today.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jeeman]Yes, i agree with SDRealtor. It was a “sugar-high”, and the positive GDP is mostly just growth in the government.

That is not growth, since government can only grow by taxing a growing private sector or by borrowing from foreigners (i.e. the Chinese). We have to pay all of this back one day. Obama has increased our debt in 2 years more than Bush did in all 8 of his years![/quote]

True about Obama’s debt, but most of that is due to various bailouts and programs that were meant to keep asset prices artificially inflated (not really what most would call a “liberal” cause).

Mind you, I think we needed to spend some public money, mostly to keep people fed and clothed — unemployment insurance was reasonable, IMHO — but the financial/housing/mortgage sector has sucked up trillions of dollars.[/quote]

True about Obama’s debt? Not exactly. Almost half of the increase in debt was a result of Bush’s last budget, which was a HIGHER deficit than Obama’s first budget deficit. That needs to be repeated. Bush’s last budget deficit was HIGHER than Obama’s first budget deficit. Credit anywhere for Obama reducing the deficit? The debt ceiling will have to be raised again in the next few months but just as it is unfair to saddle the new congress with that responsibility, it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren]
[quote=SK in CV]Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?[/quote]

I was referring to the source of much of the problem, which is the middle east. I believe I was also clear that the vast majority of muslims wouldn’t consider terrorism, and I never said that ALL muslims are culturally backwards. I also never claimed that we’re culturally perfect, but on average culturally and morally superior than many parts of the middle east? Do you honestly think otherwise?

[/quote]

So if the problem, in your mind, is the middle east, what does that have to do with Muslims? Just pick a common denominator and smear away?

And to answer your question, no. You may like the culture you live in. I may like the culture I live in. But it’s subjective. I’ve experienced many, but only lived in one. I can’t the claim that it’s superior. And morally superior? Eh. I’m not bullet proof. I can’t make that claim either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren]
[quote=SK in CV]Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?[/quote]

I was referring to the source of much of the problem, which is the middle east. I believe I was also clear that the vast majority of muslims wouldn’t consider terrorism, and I never said that ALL muslims are culturally backwards. I also never claimed that we’re culturally perfect, but on average culturally and morally superior than many parts of the middle east? Do you honestly think otherwise?

[/quote]

So if the problem, in your mind, is the middle east, what does that have to do with Muslims? Just pick a common denominator and smear away?

And to answer your question, no. You may like the culture you live in. I may like the culture I live in. But it’s subjective. I’ve experienced many, but only lived in one. I can’t the claim that it’s superior. And morally superior? Eh. I’m not bullet proof. I can’t make that claim either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren]
[quote=SK in CV]Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?[/quote]

I was referring to the source of much of the problem, which is the middle east. I believe I was also clear that the vast majority of muslims wouldn’t consider terrorism, and I never said that ALL muslims are culturally backwards. I also never claimed that we’re culturally perfect, but on average culturally and morally superior than many parts of the middle east? Do you honestly think otherwise?

[/quote]

So if the problem, in your mind, is the middle east, what does that have to do with Muslims? Just pick a common denominator and smear away?

And to answer your question, no. You may like the culture you live in. I may like the culture I live in. But it’s subjective. I’ve experienced many, but only lived in one. I can’t the claim that it’s superior. And morally superior? Eh. I’m not bullet proof. I can’t make that claim either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren]
[quote=SK in CV]Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?[/quote]

I was referring to the source of much of the problem, which is the middle east. I believe I was also clear that the vast majority of muslims wouldn’t consider terrorism, and I never said that ALL muslims are culturally backwards. I also never claimed that we’re culturally perfect, but on average culturally and morally superior than many parts of the middle east? Do you honestly think otherwise?

[/quote]

So if the problem, in your mind, is the middle east, what does that have to do with Muslims? Just pick a common denominator and smear away?

And to answer your question, no. You may like the culture you live in. I may like the culture I live in. But it’s subjective. I’ve experienced many, but only lived in one. I can’t the claim that it’s superior. And morally superior? Eh. I’m not bullet proof. I can’t make that claim either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren]
[quote=SK in CV]Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?[/quote]

I was referring to the source of much of the problem, which is the middle east. I believe I was also clear that the vast majority of muslims wouldn’t consider terrorism, and I never said that ALL muslims are culturally backwards. I also never claimed that we’re culturally perfect, but on average culturally and morally superior than many parts of the middle east? Do you honestly think otherwise?

[/quote]

So if the problem, in your mind, is the middle east, what does that have to do with Muslims? Just pick a common denominator and smear away?

And to answer your question, no. You may like the culture you live in. I may like the culture I live in. But it’s subjective. I’ve experienced many, but only lived in one. I can’t the claim that it’s superior. And morally superior? Eh. I’m not bullet proof. I can’t make that claim either.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Ren] In general, they are not as culturally advanced as western states, so more of them take religious works literally. If you removed Islam from the equation and put Christianity in its place, you would have entire mid-eastern countries treating women exactly the way they were treated in the Old Testament, and stoning people, and crucifying people. [/quote]

A bit of ethnocentrism has leaked out. By whose standards are you measuring “culturally advanced”? Do you have a clue what that area of the world looks like? Have you ever been to the middle east? Or anywhere else that isn’t the US or Northern Europe? Before it came tumbling down, Beirut was one of the most modern cities in the world. Oman is today. As are many cities across the middle east. So if “culturally advanced” means modern cities with indoor plumbing, then the middle east is as advanced as any other part of the world. If it means something else, then the subjectivity of any measurement makes it moot.

Beyond that, are you aware that there are significantly MORE Muslims living outside the middle east than in that area? There are somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion Muslims in the world. Are they all culturally backwards, or just those that reside in the middle east?

Captain Jingo rides again. Put another quarter in the electric bull.

[Author]

Posts