AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
You know where he's going get the money? Borrowing from the Chinese.
2012 US Presidential Election discussion.
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
You know where he's going get the money? Borrowing from the Chinese.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Right now, there is no way for US's debt to go down, it will only keep increasing just like Japan. At that point I am not sure what will happen, will the interest rate still be low like Japan's today? However Japan's interest rate is low today is because all the Japanese citizens have high saving rate, and they are using they money they earn to buy the government bond bonds to keep it down, I think this is done out of patriotism than economic choices.
However I just don't see how US citizen can do that because they have no saving whatsoever, the only reason the interest rate is low right now is because China and the Fed itself is buying the bonds, so when you have demand from buyers, they will keep the rate low, and US government can use this low interest rate to fiance itself. However when the day come when US's debt is over 200% of GDP, when no nation like China and Japan willing to purchase more bond, that only left the Fed itself buying bonds, that means they are US will be printing money on the right and to pay the debt on the left hand. This is only sustainable IF US dollar is still being accepted by the world's people, however when all the foreign nation stops buying US bond and seeing US is printing monopoly money, then the question is will they still accept US dollar?
As of right now I see absolutely no political candidates talk about this.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
I vote for the person and not along party lines....unfortunately it's getting to be more and more difficult because voting for a person usually means voting for the party due to the hyper partisanship of the US political system.....
In his "Farewell Address," George Washington warned against excessive allegiance to any political party:
Let me now . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. . . . The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrict it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another . . . . In governments purely elective, it [the spirit of party] is a spirit not to be encouraged.
Subedei
Banned Idiot
that's because the wizard has told us to, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
but, ron paul has, fairly comprehensively, addressed the issue of debt as it relates both to gov't spending and federal reserve powers and policies (money supply and interest rates). and, the curtain was quickly pulled on him. i developed an interesting (to me) analysis of ron paul's positions in which i concluded that he was the only candidate who could appeal to both the occupy wall st. and the tea party movements. talk about bridging a perceived gap! i was also somewhat surprised that no one else, to my knowledge, made that observation, or that, if they did, that it was not more widely presented.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Yeah, it's interesting how so many people from different and sometimes opposing political positions are Ron Paul fans. I'd vote for him. Jon Stewart once addressed on his show how Ron Paul was getting zero attention from the media while candidates that were doing worse got more than him.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Next term I think Ron Paul might actually have a pretty good chance when he enters as a third party candidate, but it all depends on the rich donors supporting him or not. By 2016 if Hillary Clinton is still interested she has a really good definite chance of winning it.
My gut feeling tells me that Romney will win the next election. Because Obama has disappointed too many people's over the past four years. Eitherway its going to be a close race and i don't have much luck so far in predicting US politics. Not that i'm a Romney fan, the problem that i have with Mitt Romney 2012 is the same problem that i have with Barack Obama 2008 and that is he is only talking about new spending (primarily on the military) and is not talking about any serious spending cuts which is really needed considering the US fiscal situation. And i don't think that Ron Paul is going to run in 2016 because he will be 81 years old by then.
Last edited:
Well, him not proposing serious spending cuts is simply not true.
On Day 1 Romney will institute a 5% spending cut across the board for all Fedeeral agencies...that's a real cut, not just a decrease in the amount of growth.
In addition, he proposes that we immediately cap all spending at 20% of GDP no matter what else.
Those two thing alone are estimated to cut almost 500 billion from the federal budget.
Finally, he immediately proposes other specific plans that will reduce spending, in addition to the above, by another $350 billion for the Federal government.
You can read it all in detail on his own site, here:
Those things will very nearly eleiminate Obama's annual running deficit of over $1 trillion per year. One thing Romney knows how to do is to read and impact a balance sheet.
Romney's plan's for growth will mean more income to the Federal Government as well. Do you know when the Federal government generated the most income in history? It was in the years following the Bush tax cuts. The economy grew rapidly under Bush until the 2008 housing/credit/market crisis. The problem during those years of growth...and now under Obama ever since...has been the spending.
Romney intends to couple the growth with spending cuts that will erase the deficit spending, and then within 8-12 years allow us to zero out the debt. That is where he is going.
Last edited:
vesicles
Colonel
at this point, it's anybody's game.
One thing about Obama that I am upset about is that he promised to double NIH funding when he entered office. Yet, it's getting more and more difficult to get NIH funding. If he's serious about his belief that high tech and science are the future of America, he better start increasing the science/high tech research funding...
Also, I simply don't agree with both candidates' goal to "bring the manufacturing job home". I think they are fighting a battle that is impossible to win. Low-end manufacturing is a field that developing and poor countries ALWAYS have advantage of. This is the natural course of event. Poor countries have cheap labor and thus ALWAYS hold the advantage over a more developed nation. China is a good example of this natural course of event. Merely a decade ago, China had the cheapest labor and thus became a huge manufacturing base. China now is losing that edge as it becomes more and more developed. I was in China a couple weeks ago and watched it on the news that Shanghai was hosting some kind of conference for Southeastern Asian nations to attract Chinese investors. Many Chinese business owners and factory managers at the meeting were thinking about out-sourcing their manufacturing to these nations because it is getting more expensive to make the products in China. These Chinese business owners are trying to lower cost by sending their manufacturing base abroad.
So in order to "keep the manufacturing jobs at home", the US and, pretty soon, China will have to go against the natural way of things. This would mean HEAVY HEAVY govn't involvement. If left alone, no factory in the US and, pretty soon, China can compete against a sweat shop somewhere in Vietnam or Africa. Everybody blames Wal-Mart for having so many cheap Chinese-made products, but Wal-Mart is simply doing what naturally business should do: lowering cost and maximize profit. If fewer people are doing business with American factories, that means these factories are losing the competitive edge. If you go to Wal-Mart now, you will see very few products with "Made in China" label. Yet, America is still losing manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs are being moved from China to some other poor developing nations. there will always be more poor countries than wealthy ones.
China is blamed for their "currency manipulation" now. What if China now increases the value of Yuan as demanded by the US? You think that will solve the problem? NO! Why? Most of the manufacturing base in China is located on the East coast, where wages are getting higher and higher. If the value of Yuan appreciates, these factories will simply move inland to central and western China where it is less developed and wages are significantly lower. No one can complain about that since it is completely natural and legal to have regions to have vastly different wages within the same nation. If wages in these areas also become higher, they will move the manufacturing base to other poor countries in South East Asia and Africa, as they are doing now. In a few years, no one can blame China any more as China is already starting to out-source their manufacturing. Whom should be the scapegoat next??? If not China, it will be Vietnam, etc?
And what if the US actually manages to get all the manufacturing jobs back as intended? You think these jobs will go to the typical Americans who demand at least the minimum wage? NO!! these jobs will go to legal/illegal immigrants, i.e. the Mexicans, who would be satisfied with much lower pay. This already happened. Business is all about minimizing cost, whatever method possible. There will a few patriotic factories who would be willing to absorb the cost, but how many of these people do you expect to have? So will the typical American voters ever be satisfied and get what they want? No! This is a losing battle for the developed nations. Since economy runs well with as little govn't interference as possible, I believe that developed nations should abandon manufacturing all together and focus on the things they are good at: science, high tech, etc.
One thing about Obama that I am upset about is that he promised to double NIH funding when he entered office. Yet, it's getting more and more difficult to get NIH funding. If he's serious about his belief that high tech and science are the future of America, he better start increasing the science/high tech research funding...
Also, I simply don't agree with both candidates' goal to "bring the manufacturing job home". I think they are fighting a battle that is impossible to win. Low-end manufacturing is a field that developing and poor countries ALWAYS have advantage of. This is the natural course of event. Poor countries have cheap labor and thus ALWAYS hold the advantage over a more developed nation. China is a good example of this natural course of event. Merely a decade ago, China had the cheapest labor and thus became a huge manufacturing base. China now is losing that edge as it becomes more and more developed. I was in China a couple weeks ago and watched it on the news that Shanghai was hosting some kind of conference for Southeastern Asian nations to attract Chinese investors. Many Chinese business owners and factory managers at the meeting were thinking about out-sourcing their manufacturing to these nations because it is getting more expensive to make the products in China. These Chinese business owners are trying to lower cost by sending their manufacturing base abroad.
So in order to "keep the manufacturing jobs at home", the US and, pretty soon, China will have to go against the natural way of things. This would mean HEAVY HEAVY govn't involvement. If left alone, no factory in the US and, pretty soon, China can compete against a sweat shop somewhere in Vietnam or Africa. Everybody blames Wal-Mart for having so many cheap Chinese-made products, but Wal-Mart is simply doing what naturally business should do: lowering cost and maximize profit. If fewer people are doing business with American factories, that means these factories are losing the competitive edge. If you go to Wal-Mart now, you will see very few products with "Made in China" label. Yet, America is still losing manufacturing jobs. The manufacturing jobs are being moved from China to some other poor developing nations. there will always be more poor countries than wealthy ones.
China is blamed for their "currency manipulation" now. What if China now increases the value of Yuan as demanded by the US? You think that will solve the problem? NO! Why? Most of the manufacturing base in China is located on the East coast, where wages are getting higher and higher. If the value of Yuan appreciates, these factories will simply move inland to central and western China where it is less developed and wages are significantly lower. No one can complain about that since it is completely natural and legal to have regions to have vastly different wages within the same nation. If wages in these areas also become higher, they will move the manufacturing base to other poor countries in South East Asia and Africa, as they are doing now. In a few years, no one can blame China any more as China is already starting to out-source their manufacturing. Whom should be the scapegoat next??? If not China, it will be Vietnam, etc?
And what if the US actually manages to get all the manufacturing jobs back as intended? You think these jobs will go to the typical Americans who demand at least the minimum wage? NO!! these jobs will go to legal/illegal immigrants, i.e. the Mexicans, who would be satisfied with much lower pay. This already happened. Business is all about minimizing cost, whatever method possible. There will a few patriotic factories who would be willing to absorb the cost, but how many of these people do you expect to have? So will the typical American voters ever be satisfied and get what they want? No! This is a losing battle for the developed nations. Since economy runs well with as little govn't interference as possible, I believe that developed nations should abandon manufacturing all together and focus on the things they are good at: science, high tech, etc.
Last edited: