DescentBB

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -obama-era

I thought we were going to become the next Greece?

Yawn, let me know when they reduce the debt by 10.00

gotta balance the budget yet. That took a Clinton to do, last time it happened.

And did Clinton pay down any of the debt after the budget was balanced?

woodchip wrote:And did Clinton pay down any of the debt after the budget was balanced?

it was being paid down, hourly, until the Bush tax cuts took effect. That is how it works. You pay off, as scheduled, as there is no early payoff provision. Bondholders expect all principle and interest for the entire term to be paid. Thats how government bonds operate. With the budget in surplus, you are not incurring new rolling debt, so, the result is an ongoing paydown, until the budget goes into deficit. Now, for those truly up on this stuff, there IS ongoing credit line type bond issuance, to even out income flow, but that is all zero sum if you are in surplus.

so after your explanation, none of the existing debt was payed, just no new debt was incurred. Thanks for the clarification.

woodchip wrote:so after your explanation, none of the existing debt was payed, just no new debt was incurred. Thanks for the clarification.

Heh, literally turned "was being paid" into "none of the existing debt was paid" with your blinding bias...

What part of 'paid down hourly' do you not understand, wood?

Jfc

wow, the comprehension gap is staggering. I knew he couldn't read my links for comprehension, but I thought I was pretty clear that we were paying down existing debt. Hourly.

Deficits come…and deficits go…

But the debt is forever…and will continue to grow…

Damn I’m a poet and didn’t know it.

doesn't have to be that way if you actually put enough revenue in the budget to cover expenses. Not the least poetic, but quite true.

Payments being made towards the debt and “the debt is being paid down” are two completely different things.

“The debt is being paid down” is a bald face lie, and if you don’t believe it just take a look at the national debt clock…is it running backwards….NO!

And when you do actually run a budget surplus (Clinton's were all projected) you have to have the political will to actually put that surplus towards debt payments instead of finding other ways to spend it.

I'm confused...

That just plays into what I have said all along, the government plays with the numbers to make things look better than they really are, in the meantime the public can’t figure out a damn thing.

……….

BTW, with the amount of bonds flouted to pay for the debt, I doubt you could get a major works program like Mount Rushmore at this point. (one of those intangible effects of high debt)

Spidey wrote:Payments being made towards the debt and “the debt is being paid down” are two completely different things.

“The debt is being paid down” is a bald face lie, and if you don’t believe it just take a look at the national debt clock…is it running backwards….NO!

And when you do actually run a budget surplus (Clinton's were all projected) you have to have the political will to actually put that surplus towards debt payments instead of finding other ways to spend it.

NO NO NO!!!! As long as payments to the debt are ongoing, if you aren't creating new debt, you ARE paying down the debt. Clinton was paying down the debt. What the hell is so hard for some of you to grasp? The fact that the Treasury buys bonds to invest the outside trusts is close to irrelevant to the discussion. Also, the notion that Spidey just floated about not being able to borrow for any major public works project is laughable. We have the best credit of any major nation and can borrow, easily.

According to Grendel’s link only part of the debt was being paid down, but total debt was still on the rise.

but debt to oneself(the other debt) can't ever be seen as an issue, can it? A the current rate of return, especially.

more big numbers.....Trillions, with a freaking T
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11981610/h ... ding_aca_1

I forecast it will rain in ten minutes…oh ★■◆● I was wrong.

More games with numbers.

Kirk: Do you always overestimate your repair times by a factor of ten?
Scotty: Of course, otherwise how would I keep my reputation as a miracle worker.

callmeslick wrote:more big numbers.....Trillions, with a freaking T
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11981610/h ... ding_aca_1

Suuuuuure. And I've got a bridge to sell you that you have to buy or get fined by the IRS.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ins ... obamacare/

And higher drug prices will mitigate any other savings we can pry out of Obamacare.

https://consumerist.com/2016/06/21/5-re ... americans/

Lol, I like that one naïve fool in the comments section of the PBS link that thinks 25 dollar a box Kleenex will go away...with single payer Ha Ha Ha...did 800 dollar hammers go away in the military.

People really underestimate just how entrenched the medical culture is in this country.

Not to mention that single payer won't address some basic problems like supply and demand and others. Actually the only problem single payer can possibly solve in the US is lack of coverage...everything else is going to get worse.

Changing the culture in this country will mean starting from the ground up, not from the top down. Hell one of the biggest problems is simply who becomes a doctor…in this country that is the people who can “afford” to become doctors…not people who ‘want” to become doctors.

Ehhhhh….what’s the point.

I don't know about anyplace else(well, I do, but not in as much detail), but Delaware reserves, and pays tuition and fees for about a dozen residents, annually, to attend one of two well regarded medical schools in Philadelphia, with some provision to return for residency. This has led to a lot of local kids who WANTED to be doctors to now reside and practice in Delaware. One old school chum, not from a particularly wealthy family, is now the senior physician at a large local hospital affiliated practice. Another is a respected ear nose and throat guy around town. So, I'm not sure you are correct, Spidey, about the matter of 'who' gets to be a doctor. Now, the demand is always greater than the classroom/internship capacity, and a goodly number of students are paying high tuition and fees, so those matters could be addressed, were the national will there to spend for those things. You are correct, though, in that true cost reduction will only come from the bottom up, and requires a total overhaul of our system of delivery.