flint we miss ur tactics ingame!

> Einstein wrote:

> The United States in 2007 was paying 10% of its revenue for debt payments.

Many European nations are doing the same.

Why do liberals want so much debt?

Why can they not have a requirement for a balanced budget, and maybe even a 1% of revenue goes to a permament rainy day fund?

Europe has no had a war, outside the Balkan War, for half a century. Why do they feel compelled to have debt?

-----

Perhaps we should all become Communist nations like China and have big surpluses instead of debts?

North Korea's public debt is 0.4% of their GDP.  Cuba's is 34.3% of their GDP.  China is currently at 18.9% of their GDP.

All are a far cry from the United States which is currently sitting at 62.3% of its GDP.

Suffice to say if I was, like Flint, very concerned about public debt the very last thing I would ever do would be to vote for the political party that has ruled one of the greatest debtor nations on the planet for most of the past three decades and watched its debt balloon throughout.  In other words, if I shared Flint's concerns I would definitely not vote for Flint.  I might instead consider voting for a Communist Party.  North Korea, Cuba, and China are all in remarkably better shape than a country that has spent most of the past 30 years being run by people like Flint.

But I'm not Flint, and I don't particularly care that much about public debt, nor am I very interested in communist utopias...

Just sayin'... given Flint's concerns, if I were Flint I probably wouldn't vote for Flint.

Timmy, beat you by 1 second!  Muah ha ha!

"North Korea's public debt is 0.4% of their GDP."
Maybe its because their civilians don't eat they are so overwhelmingly rich they can't afford anything. I'll buy your ticket, feel free to go. In any case they cannot lend money otherwise they would have.

"Cuba's is 34.3% of their GDP." "China is currently at 18.9% of their GDP."
How long was it possible for them to lend money? Given the fact they sacrifice everything else including their future. Ironically of the 3 countries, the one with the biggest debt is the only one I would want to live in for more then a week.

@Einstein:
They enrich themselves cause they get away with it.

Keynesian economics won't work in this country because the government can't measure the economy accurately, and instead of solving that problem it just demands more spending.

> The Yell wrote:

> Keynesian economics won't work in this country because the government can't measure the economy accurately.

Why does the latter prevent the former?  I don't get it.  You don't need to be able to accurately measure the economy to implement Keynesian policies and we certainly have adequate measurements for government work.

If a company dies it does not go down a black hole.

The hard assets (Bldgs, land, power poles, etc) do not disappear, they go up for sale at a nice price and get bought up.

The assets (remaining cash, computers, autos, chairs, coffeemakers, scanners, printers, floor mats, etc.) do not disappear they get sold via corporate auction.

The people do not get put before a firing squad (well maybe if treason was involved as well), and all but the actual criminals usually have a fairly easy time getting a new job with the recovered company (though they may be working a different position)

"If a company dies it does not go down a black hole."

Right but nobody here gives a damn about the companies, except maybe you. Us "liberals" are more worried about the people who had their money invested in these banks, in the form of chequing accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, RESPs, RRSPs, etc. They're the ones who get screwed over.

Incidentally, in "leftie" Canada, every penny of your chequing account is guaranteed by the government, since banks are far more regulated.

Countries require debt because politicians promise all things to all people to get elected.

rule number 1) Get elected

rule number 2) Always blame someone else for any problems

rule number 3) Don't raise taxes unless you have no other choice

so polticians make a lot of promises, most of these promises require SPENDING (military, healthcare, social security etc)

rather than increase taxes to pay for it (and risk the wrath of voters) politicians turn to borrowing.

Borrowing money has become the norm, so much so the western economies cant live without it.

My plan for balancing the budget is to nationalize the oil and electric industry, relax laws that prohibit oil drilling, and seize the assets of any bank over $250 billion, auctioning them off with all profits going to the treasury.

Then pass reform limiting banks from obtaining overseas assets, and merging with other banks and financial institutions.

I haven't done the math, but considering how some banks have more than 2 trillion dollars in assets, that may even pay off the national debt.

Liberal Socialists <> over-spenders. In NZ we had a left leaning government that balanced the books, kept public debt down and grew the economy (which mostly meant that private debt grew, esp for industry and businesses) and now that a right wing government is in public debt has soared but private debt is shrinking, and the economy isn't growing...

Tell me how does this fit into your "Conservatives" are always better?