[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GEN: Y2K EXTREMISM:Debt Myth Dispelled!


  • To: Realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: GEN: Y2K EXTREMISM:Debt Myth Dispelled!
  • From: "Richard C. Fredette" <sail4@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 22:31:32 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <19990723155429.21318.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Ira,

The debt was accumulated not because we spent too much alone,  but
because we  spent without the willingness to tax in order to pay for it. 
Now we want to tax even less before we have even paid down some of that
debt, with the prospect that the debt will be worse than ever down road
when the boomers retire.  Spending less will never pay off the debt as
long as revenues fall short of spending.  Oh, I forgot, supply side
economics will cure that.  New math didn't make it in the schools, but I
guess it did in congress.

Dick   


On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:43:21 -0700 Ira <ist@xxxxxx> writes:
>There is one basic difference between your debt and government debt.  
>You have
>to work to pay off your debt and therefor your spending is constricted 
>to the
>payments on your maxed out credit cards, mortgage and auto payments.  
>The
>government can print more money to spend, when it has to increase its 
>income it
>just takes more of what you earn.  You have no one to take from. 
>Unless, of
>course, someone decides to be your benefactor.  The interest upon the 
>government
>debt is in excess of $200 billion per year.  The defense budget is in 
>excess of
>$200 billion dollars per year.  All I hear is cut the defense budget, 
>I don't
>hear cut the debt.  How can there be surplus, projected or otherwise, 
>if there
>is debt?  The last I heard the Government had $5+ trillion in debt and 
>a
>PROJECTED surplus $1+ trillion.  As usual, the government doesn't have 
>it yet,
>but they are willing to spend it. Just some thoughts on my part.  Have 
>a good
>week end.  Ira.
>
>kohath wrote:
>
>> I am not an economist, but, it seems to me to be nothing but simple
>> mathematics.  If I am paying out $0 verses $100 per month, at the 
>end of the
>> year I will have $1,200 more.  How can it be different for a nation. 
> I
>> seriously doubt it is.  It is really very simple, if you just sit 
>down and
>> think about it.  There was a guy on CNBC a couple of weeks ago, and 
>he
>> stated the simplest way to get rich is to get out of debt.  This is 
>plain
>> and simple mathematics.  Remember, for each dollar you spend, you 
>have to
>> earn at least two.  If you are paying out $500 per month on a 
>mortgage, you
>> had to earn $1,000 to make that $500 payment.  A year or so ago a 
>guy said
>> that the newly married couples $20,000 Trans am will have cost them 
>$100,000
>> by the time they are 60.  This is also simple mathematics that 
>anyone can
>> check out that has a financial calculator.  Think about it.  $500 
>per month,
>> starting at 25 years age, by the time you are 60 that mortgage will 
>have
>> cost you 35 X 12 X 500 = $210,000.  I would submit that with the 
>interest at
>> 8%, the future value would be $1,146,941 by the time the person 
>reached age
>> 60.  Yes, there is nothing better than debt, for the banks anyway.
>>
>> Kohath
>>
>> >
>

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.