Let's face it- a vote for Obama is another downgrade to your national credit rating.
Y'all couldn't afford World War 3 even if Mitt wanted it. Remember that in the last two WWs, USA was the economic powerhouse. Not this time.
The wool is being pulled over a lot of people's eyes about just how serious the US debt situation is.
And yet the five year treasury rate is essentially negative - which means of course that the bond markets looked at Moody's actions and laughed away.
Anyone who thinks the US can't "afford" a war doesn't have the slightest knowledge of public finances. Of course, the vast majority of the electorate doesn't, so its not really a fault.
And yet the five year treasury rate is essentially negative - which means of course that the bond markets looked at Moody's actions and laughed away.
Anyone who thinks the US can't "afford" a war doesn't have the slightest knowledge of public finances. Of course, the vast majority of the electorate doesn't, so its not really a fault.
So you're saying that the debt the way it is....is an okay thing? Righto.
And when you're so heavily indebted, you can afford the soldiers, weapons, resources etc for a war thousands of miles away? Righto.
And on a final note, I hope none of the people advocating for a Romney Presidency have any relatives in need of Long Term Care services (whether they are elderly or disabled) because, given Romney's declared plans for the Medicaid program, a Romney victory will be a very rought lesson in being careful what you wish for.
Saying that the 5 year Treasury Note rate is negative is neither a positive or negative statement on the strenght of the economy as a whole. It is a statement on the possible risk of sovereign default by the US government, as seen by the Treasury market.
When I said the 5 year rate is essentially negative, it means that the rate of inflation is higher than the rate for the 5 year note. As you may know, when you buy a bond (which is debt being issued by an organization), you generally expect to make money on the deal based on the interest rate. Right now the rate on a five year note is .74%. This means that if you bought a $1000 five year Treasury, you are expecting to get back a total of $1007.40 in five years, $7.40 in interest payments and the $1000 back in five years. under the current rate of inflation $1007.40 in 2017 will be worth less than $1000 is today. So by putting your money in that bond, you essentially saw the value of your holding decline over five years. This is what I meant by it being negative. Investors are essentially giving the US government money and losing money on the deal, at least for short term bonds.
Why would any investor do that, unless they were close to certain that they will have no problems getting back that $1007.40? If the bond market had any fear of a possible default by the US government any time soon, they would demand a risk premium and this risk premium would be seen as high interest rates - this is why for example the Greek government is being asked to pony up a 17% interest rate on their bonds.
The bond market, through its pricing mechanism, is telling us that there is no real danger of US government default in the short term. Who is more credible on the possibility of US default, your average politician, voter, or the people who actually trade trillions of dollars a year in sovereign debt?
As for the issue of financing a war: The US today is vastly richer than we were in 1941-45. We have more of everything, more people, more stuff, houses are bigger, things are technologically better. The US "afforded" putting 12 MILLION men in uniform during that time, fully equiping them, arming them, building all the war material they would need, making war materials for our allies on top of that, and sending these millions of men to fight and die all over planet earth. of course, to do so the government had to impose price control, ration key materials, inpose conscription, mandatory recycling, giving the average worker no place to put their money but war bonds, and raising taxes to rates that would make the modern American blanche and cry and scream. If we could do this in 1941-45, saying we can't arm and equip a quarter million men for some new adventure the government saw as necessary for national security MAKES NO SENSE.
Saying that the 5 year Treasury Note rate is negative is neither a positive or negative statement on the strenght of the economy as a whole. It is a statement on the possible risk of sovereign default by the US government, as seen by the Treasury market.
When I said the 5 year rate is essentially negative, it means that the rate of inflation is higher than the rate for the 5 year note. As you may know, when you buy a bond (which is debt being issued by an organization), you generally expect to make money on the deal based on the interest rate. Right now the rate on a five year note is .74%. This means that if you bought a $1000 five year Treasury, you are expecting to get back a total of $1007.40 in five years, $7.40 in interest payments and the $1000 back in five years. under the current rate of inflation $1007.40 in 2017 will be worth less than $1000 is today. So by putting your money in that bond, you essentially saw the value of your holding decline over five years. This is what I meant by it being negative. Investors are essentially giving the US government money and losing money on the deal, at least for short term bonds.
Why would any investor do that, unless they were close to certain that they will have no problems getting back that $1007.40? If the bond market had any fear of a possible default by the US government any time soon, they would demand a risk premium and this risk premium would be seen as high interest rates - this is why for example the Greek government is being asked to pony up a 17% interest rate on their bonds.
The bond market, through its pricing mechanism, is telling us that there is no real danger of US government default in the short term. Who is more credible on the possibility of US default, your average politician, voter, or the people who actually trade trillions of dollars a year in sovereign debt?
As for the issue of financing a war: The US today is vastly richer than we were in 1941-45. We have more of everything, more people, more stuff, houses are bigger, things are technologically better. The US "afforded" putting 12 MILLION men in uniform during that time, fully equiping them, arming them, building all the war material they would need, making war materials for our allies on top of that, and sending these millions of men to fight and die all over planet earth. of course, to do so the government had to impose price control, ration key materials, inpose conscription, mandatory recycling, giving the average worker no place to put their money but war bonds, and raising taxes to rates that would make the modern American blanche and cry and scream. If we could do this in 1941-45, saying we can't arm and equip a quarter million men for some new adventure the government saw as necessary for national security MAKES NO SENSE.
the ESSAY
not reading that, and neither will Romney when he's sworn in
Let's face it- a vote for Obama is another downgrade to your national credit rating.
The wool is being pulled over a lot of people's eyes about just how serious the US debt situation is.
And so you think the alternative is to vote for someone whose proposed economic plan is lies, fairytales and fallacies which don't even bloody add up. Someone who plans to give the 1% tax cuts. Someone who plans to increase military spending despite them not asking for it. Someone who has stated on film that he doesn't care about the people most affected by the current US economy.