The Real timschochet

So here are the scary facts that both political parties are ignoring, to our peril: 1. The current total national debt is 35 trillion dollars. 2. This amount increases by 1 trillion each year (the deficit.) Sometimes less sometimes more. (Last year it was 1.5 trillion.) 3. Our interest payments on the debt are a trillion a year. This represents 22% of our total annual government spending (4.5 trillion.) 4. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any proposals to alleviate this in the slightest. Both parties propose massive more spending. Republicans propose more tax cuts in addition to the spending so they will actually increase the deficit far more. Democrats propose tax increases but coupled with their spending these will not be enough to significantly address this issue. Both parties seem to want to pretend that this issue doesn’t exist (though conservatives tend to talk about it more, but mainly as a tool to argue against specific liberal spending proposals.) 5. There will be a point, sometime in the future, when the amount of interest will be large enough to as to create a financial calamity in this country. How big, how catastrophic, nobody knows. But it IS coming at some point. What to do?

Well your second question is evidence of a conspiratorial mind, no offense. The truth is in some ways far scarier: there is no plan, no scheme, no design. Most of what happens, for good or ill, is the result of chaos, screwups, and blind luck. And those who benefit do so because they just happen to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

I wasn’t trying to explain it to you. I figured you knew already. But there is a huge contradiction here. It’s not like the tariffs should be mentioned in addition to the price controls; it’s that the tariffs are so catastrophic to anyone who cares about the free market (and thus libertarianism and American prosperity) that it makes the issue of price controls so minor as to not be worth considering (especially when you factor in the truth: that this is a political proposal designed to win votes, that even if Kamala wins she will never have the power to enact this, thus it’s all theoretical anyhow. Meanwhile if Trump wins he WILL have the power to enforce his tariff plans.)

Also sorry but this part is just conspiratorial hogwash.

Everything you wrote here is wrong, IMO. Kamala Harris is a liberal. She is far removed from a Marxist. Her popularity is not manufactured at all. We are not heading for socialism. Kamala is in the tradition of liberals like FDR and LBJ- they mean to protect capitalism by enlarging its safety net. There is no intent to replace capitalism.

This is the libertarian POV (the institute is named after the great libertarian Ludwig Von Mises) and its legitimate in a vacuum. But it’s disingenuous in this instance, because any consistent libertarian would add at the end of the article: Despite all this I am voting for Kamala Harris anyhow because Trump’s tariff plans are so awful, such a catastrophic attack on free market capitalism, that all of Harris’ price control proposals pale by comparison. By not including that ending, by pretending that somehow Donald Trump is a reasonable alternative, the writer is being dishonest and spitting on Von Moses’ memory and reputation.

To call that rambling mess a “policy speech” is Orwellian. To call it “best” implying that it’s somehow good is beyond comprehension to me.

We will see. Your principles are correct theoretically but we don’t live in a theoretical world. There are so many other factors at play, so much government involvement already, that I don’t think inflation is affected that much. In any case as I keep pointing out our inflationary problems are global so there is very little we can do to affect them for good or ill.

I don’t think.so.

OMG. OK whatever you say buddy. I don’t want to interfere with your fantasy world.

WTF are you talking about? I know tons of people who have good enough credit and good enough jobs to buy a home but can’t come up with the down payment money. Do you have any experience in the mortgage industry at all? What a frjggin idiot you are.

Hillary was ahead and by more than this. But the difference is she never garnered the excitement that Kamala is right now and she never unified the party behind her.

I am. But I don’t think being concerned about the debt is a sign of being on the right or left.

You have to qualify for this program too.

Why will every liberal proposal for the last 80 years crash the economy? Obamacare was supposed to crash the economy too. It gets tiresome after a while. You know what WILL crash the economy? Trump’s tariffs.

“They just guarantee the loan”. As if that’s no big thing. It’s a far bigger thing than this would be.

In another thread today you wrote that the boom in this country after 1945 was the greatest in human history. You were, for once, largely correct. Do you think that boom came about without government involvement in the housing market?

They wouldn’t qualify. To qualify for the program you have to have two years of rent payments without missing one in your own name. But that in itself doesn’t qualify you to buy a new house. Your fears are misguided.

OK regarding the price controls: some of you guys need to wake up. Kamala is playing politics here, just like she and Trump are playing politics with removing the tax on tips. None of this is going to happen. Neither Trump nor Kamala have the necessary people in Congress to make this happen- certainly not the price controls. In emergency that can be done by executive order (see WWII) but it’s temporary and extremely unlikely because it leads to shortages. It won’t happen. You guys need to stop wasting time on this and discuss the proposals that actually could happen. For example if Trump is elected he really could do his disastrous tariff thing because a lot of that is based on executive authority and he doesn’t need Congress. If Kamala is elected she can do the housing proposal, maybe, because I can see a bipartisan majority going for it. That’s why this stuff is worth discussing. IMO, price controls and removing tip taxes aren’t.

The interest rates are still going to have to come down. And they will.

I believe this proposal won’t add a cent to the debt long term because greater home ownership will lead to economic growth, more spending power, and more revenue. It will actually reduce the debt. But I could be wrong. Perhaps I am and this will add another trillion dollars to the debt. So instead of us owing 35 trillion we will owe 36 trillion. If somebody can explain to me why this is a significant difference, or calamitous, then I might buy into @Strike’s argument. But right now I don’t.

Oh I’m extremely serious. How serious are you about it? Do you seriously believe we can address the debt without growing the economy? Maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry? Or get rid of corporate welfare? This is what I meant when I wrote in the other thread that conservatives like yourself aren’t serious about the debt, because all you’re doing is using it to denigrate spending you don’t like. As if this proposal would have a significant impact on us owing 35 trillion dollars.

I deny that Tom Brady is for liberty.

@Strike may hate this idea but I know a lot of people in the homebuilding industry, not to mention lenders, that will love it. And these folks aren’t exactly socialists.

I think that it’s a great idea. If we’re going to invest in the economy there is no better way than to invest in homebuying. It’s the key to everything else. This is exactly what we did after World War II with the GI Bill which created the greatest boom in human history. Sorry if you’re too short-sided to see that.