Political Forums

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)
-   Economy (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   A hypothetical IMF loan to the US. (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=454)

piece-itpete 10-13-2009 09:02 AM

A hypothetical IMF loan to the US.
 
Take for the sake of conversation that we no longer had the world reserve currency and the reality of everyone else's currency applied to us.

Being basically broke, we turn to the IMF. What do they say?

Based on what I've read over the years they require a couple of things:

A balanced budget. For real, no smoke and mirrors, true austerity.

Free market reforms. A boatload of regulations and restrictions out the window.

Transparency, which we may have already. But I wonder if we'd be up to snuff completely.

Just thinking out loud.

Pete

Fast_Eddie 10-13-2009 09:13 AM

Well we sure don't have a balanced budget. We did. But we don't now.

piece-itpete 10-13-2009 09:37 AM

In reality, we have not had a balanced budget since Eisenhower. Clintons surplus is a farce. It's that pesky 'spending the ss' thing again.

http://www.geldpress.com/2008/07/us-...ing-deception/

Pete

Fast_Eddie 10-13-2009 10:24 AM

Hum. Guess we haven't lowered taxes enough.

noonereal 10-13-2009 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie (Post 7171)
Hum. Guess we haven't lowered taxes enough.

bush lowered taxes, why isn't the budget balanced?

piece-itpete 10-13-2009 11:12 AM

The last big increase was in ss withholding, to cover future payouts.

Pete

noonereal 10-13-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 7179)
The last big increase was in ss withholding, to cover future payouts.

Pete

gee, maybe we should not have spent the SS surplus on other things

Fast_Eddie 10-13-2009 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 7179)
The last big increase was in ss withholding, to cover future payouts.

Pete

We're on the same page Pete, though we may disagree on a solution. Thing is, you're never going to get anyone elected who says "we need to kill (or significantly cut) Social Security". It's just not going to happen. So, we need to raise taxes to pay for it. Thing is, that's not going to get you elected either. So you have to...

Well, I'll let you fill that in. First off, do you agree with the above assumptions and if so, how do you fill in the end of that sentance?

Take care,

Ed

piece-itpete 10-13-2009 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noonereal (Post 7180)
gee, maybe we should not have spent the SS surplus on other things

We are in absolute agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie (Post 7182)
We're on the same page Pete, though we may disagree on a solution. Thing is, you're never going to get anyone elected who says "we need to kill (or significantly cut) Social Security". It's just not going to happen. So, we need to raise taxes to pay for it. Thing is, that's not going to get you elected either. So you have to...

Well, I'll let you fill that in. First off, do you agree with the above assumptions and if so, how do you fill in the end of that sentance?

Take care,

Ed

Agreed that ss is a big problem. I'll never join AARP.

Me personally filling in? Something like ....stop increasing spending. At least.

In that I know the IMF would concur. I can see why the small nations would be a bit bitter.

The overall populace, including the politicians? They've already answered it: ....print money till we run out of paper. :)

Or is that :(

Which the folks who argued against a democracy back at the beginning of our country would say 'I TOLD you so!!'

Pete

noonereal 10-13-2009 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piece-itpete (Post 7185)
We are in absolute agreement.



Great, so you are for tax increases.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.