Just normal American Utopia...

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I think most people would take the trade off of less debt and less at bills.  Making sure we invite more and more debt just so foreign countries and some US citizens can buy a stable asset isn’t much of a fiscal strategy in my view.  

I think that's what people think until the next stock market crash if there's no stable investment to move money into. It's not that I think the current debt levels are a good idea, but it's important to understand the unintended consequences of getting rid of the debt.

 

FYI, foreign and international investors hold 23.6% ($7.4 trillion) of the debt.

Who Owns the US National Debt?

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I think that's what people think until the next stock market crash if there's no stable investment to move money into. It's not that I think the current debt levels are a good idea, but it's important to understand the unintended consequences of getting rid of the debt.

 

FYI, foreign and international investors hold 23.6% ($7.4 trillion) of the debt.

Who Owns the US National Debt?

There is always municipal bonds, high rates corporate bonds, cash for a short while and buy back in towards bottom of the crash you mentioned.  I got no problem with some national debt.  The current level is out of whack and has been since Bush 

[JJ Husker]

13 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

But something else to keep in mind is that the government's debt is other people's investment. Reducing the debt means reducing the number of treasury bonds (and other bonds and securities) available, which are generally considered the most stable and least risky investments in the world.

My personal opinion is, the government shouldn’t be a primary source for investors income. Put that money to better public use for the many instead of paying interest to the few. Everyone (mostly) pays in but only the people invested in T bonds collect. Sounds like a wealth transfer scheme to the rich to me. I really see little downside and all sorts of potential in reducing the debt. The portion that is held by non-citizens particularly. Our government can barely run a country. The ability to issue bonds and investment vehicles while simultaneously being able (and more than willing) to take on unlimited debt seems like a recipe for disaster to me, virtually a ponzi scheme.

 

Just think what they could do without having to service that debt.

[BigRedBuster]

23 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Cutting SS won't help fix the debt at all - unless we cut SS benefits but keep the SS tax. If we're going to have a tax just to reduce the debt, then we should create one for that purpose.

 

But something else to keep in mind is that the government's debt is other people's investment. Reducing the debt means reducing the number of treasury bonds (and other bonds and securities) available, which are generally considered the most stable and least risky investments in the world.

I would be perfectly fine finding a different investment tool.

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

My personal opinion is, the government shouldn’t be a primary source for investors income. Put that money to better public use for the many instead of paying interest to the few. Everyone (mostly) pays in but only the people invested in T bonds collect. Sounds like a wealth transfer scheme to the rich to me. I really see little downside and all sorts of potential in reducing the debt. The portion that is held by non-citizens particularly. Our government can barely run a country. The ability to issue bonds and investment vehicles while simultaneously being able (and more than willing) to take on unlimited debt seems like a recipe for disaster to me, virtually a ponzi scheme.

 

Just think what they could do without having to service that debt.

Keep in mind that much of the debt is held by Social Security, the interest of which is going to the SS beneficiaries. That's not to say the size of the debt is good, but rather that we should be aware of the consequences of eliminating the debt and the rhetoric around that idea.

 

49 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I would be perfectly fine finding a different investment tool.

Yeah, I'd be ok with a different approach as well.

[Lorewarn]

On 8/6/2023 at 6:50 AM, Scarlet said:

 

I don't know that's a little assumptious and dramatic isn't it?   I only see two posts that state what has been widely reported....that he was a funder of the film and that he was arrested for child kidnapping. The first brought the subject up and the second was to confirm after the first was questioned. Are you saying he wasn't a funder and wasn't arrested?  If you know more, then post it.  Other than that I'm not seeing much here by anyone drawing any 'already-decided" conclusions .  

 

 

 

Why do you suppose the headline doesn't say 'Man Who Pledged a Donation Once Arrested for Renting Apartment to Tenant'? 

 

 

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Keep in mind that much of the debt is held by Social Security, the interest of which is going to the SS beneficiaries. That's not to say the size of the debt is good, but rather that we should be aware of the consequences of eliminating the debt and the rhetoric around that idea.

 

Yeah I’m not a fan of the rhetoric around the debt issue. It only gets used for partisan politics and there really is never any effort to reduce it. It gets brought up as an excuse for spending a certain party doesn’t like.

 

I’m just not a fan of debt, any debt. A home mortgage and maybe a vehicle here and there, okay. But everyone, including the government, would be better off with as little debt as possible. Interest payments are simply lighting money on fire. Sure some people benefit but it’s not the people who are in debt.

[RedDenver]

48 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Yeah I’m not a fan of the rhetoric around the debt issue. It only gets used for partisan politics and there really is never any effort to reduce it. It gets brought up as an excuse for spending a certain party doesn’t like.

 

I’m just not a fan of debt, any debt. A home mortgage and maybe a vehicle here and there, okay. But everyone, including the government, would be better off with as little debt as possible. Interest payments are simply lighting money on fire. Sure some people benefit but it’s not the people who are in debt.

I agree with you in general, but there are a lot of cases were debt makes sense, especially for a government: intra-governmental debt, war debt, large infrastructure, etc.

[Scarlet]

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

 

Why do you suppose the headline doesn't say 'Man Who Pledged a Donation Once Arrested for Renting Apartment to Tenant'? 

 

 

 

Because that's not what the charges are? 

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I agree with you in general, but there are a lot of cases were debt makes sense, especially for a government: intra-governmental debt, war debt, large infrastructure, etc.

If you mean, there are a lot of cases where debt is necessary and some cases where it makes sense, then I’ll agree. But since “We” are the government when it comes to making that interest payment, like I said, I would rather it was as minimal as possible and infrequent.

 

The government’s large infrastructure and war debt are basically the private citizen’s home mortgage and car. Where the normal person gets into trouble is taking on debt for everyday stuff. I see no reason it should be any different on a much larger scale for the government. The less you pay to borrow $$ the better. 

[Archy1221]

https://x.com/emeriticus/status/1690782795184910336?s=46&t=qFbRnd1HnMzJrJ0n6p5Umw

[Archy1221]

These stories just seem insane to me how squatters have more rights than the owner of the property.  
 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/16/homeowner-arrested-after-trying-to-evict-squatters-from-his-house/

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

These stories just seem insane to me how squatters have more rights than the owner of the property.  
 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/16/homeowner-arrested-after-trying-to-evict-squatters-from-his-house/

Saying they have more rights than the owner is a stretch. They are being evicted. 
 

But, this would be damn frustrating and I’d be pissed. 

[Lorewarn]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

These stories just seem insane to me how squatters have more rights than the owner of the property.  
 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/16/homeowner-arrested-after-trying-to-evict-squatters-from-his-house/

 

Is this a new phenomenon? I feel like i've heard stories like this for decades, and the main messiness stems from the police not being judges and two separate parties making separate claims that then need to be figured out in court. Certainly a problem that I agree is crazy still hasn't been solved.

 

 

Also the article gave me a chuckle - while Decatur is technically not inside the city limits of Atlanta, referring to it as a suburb is quite a stretch. 

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Is this a new phenomenon? I feel like i've heard stories like this for decades, and the main messiness stems from the police not being judges and two separate parties making separate claims that then need to be figured out in court. Certainly a problem that I agree is crazy still hasn't been solved

These stories have popped up for years so no not new.  
I don’t understand how it can take 6 months to a year to figure out.   One party has a deed to the home, one party does not.   The party that doesn’t have a deed also has no paperwork showing a lease agreement.   Seems this could be figured out within a week.  
I also wonder if the squatter eventually gets charged with breaking and entering once the process is completed.