# Hillary Clinton           The Queen by Hugh Hewitt



## Lon (Oct 11, 2015)

I just ordered this for my Kindle through Amazon.     Has anyone read the book?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

No... and won't..   Sounds to me like just more of the Right Wing smear campaign.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

AND I was right...  Here's his bio...  A CONSERVATIVE pundit with a talk show who has worked for Republican administrations and conservative organizations....    I'm SURE his book is an unbiased biography..  LOL!!!  You wasted your money Lon...  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 11, 2015)

One of his trashing books, The Brief Against Obama didn't make an impression in 2012 it seems, now this radio talk show character is targeting Hillary in a desperate attempt again.  He's making lots of money though, selling his opinions to his fan base.  No Lon, I didn't read it, I've heard enough of Hewitt on his radio shows not to be interested in reading his books.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

Is that all Republicans know how to do?   Trash their opponents?   Seems to me someone should be able to win on their ideas and their merits, IF they were worth anything and not have to resort to smear campaigns and phony scandals..


----------



## BobF (Oct 11, 2015)

And I suppose all the lefty authors only speak kindly of their political sames, just like the conservatives speak for their political sames.

Their books are only failures, both sides, if no books are ever sold.    I doubt if either side of politics ever writes great selling books.   None of those like famous books of the past that sold millions of copies.   Or even the newer books that were made into films for being so popular.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 11, 2015)

I wish he would write a book on some solutions to the problems we're facing in America, something his peers would read and run with in the political arena....but that won't happen.  They seem to only try to look better by making their "opponents' look bad, that is so transparent to most of us these days.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

BobF said:


> And I suppose all the lefty authors only speak kindly of their political sames, just like the conservatives speak for their political sames.
> 
> Their books are only failures, both sides, if no books are ever sold.    I doubt if either side of politics ever writes great selling books.   None of those like famous books of the past that sold millions of copies.   Or even the newer books that were made into films for being so popular.



Would you, just for consistency sake... give us a list of some "Lefty authors" and the smear books they have penned?


----------



## BobF (Oct 11, 2015)

No, I am saying that both sides do the same thing and it is in the perspective of the reader to decide if it is smear or lies.   How are you doing as a reader?   

I have no problem with either side as pumping up books are mostly exaggerations for the authors favorite ideas.   I have no problems with reading either side of politics.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

All I was asking you for was an example of a far left author smearing a Republican candidate..  If you are going to claim "both sides do it" then you should be able to give a few examples.


----------



## BobF (Oct 11, 2015)

You are wasting your time.   I just said I have no problems with either side and I read little of any political nonsense that some do put out.

Leave it alone.   Find your own ideas of trash.   I want no part of that type of entertainment.   For the most part when I read I have no idea who the author is.   If after reading I may just toss the article or book and never connect the author to any political ideas.   Seems to be your sole idea is to find out if the author is right or left and make instant judgements right there.   Seems to be a very hasty way to read and learn if you only read one type of writings.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 11, 2015)

BobF said:


> You are wasting your time.   I just said I have no problems with either side and I read little of any political nonsense that some do put out.
> 
> Leave it alone.   Find your own ideas of trash.   I want no part of that type of entertainment.   For the most part when I read I have no idea who the author is.   If after reading I may just toss the article or book and never connect the author to any political ideas.   Seems to be your sole idea is to find out if the author is right or left and make instant judgements right there.   Seems to be a very hasty way to read and learn if you only read one type of writings.



I believe it was LON who ordered the book and started the thread...  Not me...  SB and I just pointed out the author's history of smear books.


----------



## BobF (Oct 11, 2015)

There goes your perspective of a smear book.   If another person reads it and has no problems, that is fine.   Until you read it, your opinion is just that.   Nothing but an opinion, not a proof at all.


----------



## imp (Oct 11, 2015)

To fall prey to absolute preference for _either _party is precisely what that party's leadership has been hoping to achieve of it's "supporters". 

No different than, "I would not drive a Ford (or Chevy); name or brand loyalty. Stupidity of the highest order, IMO.    imp


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 11, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Would you, just for consistency sake... give us a list of some "Lefty authors" and the smear books they have penned?



I can't think of any offhand QS, but here's a large choice of anti-Obama books written by the right, and Hugh Hewitt's is right there in the mix. His doing a similar thing with Hillary is no surprise.





> The 2012 presidential election year has long come & gone, but it's still the season for opportunistic authors to publish their anti-Obama books, hoping to cash in on President Barack Obama's record disapproval rating.





> Below I've compiled a short list of anti-Obama books, most of which have popped up in the past couple years about one of most unpopular U.S. presidents in recent memory.
> Clicking an image below will take you to that book's page at Amazon.com, where as an Amazon affiliate I will earn a whopping 4% commission on any purchases that you would make during your visit there.
> 
> So in the event you would decide to add a book or two to your library, that will in effect help offset my cost of hosting this website.
> ...





> - See more at: http://www.garyjwolff.com/anti-obama-books.html#sthash.1f2iPCKh.dpuf ​


----------



## Jackie22 (Oct 12, 2015)

Anyone that uses the argument "both parties are the same" is simply not paying attention.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 12, 2015)

BobF said:


> And I suppose all the lefty authors only speak kindly of their political sames, just like the conservatives speak for their political sames.
> 
> Their books are only failures, both sides, if no books are ever sold.    I doubt if either side of politics ever writes great selling books.   None of those like famous books of the past that sold millions of copies.   Or even the newer books that were made into films for being so popular.



Unfortunately, there is nothing good you can say about any of the conservatives who are running for prez.  The only words that come to mind to describe this batch of losers are stupid, ignorant, naive, unrealistic, living in the dark ages, obnoxious, arrogant, sexist, racist, homophobic, fundamentalist, phony...................


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

Both parties are the same as they both hate the other side.

And for the US it is the two 'parties' that are making it impossible for the government to properly manage things.    Our Constitution asks for people from various states and areas to represent their people.   It has no comments about 'parties' to represent all the people of the nation.   Which is what is happening these days.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 12, 2015)

Annie, you forgot pathological. Lol.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 12, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Annie, you forgot pathological. Lol.



Ah, right.  I knew there were a few more words I was missing. 

Next post:  BobF accusing me of name-calling when in fact I was telling the truth.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Ah, right.  I knew there were a few more words I was missing.
> 
> Next post:  BobF accusing me of name-calling when in fact I was telling the truth.



I did not accuse you of name calling.   You are totally mistaken with that charge against me.    I blamed the entire party system which is opposed to the Constitutions set up for voter representation.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

BobF said:


> Both parties are the same as they both hate the other side.
> 
> And for the US it is the two 'parties' that are making it impossible for the government to properly manage things.    Our Constitution asks for people from various states and areas to represent their people.   It has no comments about 'parties' to represent all the people of the nation.   Which is what is happening these days.



May I ask Bob....  How is it Constitutional for a mere 40 congressmen to completely disrupt our governmental process?  Which is exactly what the Teapublicans in the House are doing.  They are fully intent on destroying America and our political system.   Remember... it is ONLY 40 out of 435  PLUS 100 Senators.   Hardly seems constitutional does it?


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 12, 2015)

BobF said:


> I did not accuse you of name calling.   You are totally mistaken with that charge against me.    I blamed the entire party system which is opposed to the Constitutions set up for voter representation.



Can you not read?  I didn't say I accused you, I said 'next post' meaning I knew what you would post next.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Anyone that uses the argument "both parties are the same" is simply not paying attention.



This is one of my pet peeves...  It seems that every time the GOP is caught doing something unethical... the defense seems to be.. "Well, BOTH parties do it"..   I call BS on that 99% of the time.  NO.. both parties do NOT do it.. It's a complete false equivalency.   I will continue to ask for examples every time I hear that nonsense.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

Ameriscot said:


> Can you not read?  I didn't say I accused you, I said 'next post' meaning I knew what you would post next.



Your post was not yet up when I posted.   So we must have posted at the same time.   It does happen often enough.   Why blame me if not yet posted?


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> May I ask Bob....  How is it Constitutional for a mere 40 congressmen to completely disrupt our governmental process?  Which is exactly what the Teapublicans in the House are doing.  They are fully intent on destroying America and our political system.   Remember... it is ONLY 40 out of 435  PLUS 100 Senators.   Hardly seems constitutional does it?



Just answer my question Bob...   What good possibly be said about these traitors..?


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> This is one of my pet peeves...  It seems that every time the GOP is caught doing something unethical... the defense seems to be.. "Well, BOTH parties do it"..   I call BS on that 99% of the time.  NO.. both parties do NOT do it.. It's a complete false equivalency.   I will continue to ask for examples every time I hear that nonsense.



Protect your own as that is what all will do.    There is nothing wrong with saying both parties do the same and protect their own ideas.   That is true and not your BS comment.


----------



## Ameriscot (Oct 12, 2015)

BobF said:


> Your post was not yet up when I posted.   So we must have posted at the same time.   It does happen often enough.   Why blame me if not yet posted?



Simple.  You are very predictable.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Just answer my question Bob...   What good possibly be said about these traitors..?



They are just doing what many Democrat folks are doing when they vote in locked in far far left votes.   Not one has a different idea?   Does not show real thinking at all, just party locked in thinking.   

So on the Republican side we have some that would like to see things being different.    Hardly enough to stop the entire House from doing any thing at all.   Why are there not enough Democrats that would like to go with the centered Republicans and get things done in spite of those 40 ultra far right ones?   Seems like there are no centered Democrats any more.   Just those far far left ones that lock in to the party instead of using common sense.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Bob...   Far left doesn't exist..   The term is Progressives... and Centrist democrats..   None are CRAZY... like the Teapublicans  AKA The Freedom Caucus.. nor do they advocate shutting down the government and blowing up the congress if they don't get their way.   There is absolutely NO equivalency.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

I see no harm in this piece of trash.  Those in the GOP echo chamber are the only ones who will read it and we already know how they vote!


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Of course he has the right to publish what he chooses... however, it should be relegated to the fiction section of the book store.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Bob...   Far left doesn't exist..   The term is Progressives... and Centrist democrats..   None are CRAZY... like the Teapublicans  AKA The Freedom Caucus.. nor do they advocate shutting down the government and blowing up the congress if they don't get their way.   There is absolutely NO equivalency.



Too many are far far left pushing socialism and even communism.   I have already posted those items.   Most are crazy if you insist on name calling.   

Shutting down the government is not evil at all.   It is just trying to point out the overspending and concern for the US debt to other countries around the world.   A worth while cause for all of us.   Right now we are seeing several programs running, supposedly for our benefit, but what about others when those debts get called by the countries we have borrowed from.   They will be ruthless whenever possible.

Since about 1970 it seems the goal is to bankrupt the US.   And by the records this happens if the left or right are controlling Congress.   Why is this so?    Most heavily when the left is in charge though.   Why not end this foolishness of spending what we don't have and put the US back into the capable position of proper taxes, debts paid down, free markets, free people, just as our Constitution says it should be.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Shutting down the government is NOT crazy?   Let's see how you feel about that when your Social Security check doesn't arrive..


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

BobF said:


> Too many are far far left pushing socialism and even communism.   I have already posted those items.   Most are crazy if you insist on name calling.
> 
> Shutting down the government is not evil at all.   It is just trying to point out the overspending and concern for the US debt to other countries around the world.   A worth while cause for all of us.   Right now we are seeing several programs running, supposedly for our benefit, but what about others when those debts get called by the countries we have borrowed from.   They will be ruthless whenever possible.
> 
> Since about 1970 it seems the goal is to bankrupt the US.   And by the records this happens if the left or right are controlling Congress.   Why is this so?    Most heavily when the left is in charge though.   Why not end this foolishness of spending what we don't have and put the US back into the capable position of proper taxes, debts paid down, free markets, free people, just as our Constitution says it should be.





QuickSilver said:


> Shutting down the government is NOT crazy?   Let's see how you feel about that when your Social Security check doesn't arrive..



Oh bob doesn't need no stinkin "gobermint" handout that's only for the far far far far left commies.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Oh bob doesn't need no stinkin "gobermint" handout that's only for the far far far far left commies.




Fine... then he is free to send me his SS....  Should I send you my bank routing number bob?   lol!!


----------



## Lon (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> AND I was right...  Here's his bio...  A CONSERVATIVE pundit with a talk show who has worked for Republican administrations and conservative organizations....    I'm SURE his book is an unbiased biography..  LOL!!!  You wasted your money Lon...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Hewitt



I guess you think I wasted money reading "Killing Reagan" by Bill O'Reily. I am not a fan of O'Reily but think the authors did a good job of pointing out the warts and pimples in Reagan' persona. BTW I am a Regan fan. Now go ahead and let's hear your diatribe on both Regan and O'Reily.  BTW I read lots of stuff  from all sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Not a fan of Reagan... as he is the father of "Trickle Down Economics"... and notoriously anti-union...  So  the decline of the middle class and all our current problems with income inequality can be traced to him...  but hey... he was likeable..


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

Lon said:


> I guess you think I wasted money reading "Killing Reagan" by Bill O'Reily. I am not a fan of O'Reily but think the authors did a good job of pointing out the warts and pimples in Reagan' persona. BTW I am a Regan fan. Now go ahead and let's hear your diatribe on both Regan and O'Reily.  BTW I read lots of stuff  from all sides of the political spectrum.


I personally find no reason to point out anything to you Lon, perhaps others might, but I learned except as sport, there is no point in illustrating the obvious to those whose minds are cemented in position.  Yes, the same might be said of me.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

*Duplicate*

Duplicate


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Not a fan of Reagan... as he is the father of "Trickle Down Economics"... and notoriously anti-union...  So  the decline of the middle class and all our current problems with income inequality can be traced to him...  but hey... he was likeable..



Ironic in that at one point he was President of a union.  The screen actors guild (AFL/CIO).  He served six terms.  The only person to be President of the US AND a former Union boss.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Ironic in that at one point he was President of a union.  The screen actors guild (AFL/CIO).  He served six terms.  The only person to be President of the US AND a former Union boss.



Little comfort to those Air Traffic Controllers.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Shutting down the government is NOT crazy?   Let's see how you feel about that when your Social Security check doesn't arrive..



Wait until the government get overspent and can no longer pay SS.   Then we will have a real problem.   Not just for a week or month as would happen in the government shut down game.   The government does not have to shut down and stop paying SS.    If they do that they are just trying to make a point that hurts the people but does nothing to fix our overspending habits.   If you don't pay back your credit card it gets shut down.   That is what will eventually happen to the US.    Just like what is happening to Greece these days.    If no help from Germany and others, Greece will have no way of existing and paying all their benefits they have promised the people.    That is what will eventually happen to the US if we don't take control of our debts and promises.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Our government will NOT go broke...  that's a myth the Right loves to throw around...


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Our government will NOT go broke...  that's a myth the Right loves to throw around...



It is a fact that some just will not admit to.   We are broke now or we would not have to keep borrowing to pay our promises.   Promises are the due borrowed amounts and our internal promises like SS, Medicare, etc.....

If the US does lose its world wide credit, who would lend us more money to keep our promises?   Maybe China will give us some bushels of rice to feed everyone with.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

So long as we don't let the crazies shut down our government... and our rating is not decreased.. EVERYONE in the world is clamoring to lend us money.. We are the best investment out there...  and so long as interest rates are just about zero... why not?   You really don't understand international finance dealings do you bob.. Debt is NOT always a bad thing... in fact many times it's desirable from a financial point of view..   Where so many uninformed folks go wrong is that they love to equate National budgets and financial transactions  with the ole home grown kitchen table economics..  The home budget and a budget as complex as that of the United States are in no way comparable...  They are two different things.


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

I guess you just can not understand that debt is not good at all and we have exceptional debt.   It needs to be paid back and our total debt reduced.   That was in the process after WWII.   All governments then were working hard to pay down our debts.   Until around 1970 when the debt started to rise again.   No amount of effort seems to stop this stupid increase in debt.   Greece found out about debt, we will too.   Your concept that debt is great is totally wrong.   Industries use debt occasionally to tool up for a new product.   But as the sales begin they start paying down the debt so they can prepare for another product to be developed.   Continued debt that just keeps getting bigger is not a good thing to see and have.   We are indeed heading for problem days in spite of your rosy thoughts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

Try to learn something Bob....  The US budget is NOT like a houshold... and debt is not always bad...  


http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why 

*Whenever a demagogue wants to whip up hysteria about federal budget deficits, he or she invariably begins with an analogy to a household’s budget: “No household can continually spend more than its income, and neither can the federal government”. On the surface that, might appear sensible; dig deeper and it makes no sense at all. A sovereign government bears no obvious resemblance to a household. Let us enumerate some relevant differences.

**
1. The US federal government is 221 years old, if we date its birth to the adoption of the Constitution. Arguably, that is about as good a date as we can find, since the Constitutionestablished a common market in the US, forbade states from interfering with interstate trade (for example, through taxation), gave to the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes, and reserved for the federal government the power to create money, to regulate its value, and to fix standards of weight and measurement-from whence our money of account, the dollar, comes. I don’t know any head of household with such an apparently indefinitely long lifespan. This might appear irrelevant, but it is not. When you die, your debts and assets need to be assumed and resolved. There is no “day of reckoning”, no final piper-paying date for the sovereign government. Nor do I know any household with the power to levy taxes, to give a name to — and issue — the currency we use, and to demand that those taxes are paid in the currency it issues.


2. With one brief exception, the federal government has been in debt every year since 1776. In January 1835, for the first and only time in U.S. history, the public debt was retired, and a budget surplus was maintained for the next two years in order to accumulate what Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury called “a fund to meet future deficits.” In 1837 the economy collapsed into a deep depression that drove the budget into deficit, and the federal government has been in debt ever since. Since 1776 there have been exactly seven periods of substantial budget surpluses and significant reduction of the debt. From 1817 to 1821 the national debt fell by 29 percent; from 1823 to 1836 it was eliminated (Jackson’s efforts); from 1852 to 1857 it fell by 59 percent, from 1867 to 1873 by 27 percent, from 1880 to 1893 by more than 50 percent, and from 1920 to 1930 by about a third. Of course, the last time we ran a budget surplus was during the Clinton years. I do not know any household that has been able to run budget deficits for approximately 190 out of the past 230-odd years, and to accumulate debt virtually nonstop since 1837.


3. The United States has also experienced six periods of depression. The depressions began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929. (Do you see any pattern? Take a look at the dates listed above.) With the exception of the Clinton surpluses, every significant reduction of the outstanding debt has been followed by a depression, and every depression has been preceded by significant debt reduction. The Clinton surplus was followed by the Bush recession, a speculative euphoria, and then the collapse in which we now find ourselves. The jury is still out on whether we might manage to work this up to yet another great depression. While we cannot rule out coincidences, seven surpluses followed by six and a half depressions (with some possibility for making it the perfect seven) should raise some eyebrows. And, by the way, our less serious downturns have almost always been preceded by reductions of federal budget deficits. I don’t know of any case of a national depression caused by a household budget surplus.


4. The federal government is the issuer of our currency. Its IOUs are always accepted in payment. Government actually spends by crediting bank deposits (and credits the reserves of those banks); if you don’t want a bank deposit, government will give you cash; if you don’t want cash it will give you a treasury bond. People will work, sell, panhandle, lie, cheat, steal, and even kill to obtain the government’s dollars. I wish my IOUs were so desirable. I don’t know any household that is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency. OK, some counterfeiters try, but they go to jail.


5. Some claim that if the government continues to run deficits, some day the dollar’s value will fall due to inflation; or its value will depreciate relative to foreign currencies. But only a moron would refuse to accept dollars today on the belief that at some unknown date in the hypothetical and distant future their value might be less than today’s value. If you have dollars you don’t want, please send them to me. Note that even if we accept that budget deficits can lead to currency devaluation, that is another obvious distinguishing characteristic: my household’s spending in excess of income won’t reduce the purchasing power of the dollar by any measurable amount.
If you put your mind to it, you will no doubt come up with other differences. I realize that distinguishing between a sovereign government and a household does not put to rest all deficit fears. But since this analogy is invoked so often, I hope that the next time you hear it used you will challenge the speaker to explain exactly why a government’s budget is like a household’s budget. If the speaker claims that government budget deficits are unsustainable, that government must eventually pay back all that debt, ask him or her why we have managed to avoid retiring debt since 1837-is 173 years long enough to establish a “sustainable” pattern?*


_Roosevelt Institute Braintruster L. Randall Wray is Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City._


----------



## Lon (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Would you, just for consistency sake... give us a list of some "Lefty authors" and the smear books they have penned?



There's a bunch of them as I just searched. If you really care then you Google your self.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 12, 2015)

Lon said:


> There's a bunch of them as I just searched. If you really care then you Google your self.



Search didn't go well????


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Try to learn something Bob....  The US budget is NOT like a houshold... and debt is not always bad...
> 
> 
> http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why
> ...



Much of this post is confused to say the least.  Yes they did do some research but their conclusions make no sense at all.  

Cost just keep going up.   Why?    The value of the US dollar is going down as we add more and more debt to our economy.   There is no crime in the paying back of our debts, as has been shown over the 200 years they spoke of.   

Where the depression might come from is from the lack of the people to have jobs.   That is where the government has come in and helped to end the depressions.   How about the Hoover dam and other major projects that helped to end a big depression.   That project helped to put lots of folks back to work.   The outcome was for private industries now had reasons to build miles and miles of electrical systems and power distribution companies that also hired folks to help the customers and on and on it goes.   A good stimulus to get things started and the economy got going again. 

  Again, after WWII, the government decided we needed better highways.   So the interstate system was born.   Much of the interstate system was done by state and local funds but with the interstate idea designed to control minimums for width and tunnels and bridges designs and to support some of the higher costs the states could not afford.

Until we get those debts paid down our dollar value will continue to fall.   Try again.   It was an interesting article but incomplete in explaining how debt brings us prosperity.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

So  bob....  Where did YOU get your degree in economics?   And  WHERE do YOU teach..   hahahahahahah


----------



## BobF (Oct 12, 2015)

A degree in economics has nothing to do with knowing debt in such sizes is wrong.   I suppose you have a degree in economics.    If so then you should know that continuous and expanding debt is very dangerous.

I mentioned the problems Greece is having but you fail to recognize that event.    Have you looked into South America?   I believe we have at least one country down there that has been having problems with their economy.   Take a look at Argentina for one.   Maybe another one too.   I will do a look at S America myself and be ready to respond if you do take a look and see anything interesting.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 12, 2015)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413484/-National-Debt-Isn-t-Bad#


The only time the US has been debt-free was in 1835. President Andrew Jackson balanced the budget and the US held no debt. This is the only time in the history of this country that it has been done.
The outcome was negligible, as the early 1830s were prosperous anyway. Being debt-free, however, did not prevent a major recession two years later that lasted six years:  The Panic of 1837.Since then, the US has always held debt and seen its share of bank failures, recessions, depressions and other economic calamities.
[h=2]Debt-free doesn't work[/h]






The reason why the Federal Government should never have a balanced budget requirement is because many projects and grants are multi-year (especially research grants), which are funded in a single appropriation. Other multi-year activities include land leasing.If the government was required to balance out every year, then certain programs and research would be impossible to fund, as uncertainty would stifle investment. Take, for example, what happened to the alternative energy industry in the face of the production tax credit's expiration. In 2014, Congress voted to extend it for only one year with no guarantee it would be subsequently extended, thus causing slowdown:
But while there are more than 13,600 more MW of wind capacity currently under construction, that number is expected to drop off sharply as projects are brought online and fewer new projects are started due to the expiration of the wind production tax credit (PTC).
— "Uncertainty Over Tax Credits Causing Turmoil In Renewable Energy Sector"​When I take out a loan to buy a car or get a mortgage on my house, I'm taking on debt that must eventually be repaid. If, for example, I lose my job, then my creditors can seize my assets to settle my debt.





Unlike individuals, Governments can reduce the impact of debt in a number of ways. One of the easiest is to adjust the money in circulation, i.e., print money. One of the reasons the EU—specifically Greece—is in trouble is member states aren't allowed to print money to get out of debt. If a government goes *too far and prints too much money, then its economy mayhyperinflate. This is what happened in Germany, post WWI, when the Allied Powers insisted Germany pay crippling reparations for starting the war. The government was forced to print more and more money in order to make the payments, making their currency more and more worthless.Let me sum up

Governments are not like people and can use debt to achieve things individuals cannot. The trick is knowing which is good debt and promoting it, and which is bad debt and discouraging it.
*


----------



## Pookie (Oct 12, 2015)

Lon said:


> I just ordered this for my Kindle through Amazon.     Has anyone read the book?



Yes, I have. It's very interesting.

I've seen the replies here and I just want to say, kindly and nicely, to each their own. We can't all be alike and our differences make us who we are. I'm glad to be a part of a forum where no one is alike; If everyone here were just like me, I'm sorry, but I'd have to sell ALL of you upriver to the Gypsies.


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/19/1413484/-National-Debt-Isn-t-Bad#
> 
> 
> The only time the US has been debt-free was in 1835. President Andrew Jackson balanced the budget and the US held no debt. This is the only time in the history of this country that it has been done.
> ...



Interesting comments and they do describe some of the US problems.   Especially the part about printing more money that destroys the entire economy.   The US has been printing more money for several years now and still not paying off our debts.

For all those many years of "small debts" that the US had and then never really being out of debt was OK as the debts were mostly small and were getting paid off while new debts were creating.   Not like the way we have been doing since 1970 with a rotating debt that never gets paid off, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.    Our day of reckoning will come.   It won't be nice.   It will force many changes to how we live.   We need to get back to our older ways of lower debt and the constant payoff of one debt and the formation of newer debts in its place.   

That again was an interesting article but it does not justify what we are doing to ourselves these days.


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2015)

BobF said:


> Interesting comments and they do describe some of the US problems.   Especially the part about printing more money that destroys the entire economy.   The US has been printing more money for several years now and still not paying off our debts.
> 
> For all those many years of "small debts" that the US had and then never really being out of debt was OK as the debts were mostly small and were getting paid off while new debts were creating.   Not like the way we have been doing since 1970 with a rotating debt that never gets paid off, just keeps getting bigger and bigger.    Our day of reckoning will come.   It won't be nice.   It will force many changes to how we live.   We need to get back to our older ways of lower debt and the constant payoff of one debt and the formation of newer debts in its place.
> 
> That again was an interesting article but it does not justify what we are doing to ourselves these days.



NO Bob... read the article..  Printing money does NOT destroy the economy.... Printing TOO MUCH does.   The Federal Government has a obligation to use the tools at it's disposal to control our economy... Printing money... and adjusting interest rates are just examples...


----------



## QuickSilver (Oct 13, 2015)

For all the reasons listed... let it again be reiterated...  comparing the economy so big and so complex to a household budget may seem like common sense.. but it's not.   The US can do so much more that Betty and Bob Smith can to control it's finances, like printing money, and controlling it's currency and interest rates..  These are things that Betty and Bob can't do.    

However, if you insist on comparing the US economy to Betty and Bob...  look at it this way.  Debt is NOT always a bad thing.  Some debt is necessary... Most of us have had mortgages or taken on a car note..  It's how we pay back that debt that's important as it strengthens our credit rating and helps our interest rates..  The US will never be debt free... it never has been... and our notes are still the most sought after in the world.


----------



## BobF (Oct 13, 2015)

That is pure nonsense and not at all true.   Just your way of wanting to say we are doing OK, when we are not.

Did you ever read any articles on Qualitative Easing, QE?    It is only for small amounts of debt and not this ever increasing amount of debt we have now.   It can be used to try to stabilize, tweak, the economy from small changes up or down, but not to excuse out of control debt.

Try reading from other sources like Forbes.   Just search for 'money printing' or 'QE'.  Also take a look a this in Wikipedia.   I have already posted this in a different thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

*Quantitative easing* (*QE*) is a type of monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] This differs from the more usual policy of buying or selling short-term government bonds to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
Expansionary monetary policy  to stimulate the economy typically involves the central bank buying  short-term government bonds to lower short-term market interest rates.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP] However, when short-term interest rates reach or approach zero, this method can no longer work.[SUP][15][/SUP]  In such circumstances monetary authorities may then use quantitative  easing to further stimulate the economy by buying assets of longer  maturity than short-term government bonds, thereby lowering longer-term  interest rates further out on the yield curve.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP]


----------

