The National Debt

[BigRob]

Ouch!!!

That had to hurt....paraphrasing Dwight D. Eisenhower!!!!

Still nothing of value from you.

 

[BigRob]

Rob, the tweaked plan has been greatly improved, Kudos.

I agree whole heartedly with Andy... Dems could care less about the debt - as long as THEY get to spend the money. Its only a big deal if they aren't in charge... I think they would be the toughest ones to get on board for such a proposal.

I like the tax credit market idea... its like Cap & Trade (Tax & Cripple) in reverse.

You are right, this plan could greatly spur economic growth but to increase that effect, rather than have the brackets staggered as they are, what about offering them in a different way...

Here was your setup:
2009: Income under 20,000
2010: Income under 40,000
2011: Income under 60,000
2012: Income under 100,000
2013: Income under 250,000
2014: All other incomes

Not until 2014 would we really see dramatic movement in the paydown so here's my idea... Over a 5 year period, your eligibility is based on the last digit in your SS number OR, in case of a business, your Federal ID number:

1st year: 0,1
2nd year: 2,3
3rd year: 4,5
4th year: 6,7
5th year: 8,9

This would have the effect of covering ALL income brackets in the same year, and continue every year - What do you think about this idea?

Thanks for the comments Gen.

I think that is a better way to do it actually. It would be good get more upper income people involved right away in the process.

I will have to start looking at the math how on it would play out and then post that. Hopefully I can have that posted pretty soon.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Well its not practical... it would be nice, but it would never happen.

A solution must be found that can demonstrate some practicality to pay down the debt and maintain at least current spending levels, since neither party is going to go "back to basics."

What's not "practical" about it Rob? The fact of the matter is that so long as we keep spending more money than we bring in then we are going to continue to have a national debt.

The fact of the matter is that the debt itself isn't bad, and to be honest about it, in some respects it's actually good. Anyone who holds a mortgage holds part of the national debt, all of the credit card balances are part of the national debt, every car loan is part of the national debt, every major municipal project is part of the national debt (ever heard of municipal bonds?), every T-Bill, CD, or other investment that is based on interest is part of the national debt.

Where the national debt becomes an issue is twofold, 1) foreign ownership of part of that debt, and 2) mandatory expendatures as it deals with what I mentioned earlier. The fact of the matter is that roughly half of the debt is held by "the public" and the other half is "intergovernmental debt". Where it get's scarey is when one adds in all of the "unfunded" debt like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all of the other blatantly unconstitutional expendatures, then the debt climbs to nearly $60 TRILLION dollars, and not the $10 Tn that everyone hears about.

Foreign ownership of our debt only accounts for approx. 25% of our total debt, or $2.5 Tn, which is less than our current annual budget, so even if every foreign government were to cash in all of their debt instruments, they couldn't do any significant harm to our economy.

It's all of the unfunded mandatory expendatures that are 'eating our lunch', and will continue to do so until either 1) we cut back drastically on all of those unfunded mandatory expendatures, or 2) the population of those receiving those unfunded mandatory expendatures decreases to a percentage that is managable by those of us who are working and paying into the system.

So, while it's all well and good to talk about 'quick mean fixes' to the debt problem, we're never going to CURE it until we eliminate the unfunded mandatory expendatures, and quit handing out money as if it were S&H Greenstamps! Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, AFDC, Section 8, HUD, Head Start, and all of the other "give away" programs that are bankrupting America. Unless and until we can actually do that, any other discussion about what to do about it is nothing but mental masturbation. It may make you feel good, but it's not going to accomplish anything.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I agree with the notion here, I think the biggest issue that has caused all the problems in the first place, and one that is allowed in the Constitution.
Article 1 Sec. 8 allows Congress, the ability to borrow on the credit of the United States. Now there are times when I think that is necessary.

Yes the Constitution does allow for borrowing, and yes there are times when it is necessary, BUT, that borrowing, as well as the taxing also provided for in Article 1 Sec. 8 ONLY allows for those to be accomplished for those specific items listed in Article 1 Section 8 (or elsewhere in the Constitution).

But what we have come to experience in the last 8 years is obviously unsustainable. And despite whoever becomes President, this year, or even in 4-8 years are going to put any signifigant efforts into this, until it becomes another crisis. Then and probably just like now, it will be a band-aid, and trying to fix one problem often comes a bunch that were unanticipated.

Excuse me? The last 8 years? You are aware aren't you that the vast majority of the issues we're having with our debt are a DIRECT result of FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society" aren't you? So exactly what are you talking about "the last 8 years"? Since President Bush took office, and since his first budget (2002), the Federal Budget has only increased by 15%, and our debt has increased by 20% (much of it INTEREST debt) so trying to blame this situation on President Bush is intellectually dishonest in the EXTREME!

I dont think there is a good answer to this. Except a fundamental change to the way DC works, and specifically the sources of revenue, and the available expenditures annually through the budget process.
In the short-medium term, it might be interesting to have Congress think about how most cities change thier mill rates annually to cover thier budget that year. A flucuating flat income would hold thier feet to the fire no doubt. Having to justify a tenth of a percentage here and there would shake things up a bit.

Unless or until there is a Balanced Budget Amendment (with obvious exceptions for times of War or other national emergency), an end to deficit spending, the end of ALL of the "social give away" programs, as well as all other Departments and Agencies that aren't specifically called for in the Constitution, and we implement the FairTax, NOTHING anyone does it going to fix this problem. This is crunch time, the patient has malignant cancer, and unless we operate and REMOVE the cancer, and administer massive doses of chemotherapy, the patient is going to DIE, and that means ALL of us.

Oh, and BTW, your boy Obama is not only NOT going to do anything to fix the problem, he and his policies ARE the problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

Unless or until there is a Balanced Budget Amendment (with obvious exceptions for times of War or other national emergency), an end to deficit spending, the end of ALL of the "social give away" programs, as well as all other Departments and Agencies that aren't specifically called for in the Constitution, and we implement the FairTax, NOTHING anyone does it going to fix this problem.

Lets be practical about this Mr. C, we can discuss more than one problem at a time here. Start a thread, like Rob has done, with pragmatic solutions to ending "social give away" programs... Solutions that both parties can sign onto.

A good place to start would be with the Balanced Budget Amendment. I'd say that to prevent the "times of War" exception from being abused, it needs to be stipulated that Congress has to officially declare war. Otherwise, the GWOT can be used as an excuse for perpetual deficit spending.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Lets be practical about this Mr. C, we can discuss more than one problem at a time here. Start a thread, like Rob has done, with pragmatic solutions to ending "social give away" programs... Solutions that both parties can sign onto.

A good place to start would be with the Balanced Budget Amendment. I'd say that to prevent the "times of War" exception from being abused, it needs to be stipulated that Congress has to officially declare war. Otherwise, the GWOT can be used as an excuse for perpetual deficit spending.

Unfortunately, the only "practical" way for We The People to get our country back, and to compel the Congress to strictly abide by the Constitution is by the use of force, but the gutless blunders that have become the American sheeple lack the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary. The only "practical" solution I see would be for over a million Americans to suddenly show up, in Washington DC, armed to the teeth, and take the entire Congress into custody (as well as simultaneous strikes to apprehend all living previous members of the Congress) and to try each and every one of them for Treason and dereliction of duty for failing to maintain their offices during good behaviour!

"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson - from a letter to William S. Smith, Nov. 1787

As to your "concerns" about GWOT, first off, there is no need for a declaration of War in clear cut cases of self defense as in the case of Afghanistan following 9-11, and secondly, the Congress DID declare War against Iraq, or perhaps you missed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, which was passed in the Congress by an overwhelming majority and signed by the President?

 

[GenSeneca]

Unfortunately, the only "practical" way for We The People to get our country back, and to compel the Congress to strictly abide by the Constitution is by the use of force...

I disagree but would be glad to discuss this elsewhere.

As to your "concerns" about GWOT, first off, there is no need for a declaration of War in clear cut cases of self defense as in the case of Afghanistan following 9-11...

While I understand your point, I don't think the GWOT - or the never ending Wars on Drugs and Poverty - are reasonable excuses for perpetual deficit spending. There needs to be strict guidelines in a balanced budget amendment that specifically outlines the circumstances under which deficit spending would be allowable.

the Congress DID declare War against Iraq, or perhaps you missed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, which was passed in the Congress by an overwhelming majority and signed by the President?

I don't wish to parse words but that was not a formal declaration of War. OIF was one of the 12 military engagements authorized by Congress in our history. We have only had a formal declaration of war 5 times, with the last occurrence in WW2.
------------------------------

Now, I'd like to move back to the topic of the thread and talk about why I its important to address our debt.

We are on the brink of electing our next president and, it doesn't matter which one it is, his administration will not be addressing our debt or deficit spending in any significant way. Even so, and regardless of the presidents position, Congress is where it all begins and ends and there are only a handful in that body who take the budget and debt seriously. The rest of them, will promise the sun, the moon, and all the stars, just to get elected... What they are promising is truly astronomical.

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security are a ticking time bomb:

* In 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in. For the first time, it will have to use the interest being paid on the securities it holds in order to meet its obligations.

* In 2027, Social Security would have to start redeeming the securities themselves.

* By 2041, Social Security would have cashed in the last security, and the system would have enough revenue to pay out only 75% of promised benefits. That percentage would drop over time if Congress failed to act.

We are not going to address our debt between 2008 and 2012, instead... we are going to plunge ourselves deeper into debt, making that much more difficult for future candidates and generations to solve before 2017.

Why is it important to correct our fiscal policies before then? Because that's when SS begins cashing in the IOU's from the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government has no money to pay these debts - the Federal Reserve will begin to print the money needed to meet their obligations. The result will be rampant inflation and possibly stagflation.

We could already be facing stagflation as our current economy has slowed, inflation is on the rise, and the only answer coming from Washington - Spend more money, that we don't have, by printing more money.

 

[roger2008]

As the election-year rhetoric on balancing the federal budget heats up, this contrarian book written by a long-time Washington insider will lead the debate. Congress mandated ultra-low sulfur content in diesel fuel. That pushed the processing cost way up, and now diesel fuel in the United States is the most costly fuel on the planet.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.florist-flowers-roses-delivery.com/california/los_angeles_ca.html]Los Angeles Online Florist low rate loans pisos vilafranca del penedes download ringback tones[/URL]

 

[Bunz]

Yes the Constitution does allow for borrowing, and yes there are times when it is necessary, BUT, that borrowing, as well as the taxing also provided for in Article 1 Sec. 8 ONLY allows for those to be accomplished for those specific items listed in Article 1 Section 8 (or elsewhere in the Constitution).

I am quite aware of the the Constitution says. But thank you.

Excuse me? The last 8 years? You are aware aren't you that the vast majority of the issues we're having with our debt are a DIRECT result of FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society" aren't you? So exactly what are you talking about "the last 8 years"? Since President Bush took office, and since his first budget (2002), the Federal Budget has only increased by 15%, and our debt has increased by 20% (much of it INTEREST debt) so trying to blame this situation on President Bush is intellectually dishonest in the EXTREME!

Firstly, I never mentioned Bush. I dont blame him entirely, as I generally dont blame or praise a single person for any government failure or success. It is a matter of the system. The same system made up of two equally inept parties. I do find it worthy to note that when Bush took office, he had a sizable budget surplus. That was erased quite quickly. But both parties knew they had a sucker in the WH who wasnt going to do squat about excessive spending. The results are what we are stuck with.

Unless or until there is a Balanced Budget Amendment (with obvious exceptions for times of War or other national emergency), an end to deficit spending, the end of ALL of the "social give away" programs, as well as all other Departments and Agencies that aren't specifically called for in the Constitution, and we implement the FairTax, NOTHING anyone does it going to fix this problem. This is crunch time, the patient has malignant cancer, and unless we operate and REMOVE the cancer, and administer massive doses of chemotherapy, the patient is going to DIE, and that means ALL of us.

Firstly, the "fair tax" is a joke and holds no water. Replacing all federal income taxes with a roughly %30 sales tax is completely regressive and ripe for fraud.
Its kinda like communism, an interesting idea on paper, and a horrible incarnation in practice.

Secondly, getting rid of ALL of the social welfare programs, is wishful thinking at its best and is generally unwise if you ask me. There certainly needs to be a better handle on them, and decreasing thier size and figuring out which ones are a failure and need to be eliminated is something I support. Unfortunately, neither party has been willing to do that. I do support a balanced budget.

Which is why I made my original post concerning a different way of figuring taxes. The proposal that I made, stems from my experience as a local City Council member and how we figured local mill rates. Having a diversified tax structure is the key. Various tariffs and consumption taxes, and also user feeds are taken into account first.
Then a flucuating flat income tax would fill the void, to cover costs, and potentiall pay down the debt at whatever percentage rate is necessary.

So this would mean, that Congress can spend however much they like, but the budget must be balanced, and if Congress wants to increase spending, they have to justify a tax increase of whatever percentage is necessary to cover those costs, and then be held accountable by thier constituents in the voting booth.

Living in a small town, and being apart of local politics, raising taxes is a very personal issue, and I hear about it, quite loudly sometimes. But the important thing, is that the impact is immediate, and so is the fallout. What the DC politicians have managed to do from whatever thier party affiliation, is to increase services, and lower taxes, and have a minimal amount of accountability because they will be long out of office when the bill comes due.

Oh, and BTW, your boy Obama is not only NOT going to do anything to fix the problem, he and his policies ARE the problem.

A few things, firstly, my current support of Obama has little to due with tax policies. I would just barely call him "my boy"
Just like all politicians, Obama is a compromise, much like McCain probably is for you, and most other Republicans, because McCain is hardly a Republican.
He and his policies are not the problem. The problem is the way DC operates, and I am under zero illusion that either candidate are going to solve much of any problems.
My support for Obama stems largely for my support of Biden, starting over a year ago. But also, my utter disdain for Hillary Clinton. I am not a party hack, I wish political parties would go away entirely, and we would vote for all independants. So, if you want to bring this line of partisanship into the conversation, I suggest you try it somewhere else, because I am not biting.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I disagree but would be glad to discuss this elsewhere.

That would be fine with me.

While I understand your point, I don't think the GWOT - or the never ending Wars on Drugs and Poverty - are reasonable excuses for perpetual deficit spending. There needs to be strict guidelines in a balanced budget amendment that specifically outlines the circumstances under which deficit spending would be allowable.

I don't wish to parse words but that was not a formal declaration of War. OIF was one of the 12 military engagements authorized by Congress in our history. We have only had a formal declaration of war 5 times, with the last occurrence in WW2.

Firstly, the GWOT and the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" are hardly the same thing. GWOT is the result of a direct attack on America (9-11), and the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" are pure obfuscation to justify more governmental abrogation of our Rights, as well as to justify the redistribution of wealth that is so popular among the Democrats and Neo-Cons that infest our Congress.

Secondly, I do not parse words. Now, if you can show me anywhere in the Constitution, or any other formal governmental document where it prescribes the precise verbiage to be used in a "formal" Declaration of War, and then show me how the one authorized by Congress as it relates to Iraq fails to meet that criteria, then I will acquiesce. If on the other hand you cannot produce any such guidelines, then I expect you to apologize for your assertion, and admit that the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq is in fact a "formal" Declaration of War.

I would also suggest that while the Constitution does give the Congress the sole power to declare war, there is no requirement anywhere in the Constitution that any such declaration is required for the use of military force against any foreign power. As proof of this I direct your attention to the aforementioned "undeclared" wars that we have been involved in since the Constitution was ratified. Presidents Adams, Jefferson, and Madison had absolutely no problem dispatching our military forces to engage foreign powers, both at sea and on their lands, without any "formal" declaration of war, and as these men were directly involved in the founding of our nation, I will defer to their judgment on precisely what the Constitution means over the opinions of the revisionist historians who currently populate our modern institutions of public indoctrination, and pollute the minds of our youth with their Socialist canards.

Now, I'd like to move back to the topic of the thread and talk about why I its important to address our debt.

We are on the brink of electing our next president and, it doesn't matter which one it is, his administration will not be addressing our debt or deficit spending in any significant way. Even so, and regardless of the presidents position, Congress is where it all begins and ends and there are only a handful in that body who take the budget and debt seriously. The rest of them, will promise the sun, the moon, and all the stars, just to get elected... What they are promising is truly astronomical.

Yes it is, yes there are, yes they have, and yes it is, and there's nothing new about any of it.

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security are a ticking time bomb:

<snip to save space>

Exactly, and the fact of the matter is that our national debt is not the $10 Bn that is being widely reported, but when counting the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the rest, our actual national debt is over $54 Bn, and there is absolutely no way to save them regardless of which 'pie in the sky' schemes Congress comes up with short of literally confiscating ALL of the money from the American people, period.

We are not going to address our debt between 2008 and 2012, instead... we are going to plunge ourselves deeper into debt, making that much more difficult for future candidates and generations to solve before 2017.

Why is it important to correct our fiscal policies before then? Because that's when SS begins cashing in the IOU's from the Federal Government. Since the Federal Government has no money to pay these debts - the Federal Reserve will begin to print the money needed to meet their obligations. The result will be rampant inflation and possibly stagflation.

We could already be facing stagflation as our current economy has slowed, inflation is on the rise, and the only answer coming from Washington - Spend more money, that we don't have, by printing more money.

The only way to "solve" the problems of SS, Medicare, Medicaid and all the rest is to ABOLISH them. Anything else simply pushes the problem back a few years at best. I suggest that the government simply write a check to each and every person who has paid into the system for the equivalent of what they've paid into the system, plus 6% interest, and minus any monies that have already been paid out to that person, starting with the most elderly and progressing to the youngest, over a 10 year period, and let that be the end of it. For those who have yet to enter the work force, there will be no withholdings for SS, Medicare or Medicaid, and they will be told that it is their responsibility to invest their money for their own futures.

As far as how to eliminate inflation, and to prevent stagflation, simply abolish the 16th Amendment and implement the FairTax. That alone will bring most, if not all businesses back from overseas, that went off shore simply to avoid our incredibly high taxation, and as anyone who has taken Econ. 101 knows, that alone would stimulate the economy to the point that the proposed tax rate of the FairTax could be lowered and the receipts to the government would still increase far above where they are now.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

I am quite aware of the the Constitution says. But thank you.

We shall see.

Firstly, I never mentioned Bush. I dont blame him entirely, as I generally dont blame or praise a single person for any government failure or success. It is a matter of the system. The same system made up of two equally inept parties. I do find it worthy to note that when Bush took office, he had a sizable budget surplus. That was erased quite quickly. But both parties knew they had a sucker in the WH who wasnt going to do squat about excessive spending. The results are what we are stuck with.

The fact that you specifically mentioned the "past 8 years" insinuates an assertion of blame on President Bush. As for the alleged budget surplus, Clinton gutted the military for part of it, and then added the Social Security "lock box" to the budget. It was nothing but a case of taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another in order to foist an elegant lie on the sheeple.

Firstly, the "fair tax" is a joke and holds no water. Replacing all federal income taxes with a roughly %30 sales tax is completely regressive and ripe for fraud.
Its kinda like communism, an interesting idea on paper, and a horrible incarnation in practice.

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to insist that you support that slanderous allegation. I've spent the past 2 years studying the FairTax, and frankly your assertion is baseless, and stupendously ignorant on an EPIC scale.

As to the rest of your post, perhaps I misunderstood your previous statement about understanding the Constitution, and perhaps it's possible that my copy of the Constitution is redacted, so perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to the salient part that authorizes ANY "social welfare programs", because my copy contains no such provisions.

The truth is that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, HUD, AFDC, and all the rest of your precious "social welfare programs" account for over 60% of our $3 Tn budget, and as I said earlier, I find NO provisions anywhere in the Constitution for any of them. As I stated earlier, the "debt clock" shows only $10 Tn, but the truth is that it's over $54 Tn and growing exponentially for all of the unfunded mandate "social welfare programs", ALL of which are completely unconstitutional on their face! If you're really interested in fixing what's wrong with Americas financial health, get rid of them, ALL of them, NOW.

One other point. You claim that you support Biden, which begs the question, WHY? If you truly are familiar with the Constitution, and if you believe it to be the law of the land, and not just a loose gathering of "suggestions", then perhaps you'd be kind enough to show me exactly how Joe Bidens record, in over 30 years in the Congress, is in any way indicative of fealty to that Constitution that he swore to support and defend? Show me his record on cutting wasteful spending. Show me his record on earmarks and pork barrel spending. Show me his record on anything that shows that HE has any understanding of the Constitution, and I may believe that you understand it, but so long as you claim to understand the Constitution, and that you support Joe Biden, then you are clearly contradicting yourself, because the two are oxymoronic.

 

[Talk2TheHead]

Hi Folks!

I think u can also see a nation's government like some sort of company.
Company's have debt, so do (almost?) all the worlds nations. So it's normal.
America is a pretty big nation, with a very big economy, so u can afford a little more debt.
I say "u" because my homeland is The Netherlands.

Now, It surprises me that nobody has mentioned one tiny aspect of the issue..
A month ago I went to the United States for the second time, very much enjoying a 3 week holiday. One thing that really is sticking out for an european guy like me is the HUGE use of creditcards.
Man, u guys should really realise that that's really really getting out of proportion.
A pack of gum? Creditcard. A coke? Creditcard. Pack of cigarettes, a meal, a car, a house.....everything!! (Ok, the house is on another card).
I don't think I have seen someone pay cash in any restaurant I visited for these 3 weeks.
I do think I have seen almost every single person pull out their card for a coffee and a cookie @ the Starbucks!!
What's wrong with a $5 bill people?

American have embraced the creditcard a little too much, if u ask me. I bet hundreds of thousands of u have given their sons and daughters a creditcard with an x amount on it for their 18th birthday. The doorway to debt is open, happy birthday son.

I'm not saying having a creditcard is wrong, u just have to use it wisely, the obvious trap is the ridiculous interest rate.

In The Netherlands we have a whole different view on that card.
To put it simple: It's considered a luxury. (And that in one of the richest country's in the world)
Above all, we have a way different system of paying our goods in daily live.
First, we use way more cash then card over here. Second, if we do pay with a card, 97,5% of the times (A quite accurate quess I think, if I may say ) we use a plain oll simple bankcard.
A bankcard? Where's the advantage u think? Well paying 0% interest is, if u ask me.
Sure u can apply for an x amount "going red"; but still, u pay a whole bunch less interest to a bank as compared to a creditcardcompany.

So there u have it people, buy your gumballs and cookies with a dollarbill, not with that stupid card. It just ain't smart bussiness.

 

[BigRob]

Hi Folks!

I think u can also see a nation's government like some sort of company.
Company's have debt, so do (almost?) all the worlds nations. So it's normal.
America is a pretty big nation, with a very big economy, so u can afford a little more debt.
I say "u" because my homeland is The Netherlands.

Now, It surprises me that nobody has mentioned one tiny aspect of the issue..
A month ago I went to the United States for the second time, very much enjoying a 3 week holiday. One thing that really is sticking out for an european guy like me is the HUGE use of creditcards.
Man, u guys should really realise that that's really really getting out of proportion.
A pack of gum? Creditcard. A coke? Creditcard. Pack of cigarettes, a meal, a car, a house.....everything!! (Ok, the house is on another card).
I don't think I have seen someone pay cash in any restaurant I visited for these 3 weeks.
I do think I have seen almost every single person pull out their card for a coffee and a cookie @ the Starbucks!! What's wrong with a $5 bill people?
American have embraced the creditcard a little too much, if u ask me. I bet hundreds of thousands of u have given their sons or daughters a creditcard with an x amount on it for their 18th birthday. The doorway to debt is open, happy birthday son.

I'm not saying having a creditcard is wrong, u just have to use it wisely, the obvious trap is the ridiculous interest rate.

In The Netherlands we have a whole different view on that card.
To put it simple: It's considered a luxury. (And that in one of the richest country's in the world)
Above all, we have a way different system of paying our goods in daily live.
First, we use way more cash then card over here. Second, if we do pay with a card, 97,5% of the times (A quite accurate quess I think, if I may say ) we use a plain oll simple bankcard.
A bankcard? Where's the advantage u think? Well paying 0% interest is, if u ask me.
Sure u can apply for an x amount "going red"; but still, u pay a whole bunch less interest to a bank as compared to a creditcardcompany.

So there u have it people, buy your gumballs and cookies with a dollarbill, not with that stupid card. It just ain't smart bussiness.

I wager that most people are in fact using a debit card (bank card) when they make these purchases.

I know that I never use cash for anything, but never once have had to pay interest on a card, and often simply use a debit card.

Often times I will use a credit card as well for things like this because you can get a lot of good rewards. Why use cash, when you can use your airline card and get miles towards a free trip?

Of course as you point out, people need to use them responsibly.

 

[Talk2TheHead]

I don't know the exact deal u are getting on your debit/creditcards, but over here, when I'm in debt on my VISA they're charging me like 18,5%...

 

[Talk2TheHead]

U know Rob, when u have a watch, it's easy to know the time, when u have a cellphone, it's easy to make a call, when u have a creditcard, u always have a virtually unlimited supply of cash with u, thus it's easier to spend. People are too sensitive for that input. If u have a watch u wanna know the time the whole day thru. I don't have a watch, I care less.