brian0918 Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) Peter Schiff reports in his latest a gaffe made by Barney Frank, in stating that the combined $6 trillion in implicitly govt-guaranteed mortgages through Fannie and Freddie... are not really guaranteed. The uproar that created forced the Treasury to respond that they would in fact be guaranteeing those mortgages. Schiff rightly #t=5m31s that they are trying to simultaneously guarantee mortgages without officially putting those mortgages on their books. Doing so would increase our national debt to $18-19 trillion, and put it at about 130% GDP. They want to guarantee everything, without anyone losing faith in the dollar. Edited March 6, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 They are caught between a rock and a hard place on this. It's increasingly difficult to see how we're going to be able to service the future obligations that politicians continue to pile on the backs of taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussK Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Peter Schiff reports in his latest a gaffe made by Barney Frank, in stating that the combined $6 trillion in implicitly govt-guaranteed mortgages through Fannie and Freddie... are not really guaranteed. The uproar that created forced the Treasury to respond that they would in fact be guaranteeing those mortgages. Schiff rightly #t=5m31s that they are trying to simultaneously guarantee mortgages without officially putting those mortgages on their books. Doing so would increase our national debt to $18-19 trillion, and put it at about 130% GDP. They want to guarantee everything, without anyone losing faith in the dollar. I heard that some Rep. wants to propose legislation to put this debt on the books. I wonder if, in the case they do recognize the debt, it will be enough to scare the American people. I'm afraid to say that I don't think it would have much of an impact. After operating in debtor mode for so long, I think that most accept this type of behavior by the government as normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelconservative Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 The govt wants to eat its cake and have it too. This is a bug-bear of mine. It is possible to have your cake and then eat it. It is impossible to eat your cake and to still have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted March 7, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) The govt wants to eat its cake and have it too. This is a bug-bear of mine. It is possible to have your cake and then eat it. It is impossible to eat your cake and to still have it. Yes, I know the historically-correct version of the saying. Like you, I am also a grammar nazi. However, I chose the version that is more common today. Plus, it is certainly not possible to have your cake (in the sense implied by the original saying) and eat it simultaneously. Edited March 7, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatlander Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 I heard that some Rep. wants to propose legislation to put this debt on the books. I wonder if, in the case they do recognize the debt, it will be enough to scare the American people. I'm afraid to say that I don't think it would have much of an impact. After operating in debtor mode for so long, I think that most accept this type of behavior by the government as normal. I suspect you might be right here. If Joe Sixpack has been bombarded with seemingly incomprehensible and insurmountable numbers with regards to the national debt (in the trillions), the massive budget deficits, "stimulus" programs that reach perilously close to the trillion dollar mark, billion dollar bailouts and so on, his numb reaction could simply be "What's the big deal with a few more zeroes at the end of such a huge number?" Then again it may be just enough to jolt a few more Americans out of their slumber. They will not wake up happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beckarr Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Most economically illiterate Americans will have the idea that some sort of jump in the debt is a bad thing but they won't know why, yet. The real impact from this would start with the international response, which would be foreign countries losing faith in the future stability of the US dollar. With a huge debt increase from putting things on the books and a huge trade deficit, the only way to get rid of the debt would be to print money. Printing money would lower it's value, making it less attractive to foreign countries to the point where other countries could possibly sell the US dollars that they have. This lowers the value of the US dollar even more, making foreign goods more expensive. If the dollars that foreign countries sold made it back to America then there would be an incredible inflation as the total amount of dollars circulating in the US economy would increase. I don't think this law would be passed because these politicians don't care about the truth or solvency, they only care about public appearance of them doing a good job so that they can get reelected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anuse10 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 I am not entirely sure about the topic. Do you mean that the money supply will increase as the government guarantees those mortgages? Why if the 6 trillion is not being put on the books the national debt will increase to 16 billion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.