Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question: There was a Referendum of governors back in the 90’s that attempted to force the Federal

Posted on 03/13/2007 12:00:50 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn

government to not surpass (I think it was) $6 trillion in national debt.

It was sighed by around 13 Governors. I can not remember what it was called and I can not find any information on it. The threat was of secession from the union.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS:
Any clues?

thanks

1 posted on 03/13/2007 12:00:56 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Try this Google search

trillion + national debt

Here's a link from the first sight I hit that goes back to '99

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


2 posted on 03/13/2007 12:06:12 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
nope, i did a search just on their site using many different search's I can not find it.

thanks though.

3 posted on 03/13/2007 12:14:17 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

OK, well do the Google search I gave you and you will probably get your answer.


4 posted on 03/13/2007 12:30:55 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

The problem is that the debt is meaningless. The debt is a product of taxes and spending. When taxes are less than spending, the debt goes up. When taxes are more, the debt goes down. But, the tax rate isn't as meaningful as you think. If you raise taxes so that the debt doesn't go up, you have less money now, because taxes went up. If you don't raise taxes, you have more money now, but you owe in the future.

The point being, it is the spending that matters. Whether it is paid for now or later doesn't matter all that much.


5 posted on 03/13/2007 12:39:25 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

One word: interest.


6 posted on 03/13/2007 6:46:05 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Not at all. The interest on the debt is the price of delaying paying for something. We would be no better off if we paid up front. We wouldn't pay the interest on the debt, but, we wouldn't have the $100 billion either, which would be invested in the economy at a higher rater than the low interest rate the fedgov borrows at.


7 posted on 03/13/2007 7:18:38 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

It can work that way. The problem with the Keynsian approach--using deficit spending as an economic stimulus--comes precisely when it stops working because the cost of debt service (interest) itself becomes a drag on the economy.


8 posted on 03/13/2007 7:43:10 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn

Sounds like the Concord Coalition.


9 posted on 03/13/2007 7:49:19 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
It can work that way. The problem with the Keynsian approach--using deficit spending as an economic stimulus--comes precisely when it stops working because the cost of debt service (interest) itself becomes a drag on the economy.

That's no what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that the debt is not a cost at all. It is a journal entry. The spending is the cost. If you take the money up front, or take it later, makes basically no difference. The interest paid every single year is netted out against earnings on the money that wasn't taken from the taxpayers. For every penny paid in interest there is a penny that is earned in the economy because the money wasn't taken by the government. It nets out. If you said "wouldn't it be great if we didn't have to pay interest on the debt right now"? The answer would be sure, except that the economy would be that much poorer if that money had been taxed in the first place.

Its the spending that matters. How it is paid for ia a minor, minor issue.

10 posted on 03/13/2007 8:26:16 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King; The_Reader_David
Thanks guys,

Yes I understand what the debt is and all that but I was more interested in the threat that the States issued not very long ago to the Union about secession from the union.

11 posted on 03/13/2007 11:58:10 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
”OK, well do the Google search I gave you and you will probably get your answer.”

I did that longer then I care to admit. I can not find it.

12 posted on 03/13/2007 11:59:24 AM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson