Question on National Debt

#2
#2
over 100% is considered very very bad. theoretically we could lose our AAA rating if that happens.
 
#3
#3
I am not an expert on matters like these but it would seem to me that anything above 50% is entirely too much. Am I off base here?
 
#4
#4
KB5252 said:
I am not an expert on matters like these but it would seem to me that anything above 50% is entirely too much. Am I off base here?
Click to expand...

thankfully with interest rates at 30 year lows it's not as bad as it looks. unfortunetly we aren't taking advantage of it by issuing long securities.
 
#5
#5
There is no end in sight. No one, no party has shown any willingness to stop deficit spending.
 
#6
#6
there are going to be some very angry individuals in 5 years who bought 30 year tresuries in the last year.
 
#8
#8
KB5252 said:
I am not an expert on matters like these but it would seem to me that anything above 50% is entirely too much. Am I off base here?
Click to expand...

This is what I think. Debt as a % of GDP is the highest it has been since the 1950's.

I agree spending is the chief concern and that is the best way to reduce it. But are tax cuts really the responsible thing to do as long as spending stays at current levels? All data I have looked at shows tax receipts after tax cuts go down....or at the very least if they do result in increased receipts, can't keep up with spending. That being said, it does result in economic growth as measured by GDP, but that growth typically does not keep pace with increasing debt. The Reagan and Bush years showed great economic growth, but that came with staggering increases in debt and as a result debt as a % of GDP increased.

As a rule, I agree with smaller government and lower taxes and tax cuts only seem to work in that case. As long as spending stays at current levels, I don't see how anyone can fiscally justify tax cuts, for anybody, rich and poor included.
 
#9
#9
not too hard to do when you have the biggest job bubble and increase in tax revenues in the history of this country.
 
#12
#12
rjd970 said:
All data I have looked at shows tax receipts after tax cuts go down....or at the very least if they do result in increased receipts, can't keep up with spending. .
Click to expand...

tax receipts after the reagan tax cuts in the early 80s skyrocketed during his presidency. the spending for the cold war was the problem.
 
#16
#16
rjd970 said:
Yep. Whatever happened to them between 2000-2006 I don't know though.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

We also are seeing entitlement growth due to some demographic factors but still Congress and POTUS have to have the balls to address other spending.
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
Agreed.

We also are seeing entitlement growth due to some demographic factors but still Congress and POTUS have to have the balls to address other spending.
Click to expand...

The entitlement stuff is getting ridiculous and is the primary cause of most of this debt nightmare. It's only going to get much worse if UHC passes.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anybody, liberals and conservatives alike, can't see this.
 
#18
#18
rjd970 said:
The entitlement stuff is getting ridiculous and is the primary cause of most of this debt nightmare. It's only going to get much worse if UHC passes.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anybody, liberals and conservatives alike, can't see this.
Click to expand...

conservatives do see this, what do you think the tea party protests were all about?
 
#19
#19
MG1968 said:
conservatives do see this, what do you think the tea party protests were all about?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the debt in general.

All due respect, I didn't see them out during the Bush years when deficits and national spending were out of control. The tea party business was more poltical than standing up for an ideal. Nevertheless, they were right about UHC and entitlement programs.
 
#20
#20
rjd970 said:
I was talking about the debt in general.

All due respect, I didn't see them out during the Bush years when deficits and national spending were out of control. The tea party business was more poltical than standing up for an ideal. Nevertheless, they were right about UHC and entitlement programs.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for the Tea Partiers as a whole but there are some differences between Bush spending and current.

1. War spending - hugely expensive but not viewed as an entitlement (ongoing). Might be easier to rationalize this spending if you support the war and assume it's not a permanent increase to the budget.

2. Attempts at reigning in entitlement. Bush gets some credit for taking a swipe at Social Security although it didn't go anywhere (Dems solidly against) and it cost him some political capital.

3. Entitlements - other than prescription drugs, Bush didn't create massive entitlements. The current admin and Congress is doing just that.

4. Magnitude - Bush's spending is dwarfed by Obama's. Part of Obama's early deficits are inflated by bad economic times but even in the best case out-scenarios, he's proposing much larger deficits than Bush.

All in all, the current spending spree looks much much worse so I think Tea Partiers have a point and aren't just racist hate mongers :)
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
Can't speak for the Tea Partiers as a whole but there are some differences between Bush spending and current.

1. War spending - hugely expensive but not viewed as an entitlement (ongoing). Might be easier to rationalize this spending if you support the war and assume it's not a permanent increase to the budget.

2. Attempts at reigning in entitlement. Bush gets some credit for taking a swipe at Social Security although it didn't go anywhere (Dems solidly against) and it cost him some political capital.

3. Entitlements - other than prescription drugs, Bush didn't create massive entitlements. The current admin and Congress is doing just that.

4. Magnitude - Bush's spending is dwarfed by Obama's. Part of Obama's early deficits are inflated by bad economic times but even in the best case out-scenarios, he's proposing much larger deficits than Bush.

All in all, the current spending spree looks much much worse so I think Tea Partiers have a point and aren't just racist hate mongers :)
Click to expand...

I completely agree with the conservative viewpoints when it comes to entitlements.

The war spending, though, has a lot of hidden costs that are long-term that we don't take into account. VA healthcare, upkeep of long-term military bases, etc come to mind. I understand that this doesn't even approach the cost of Social Security or medicare, but it is very significant, and it almost acts like an entitlement from a cost standpoint because it isn't a fixed one time cost, but rather a long term cost that is hard to get rid of once it starts.

I don't know exact figures, but maintaining military bases since WWII and veteran benefits have got to be significant when totaled altogether. (Quick note: I'm not saying do away with this things, I think they are important, especially veteran benefits...I'm just illustrating they aren't free, or a fixed one time cost).

But I won't agree that all the tea party business was strictly about conservatives being upset about current spending. Something tells me that if it were a Repub president doing the spending they wouldn't have been near as large, or got the coverage they did.
 
#22
#22
rjd970 said:
I completely agree with the conservative viewpoints when it comes to entitlements.

The war spending, though, has a lot of hidden costs that are long-term that we don't take into account. VA healthcare, upkeep of long-term military bases, etc come to mind. I understand that this doesn't even approach the cost of Social Security or medicare, but it is very significant, and it almost acts like an entitlement from a cost standpoint because it isn't a fixed one time cost, but rather a long term cost that is hard to get rid of once it starts.

Agree but at the time the perception may be that it is relatively temporary

I don't know exact figures, but maintaining military bases since WWII and veteran benefits have got to be significant when totaled altogether. (Quick note: I'm not saying do away with this things, I think they are important, especially veteran benefits...I'm just illustrating they aren't free, or a fixed one time cost).

But I won't agree that all the tea party business was strictly about conservatives being upset about current spending. Something tells me that if it were a Repub president doing the spending they wouldn't have been near as large, or got the coverage they did.
Click to expand...

Agree with the last point as well. It's about the facial tissue of the POTUS...:p
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
Agree with the last point as well. It's about the facial tissue of the POTUS...:p
Click to expand...

:crazy:

I still can't get over that facial tissue comment on the other thread. I don't know whether to laugh or get mad at such stupidity.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top