• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National Debt Nears 20 Trillion Just in Time for Election

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf
 
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf


I'm far less concerned about the debt than I am about growth. As long as payments are manageable and are below our tax-base I don't see too much of a reason to worry. In fact with interests rates so low shouldn't we be borrowing and spending?
 
I'm far less concerned about the debt than I am about growth. As long as payments are manageable and are below our tax-base I don't see too much of a reason to worry. In fact with interests rates so low shouldn't we be borrowing and spending?

Debt hurts growth. Its a ticking timebomb. Much the same as taking on a subprime mortgage that one day will bankrupt you once the interest rate goes up. And that interest and the debt that has to be paid at some point, has to come out of someone working to pay taxes. Govt doesnt produce anything.

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget
and the nation:
 Federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially as a result of
increases in interest rates, such as those projected to occur over the next few years.
 Because federal borrowing reduces total saving in the economy, the nation’s capital
stock would ultimately be smaller, and productivity and total wages would be lower.
 Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to
unexpected challenges.
 The likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase. There would be a
greater risk that investors would become unwilling to finance the government’s
borrowing needs unless they were compensated with very high interest rates; if that
happened, interest rates on federal debt would rise suddenly and sharply.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f...6/reports/51908-2016outlookupdateonecol-2.pdf
 
Perhaps the Nation is sucked in to debt cycle that they cannot control. Unlimited paper money printing. Electronic entry money. Nations all over the World holding so much US denominated dollars that, if the USA crashes, so do they. So all conspire to pretend that the USA dollar is a gold standard (sarcasm) of "fiat" currency. False confidence is inspired in and out of the USA to support the mythical economic stability. The value of a currency is allegedely the productive capacity and natural resources of the Nation of origin. The tax base that pays the interest on the indebtedness. USA manufacturing has been in a talispin since Ronnie Reagan and the dawn of "Service" industries. If you can control markets like stock markets, metal markets, ag markets, and banking consortiums, then you can create an aura of stability. Ain't nothin' like a good aura to promote confidence, don't ya' know? Then again, confidence, like an aura is not something that you can grab hold of and realize perception in the touch feely sense. No, indeedy, auras and confidence are in the Psychological realm and apparently in the Financial/economic/reserve banking realm. In the rarified air of economics, debt don't matter as long as interest payments are current. Now, my friend Justin Peevillie is promoting an investment opportunity whereby his group will borrow trillions of dollars and gladly make the interest payments and uses the US economic system as the functional model for his business. For some strange reason, the banks are unwilling to front Justin O. Peevillie unlimited amounts of dollars even though his plan represents the US model. Who'd a thunk it? Justin can even demonstrate that he can invest the borrowings in foreign National bonds paying ten to twenty times the interest rate of the payment plan to guarantee solvency. Hot dam, but the banks can't seem to do the math like the US Treasury and Federal Reserve.
 
Last edited:
I'm far less concerned about the debt than I am about growth. As long as payments are manageable and are below our tax-base I don't see too much of a reason to worry. In fact with interests rates so low shouldn't we be borrowing and spending?

You know why interest rates are low, right?
 
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf

Conversations like this usually miss the point. The "$20 Trillion" mark is not the only stat worth looking at, neither is the breakdown between Intergovernmental Debt and Debt held by the Public without any other context.

What is wise here is placing Total Debt (or "Total Public Debt") in relation to something, like GDP. To get the below by trend...

TD-GDP-2016Q3.jpg

That is roughly the time frame of the past 2 Presidents, and the 107th to 114th Congresses. By *trend* *(always look at the trend, any one number absent context does not help the discussion) the reason for concern is going above Debt being 100% of GDP and staying there. Probably developing an economic model dependent on continued government spending else another recession and pushing Fiat Money systems closer to MMT conclusions on debt valuation. One thing in our favor is the Fed has been keeping interest rates very low making borrowing inexpensive. Another thing in our favor is the US Dollar in competition against the basket of International Currencies, and for now the US Dollar as done quite well all things considered. In the negative column is Debt held by the Fed has jumped some 500% from 2008 to now (really over QE1 to QE3.) Another negative is if we experience more economic concerns there will be pressure on Government economic policy to spend even more (pushing Debt as a percentage of GDP higher.)

All that said, for now it appears we are leveling off. Over Obama's last 6 years dealing with a Republican Congress the trends on Debt to GDP have leveled off (influenced by deficit trends year on year.)

What we should no do is overreact and come up with something asinine like a balanced budget amendment. And forget about Paul Ryan being some savior here, one of the first things he did as Speaker was push through Congress an "everyone gets what they want" spending bill with tax protections, deficits are headed back upward slightly with this and the next President and 115th Congress will inherit a budget concern. Noted by the blip on that graph from 2015 to 2016. At this point it is debatable on Trump or Hillary doing more damage, they both are likely to face a Republican Congress (or at least a split Congress.)
 
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

From your paycheck straight to China, to the tune of about 100 million a day, just in interest on debt. Who is going to stop this? Certainly not Clinton, who wants to spend more, or Trump, who wants to spend more and tax less. Maybe Paul Ryan who is the only one proposing to at least stop borrowing by balancing the budget, but more likely no one.

https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=16102800.pdf

You know? You're right. The campaign has been negligent. But it is not as much the political folk that is responsible. We the people let them do it. IT is our fault and nobody else's.
 
Debt hurts growth.

Which policies have created all this debt?

>>Govt doesnt produce anything.

RW BS. They don't produce "My Pillow" or the Psychic Friends Network, but they do produce, if nothing else, a lot of very valuable information. That's what I'm paid to do.

You might also consider public education, public roads, public hospitals, public research facilities, state and national parks, the US Marine Corps, etc.

Obama's last 6 years dealing with a Republican Congress the trends on Debt to GDP have leveled off (influenced by deficit trends year on year.)

Congress authorised one percent less in federal spending than the Negro requested 2009-14, and through tight management under his guidance, actual outlays were reduced by a further five percent.

>>At this point it is debatable on Trump or Hillary doing more damage, they both are likely to face a Republican Congress (or at least a split Congress.)

Frump is unelectable, and Democrats are very likely to regain control of the Senate.
 
Why do you think our debt meaningfully is hurting growth?

I just posted it. There are billions a year being taken out of the economy to service debt. It reduces savings and causes pressure on policy.
 
You know? You're right. The campaign has been negligent. But it is not as much the political folk that is responsible. We the people let them do it. IT is our fault and nobody else's.

Just not so much mine, since I have voted for any of them in a long time.
 
Conversations like this usually miss the point. The "$20 Trillion" mark is not the only stat worth looking at, neither is the breakdown between Intergovernmental Debt and Debt held by the Public without any other context.

What is wise here is placing Total Debt (or "Total Public Debt") in relation to something, like GDP. To get the below by trend...

View attachment 67209390

That is roughly the time frame of the past 2 Presidents, and the 107th to 114th Congresses. By *trend* *(always look at the trend, any one number absent context does not help the discussion) the reason for concern is going above Debt being 100% of GDP and staying there. Probably developing an economic model dependent on continued government spending else another recession and pushing Fiat Money systems closer to MMT conclusions on debt valuation. One thing in our favor is the Fed has been keeping interest rates very low making borrowing inexpensive. Another thing in our favor is the US Dollar in competition against the basket of International Currencies, and for now the US Dollar as done quite well all things considered. In the negative column is Debt held by the Fed has jumped some 500% from 2008 to now (really over QE1 to QE3.) Another negative is if we experience more economic concerns there will be pressure on Government economic policy to spend even more (pushing Debt as a percentage of GDP higher.)

All that said, for now it appears we are leveling off. Over Obama's last 6 years dealing with a Republican Congress the trends on Debt to GDP have leveled off (influenced by deficit trends year on year.)

What we should no do is overreact and come up with something asinine like a balanced budget amendment. And forget about Paul Ryan being some savior here, one of the first things he did as Speaker was push through Congress an "everyone gets what they want" spending bill with tax protections, deficits are headed back upward slightly with this and the next President and 115th Congress will inherit a budget concern. Noted by the blip on that graph from 2015 to 2016. At this point it is debatable on Trump or Hillary doing more damage, they both are likely to face a Republican Congress (or at least a split Congress.)

Im more concerned with the amount of taxes I have to pay to service the debt rather than some graph of some number compared to another number. The fact is the debt keeps going up, and with it the taxes I have to pay.
 
Sadly we're talking about sex scandals and email mismanagement, when we should be talking about how our elected representatives (who we keep relecting) have managed to run up 20 trillion in monetary obligations, about 25% to intragovt agencies like Social Security, and the rest to citzens, local govts, mutual funds, of which 35% is owned by foreign countries, with China being the largest holder. This means we pay about 300 billion in interest every year, with about 100 billion being paid to foreign countries.

Firstly, foreign nations do not hold 35% of our debt. They hold close to 20% of the debt, but you're leaving out that we hold the debt of some of those countries too. And they hold our bonds, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hold our debt. When we had a surplus back in 2000, Greenspan said "paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". I kid you not, that is what he said. Bush said "surpluses mean we're being overtaxed", and that is why the Conservatives passed the tax cuts...because of those reasons (and the real reason...to manufacture a debt crisis). So it's hard to see how you have a problem with debt today when you didn't 15 years ago.
 
Im more concerned with the amount of taxes I have to pay to service the deb

Where was all this concern back in 2001 when you guys passed tax cuts that erased a surplus that could have paid the debt off by 2010, and instead produced four record deficits that doubled the debt by 2009?

And what is the concern about debt today? We already know it doesn't affect our economy. All it affects are borrowing rates, and the borrowing rates are already low. So all your concern about debt seems to be a red herring for something else.
 
Firstly, foreign nations do not hold 35% of our debt. They hold close to 20% of the debt, but you're leaving out that we hold the debt of some of those countries too. And they hold our bonds, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hold our debt. When we had a surplus back in 2000, Greenspan said "paying off the debt too soon wouldn't be fair to the bondholders". I kid you not, that is what he said. Bush said "surpluses mean we're being overtaxed", and that is why the Conservatives passed the tax cuts...because of those reasons (and the real reason...to manufacture a debt crisis). So it's hard to see how you have a problem with debt today when you didn't 15 years ago.

How do you know I didnt have a problem with the debt 15 years ago?
 
Im more concerned with the amount of taxes I have to pay to service the debt rather than some graph of some number compared to another number. The fact is the debt keeps going up, and with it the taxes I have to pay.

So you are discarding economics. Which is fine but it ignores why we are at this point and how we got here... just to make a political point devoid of that reality.
 
Where was all this concern back in 2001 when you guys passed tax cuts that erased a surplus that could have paid the debt off by 2010, and instead produced four record deficits that doubled the debt by 2009?

And what is the concern about debt today? We already know it doesn't affect our economy. All it affects are borrowing rates, and the borrowing rates are already low. So all your concern about debt seems to be a red herring for something else.

What do you mean you guys? Did you know me 15 years ago?
 
So you are discarding economics. Which is fine but it ignores why we are at this point and how we got here... just to make a political point devoid of that reality.

How is the FICA taxes I pay not reality? Its more reality than some chart.
 
What do you mean you guys? Did you know me 15 years ago?

I'm sorry, are you not on here defending the economic practices of Conservatism? That cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow magically trickle-down on the rest of us, when they never have ever?
 
How do you know I didnt have a problem with the debt 15 years ago?

If you had a problem with debt, then you would have opposed the Bush Tax Cuts. From what I gather from your posts, you still think those tax cuts produced good things. They didn't. All they produced was higher household debt and record deficits that doubled the debt in 8 years when if Conservatives had done literally nothing to the tax code, the debt could have been paid off in 9 years.

Conservatives couldn't even do nothing right. That's why it's so hard to take you all seriously today. We know you're wrong. We're just waiting for you to catch up.
 
I'm sorry, are you not on here defending the economic practices of Conservatism? That cutting taxes for the wealthy will somehow magically trickle-down on the rest of us, when they never have ever?

No, I am not. I am on here criticizing high levels of debt. Something liberals also do.
 
You know what everyone thought 15 years ago? Thats the ultimate fallacy.

So you oppose the Bush Tax Cuts and trickle-down economics? If so, great! If not, why?
 
Back
Top Bottom