• 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!

U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

Conservative said:
Love how liberals always point to percentage change especially when the base is so much higher. I prefer actual dollars because it is actual dollars that we pay debt service in or doesn't that matter to you? Think the debt service on 1.7 trillion is the same as the debt service on 7 trillion?
Click to expand...

As usual, you shifted trajectories as a means of expressing your universal opposition to the current administration.

Interestingly enough, the debt service as a percentage of output was much higher than it was now, and was a larger portion of total expenditures.

By all means, keep the hypocrisy flowing.
 
Kushinator said:
As usual, you shifted trajectories as a means of expressing your universal opposition to the current administration.

Interestingly enough, the debt service as a percentage of output was much higher than it was now, and was a larger portion of total expenditures.

By all means, keep the hypocrisy flowing.
Click to expand...

The reality is the debt service is the fourth largest budget item and much of it goes overseas. How does that help the American economy?
 
Conservative said:
The reality is the debt service is the fourth largest budget item and much of it goes overseas. How does that help the American economy?
Click to expand...

Reality is, debt service went from being the 3rd largest budget item in the 1980's to 4th in the current.

Keep the hypocrisy coming!
 
cpwill said:
The Deficit is shrinking because revenues are at historical high's. Looks like your spender in chief still occupies his spot ;)
Click to expand...

I forgot you were among the "fear of big numbers" crowd. Why not bring up unfunded liabilities while you're at it?
 
cpwill said:
The Deficit is shrinking because revenues are at historical high's. Looks like your spender in chief still occupies his spot ;)
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm?

U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg


I suppose so if your history only goes back to 2008.
 
Kushinator said:
Reality is, debt service went from being the 3rd largest budget item in the 1980's to 4th in the current.

Keep the hypocrisy coming!
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing what record low interest rates do to the debt service. As inflation sets in what do you think the debt service is going to be on the soon to be 18 trillion dollar debt?
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing what record low interest rates do to the debt service. As inflation sets in what do you think the debt service is going to be on the soon to be 18 trillion dollar debt?
Click to expand...
Um, inflation causes old debts.....wait for it....to decline in costs.
 
Conservative said:
It really is amazing that in the liberal world inflation only hits expenses and never revenue
Click to expand...
Where did you mention revenue in what I responded to?

I guess this is the only way that you can admit to getting a basic point of economics incorrect, shift the topic. Your better argument would have been to say that we are not going to see much in the way of higher rates of inflation (since it is going to be a while before wages push inflation) thus causing relative higher borrowing costs.....but then you would be up against low rates of interests....so on and so forth...
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing what record low interest rates do to the debt service. As inflation sets in what do you think the debt service is going to be on the soon to be 18 trillion dollar debt?
Click to expand...

If inflation set's in, the debt will become easier to pay because it can be repaid with deflated dollars, and since the i-rate on the debt is fixed for the maturity date of the bonds, it's not like the debt service instantly would double or triple.
 
Conservative said:
It really is amazing that in the liberal world inflation only hits expenses and never revenue
Click to expand...

Inflation generally inflates everything, including revenue. More revenue makes it easier to pay existing debt.
 
Kushinator said:
I forgot you were among the "fear of big numbers" crowd. Why not bring up unfunded liabilities while you're at it?
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Does that make you part of the "denial of math" crowd?


Hey, you know what the neatest thing about unfunded liabilities is? They will never matter because they are so far in the future!!!

I mean, SSDI isn't scheduled to run out of money until 2016!!! That's, like, forever from now!

Why worry about the future when you can spend everything on today?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hmmmmm?

I suppose so if your history only goes back to 2008.
Click to expand...

:shrug: all that really shows is that revenues are growing faster than GDP is. It is the dollar amount that is at record high's. If the argument is that Obama isn't a spender because the deficit is shrinking, and that is being driven by revenues increasing rather than expenditures falling, well, then the argument is incorrect.
 
cpwill said:
The Deficit is shrinking because revenues are at historical high's. Looks like your spender in chief still occupies his spot ;)
Click to expand...

Revenues are always at historic highs (if you actually like to look at it historically) if you're comparing raw numbers. Is that what you're doing? If so, the post is meaningless.

The same applies to the debt for the most part. Until we crush the deficit, the debt will never stop rising. Currently, we're on the right track of deficit reduction.
 
Last edited:
Tettsuo said:
Revenues are always at historic highs (if you actually like to look at it historically) if you're comparing raw numbers. Is that what you're doing? If so, the post is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Taking a look at apples to apples in terms of measuring revenues v spending is precisely the relevant measure.
 
cpwill said:
Not at all. Taking a look at apples to apples in terms of measuring revenues v spending is precisely the relevant measure.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. If revenues are always climbing from president to president, then it's meaningless to quote the fact that revenues are higher under Obama. Revenues would be higher no matter who is in office or what they actually do while in office.

So the comparison is pointless.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: all that really shows is that revenues are growing faster than GDP is.
Click to expand...
No, not really. it is showing that revenues are starting to decline as a % of GDP.
It is the dollar amount that is at record high's.
Click to expand...
Nominal, and ignoring the size of the economy that the revenues are being drawn from.
If the argument is that Obama isn't a spender because the deficit is shrinking, and that is being driven by revenues increasing rather than expenditures falling, well, then the argument is incorrect.
Click to expand...
If you need to shift your argument away from revenue to something else, so be it....I was debating the level of revenues and showing that as a matter of historical rates, it is not out of the ordinary...it is in fact very ordinary.

If you want to argue the level of spending as a % of GDP, Kush already covered that:

fredgraph.png


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...gdp-unprecedented-turn-34.html#post1063967286
 
cpwill said:
Not at all. Taking a look at apples to apples in terms of measuring revenues v spending is precisely the relevant measure.
Click to expand...
So is your basic argument that as a nation becomes larger both in population and the size of the economy, government should get smaller in nominal levels?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Where did you mention revenue in what I responded to?

I guess this is the only way that you can admit to getting a basic point of economics incorrect, shift the topic. Your better argument would have been to say that we are not going to see much in the way of higher rates of inflation (since it is going to be a while before wages push inflation) thus causing relative higher borrowing costs.....but then you would be up against low rates of interests....so on and so forth...
Click to expand...

you didn't and that is the point, you are so quick to focus on inflation adjusted expenses that you ignore the inflation adjusted revenue.
 
Conservative said:
you didn't and that is the point, you are so quick to focus on inflation adjusted expenses that you ignore the inflation adjusted revenue.
Click to expand...
Please, tell us about "inflation adjusted revenue", lets see where your rabbit hole leads....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom