• 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!

Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?

  • Total voters
    41
fmw said:
Because the current system has less longevity than surpluses and paying down the debt. At some point you dilute the value of money and raise debt interest payments to unsustainable levels. The old expression that there is no free lunch applies to governments as well.
Click to expand...

Don't forget who you are talking to he is one of those people that believe the government can just print as much money as they want
and that there is no issue if we have a 1 trillion dollar deficit or 5 trillion dollar deficit the government can just print money so there is no issue.

he completely ignores the real life economic consequences of doing this. NO matter what example and economic resource you give him all he can do is repeat himself.
 
radcen said:
Will the federal government ever have a budget surplus again?

Maybe this would be a better way to phrase the question: Can you foresee the government ever having a budget surplus again in your lifetime?
Click to expand...
Nope.

It doesn't matter, either. Deficits are not harmful to the economy, as long as we can pay the interest without losing the faith of the borrowers.

Besides, the last time we had a surplus, instead of using it to pay down that allegedly disastrous debt, an allegedly fiscal conservative President chose to give the taxpayers a refund. And yet, somehow that didn't destroy our economy. Huh.
 
ludin said:
Don't forget who you are talking to he is one of those people that believe the government can just print as much money as they want
Click to expand...
Which it can


and that there is no issue if we have a 1 trillion dollar deficit or 5 trillion dollar deficit the government can just print money so there is no issue.
Click to expand...
Not much of an issue, no. Depending on how big the actual bill is, it might spark some inflation, and creditors won't be happy. For the most part, it won't cause anywhere near as many problems as defaulting on our debts.

Plus, the size of the debt isn't actually the problem. It's whether we can raise enough money through tax revenues to cover our obligations, which basically means paying the interest and expiring bonds.

I mean, really. We've been hearing the mantra of "debt is bad" since the early 80s, mostly by people who find inventive excuses to cut taxes (mostly to the rich) which -- wait for it -- increases the debt. And yet, our economy hasn't melted down yet. Where's the national economic disaster y'all promised me 30 years ago?!? ;)
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You need to understand what a government surplus is; it is when the govt. taxes away more money than it spends. And that's it - they don't do anything with that money - that's why it's a surplus. If they spent it all, it would be a balanced budget. The govt. doesn't earn interest on money it "saves." So let's take your claims point by point:

It would allow us to cut tax rates and leave more money the hands of the People - no, higher taxes remove money from the people. A surplus doesn't lower your taxes, it raises them.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it would happen, I said that it would allow it to happen. The logical path to follow would be for a reasonable surplus to be accumulated against future needs and tehn start cutting taxes.

further stimulating the economy, - less money spent does not stimulate the economy, it hurts it. Not only does the government spend a lot of money via deficit spending, but your higher taxes would prevent you from spending as much as you normally spend.
Click to expand...

The gov't isn't the only spender in this game.

creating more productive jobs, - if the economy is damages, jobs would be lost, not gained.
making us stronger economically on the global stage - a damaged economy does not make a country stronger.
(giving us more leverage to use more non-military solutions to int'l situations). - a weaker economy gives us no extra leverage. Plus, our military would undoubtedly suffer if the government cut back so much that it ran a surplus.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

The economy wouldn't be damaged, it would helped. Your wrong assumption...

All of your arguments are predicated on the idea that gov't spending is the engine for our economy. Currently it has far too much control and that control needs to be broken. We need to move a lot of gov't funded jobs back into the private sector and let it do what it does best. But as most liberals do, you probably think that the private sector is incapable of being an economy's engine and think that the gov't should have that role (your assumptions show pretty clear evidence of that).
 
Visbek said:
Nope.

It doesn't matter, either. Deficits are not harmful to the economy, as long as we can pay the interest without losing the faith of the borrowers.
Click to expand...

And when the interest is so much we can't pay that? This can't go on forever. Sorry.
 
faithful_servant said:
I didn't say that it would happen, I said that it would allow it to happen. The logical path to follow would be for a reasonable surplus to be accumulated against future needs and tehn start cutting taxes.



The gov't isn't the only spender in this game.
Click to expand...

The economy wouldn't be damaged, it would helped. Your wrong assumption...

All of your arguments are predicated on the idea that gov't spending is the engine for our economy. Currently it has far too much control and that control needs to be broken. We need to move a lot of gov't funded jobs back into the private sector and let it do what it does best. But as most liberals do, you probably think that the private sector is incapable of being an economy's engine and think that the gov't should have that role (your assumptions show pretty clear evidence of that).[/QUOTE]

No, my arguments are not predicated on big government spending, although they are a very large and important employer and customer. My arguments are based on the simple truth that government surpluses remove money from the private sector, while government deficits add money to the private sector. It is a simple truth that, I think, people simply miss when they hear the term "surplus." "Surplus" sounds like a good thing, until you stop to think about what it actually means.

And like I said before, the government cannot "save" dollars. A surplus in 2016 does not make them more able to spend in 2017.
 
will the us government ever run a budget surplus in my lifetime?

one would hope so....

right now our debt is at what, almost 18 trillion dollars?

and the interest on that debt at these historical low rates eats up what, 15, 16, 17% of the total outlay each year?

i know, i should have exact numbers....but hopefully you get the point

now we continue to add to the debt....and eventually, the rates....they will drift back up to the 4-5% rates

what % of the outlay will that be when we hit 20, 25 trillion in debt?

where is that line in the sand where the interest starts eating up more than we can take?

some here may think that time will never come....

i dont share their rosy outlook....i just dont see how the numbers will jive
 
fmw said:
Because the current system has less longevity than surpluses and paying down the debt. At some point you dilute the value of money and raise debt interest payments to unsustainable levels. The old expression that there is no free lunch applies to governments as well.
Click to expand...

Well, consider for a moment how many dollars are saved (in dollar or bond form). Basically, that's the national debt minus intragovernmental holdings - let's call it $10 trillion in various hands that are no longer buying stuff or investing in anything. Without the government running deficits and dealing with the liabilities, it would be private sector borrowers paying interest on that $10 trillion of dead money. Do you really think that's more sustainable than the federal government staying in debt, as they have been for over 200 years?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Well, consider for a moment how many dollars are saved (in dollar or bond form). Basically, that's the national debt minus intragovernmental holdings - let's call it $10 trillion in various hands that are no longer buying stuff or investing in anything. Without the government running deficits and dealing with the liabilities, it would be private sector borrowers paying interest on that $10 trillion of dead money. Do you really think that's more sustainable than the federal government staying in debt, as they have been for over 200 years?
Click to expand...

Yes I do. And the U.S. was out of debt in 1859 by the way.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Well, consider for a moment how many dollars are saved (in dollar or bond form). Basically, that's the national debt minus intragovernmental holdings - let's call it $10 trillion in various hands that are no longer buying stuff or investing in anything. Without the government running deficits and dealing with the liabilities, it would be private sector borrowers paying interest on that $10 trillion of dead money. Do you really think that's more sustainable than the federal government staying in debt, as they have been for over 200 years?
Click to expand...

All you do is spew forth theories and dreams...you NEVER (that I have seen) back them up with historical data/facts from unbiased sources.

Until you can do that, with all due respect, your theories mean nothing.


Whereas I have already shown you time and again how America thrived when she ran balanced budgets AND trade deficits (like under Clinton - not that I am for trade deficits). How she thrived at various times in the 20'th century while running balanced budgets/surpluses.
 
DA60 said:
Wrong.

It is a simple belief of yours. You have not proven it to be a fact with historical data/statistics from unbiased sources that prove 100% and with ZERO doubt that what you are saying is a fact. So it is not the truth until you do.

Just because you want something to be true and a bunch of ignoramuses claim it is true...does not make it true. It has to be 100% factually proven first.

So...where is your 100% factual proof in the form of historical stats/data (and NO THEORIES/PROJECTIONS/MODELS) from unbiased sources of your position?
Click to expand...

DA, when will you ever evolve past that stupid demand for 100% certainty from unbiased sources? While at the same time you cite ZeroHedge as a source?

Why don't YOU find me an example of a government that can balance its budget without running a trade surplus over a number of years?
 
DA60 said:
All you do is spew forth theories and dreams...you NEVER (that I have seen) back them up with historical data/facts from unbiased sources.

Until you can do that, with all due respect, your theories mean nothing.


Whereas I have already shown you time and again how America thrived when she ran balanced budgets AND trade deficits (like under Clinton - not that I am for trade deficits). How she thrived at various times in the 20'th century while running balanced budgets/surpluses.
Click to expand...

You haven't shown crap, and you never do. Clinton's surpluses, as tiny as they were, were followed by a recession.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
DA, when will you ever evolve past that stupid demand for 100% certainty from unbiased sources? While at the same time you cite ZeroHedge as a source?
Click to expand...
I rarely use zerohedge as a source...they are biased and cannot be trusted. I use them as conversation starters sometimes. But for facts/data...I go to unbiased sources (which zerohedge is not).

Lol...so proof from unbiased sources is 'stupid' to you?

I think that says it all when describing you on macroeconomics.

Why don't YOU find me an example of a government that can balance its budget without running a trade surplus over a number of years?
Click to expand...

Your memory is short...I already did...to you a few months ago (I believe).

Clinton ran balanced budgets/surpluses while running trade deficits and the economy thrived.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
You haven't shown crap, and you never do. Clinton's surpluses, as tiny as they were, were followed by a recession.
Click to expand...

There has been a recession every 6-7 years on average in American history. That is nothing unusual. Depressions are unusual...recessions are common.

And the 2001 recession was caused by the dot.com bust and the 9/11 terror attacks. Neither had anything to do with government surpluses. Oh, and the recession started while the federal government ran a deficit.

So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew while he did?

True or false, please?
 
Last edited:
In practice our government was not set up, nor does it function, spending less than what they budget for. Every government department knows full well if they spend less this period they will be budgeted less next time.
 
fmw said:
And when the interest is so much we can't pay that?
Click to expand...
Interest for 2015 was $229 billion, or 6% of total spending.

We collected $3.28 trillion in federal revenues that year. That's 14 times more than the interest we had to pay.

It's not a problem.


This can't go on forever.
Click to expand...
Yes, actually, it can.

Aside from us being nowhere near a failure to pay our basic obligations, the reality is that a government debt is nothing like a personal debt. The federal government can indefinitely roll over its debt.

In fact, it'd be a major problem for the global economy if the federal government refused to issue new debt. T-Bills and similar instruments are a critical part of global finance; among other things, it's one of the most secure financial instruments, and millions of retirees often put their money into various government bonds for that very reason.

In addition, no one has demonstrated any real downsides to a high federal debt load. E.g. the Reinhart - Rogoff paper, which claimed that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 90% led to lower growth rates, has been discredited quite thoroughly, including improperly calculating its own data.

While I concur that we should not use this as an excuse to slash taxes and spend on whatever we want, the reality is that we can handle our current deficits and debts without too much trouble.

Or, to put it another way: After 30 years of crying wolf, how much more evidence do you need to know there's no real cause for concern?
 
DA60 said:
There has been a recession every 6-7 years on average in American history. That is nothing unusual. Depressions are unusual...recessions are common.

And the 2001 recession was caused by the dot.com bust and the 9/11 terror attacks. Neither had anything to do with government surpluses. Oh, and the recession started while the federal government ran a deficit.

So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew while he did?

True or false, please?
Click to expand...
False. Clinton never had a surplus.
 
gdgyva said:
and the interest on that debt at these historical low rates eats up what, 15, 16, 17% of the total outlay each year?
Click to expand...
Try 6%


now we continue to add to the debt....and eventually, the rates....they will drift back up to the 4-5% rates

what % of the outlay will that be when we hit 20, 25 trillion in debt?
Click to expand...
Probably around 7%. Maybe 8%. Social Security and Medicare costs will surely grow faster than interest.


where is that line in the sand where the interest starts eating up more than we can take?
Click to expand...
We take in 14 times more in revenues than we have to pay in interest. We're nowhere near crossing that line.


some here may think that time will never come....i dont share their rosy outlook....i just dont see how the numbers will jive
Click to expand...
You might want to know the numbers before drawing that conclusion.
 
DA60 said:
There has been a recession every 6-7 years on average in American history. That is nothing unusual. Depressions are unusual...recessions are common.

And the 2001 recession was caused by the dot.com bust and the 9/11 terror attacks. Neither had anything to do with government surpluses. Oh, and the recession started while the federal government ran a deficit.

So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew while he did?

True or false, please?
Click to expand...

The recession started before 9/11, so that's a FAIL.

The fact that recessions are common doesn't demonstrate much of anything.

The dot.com bubble was the main reason why you think that the economy was "booming" under Clinton - paper gains. And people were paying taxes on those gains, so we ran a small surplus - it was not because of any change in policy. Then, when everybody lost their money, and the government was no longer adding money, but subtracting it, we went into a recession.

On one hand, you often contend that, because we run up debt, we will later have to pay the piper. But here, when it suits your argument, you reference a point in time when we are running up personal debt (and the economy is doing well at the same time, of course, due to that debt), and conveniently disregard the follow-up piper-paying time (the recession). The recession of 2000-2001 was due to the loss of money leading up to it.
 
DA60 said:
There has been a recession every 6-7 years on average in American history. That is nothing unusual. Depressions are unusual...recessions are common.

And the 2001 recession was caused by the dot.com bust and the 9/11 terror attacks. Neither had anything to do with government surpluses. Oh, and the recession started while the federal government ran a deficit.

So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew while he did?

True or false, please?
Click to expand...

Btw, apparently the 2001 recession WAS DURING THE 2001 FY which saw a small surplus (according to the CBO).

My mistake on that small point.
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The recession started before 9/11, so that's a FAIL.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The recession officially went from Mrach to November of 2001. 9/11 was a cause of the continuation of the recession. It began due to the dot.com crash. It continued as long as it did because of the 9/11 attacks.
I guess you had your head in the sand during that time if you did not notice the economic impact of the 9/11 attacks.

The fact that recessions are common doesn't demonstrate much of anything.

The dot.com bubble was the main reason why you think that the economy was "booming" under Clinton - paper gains. And people were paying taxes on those gains, so we ran a small surplus - it was not because of any change in policy. Then, when everybody lost their money, and the government was no longer adding money, but subtracting it, we went into a recession.

On one hand, you often contend that, because we run up debt, we will later have to pay the piper. But here, when it suits your argument, you reference a point in time when we are running up personal debt (and the economy is doing well at the same time, of course, due to that debt), and conveniently disregard the follow-up piper-paying time (the recession). The recession of 2000-2001 was due to the loss of money leading up to it.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about why the economy boomed under Clinton...you just put words in my mouth.

Please do not do that.



I will ask you again:


So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew from 1998 to 2000 while he did?

True or false, please?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Wrong. The recession officially went from Mrach to November of 2001. 9/11 was a cause of the continuation of the recession. It began due to the dot.com crash. It continued as long as it did because of the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...

Are you looking at your own dates? March 2001 comes well before 9/11/2001. And the "continuation" that you blame on 9/11 was just three months (if you count November). You need to check your reasoning. Just throw 9/11 out altogether.

DA60 said:
I will ask you again:


So, for the record...Clinton ran surpluses AND trade deficits and the economy grew while he did?

True or false, please?
Click to expand...

The economy grew on the back of growing consumer debt, despite the surplus and despite trade deficits - and that lasted how long before it crashed? Is that the awesome economy that you want to point to? You don't see any connection between Americans going further into debt and a later recession? Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom