• 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!

US National debt is beyond staggering

It's already been made clear there isn't enough money out there, no matter what level taxes are raised to. Also, you'd have to tax everyone, not just a small minority.

Really? Who has "made that clear"? All I've seen are a bunch of claims that government debt is the same thing as private debt.
 
If it's a pissing contest you are interested in, then I am part of the upper 10% of income earners, plus I own property. I pay plenty of taxes.

If it's a debate you are interested in, then you need to do more than point to some big numbers and say, "Bad! Bad numbers!"

100% of the money we pay in taxes is spent right back into the economy, as long as the government isn't stupid enough to run a surplus. Tax money is not "allocated to debt spending," otherwise IT WOULDN'T BE DEBT SPENDING. These are very basic things that you are whiffing on. Deficit spending is a straight addition of financial assets to the private sector; it increases GDP and it puts more money in our pockets. If you think that there is a downside to that, then make your case.
45% of our 'debt' does not go right back into our economy. It is held by foreign governments. That percentage has steadily increased over the last decade. Just under 10% of our income is going to pay off just the interest on our debt...and that number CONTINUES to climb. While we have seen massive increases in debt we have seen virtually stagnant economic growth. Its never a problem...til it is a problem.
 
45% of our 'debt' does not go right back into our economy. It is held by foreign governments. That percentage has steadily increased over the last decade. Just under 10% of our income is going to pay off just the interest on our debt...and that number CONTINUES to climb. While we have seen massive increases in debt we have seen virtually stagnant economic growth. Its never a problem...til it is a problem.

So now it's interest you are worried about? Why didn't you say that in the first place? Get your terms straight, and this will be much faster.

Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total. Interest on the debt is about $225 billion, so $73 billion is leaving the country. That's about 0.4% of our GDP.

You are worrying about 0.4% of our GDP. $73 billion is a drop in the bucket.

Economic growth has not been stagnant. We are outperforming most of the rest of the world in that category.

You really need to get a better grip on the numbers you throw around.
 
It's already been made clear there isn't enough money out there, no matter what level taxes are raised to. Also, you'd have to tax everyone, not just a small minority.

IMG_1014.JPG

After Clinton signed legislation increasing taxes, we were able to collect enough revenue off the economic boom in the 90s to put us in the green. Budget hawks should revere Clinton for glorious prosperity and fiscal responsibility. Raising taxes is a move in the right direction. Not more tax cuts and bloated Pentagon defense contracts, which is money spent that has No return.

Maybe like you said the numbers aren't there but, it's a step in the right direction.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
...take money out of the economy?

Taxes are only taken out of the economy if the government runs a surplus.

...create unemployment in the defense sector?

...while creating employment in other, more beneficial sectors.

...while increasing spending?

Increasing government deficit spending increases GDP. It's right there in the equation.

Well. Isn't that something.

It is if you understand it.
 
Taxes are only taken out of the economy if the government runs a surplus.



...while creating employment in other, more beneficial sectors.



Increasing government deficit spending increases GDP. It's right there in the equation.



It is if you understand it.

If government spending = GDP, then defense spending and education spending do the same thing for the economy.

Why did you feel the need to go personal right away?
 
View attachment 67215156

After Clinton signed legislation increasing taxes, we were able to collect enough revenue off the economic boom in the 90s to put us in the green. Budget hawks should revere Clinton for glorious prosperity and fiscal responsibility. Raising taxes is a move in the right direction. Not more tax cuts and bloated Pentagon defense contracts, which is money spent that has No return.

Maybe like you said the numbers aren't there but, it's a step in the right direction.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might go back and study this matter...Clinton was very smart, he manipulated things in a way intended to make himself look good, but his ideas tended to be not good for America:



Hillary Clinton Loves to Trumpet Bill's Budget Surplus. She Shouldn't


As you can see, the government sector has almost always been in deficit since the mid-20th century while the private sector has almost always been in surplus. But what do you notice about the late 1990s? Something weird happened: The private domestic sector (the blue bars) went into deficit for the first time since 1952. Then it did it again in the second half of the 2000s. There's no way for the spending of private households and businesses to collectively outpace saving unless its being driven by unsustainable debt. So what we're seeing here is the stock bubble of the late '90s, which burst in 2001, and the out-of-control mortgages and household debt of the mid-to-late '00s, which culminated in the 2008 financial crisis.
Hillary Clinton loves to trumpet Bill's budget surplus. She shouldn't.
 
Really? Who has "made that clear"? All I've seen are a bunch of claims that government debt is the same thing as private debt.

Anyone that can do 2+2=4 has made that clear. We could tax the rich 100% and it wouldn't pay for all our bills and then what would you have left for next year? Where would the investment money come from?
 
View attachment 67215156

After Clinton signed legislation increasing taxes, we were able to collect enough revenue off the economic boom in the 90s to put us in the green. Budget hawks should revere Clinton for glorious prosperity and fiscal responsibility. Raising taxes is a move in the right direction. Not more tax cuts and bloated Pentagon defense contracts, which is money spent that has No return.

Maybe like you said the numbers aren't there but, it's a step in the right direction.

Well, we are talking about debt, not deficit here. That aside, what word did I put in bold and who writes make it? Is it the President or Congress? Who was in charge of Congress at that time?
 
If government spending = GDP, then defense spending and education spending do the same thing for the economy.

As a short-term effect on GDP, yes, they do. In the long term, though, it would be hard to argue that spending on education isn't more beneficial than spending on defense.

Why did you feel the need to go personal right away?

How am I "going personal"?
 
You might go back and study this matter...Clinton was very smart, he manipulated things in a way intended to make himself look good, but his ideas tended to be not good for America:



Hillary Clinton Loves to Trumpet Bill's Budget Surplus. She Shouldn't


Hillary Clinton loves to trumpet Bill's budget surplus. She shouldn't.

Do you understand what you are arguing for when you cite this article? Did you even bother to read it?

Here's a hint: I am in almost complete agreement with what this author is saying.
 
So now it's interest you are worried about? Why didn't you say that in the first place? Get your terms straight, and this will be much faster.

Foreign nations only hold 32.5% of the total. Interest on the debt is about $225 billion, so $73 billion is leaving the country. That's about 0.4% of our GDP.

You are worrying about 0.4% of our GDP. $73 billion is a drop in the bucket.

Economic growth has not been stagnant. We are outperforming most of the rest of the world in that category.

You really need to get a better grip on the numbers you throw around.
Its all of it. I'm worried about all of it. Im worried about cumulative debt that doubled in 8 years with no indication it is ever going to stop. I worried about foreign debt holding. I'm worried about growing interest costs. I'm worried about debt that grows significantly faster than our economy. I'm worried about kicking the can down the road for future generations to have to deal with the problem. Im worried about debt spending leading to artificially stimulated markets, reckless interest and loan rates, irresponsible government, recessions, etc. I worry that people like you will get back in power and decide the answer is MORE debt and more spending and ultimately inflation. But hey...why worry...right? We should just spend. Print it...spend it...mountains of cash for everyone.
 
Anyone that can do 2+2=4 has made that clear. We could tax the rich 100% and it wouldn't pay for all our bills and then what would you have left for next year? Where would the investment money come from?

What would we have left for next year? Are you serious with that? Do you think that the world operates on some pre-existing pile of money that just gets shuffled around?

Let's start here: Where do you think companies get the money that they invest? List all of the sources.
 
As a short-term effect on GDP, yes, they do. In the long term, though, it would be hard to argue that spending on education isn't more beneficial than spending on defense.



How am I "going personal"?

You'd see how you went personal if only you understood the basic tenants of communication.
 
I actually like Buffets position on solving the nations debt. Tie reelection and retirement benefits of congressmen to the debt. If they dont pass a balanced budget with an active plan to pay down the debt and stick to it, they cannot get reelected and their retirement benefits go away.

They would find a way to solve the problem.

But then they'd not be reelected anyways because people wouldn't vote for someone who did what was needed to balance the budget.
 
What would we have left for next year? Are you serious with that? Do you think that the world operates on some pre-existing pile of money that just gets shuffled around?

Let's start here: Where do you think companies get the money that they invest? List all of the sources.

Apparently you missed the part where I said tax them 100%.
 
You might go back and study this matter...Clinton was very smart, he manipulated things in a way intended to make himself look good, but his ideas tended to be not good for America:



Hillary Clinton Loves to Trumpet Bill's Budget Surplus. She Shouldn't


Hillary Clinton loves to trumpet Bill's budget surplus. She shouldn't.

Well, we are talking about debt, not deficit here. That aside, what word did I put in bold and who writes make it? Is it the President or Congress? Who was in charge of Congress at that time?

Without giving in to every red herring and smokescreen available.. From the 08 crash to who writes legislation.. Everyone here is deflecting and dodging because they don't want to face facts that we have a budget crisis that is fixed with progressive tools not conservative ones.

Germany has a progressive tax system, a robust economy, and runs a surplus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Do you understand what you are arguing for when you cite this article? Did you even bother to read it?

Here's a hint: I am in almost complete agreement with what this author is saying.

I make a habit of saying what I mean and meaning what I say is the first thing.

Second thing: I make it a habit to read far and wide and of course I read this.

Third Thing: I dont know who you are.

Fourth Thing: I was responding to someone else.
 
The infrastructure is rotting, and the world is falling apart, The debt will explode as far as they eye can see, and the economy is dying due to lack of sound management of the national and global economies...this is the road to certain doom.

Right.. so cutting the budget.. make the infrastructure worse, making American less competitive educationally, , BUT giving me a giant tax cut and exploding the debt... will "save the world"?... hardly. It will hasten the day that the US is not the preeminent economy and superpower in the world.
 
Without giving in to every red herring and smokescreen available.. From the 08 crash to who writes legislation.. Everyone here is deflecting and dodging because they don't want to face facts that we have a budget crisis that is fixed with progressive tools not conservative ones.

Germany has a progressive tax system, a robust economy, and runs a surplus.

They also aren't responsible for their national defense. They rely on us to foot the bill for that one.
 
Hmm, is defense spending the problem?

View attachment 67215154

And I wish Republican would sop with their obsession with tax cuts but raising taxes isn't much of an answer, since they have a contractory effect on the economy.

yes.. defense spending is the problem.
 
Its all of it. I'm worried about all of it. Im worried about cumulative debt that doubled in 8 years with no indication it is ever going to stop. I worried about foreign debt holding. I'm worried about growing interest costs. I'm worried about debt that grows significantly faster than our economy. I'm worried about kicking the can down the road for future generations to have to deal with the problem. Im worried about debt spending leading to artificially stimulated markets, reckless interest and loan rates, irresponsible government, recessions, etc. I worry that people like you will get back in power and decide the answer is MORE debt and more spending and ultimately inflation. But hey...why worry...right? We should just spend. Print it...spend it...mountains of cash for everyone.

You want to know what I am worried about? People who have no clue about how the economy works being voted in by even more people who have no clue about how the economy works. And that nightmare came true just a few short months ago.

If you are so worried about these things, then I suggest you take the time and effort to learn what they really are, and not just accept the first explanation you hear from FOX News or conservative politicians, who most certainly have a financial interest in keeping voters ignorant.

The list you have ticked off above is just a bunch of conservative talking points. Every friggin' one of them is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of federal finance. Let's go over that list...

Inflation? Where is it? It's almost nonexistent, and it doesn't come close to correlating with debt, deficits, or government spending, yet you continue to make the false claim that inflation is a problem/inflation is imminent.

What do you consider to be "the solution" to sovereign debt? Elimination of all sovereign debt? Elimination of all government liabilities? The U.S. government somehow making a profit? State your solution, and why you think it's a solution. (Then I'll explain to you why you are wrong.) Debt is money. The government's deficit is our surplus. That is certainly a good thing for us as American citizens - why do you think that is a bad thing, on balance, for the country?

What do you think is the damage being done by foreigners holding U.S. bonds?

What markets are being "artificially stimulated"? Can you link that artificial stimulation to deficit spending? Make your case.

Why are low interest rates "reckless"? What is the optimal interest rate? Why do you think so?

The debt increased quite a bit under Obama. Do you understand why that happened? Do you think the economy was better when he left than when he entered office?

Look - from my perspective, all of you guys just repeat the same talking points over and over, but none of you can actually explain why you believe what you believe. The answers all boil down to things like, "If you don't understand it, then I can't help you," or "we keep kicking the can down the road!" There isn't a speck of substance to be found. My team, on the other hand, has done their homework. We understand how federal finance works. We understand what those equations mean. We back up our claims with learned sources. And it is incredibly frustrating to have to argue with people who haven't even bothered to learn the subject. So, please - before you rattle off a laundry list of claims like that, look into them a little bit, and see if they hold water.
 
Back
Top Bottom