• 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!

Why isn't government debt more of a problem in people's minds?

I think you're thinking of Reagonites. They were the ones who preached that deficits don't matter............

You left out "...........when it comes to getting double digit inflation and 20% interest rates out of the economy".

And besides Reagan requested LESS spending than Congress authorized and spent every year.
 
It most certainly was unpatriotic! Between 2001 and 2003, federal receipts fell by nearly $400 billion while expenditures increased by nearly $300 billion. This means from QII 2003 onward... the federal government was operating out of a $700 billion ($681 billion) fiscal crater.

Revenues did not fall that much the deficit hit that in 2004. Of course there was a slowdown that started in QIII of 2000 that turned into a recession Q1 2001 along with the dot.com bust and 9/11 all hitting. The Republicans did pass the correct response to that their mistake being they phased it in over a 5 year period. They corrected that in 2003, the deficit hit a one year high of the $400B in 2004 and then the economy took off and revenues soared, we had full employment and solid GDP growth and they brought the deficit back down to a paltry $161B heading for surplus.

Then in 2007 the Democrats took back the Congress and budget control and made a disaster of things. The deficit shot to $1,400B in just two years on their 9% spending increase in FY2008 and then 18% in FY2008 and they kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years.



I can defend the budget policy continuation of the Obama administration. That's the difference between our positions.

It wasn't just the Obama administration policy it was Democrat policy starting in 2007 and of course Obama was a full voting member of the Senate and voted for those policies. So please defend their total mismanagement of government fiscal policy.
 
Last edited:
I think the Republicans were the most hypocritical when they started crying about the Debt only when they have Democrat President.
They don't just do it when there is a Dem President but also when the Dems control the congress and make a shambles of fiscal policy.

After they handed over a crisis.
In 2007 they handed the Democrats full employment, 52 months of solid growth, record tax revenue increases and a deficit of a paltry $161B.

Instead of running around crying, "Failed Stimulus," they could have given a little more and the growth would have a balanced budget by now.

They took their worst Deficit of $400B in 2004 down to $161B in 2007 heading to surplus. Where did the Democrats have it two years later, where was it four years later? They couldn't even come close to the WORST Republican deficit. And BTW it was Republicans who balanced the budget and produce the surpluses in the late 1990's.
 
Revenues did not fall that much the deficit hit that in 2004. Of course there was a slowdown that started in QIII of 2000 that turned into a recession Q1 2001 along with the dot.com bust and 9/11 all hitting. The Republicans did pass the correct response to that their mistake being they phased it in over a 5 year period. They corrected that in 2003, the deficit hit a one year high of the $400B in 2004 and then the economy took off and revenues soared, we had full employment and solid GDP growth and they brought the deficit back down to a paltry $161B heading for surplus.

It was economic growth based on an unsustainable growth in credit expansion to low-quality borrowers. I find it hilarious you attempt to correct my statement without even considering the possibility that it is data dependent. :lol:

You're right, i mixed up revenue and expenditure figures. Federal receipts fell by $282 billion while expenditures increased by $390 billion.

Then in 2007 the Democrats took back the Congress and budget control and made a disaster of things. The deficit shot to $1,400B in just two years on their 9% spending increase in FY2008 and then 18% in FY2008 and they kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years.

There was this little thing called the Great Recession that happened in 2008 and 2009.





It wasn't just the Obama administration policy it was Democrat policy starting in 2007 and of course Obama was a full voting member of the Senate and voted for those policies. So please defend their total mismanagement of government fiscal policy.[/QUOTE]
 
It was economic growth based on an unsustainable growth in credit expansion to low-quality borrowers.

It was solid economic growth across the board, residential housing is only about 3-4% GDP and of those borrowers at the time only about 30% of those we low quality.

T
here was this little thing called the Great Recession that happened in 2008 and 2009.

And there was the recession of 2000 along with the Great Dot.com Bust and 9/11. The fact is the Democrats took control of the Congress and fiscal policy 11 months before the recession their policies including their HUGE spending increases, threats of and actual higher taxes and regulation rampage were not the proper policies and in fact drove it deeper and kept us from ever getting into a full recovery as opposed to the Republican policies of 2001 that did help to mitigate the effects of the recession and get us into a 52 month period of a good if not great economy.
 
They don't just do it when there is a Dem President but also when the Dems control the congress and make a shambles of fiscal policy.


In 2007 they handed the Democrats full employment, 52 months of solid growth, record tax revenue increases and a deficit of a paltry $161B.





They took their worst Deficit of $400B in 2004 down to $161B in 2007 heading to surplus. Where did the Democrats have it two years later, where was it four years later? They couldn't even come close to the WORST Republican deficit. And BTW it was Republicans who balanced the budget and produce the surpluses in the late 1990's.

Republican Gingrich accomplished that with his "Contract with America" during Clinton's administration which was the last time we had a balanced budget and surpluses!
 
The reason the national debt is so high is due to the high level of incompetence in positions of power. Any moron can appear competent if they have enough money to pay middlemen to do all the work. The result is the huge national debt. As an analogy, say you had two mothers throwing a party for their child. The first mother is skilled at cooking, arts and crafts. She can put together a nice theme party on a shoe string budget due to her skills. The other mother is more like a trophy wife who can't boil water without burning the pan. She will need far more resources since her skills cannot contribute to cost savings.

In modern politics, winning an election requires certain unique skills. These skills are not the same skills as those needed to get the job done on time and under budget. The best people for the job will never get past the election process since it is all about image and slander. The election process benefits by con artist and actors playing the role of statesmen. Trump makes the actors look bad since he has skills. In this case, it will be like the skilled mother helping the trophy wife with her party to where the trophy wife suddenly appears like a placeholder for special interests.
 
The reason the national debt is so high is due to the high level of incompetence in positions of power. Any moron can appear competent if they have enough money to pay middlemen to do all the work. The result is the huge national debt. As an analogy, say you had two mothers throwing a party for their child. The first mother is skilled at cooking, arts and crafts. She can put together a nice theme party on a shoe string budget due to her skills. The other mother is more like a trophy wife who can't boil water without burning the pan. She will need far more resources since her skills cannot contribute to cost savings.

In modern politics, winning an election requires certain unique skills. These skills are not the same skills as those needed to get the job done on time and under budget. The best people for the job will never get past the election process since it is all about image and slander. The election process benefits by con artist and actors playing the role of statesmen. Trump makes the actors look bad since he has skills. In this case, it will be like the skilled mother helping the trophy wife with her party to where the trophy wife suddenly appears like a placeholder for special interests.
Until things got so bad that a man named Trump beat the pros of both partie for the top job, because the people had had enough.

How much is can't and how much is won't because he who pays owns and since most of the money that flows into K Street and campaigns comes from the owners( Carlin) and their henchmen not the people, and they are consumed with sucking up every dollar they can find not making the world a better place....

Hard to say for sure.
 
Answer: Too many people are either too stupid to understand the negative consequences of debt or else they are too immoral to care....generational warfare is fine and dandy with them.
 
The National Debt is not on anyone's minds because we aren't paying it. If this country were to have to start austerity measures, it would top the news nightly.
 
It was solid economic growth across the board, residential housing is only about 3-4% GDP and of those borrowers at the time only about 30% of those we low quality.

it wasn't only housing debt ... Credit card debt ballooned too ...

"Between 1989 and 2001, credit card debt in America almost tripled, from $238 billion
to $692 billion. The savings rate steadily declined, and the number of people filing for
bankruptcy jumped 125 percent."


http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/borrowing_to_make_ends_meet.pdf

And ...

"... total debt has increased from around $1,186 per person in 1948 to $10,168 in 2010. And remember, that's using 2010 dollars ..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ricans-love-affair-with-debt-has-grown/63552/
 
Republican Gingrich accomplished that with his "Contract with America" during Clinton's administration which was the last time we had a balanced budget and surpluses!

Yes Gingrich and Kasich together in spite of Clinton who opposed the measuses that accomplished it but was told by his political adviser either get on board or face a politcal disaster. The Republicans did have us heading back there after tbe 2000/2001 slowdown/recession/dot.com bust/911 and almost there until the Democrats took back the Congress.
 
it wasn't only housing debt ... Credit card debt ballooned too ...

"Between 1989 and 2001, credit card debt in America almost tripled, from $238 billion
to $692 billion. The savings rate steadily declined, and the number of people filing for
bankruptcy jumped 125 percent."


http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/borrowing_to_make_ends_meet.pdf

And ...

"... total debt has increased from around $1,186 per person in 1948 to $10,168 in 2010. And remember, that's using 2010 dollars ..."

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...ricans-love-affair-with-debt-has-grown/63552/

I'm talking about the recovery from the 2001 recession try again.
 
I'm talking about the recovery from the 2001 recession try again.

The specific timeframe of my links is unimportant, the point is that mortgages were not the only type of credit expanding at an unsustainable rate prior to the 2008 recession. You try again. Without being such a douchenozzle.
 
The specific timeframe of my links is unimportant, the point is that mortgages were not the only type of credit expanding at an unsustainable rate prior to the 2008 recession. You try again. Without being such a douchenozzle.

Wrong it is specific to the discussion and stop being juvenile. I have present facts to you try discussing them.
 
Wrong it is specific to the discussion and stop being juvenile. I have present facts to you try discussing them.

Mortgage credit is not specific to the discussion after it is pointed out to you that mortgages were not the only type of credit being discussed.

Gimme said the credit upswing was unsustainable, you said no it wasn't since housing credit was "only" 3-4% of GDP (a huge ****ing number, btw), and then when I pointed out the trend of non-mortgage credit unsustainability, you tell me it's not within the scope of the discussion. The discussion was never ONLY housing credit.
 
Last edited:
Worrying about federal debt at a time when interest rates are low and there is a need to fund massive infrastructure projects to keep the country competitive is misdirected focus. It's more important to spend money to make improvement.

If you are worried about long-term debt, urge Congress to keep deficits below the GDP growth rate, as a p% of GDP, and the debt will become irrelevant over time. That's what happened to the massive WWII debt, it just became unimportant compared to the larger economy.

But Congress is fixated with tax-cuts that raise the deficit above the GDP growth rate.
 
Mortgage credit is not specific to the discussion after it is pointed out to you that mortgages were not the only type of credit being discussed.

Gimme said the credit upswing was unsustainable, you said no it wasn't since housing credit was "only" 3-4% of GDP (a huge ****ing number, btw), and then when I pointed out the trend of non-mortgage credit unsustainability, you tell me it's not within the scope of the discussion. The discussion was never ONLY housing credit.

The scoop of the discussion was the policies of the Republicans during the 2000/2001 recession and the Democrats 2008/2009 recession ans the results. Go back to post number 80, it was not a discussion of 1948.
 
It's not an assumption. It's clearly evident.

Well no its not. Did revenues especially cap gains tax revenues increase or decrease after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rage cuts? After the Bush43 tax rate cuts? Did the deficits go up or down?
 
Last edited:
Well no its not. Did revenues especially cap gains tax revenues increase or decrease after the Gingrich/Kasich tax rage cuts? After the Bush43 tax rate cuts? Did the deficits go up or down?
Conservatives often claim that the capital gains rate cuts during the Clinton Admin was causal to the markets rising, and therefore producing additional capital gains revenue. The problem is that the markets rose long before the cuts were passed, implying that the tax-cuts had nothing to do with the market rises and further implied that the revenue would have been greater had the capital gains rates not been cut.

The last four years of the Clinton Administration there were budget surpluses. After the Bush43 tax rate cuts the deficits returned. I laid this out years ago here.
 
Back
Top Bottom