• 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!

Is the national debt too high?

Is the national debt too high?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 72.2%
  • No

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Total voters
    18

Roycarn

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
200
Reaction score
76
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is that national debt too high? Some who argue that it is point out that investments that get taken up by debt essentially crowd out investments and that too much of it can't be good for the economy. For reference, I'll include a list of countries through their national debt to GDP ratio as of December 2016:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country...nt-debt-to-gdp

Japan: 250%
Greece: 179%
Italy:132.6%
US: 106.1%
France: 96%
Eurozone:89.2%
European Union: 83.5%
Ireland: 75.4%
Germany: 68.3%
Finland: 63.6%
Poland: 54.4%
Sweden: 41.6%
Denmark: 37.8%


The US ranks 12th overall in terms of countries with the highest debt to GDP ratio and ranks 5th among OECD countries.
 
Yes ... and we need to prioritize it appropriately
 
We are just out of the second economic collapse for the nation. It took a lot of credit to keep the USA solvent. Add to that an unfunded war in the ME and we are doing rather well. There does need to be a payoff on the debt in the short term. So I suggest senators and house members give back their pay to offset the debt.
 
No economist here, but if the households in the US can't pay their bills, they don't eat, lose their house and end up in the street.
We should "live within our means!"
 
We are just out of the second economic collapse for the nation. It took a lot of credit to keep the USA solvent. Add to that an unfunded war in the ME and we are doing rather well. There does need to be a payoff on the debt in the short term. So I suggest senators and house members give back their pay to offset the debt.

No one ever wants to take about The Unfunded War ...

I agree ... and no Pay for Vacations either.

Let see how their own policies work on them
 
No economist here, but if the households in the US can't pay their bills, they don't eat, lose their house and end up in the street.
We should "live within our means!"

But we were told we need the Rolls Royce of Weaponry ... Mercedes and BMW's just wouldn't do.
 
We are just out of the second economic collapse for the nation. It took a lot of credit to keep the USA solvent. Add to that an unfunded war in the ME and we are doing rather well. There does need to be a payoff on the debt in the short term. So I suggest senators and house members give back their pay to offset the debt.

This seems to be a common misconception. We will never pay off the debt, it will never be smaller than it is now and thats not inherently a bad thing. The idea is to have a deficit smaller than GDP growth and we will grow out of the debt. If our GDP is $16 trillion and the debt $16 trillion thats not good but in 20 years lets say our economy grows to $40 trillion and we keep the debt to $20 trillion we are in a much better place only half the debt ratio we have now.
 
We are just out of the second economic collapse for the nation. It took a lot of credit to keep the USA solvent. Add to that an unfunded war in the ME and we are doing rather well. There does need to be a payoff on the debt in the short term. So I suggest senators and house members give back their pay to offset the debt.

This is some kind of sarcasm, right?

How much debt do you think we have and how much do you think the members of congress make in aggregate?
 
Obviously not. Want proof? Our expert congress critters will soon agree to raise the "debt ceiling" claiming that the only alternative is to shut down the government (aka pass a balanced budget).
 
This is some kind of sarcasm, right?

How much debt do you think we have and how much do you think the members of congress make in aggregate?

Yep, making any small cuts in spending is called worthless and making any big cuts in spending is called (politically) impossible. That leaves raising the "debt ceiling" as the only (politically) possible alternative. Trump has a plan to MAGA, by raising federal spending and cutting federal taxes, so the national debt is going to keep on growing to MAGA.
 
Yep, making any small cuts in spending is called worthless and making any big cuts in spending is called (politically) impossible. That leaves raising the "debt ceiling" as the only (politically) possible alternative. Trump has a plan to MAGA, by raising federal spending and cutting federal taxes, so the national debt is going to keep on growing to MAGA.

Well, among other things, compensation for elected officials in their official capacity is both reasonable and authorized by the Constitution. I don't see the sense in not paying them. Furthermore, cutting roughly $100 Million dollars from a budget in the $2 Trillion dollar range would mean that it would take us 200,000 years to pay off the debt....if no more debt were accrued.
 
Is that national debt too high? Some who argue that it is point out that investments that get taken up by debt essentially crowd out investments and that too much of it can't be good for the economy. For reference, I'll include a list of countries through their national debt to GDP ratio as of December 2016:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country...nt-debt-to-gdp

Japan: 250%
Greece: 179%
Italy:132.6%
US: 106.1%
France: 96%
Eurozone:89.2%
European Union: 83.5%
Ireland: 75.4%
Germany: 68.3%
Finland: 63.6%
Poland: 54.4%
Sweden: 41.6%
Denmark: 37.8%


The US ranks 12th overall in terms of countries with the highest debt to GDP ratio and ranks 5th among OECD countries.

Never too high for another endless war.

http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison
 
Well, among other things, compensation for elected officials in their official capacity is both reasonable and authorized by the Constitution. I don't see the sense in not paying them. Furthermore, cutting roughly $100 Million dollars from a budget in the $2 Trillion dollar range would mean that it would take us 200,000 years to pay off the debt....if no more debt were accrued.

Yep, you won't get any disagreement out of me there. The federal budget spends at about 20% of GDP and taxes at about 18% of GDP. Many say that plan can work if the GDP grows fast enough but I find that nonsense to simply be wishful thinking.
 
Yep, you won't get any disagreement out of me there. The federal budget spends at about 20% of GDP and taxes at about 18% of GDP. Many say that plan can work if the GDP grows fast enough but I find that nonsense to simply be wishful thinking.

Anyone that expects Congress to cut spending probably also believes in unicorns...bigfoot, alien, unicorns.
 
Anyone that expects Congress to cut spending probably also believes in unicorns...bigfoot, alien, unicorns.

The amazing thing is that congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% by spending more than they dare ask for in taxation. That seems to imply that folks like borrowing from future generations even while they complain about it.
 
The amazing thing is that congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% by spending more than they dare ask for in taxation. That seems to imply that folks like borrowing from future generations even while they complain about it.

It could be worse.....

The nation could be under a national version of California's proposition 13, the proposition which broke California's ability to govern.
 
It could be worse.....

The nation could be under a national version of California's proposition 13, the proposition which broke California's ability to govern.

I agree that CA prop 13 was stupid - a better idea is that CA should be forced to give the property owner the option of a full cash payment of the assessed value in excahnge for giving title to the state.
 
Is that national debt too high? Some who argue that it is point out that investments that get taken up by debt essentially crowd out investments and that too much of it can't be good for the economy. For reference, I'll include a list of countries through their national debt to GDP ratio as of December 2016:

https://tradingeconomics.com/country...nt-debt-to-gdp

Japan: 250%
Greece: 179%
Italy:132.6%
US: 106.1%
France: 96%
Eurozone:89.2%
European Union: 83.5%
Ireland: 75.4%
Germany: 68.3%
Finland: 63.6%
Poland: 54.4%
Sweden: 41.6%
Denmark: 37.8%


The US ranks 12th overall in terms of countries with the highest debt to GDP ratio and ranks 5th among OECD countries.

You are right that the concern is whether or not the public debt (which directly represents private sector gains) will then crowd out private investment. This happens when interest rates are very high during periods of high inflation. The risk only occurs with high interest rates and high inflation.

f1922434eec5ab02381d90df44a7fe35.png


2dff3f8466754de39dc4f1e0a8ea7b15.png


The problem isn't that our debt is too high. The reason our economy is in the ****ter is that we have squeezed income out of the bottom 99% for decades to give pay raises to the top 1% that they didn't have to work any harder to acquire:

fc21a8c3140f6c8f5f3e8d16ac0d00c5.jpg


We did a lot better when American households weren't so afraid of the financial risks of acquiring a college education or starting a business. It's no surprise that our economy suffers when the poor are priced out of the articles of production.
 
Anyone that expects Congress to cut spending probably also believes in unicorns...bigfoot, alien, unicorns.

That's not really fair; we all believe in bigfoot... don't we...?
 
This is some kind of sarcasm, right?

How much debt do you think we have and how much do you think the members of congress make in aggregate?

As of 2013 over $800 million.



Here are the VERY basic costs - for each of the 535 members of Congress as well as the total amounts and total total...

Base Salary for each member $174,000

Office and Staff allowance, per member (avg) $1,353, 205

Expenses, per member $256,574

Total base salary $93,090,000

Total offices and staff (Basic) $573,900,000

Total expenses, basic $137,267,090

Total combined for ALL Congress $804,247,090
 
As of 2013 over $800 million.



Here are the VERY basic costs - for each of the 535 members of Congress as well as the total amounts and total total...

Base Salary for each member $174,000

Office and Staff allowance, per member (avg) $1,353, 205

Expenses, per member $256,574

Total base salary $93,090,000

Total offices and staff (Basic) $573,900,000

Total expenses, basic $137,267,090

Total combined for ALL Congress $804,247,090

I get that but the person I replied to specified "senators and congressmen" so I only estimated those salaries.

Your figures, however, are quite an eye opener for the cost of the legislature by itself. Do you happen to know if travel is included in your figures?
 
You are right that the concern is whether or not the public debt (which directly represents private sector gains) will then crowd out private investment. This happens when interest rates are very high during periods of high inflation. The risk only occurs with high interest rates and high inflation.

f1922434eec5ab02381d90df44a7fe35.png


2dff3f8466754de39dc4f1e0a8ea7b15.png


The problem isn't that our debt is too high. The reason our economy is in the ****ter is that we have squeezed income out of the bottom 99% for decades to give pay raises to the top 1% that they didn't have to work any harder to acquire:

fc21a8c3140f6c8f5f3e8d16ac0d00c5.jpg


We did a lot better when American households weren't so afraid of the financial risks of acquiring a college education or starting a business. It's no surprise that our economy suffers when the poor are priced out of the articles of production.

Why is crowding out only a concern when there's high inflation? And what about the money that goes toward paying interest on that debt?
 
Last edited:
I get that but the person I replied to specified "senators and congressmen" so I only estimated those salaries.

Your figures, however, are quite an eye opener for the cost of the legislature by itself. Do you happen to know if travel is included in your figures?

I have no idea. I am not even in favor of them not getting salaries like he suggested. But you asked so I googled it lol.
 
Why is crowding out only a concern when there's high inflation? And what about the money that goes toward paying interest on that debt?

I suppose i'm assuming high inflation will be associated with high interest rates in the case of the US. Often, we associate excess public spending with high inflation, as though too much money is going into the economy.

First, interest rates DO rise as a result of inflation. ...
If you’re paying for your dollars IN dollars, then the less the dollars are worth, the more dollars you’ll have to promise in the future to pay back what you borrowed. That IS a higher interest rate.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/whats-the-relationship-between/

But think about it for a second. The problem of public debt is that the private sector is making too much money.

What other problem is there? The baby boomers rode the wave of that public debt, which represents money that went into the domestic private sector especially to those who have too little money, too little access to the economy, to use their productive potential.

9f6fc9d484246cff083a236d8dc7fbe2.jpg
 
I suppose i'm assuming high inflation will be associated with high interest rates in the case of the US. Often, we associate excess public spending with high inflation, as though too much money is going into the economy.



What's the Relationship Between Inflation and Interest Rates? | PBS NewsHour

But think about it for a second. The problem of public debt is that the private sector is making too much money.

What other problem is there? The baby boomers rode the wave of that public debt, which represents money that went into the domestic private sector especially to those who have too little money, too little access to the economy, to use their productive potential.

9f6fc9d484246cff083a236d8dc7fbe2.jpg

It doesn't look like you gave a reason as for why crowding out is only an issue during high interest and inflation. As far as I know, government crowding out of private investment essentially puts upward pressure on interest rates, but that doesn't account for the fact that the money lent to the state could be used for other investments if the government didn't borrow as much. That's the main thing I probably confused crowding out with.

There has to be a cost to borrowing money, otherwise few people would lend due to the risk of borrowers not being able to pay the loan back.
 
Back
Top Bottom