• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Another milestone achieved: Debt tops $8 trillion

surftide

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Location
colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
and who does the US owe this large debt to?
 
T

The Real McCoy

surftide said:
and who does the US owe this large debt to?
Mostly private investors, particularly the chinese but also our own people.


Here's some food for thought: A trillion dollars is equivalent to a stack of freshly printed hundred dollar bills over 1,000 km high, twice the height of the orbit of the International Space Station.

And our government owes 8 of those stacks but if it were to simply print that money to pay it off, we'd have a depression that would make the 30s seem like a golden era.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Give it time, it will get worse. At least until the idiot gets kicked out of the White House.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Bush isn't responsibile for our national debt, but he certainly hasn't helped the matter. It's been a growing problem for quite some time now and besides, congress is the governmental body that passes the budget. The unnecessary pork slipped in there by your representatives in congress doesn't help either.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bush isn't responsibile for our national debt, but he certainly hasn't helped the matter.
Well, yes and no. The President is expected to provide leadership and initiative in fiscal matters. Bush has clearly not done so. Yes, the budget deficit has been considerably afffected by the GWOT and hurricane relief. But that isn't the whole story, by a long shot. In fact, his lack of leadership on spending prompted Peggy Noonan, a staunch Repub and former Reagan speechwriter to pen the comment that, "When asked about pork, Bush asked, Got any Bar B Sauce?" (Published in her column in the WSJ a month or so back, will try and furnish a link.)

So far, not a single veto or even a serious threat of such on any spending. Even the notorious highway bill, notorious because of things like the $250 million 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska (killed in the last day or two, thank goodness) and a $2 million bike path in Newark, NJ, just to name a couple, didn't get any serious opposition out of the WH.

And these guys are Republicans? They are acting more like Democrats of old.
 
T

The Real McCoy

Ah yes, the neo-conservatives with their rampant borrowing and spending... tsk tsk.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
Bush isn't responsibile for our national debt, but he certainly hasn't helped the matter. It's been a growing problem for quite some time now and besides, congress is the governmental body that passes the budget. The unnecessary pork slipped in there by your representatives in congress doesn't help either.
No, Bush is only responsible for the last 40%, 2.4 trillion added since he became president, and inherited a surplus budget.

It is not fair to tag Bush with the performance of the economy, which softened in 2001. But GDP has never gone down on an annual basis since 1992, and has grown over 25% since 2000. Bush's tax cuts and spending increases and Iraq war have been the major causes for the $2.4 trillion more borrowed since 2000.

The debt was about $1 trillion when Reagan was elected. Thanks to the the deficits run up during his and his VPs tenure, the debt was at about $4 trillion in 1993. Debt increased roughly a trillion and a half during Clinton's time, but he inherited a $340 billion deficit budget which was turned around into a surplus by 2000. Had Clinton continued the spend-n-borrow policies of his predecessors, we'd be another couple trillion in debt right now.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Real McCoy said:
Ah yes, the neo-conservatives with their rampant borrowing and spending... tsk tsk.
Actually, this has been a conservative trait since 1980.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Well, yes and no. The President is expected to provide leadership and initiative in fiscal matters. Bush has clearly not done so. Yes, the budget deficit has been considerably afffected by the GWOT and hurricane relief. But that isn't the whole story, by a long shot. In fact, his lack of leadership on spending prompted Peggy Noonan, a staunch Repub and former Reagan speechwriter to pen the comment that, "When asked about pork, Bush asked, Got any Bar B Sauce?" (Published in her column in the WSJ a month or so back, will try and furnish a link.)

So far, not a single veto or even a serious threat of such on any spending. Even the notorious highway bill, notorious because of things like the $250 million 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska (killed in the last day or two, thank goodness) and a $2 million bike path in Newark, NJ, just to name a couple, didn't get any serious opposition out of the WH.

And these guys are Republicans? They are acting more like Democrats of old.
Agree.

The WOT has been a factor but not the driver. War costs have been around $250 billion; representing about 10% of the $2.4 trillion borrowed since 2000.
 

Lantzolot

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Location
Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The tax cuts, recession, and increases in outlays all contributed to record budget deficits during the Bush administration. The annual deficit reached record current-dollar levels of $374,000,000,000 in 2003 and $413,000,000,000 in 2004. National debt, the cumulative total of yearly deficits, rose from $5.7 trillion (58% of GDP) to $7.9 trillion (68% of GDP) under Bush, as compared to the $2.7 trillion total debt owed when Ronald Reagan left office, which was 52% of the GDP.
According to the "baseline" forecast of federal revenue and spending by the Congressional Budget Office (in its January 2005 Baseline Budget Projections [41], the budget deficits will decrease over the next several years. In this projection the deficit will fall to 368,000,000,000 (USD) in 2005, 261,000,000,000 (USD) in 2007, and 207,000,000,000 (USD) in 2009, with a small surplus by 2012. The CBO noted, however, that this projection "omits a significant amount of spending that will occur this year -- and possibly for some time to come -- for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities related to the global War on Terrorism." The projection also assumes that the Bush tax cuts "will expire as scheduled on December 31, 2010". If, as Bush has urged, the tax cuts were to be extended, then "the budget outlook for 2015 would change from a surplus of 141,000,000,000 (USD) to a deficit of 282,000,000,000 (USD)".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Yes, we have a high deficit, but that won't last. Let us try to be optimistic.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, we have a high deficit, but that won't last.
Ahah! Another forecast!

Need I remind you of those Clinton-era oh so rosy forecasts of budget surpluses extending as far as the eye could see? And how the debate was what to do with all that dough? And going back even further, how 'bout the Reagan era 'peace' dividend that was going to spent on oh-so-many good things?

So, for sure, let me remind you of the forecaster's creed: If you must forecast, you must forecast frequently!:lol:
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If the war in Iraq is only worth 10% of the U.S.A's government debt, what is the rest of this borrowing being used for? I mean how much does it really cost to run American Government institutions and programs? Either treasury figures have underestimated the cost of Iraq, or U.S politicians are spending like drunken sailors. Or maybe it's a combination of the two?

Looking at these figures is bloody scary. It may seem like an American problem, but these huge levels of debt, are just as much as a problem for someone in China, or an Aussie like me.

Out of interest, if U.S government debt keeps increasing, at what level do you think (open to anyone this question) that things could start getting nasty in the global economy? Or are the other economies of the world more insulated from U.S budget defecits?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the primary task of any newly elected president from here on out would be to completely and totally pay off the national debt. I would be willing to accept higher tax rates if I knew their was a solid plan for paying off the national debt and that tax money was used to accomplish such a feat.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would be willing to accept hard economic times and higher taxes as long as I knew that the debt was getting paid off.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lantzolot said:
Yes, we have a high deficit, but that won't last. Let us try to be optimistic.
I liked this forecast:

We can meet our priorities, and we can fund them. And we can also pay down debt. I know a lot of folks around America are worried about national debt, as am I. We pay down $2 trillion of debt over the next 10 years. That's all the debt that's available to be retired without having to pay a premium for prepaying debt. That's a lot of debt retirement. It will be the biggest repayment of debt in the history of the world. And so we pay down debt. Pres Bush Mar 9 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010309.html

That one is only about 5 trillion off.

and this one, just to show that the economic slowdown wasn't an issue:

3/27/01: "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." – President Bush
[http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22339]
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Australianlibertarian said:
If the war in Iraq is only worth 10% of the U.S.A's government debt, what is the rest of this borrowing being used for? I mean how much does it really cost to run American Government institutions and programs? Either treasury figures have underestimated the cost of Iraq, or U.S politicians are spending like drunken sailors. Or maybe it's a combination of the two?

Looking at these figures is bloody scary. It may seem like an American problem, but these huge levels of debt, are just as much as a problem for someone in China, or an Aussie like me.

Out of interest, if U.S government debt keeps increasing, at what level do you think (open to anyone this question) that things could start getting nasty in the global economy? Or are the other economies of the world more insulated from U.S budget defecits?
We just recently had a discussion about the reasons for borrowing, in this thread, starting around #23. http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6008&page=3 I cite that rather than repost all the boring numbers again.

If you start with a baseline of 2000, the year before the current administration took office, the deficits are mostly because of decreased revene caused by the tax cuts, tho' new spending and the Iraq war have certainly contributed.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
I think the primary task of any newly elected president from here on out would be to completely and totally pay off the national debt. I would be willing to accept higher tax rates if I knew their was a solid plan for paying off the national debt and that tax money was used to accomplish such a feat.
You are one of the very few. I posted a recent poll showing you and I are part of only 1% that would be willing to have both tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budgets.

http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3306
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
You are one of the very few. I posted a recent poll showing you and I are part of only 1% that would be willing to have both tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budgets.

http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3306
If you balance the budget and pay off the national debt, after the national debt is paid off and the nation is kept out of debt, their wouldn't be a need for this current taxation as it stands right now. More taxation would be needed to pay off the debt however than the current taxation, but I wouldn't have a problem with increased taxation so long as I knew the debt was being paid off. Not only that, but with a debtless nation, you would have much better chances of unparrelled economic prosperity and a healthy economy. If we don't pay off the debt, we leave a future american generation to have to deal with the day of reckoning and this is a bad legacy in my view.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For a nation or business or individual to be wealthy and financially well off, they must be debtless. The secret to being rich whether it be an individual or company or nation is to live debt free and to take your money and put it to work for you. No matter how poor a nation or company or individual might be, if you work hard, stay debt free and take what little money you have and put it to work for you through wise investments, you will become financially well off, secure and wealthy. That is the secret to being well off and financially wealthy. Living within your means, staying debt free and investing, being innovative and working hard.
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
If you balance the budget and pay off the national debt, after the national debt is paid off and the nation is kept out of debt, their wouldn't be a need for this current taxation as it stands right now. More taxation would be needed to pay off the debt however than the current taxation, but I wouldn't have a problem with increased taxation so long as I knew the debt was being paid off. Not only that, but with a debtless nation, you would have much better chances of unparrelled economic prosperity and a healthy economy. If we don't pay off the debt, we leave a future american generation to have to deal with the day of reckoning and this is a bad legacy in my view.
I agree that the debt is a burden as is the intrest expense on the debt, but it is not that big of a burden ... yet.

The interest expense on the debt last year was $352 billion. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm The debt increase was $554 billion. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm. Thus, even if there was no debt at all, the Govt would still be about $200 billion in the hole. (Or looking at it another way, about 70% of the money the Govt borrowed last year was just to cover interest on the Reagan/Bush/Bush debt. Thanks guys.)

M14 is right to one extent -- if you really want to lower taxes we need to cut spending on major programs. The biggest programs include defense, SS, medicare, and medicaid
 
Top Bottom