CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt [W:21]

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I have put forth the argument many times. (Not for "astronomical" debt, but for a reasonable amount of government deficit spending.)

The American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit, and when we net save dollars. If that loss is not made up for, the economy will contract. The two (reasonable) ways to make up for that demand leakage are businesses borrowing to invest (which they normally do in good times) and government deficit spending.

Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.

Now it's your turn to explain why the government should strive to balance its budget or run a surplus, and/or pay down its debt.

What is a reasonable amount? We were spending one trillion dollars more than we had coming if for a few years and now we are spending 500 billion dollars more than we have coming in, adding up to a total national debt of 20 trillion dollars. We are already at the unreasonable range so, I ask you again, what do you consider reasonable? Just keep on going until inflation kicks in? At what point do you estimate we will reach before inflation sets in? Based on the economy we have now at this exact second in time, how much national debt do you estimate we can have? Do we just keep on going until every single person that wants a job can have one, working at McDonalds for $15 per hour?

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Never is a looooong time.

I am not sure I would ever be comfortable saying ANY piece of legislation will NEVER be repealed.

I'm just saying Obamacare is so interwoven in the economy that it will be virtually impossible to just repeal it in totality. This is one reason the left wanted it passed so bad, because they knew we would reach a point where it could not be completely repealed, even with Republicans in control and it is also why the right fought it so much before it became law because they understood the very same thing.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

I'm just saying Obamacare is so interwoven in the economy that it will be virtually impossible to just repeal it in totality. This is one reason the left wanted it passed so bad, because they knew we would reach a point where it could not be completely repealed, even with Republicans in control and it is also why the right fought it so much before it became law because they understood the very same thing.

You might be right.

But it seems to me that the Reps have a HUGE hate on for Obamacare and they will do whatever they can to obliterate it from existence.

I think they are also terrified of the Canadian-style health care system and many of them feel that if anything of Obamacare is left standing that it might lean more Americans to Canada's system.

But again, you may indeed be right.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

You might be right.

But it seems to me that the Reps have a HUGE hate on for Obamacare and they will do whatever they can to obliterate it from existence.

I think they are also terrified of the Canadian-style health care system and many of them feel that if anything of Obamacare is left standing that it might lean more Americans to Canada's system.

But again, you may indeed be right.

You were also right when you said Obama and the left should have figured out a way to increase the number of insured without effing it up for everyone.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

You were also right when you said Obama and the left should have figured out a way to increase the number of insured without effing it up for everyone.

Thanks.

Apparently, GWB had his pet project when he came to the White House - low income mortgages. A nice thought, but we know how that turned out.

I assume Obama's was Obamacare. Again, a nice thought, but he just got carried away.

All he had to do was get the funding through to provide at least basic insurance for those tens of millions of Americans. It would not have cost THAT much and - like I typed above - I highly doubt the Reps would have dared try to stop it. It would have been a win-win.
Now it is a political hand grenade that has gotten exceedingly messy.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Thanks.

Apparently, GWB had his pet project when he came to the White House - low income mortgages. A nice thought, but we know how that turned out.

I assume Obama's was Obamacare. Again, a nice thought, but he just got carried away.

All he had to do was get the funding through to provide at least basic insurance for those tens of millions of Americans. It would not have cost THAT much and - like I typed above - I highly doubt the Reps would have dared try to stop it. It would have been a win-win.
Now it is a political hand grenade that has gotten exceedingly messy.

I like the grenade analogy. Both the left and the right keep passing it around, hoping they aren't the ones holding it when it explodes. It could explode on anyone.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Seriously?

You present that as an explanation? It's barely legible.

If you have presented the case in the past then simply copy it.

Whenever I get that response when seeking citation I know the claim is bull****. I don't think you know the first thing about economics ..."the American economy loses demand when we run a trade deficit..." Makes no sense.

What do trade deficits have to do with the nation's debt?

Production = income. That's as basic as it gets. We have a $15 trillion economy, so our national income is $15 trillion.

GDP (Y) is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

If you run a trade deficit, GDP goes down. If you run a budget surplus, GDP goes down. But if you run a budget deficit big enough to offset your trade deficit, GDP won't go down (all else being equal).

Now you know something about economics.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

And why should the government pay down it's debt?

1) because it agreed to do just that when it took out the loans...that eventually it would pay down the debt. It's called honoring your commitments.

No they didn't. The government honors all of its bond obligations just by redeeming them; but decreasing the size of pile is not part of the obligation.

2) It lowers the interest rate the nation pays on it's debts.

No it doesn't. The Fed controls the interest rate. Our lowered rating didn't raise interest rates - that should have told you right there that your romantic notions about interest rates and equilibrium within the economy were wrong.

3) it lowers the debt service costs and thus saves the taxpayers potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. Right now the Japanese spend almost 1/2 of every dollar collected in taxes JUST on debt servicing. And it is getting worse every year. What happens when every, single tax dollar collected goes towards debt servicing? A nightmare - even worse then it is now.

First of all, that's not even close to being the case. Second, the government could still cover their obligations.

4) it allows more debt to be available to a country when/if it ever needs large emergency funds.

False. There is nothing about the size of our debt that makes us more or less able to issue bonds in the future.

5) it breeds confidence in the economy and encourages more foreign investment in the nation. Would you rather build a new factory in a country with an out-of-control national debt that has stated they have no intention of ever paying it back OR in a country with no/a manageable debt that costs the taxpayers zero/tiny amounts to service yearly?

Who has no intention of paying their bond obligations? Is this what you are reduced to, making wild hypothetical situations the cornerstone of your arguments?

Businesses invest in countries where they are likely to make a profit, and there is no better country to invest in than the U.S. Nobody is running away from doing business in the U.S. because of the debt. It's another ridiculous argument that you are dreaming up and pulling out of your backside.

6) it shows responsibility and fiscal discipline which again breeds great confidence in the country's future. Any moron can not pay his debts back. The skill is to pay them back.The latter is admired. The former is not.

Again, the U.S. pays all of its obligations. You are making up fantasy scenarios of voluntary default in order to bolster your piss-poor argument.

And I could go on and on.

Yes, I'm sure you could make up lots of false and incorrect reasons why you think you are correct here. But you would be no closer to making your case. Every one of your reasons was easily rebutted.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

No they didn't. The government honors all of its bond obligations just by redeeming them; but decreasing the size of pile is not part of the obligation.



No it doesn't. The Fed controls the interest rate. Our lowered rating didn't raise interest rates - that should have told you right there that your romantic notions about interest rates and equilibrium within the economy were wrong.



First of all, that's not even close to being the case. Second, the government could still cover their obligations.



False. There is nothing about the size of our debt that makes us more or less able to issue bonds in the future.



Who has no intention of paying their bond obligations? Is this what you are reduced to, making wild hypothetical situations the cornerstone of your arguments?

Businesses invest in countries where they are likely to make a profit, and there is no better country to invest in than the U.S. Nobody is running away from doing business in the U.S. because of the debt. It's another ridiculous argument that you are dreaming up and pulling out of your backside.



Again, the U.S. pays all of its obligations. You are making up fantasy scenarios of voluntary default in order to bolster your piss-poor argument.



Yes, I'm sure you could make up lots of false and incorrect reasons why you think you are correct here. But you would be no closer to making your case. Every one of your reasons was easily rebutted.

Umm...okay.

And your answer to my question is...?

'Where is your FACTUAL, statistical proof (not evidence, proof) that 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.'.
Not a bunch of prof's with huge egos or failed economists who fancy themselves authors who give theories. Unbiased, factual, statistical proof from unbiased sources only please.'

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Umm...okay.

And your answer to my question is...?

'Where is your FACTUAL, statistical proof (not evidence, proof) that 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins.'.
Not a bunch of prof's with huge egos or failed economists who fancy themselves authors who give theories. Unbiased, factual, statistical proof from unbiased sources only please.'

Go back about three posts and see my response to Fearandloathing.

 

[jonny5]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

A bill repealing Obamacare is not going to get through congress, and if miraculously did, Obama would veto it.

It's also going a little far for you to speak on behalf of "the people." There are tons who support it, and more who support at least some of the ideas even if they don't like the execution.

Its already passed congress. Obama vetoed it. The criticism was that it was unserious, when it obviously isnt. Its just impossible of passing Obamas veto. Get a Republican in there and GOp can pass a replacement.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Go back about three posts and see my response to Fearandloathing.

Well, that is a theory...but okay, I will rephrase.

I am talking about HISTORICAL documentation from unbiased sources that proves your statement: 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins'

I already proved - with the 1920/21 Depression (where the national debt went down) - that it is not true; as they ran surpluses, yet the Depression ended in 3 1/2 years. Whereas the Great Depression/1930's Hoover/FDR governments ran massive deficits AND trade surpluses and they still had over 5 times the unemployment rate in 1939 then they did before the crash in 1929.

Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006

I am asking you to prove your statement - using ONLY historical statistics from unbiased sources.

Can you please provide it/them?

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Well, that is a theory...but okay, I will rephrase.

I am talking about HISTORICAL documentation from unbiased sources that proves your statement: 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins'

I already proved - with the 1920/21 Depression (where the national debt went down) - that it is not true; as they ran surpluses, yet the Depression ended in 3 1/2 years. Whereas the Great Depression/1930's Hoover/FDR governments ran massive deficits AND trade surpluses and they still had over 5 times the unemployment rate in 1939 then they did before the crash in 1929.

Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006

I am asking you to prove your statement - using ONLY historical statistics from unbiased sources.

Can you please provide it/them?

They only have access to their own biased sources.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Well, that is a theory...but okay, I will rephrase.

I am talking about HISTORICAL documentation from unbiased sources that proves your statement: 'Balance the budget or run a surplus, and that comes right off the top of GDP, resulting in a loss of jobs, and the downward spiral begins'

I already proved - with the 1920/21 Depression (where the national debt went down) - that it is not true; as they ran surpluses, yet the Depression ended in 3 1/2 years. Whereas the Great Depression/1930's Hoover/FDR governments ran massive deficits AND trade surpluses and they still had over 5 times the unemployment rate in 1939 then they did before the crash in 1929.

Foreign Imports, Exports, and Trade Balance: 1790-2006

I am asking you to prove your statement - using ONLY historical statistics from unbiased sources.

Can you please provide it/them?

Nobody can come up to your standards of proof, DA, including yourself. You constantly trot out your theory about the 1921 depression, but you can no more demonstrate what happened there than I can demonstrate what happened in the 1930's. Have you documented that there was no other demand injection? No? Then you have proven nothing. See the problem here? There are more variables than just government spending. Were we running trade deficits or trade surpluses? How big were they? What was happening with business investment? All of these figures matter.

That is why you need to understand that GDP equation. If you fill in all the variables with actual figures, it will tell the story.

Take another look at the equation. It is possible to run a budget surplus without tanking the economy IF you run a large enough trade surplus. Just like it is possible to run a trade deficit without tanking the economy IF you run a large enough federal deficit. It's a pretty safe assumption that we (as a nation) are going to net save; and it's also a safe assumption, when we are talking about the present, that we are going to run a trade deficit. But in 1921? You'd have to look that stuff up.

 

[DA60]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Nobody can come up to your standards of proof, DA, including yourself. You constantly trot out your theory about the 1921 depression, but you can no more demonstrate what happened there than I can demonstrate what happened in the 1930's. Have you documented that there was no other demand injection? No? Then you have proven nothing. See the problem here? There are more variables than just government spending. Were we running trade deficits or trade surpluses? How big were they? What was happening with business investment? All of these figures matter.

That is why you need to understand that GDP equation. If you fill in all the variables with actual figures, it will tell the story.

Take another look at the equation. It is possible to run a budget surplus without tanking the economy IF you run a large enough trade surplus. Just like it is possible to run a trade deficit without tanking the economy IF you run a large enough federal deficit. It's a pretty safe assumption that we (as a nation) are going to net save; and it's also a safe assumption, when we are talking about the present, that we are going to run a trade deficit. But in 1921? You'd have to look that stuff up.

So, in other words, you have no such link and (apparently) zero fact-based, historical evidence/proof to back up your statement/theory.

Noted.

If you get some, please let me know.

Until then, I see no point/need to discuss this as I am only interested in real world, factual/statistical evidence/proof from unbiased sources...not theories/conjecture.


Thank you for your time.

Good day.


BTW, once again, I have no political bias in this matter. Both parties are worse then useless to me.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

So, in other words, you have no such link and (apparently) zero fact-based, historical evidence/proof to back up your statement/theory.

Noted.

If you get some, please let me know.

Until then, I see no point/need to discuss this as I am only interested in real world, factual/statistical evidence/proof from unbiased sources...not theories/conjecture.

Does that mean you are going to stop claiming that the 1921 Depression was something special?

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Does that mean you are going to stop claiming that the 1921 Depression was something special?

Good dodge. Yet again.

 

[jonny5]

Re: CBO: White House Budget would result in 6.9T in debt

Back to the budget, lets look at some of the new proposals to increase spending and thus debt

Preschool for all - 100 million more for preschool grants, 80 million more for children with disabilities (which brings just this initiative to over 1 billion)
Head Start - 500 million more, bringing it to 10 billion
home visiting - 15 billion for nurses to visiting expecting parents, including 20 million just for rural locations


Its not enough that we're wasting tens of billions on college education, but now they want to get your children early.