U.S. Total Debt Soars By $674 Billion In November

[WCH]

When the US reached a debt ceiling deal in the beginning of November, it was common knowledge that there would be a debt accrual "catch up" to make up for lost time when the US was operating under emergency measures to avoid breach of the debt ceiling. And sure enough, when the accurate total debt number was released on November 2, this was indeed the case, when we learned that the US had added some $339 billion in debt during the "emergency measures" period.

However, what is unclear is how in the remaining 4 weeks of November, the US managed to add another $335 billion in total debt, bringing the total increase for the month of November to a whopping $674 billion, and total US debt to a record $18.827 trillion.

snip...

U.S. Total Debt Soars By $674 Billion In November | Zero Hedge


Geeeezz!

 

[OrphanSlug]

Out of control, and *not surprisingly* with very little media coverage.

 

[joG]

When the US reached a debt ceiling deal in the beginning of November, it was common knowledge that there would be a debt accrual "catch up" to make up for lost time when the US was operating under emergency measures to avoid breach of the debt ceiling. And sure enough, when the accurate total debt number was released on November 2, this was indeed the case, when we learned that the US had added some $339 billion in debt during the "emergency measures" period.

However, what is unclear is how in the remaining 4 weeks of November, the US managed to add another $335 billion in total debt, bringing the total increase for the month of November to a whopping $674 billion, and total US debt to a record $18.827 trillion.

snip...

U.S. Total Debt Soars By $674 Billion In November | Zero Hedge


Geeeezz!

That indeed very impressive.

 

[Slyfox696]

Out of control, and *not surprisingly* with very little media coverage.

Out of control, but not likely in the way you mean. In the way I believe you mean, you'll probably like this article much better:

The US government's budget deficit fell to an eight-year low in fiscal 2015, dropping to $439 billion, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.

The cut in the finance gap -- which was $1.4 trillion in 2009 -- brought the deficit down to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest level since 2007.

US budget deficit falls to 8-year low in 2015 - Yahoo News

In other words, when you aren't getting your "news" from a well-known fear mongering site, the economic picture isn't nearly so bleak. As far as "out of control" goes, the fact is we can't control the number of people who are retiring. We can't control the number of elderly people. Deficit spending, after having dropped for many years now, will go back up eventually as more and more people get older. You can't control age.

So the only thing to do is to tell old people "Sorry, you don't get your money, or at least not as much of it, any more". That's not "out of control", but it is quite disturbing.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Out of control, but not likely in the way you mean. In the way I believe you mean, you'll probably like this article much better:


US budget deficit falls to 8-year low in 2015 - Yahoo News

In other words, when you aren't getting your "news" from a well-known fear mongering site, the economic picture isn't nearly so bleak. As far as "out of control" goes, the fact is we can't control the number of people who are retiring. We can't control the number of elderly people. Deficit spending, after having dropped for many years now, will go back up eventually as more and more people get older. You can't control age.

So the only thing to do is to tell old people "Sorry, you don't get your money, or at least not as much of it, any more". That's not "out of control", but it is quite disturbing.

This concerns me...



... and with the OP news I get concerned about the trend line shifting back upwards telling me that we will not get below Total Debt being above 100% of GDP anytime soon. Only one of two things will allow it to happen. We either slow down our Total Debt additions in comparison to existing GDP growth, or GDP growth trends upward so much as to eclipse present Total Debt additions. It is not looking good, and a concern for whoever inherits our fiscal position next.

 

[Eric7216]

You really are "a glass half full" kind of guy, aren't you?
The deficit in FY2007 was $164 billion and in FY2015 it is $439 billion. Very few years have ever had higher deficits. And the important thing is the debt which is climbing to record levels as a % of GDP. One would expect a big drop in the deficit when compared to the greatest recession since the great depression. Hardly anything to crow about.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Nobody cares. They want to bankrupt America.

 

[WCH]

Nobody cares. They want to bankrupt America.

'They've' done a fabulous job.

 

[mmi]

Out of control, and *not surprisingly* with very little media coverage.

There's a very simple explanation for the way this has been covered by major media outlets — there's nothing to it. Well, nothing but irresponsibly dangerous and expensive Republican antics. They should file for a patent.

Here's a blurb from a very short piece published almost a month ago:

The increase is largely a matter of accounting, in that the Treasury Department had been using "extraordinary measures" to artificially hold the total U.S. debt under the debt limit imposed by Congress. So on paper, the national debt had been frozen at $18.1 trillion since March, as the Treasury instead deferred payments to pension funds and borrowed from reserve accounts in order to keep the government running. — "National debt sees one-day record increase after debt limit suspended," USA Today, Nov 5, 2015​

Otoh, just about every right-wing lying scum media outlet took the opportunity to trumpet the announcement.

As the article I cited indicates, this happened twice before under Obummer — when the GOP Eff Up Caucus and their associates in Congress who are unwilling to stand up to them shut down the gubmint in 2013 and in 2011 when they pushed the Treasury to the edge of default. "Regular order," eh? "Responsible budgeting." A freakin' sick joke, if ya ask me. Not the kind of political leadership I'm interested in following.

If Frumpy gets the nomination (which I figure is a near impossibility), look for Democrats to take back the Senate following a tidal wave defeat of the Republican ticket. If the Right loses the House in 2018 (a real long shot, I admit), the current tyranny of jerks like Scruz Loose and Issa may come to an end.

They want to bankrupt America.

'They've' done a fabulous job.

Indeed. For the past thirty-five years, they've worked hard to slash federal revenues by shoving trillions of dollars in tax cuts at wealthy households. "Starve the beast." They knew tax cuts would be popular, and that many voters would buy into the crap they peddled about "across the board cuts" that benefited everyone while freeing businesses from the oppressive burden of big gubmint so they could invest and create jobs. They didn't really care if spending was cut anytime soon. If it wasn't, massive debt would pile up and spending on social programs would get squeezed out anyway.

I can accept the irresponsible lies these creeps have been repeating all these years. It's only to be expected. The "they" I hold responsible are the middle- and working class voters who continue to keep their heads firmly stuck up their asses. As Dick Nixon famously said in his "Silent Majority" speech, "North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that."

When that horrible war, a calamity that took the life of some of the best and most important people in my life, finally ended, a terrible dark cloud went away. The scars, the sense of loss, and the miserable memories continue. But at least there are some sunny days. Let's not stumble back into the darkness.

 

[DA60]

Unfortunately, the Zerohedge report does not quote a source...so there is no way to verify the claim.

I subscribe to zerohedge...but sometimes they get carried away.

 

[DA60]

Out of control, but not likely in the way you mean. In the way I believe you mean, you'll probably like this article much better:


US budget deficit falls to 8-year low in 2015 - Yahoo News

In other words, when you aren't getting your "news" from a well-known fear mongering site, the economic picture isn't nearly so bleak. As far as "out of control" goes, the fact is we can't control the number of people who are retiring. We can't control the number of elderly people. Deficit spending, after having dropped for many years now, will go back up eventually as more and more people get older. You can't control age.

So the only thing to do is to tell old people "Sorry, you don't get your money, or at least not as much of it, any more". That's not "out of control", but it is quite disturbing.

Good ole Sly...the Obamabot who keeps putting lipstick on pigs.

The deficit is over 2 1/2 times worse then it was before the Great Recession. Saying it is better then the absolutely ridiculous deficits that have been run by Bush/Obama since then is like defending yourself at a murder trial by claiming that you murdered less people then the last mass murderer.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States


And you Krugmanites can save the 'the economy needs it' nonsense. The economy ran generally fine with surpluses under Clinton. If the economy 'needs' deficits...that just means it is being run like **** by the POTUS/Fed.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

And you Krugmanites can save the 'the economy needs it' nonsense. The economy ran generally fine with surpluses under Clinton. If the economy 'needs' deficits...that just means it is being run like **** by the POTUS/Fed.

Here is another view of the history of deficits and surpluses:

http://www.epicoalition.org/docs/thayer.htm

Each of six such sustained periods led to one of the six major depressions in our history. The last three of these crashes were the truly significant depressions of the industrial era.

This is the record:

1. 1817-21: In five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to $90 million. A depression began in 1819.

2. 1823-36: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7 percent, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837.

3. 1852-57: In six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857..

4. 1867-73: In seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873.

5. 1880-93: In 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $1 billion. A depression began in 1893.

6. 1920-30: In 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929.

Maybe it's time to rethink your completely theoretical position on debt and deficits, this time taking into consideration what actually happens to the economy when the government removes more money than it spends in.

BTW - those Clinton surpluses, even as small as they were, were followed by a recession.

 

[Absentglare]

Good ole Sly...the Obamabot who keeps putting lipstick on pigs.

The deficit is over 2 1/2 times worse then it was before the Great Recession. Saying it is better then the absolutely ridiculous deficits that have been run by Bush/Obama since then is like defending yourself at a murder trial by claiming that you murdered less people then the last mass murderer.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States


And you Krugmanites can save the 'the economy needs it' nonsense. The economy ran generally fine with surpluses under Clinton. If the economy 'needs' deficits...that just means it is being run like **** by the POTUS/Fed.

The debt is only going to be a real problem when our currency really inflates. That's because we can just print money to pay back debt. I think we can agree that inflation hasn't been a big problem :



As long as our currency hasn't inflated as a result of spending being too much larger than revenue, we haven't gotten ourselves too deep into trouble yet.

Is our debt level ideal ? Maybe, maybe not. And we can argue who's responsible until our heads explode. That's not the point. The point is that it doesn't look like a catastrophe.

 

[Absentglare]

Let me add: the point i'm making isn't that it will not be a problem, we should ignore it completely, but that it's not a really big deal yet.

 

[Critter7r]

Out of control, but not likely in the way you mean. In the way I believe you mean, you'll probably like this article much better:


"The US government's budget deficit fell to an eight-year low in fiscal 2015, dropping to $439 billion, the Treasury Department announced Thursday."

In other words, when you aren't getting your "news" from a well-known fear mongering site, the economic picture isn't nearly so bleak. As far as "out of control" goes, the fact is we can't control the number of people who are retiring. We can't control the number of elderly people. Deficit spending, after having dropped for many years now, will go back up eventually as more and more people get older. You can't control age.

So the only thing to do is to tell old people "Sorry, you don't get your money, or at least not as much of it, any more". That's not "out of control", but it is quite disturbing.

You really are "a glass half full" kind of guy, aren't you?
The deficit in FY2007 was $164 billion and in FY2015 it is $439 billion. Very few years have ever had higher deficits. And the important thing is the debt which is climbing to record levels as a % of GDP. One would expect a big drop in the deficit when compared to the greatest recession since the great depression. Hardly anything to crow about.

So who is correct here? Is the $439B deficit the lowest in 8 years? or the highest?

Slyfox's quote indicates an 8-year downward trend, and Eric says exactly the opposite, that it's been on the rise for 8 years.

This is why people hate politics.

 

[mmi]

there is no way to verify the claim.

As long as DA60 continues to Ignore my posts (or more likely pretends to), the more opportunity he'll have to make an utter fool of himself. "The claim," as I noted, is irrelevant and requires no "confirmation." Ignoring arguably leads to ignorance.

So who is correct here? Is the $439B deficit the lowest in 8 years? or the highest?

Lowest.

>>Slyfox's quote indicates an 8-year downward trend, and Eric says exactly the opposite, that it's been on the rise for 8 years.

I'm not going to look back to see what they said, but the figures are easy to find.

2007 — 161 (at the height of the bubble)
2008 — 459
2009 — 1413 (the mess Obama inherited)
2010 — 1294
2011 — 1300
2012 — 1087
2013 — 680
2014 — 485
2015 — 439

Here they are as a percentage of GDP:



>>This is why people hate politics.

I'd suggest that people shouldn't hate politics, but rather figure out who's being deceptive and leading the country down the garden path. The debt we've accumulated over the past thirty years is the result of foregone revenues that resulted from massive and unproductive tax cuts provided to wealthy households. The outcome has been a highly unstable expansion of income and wealth inequality that severely limits economic growth.

The argument can be made that we could have cut spending by, what, several trillion? Yeah, right. Little or no spending on social welfare programs — effectively eliminating housing and nutritional assistance and health insurance through Medicaid — that's what would have been required.

These people have either no shame or no idea what they're talking about. Don't be stupid enough to believe their crap.

 

[imagep]

Nobody cares. They want to bankrupt America.

How does a government that issues money ever go bankrupt?

 

[Slyfox696]

This concerns me...

Why? Ignore for a moment debt as percent of GDP was higher coming out of WW2, the fact of the matter is total debt is a completely misleading figure. A VERY high percentage of our debt is to ourselves. It is debt we knowingly and intentionally claimed, to protect the interests of Americans. As for the foreign debt, the US currency is still the world leader and that gives us economic power which most countries do not have.

I know personal debt is bad, but governmental debt is just different and given the United States standing in the world, the fact the debt as % of GDP is still decreasing may be something to keep an eye on, but it's not something to be overly concerned with.

... and with the OP news I get concerned about the trend line shifting back upwards telling me that we will not get below Total Debt being above 100% of GDP anytime soon.

The OP comes from a fear mongering website. They are constantly and consistently trying to cast most economic news in a very negative light, at least that's what I gather from all the Zero Hedge articles which get posted on this forum. I don't know why they try to scare people about the economy, but they do.

The fact of the matter is reporting on the first month of the fiscal year and claiming debt soared can be misleading for so many reasons. For example (and this is just speculation, since I'm not going to go back and read the article), with it being the first couple months of the fiscal year, it makes a lot of sense that the government would have expenditures...but taxes aren't due until next April. So, obviously, the government is spending money they don't currently have, with the understanding they will make it back.

That's just one example. I didn't read the article and I'm not going to (for reasons mentioned) so I don't know where they came up with their numbers. But, being the fairly rational and intelligent poster you are, just remember to keep the source in mind before getting scared. The fact of the matter is the deficit this year is expected to be under $500 billion (something close to FY2015, if I'm not mistaken).

Good ole Sly...the Obamabot who keeps putting lipstick on pigs.

Good ole, DA, the one who is constantly proven wrong by pinqy and mmi with those pesky things called "facts", which so do get in the way of your "the sky is falling" narrative.

The deficit is over 2 1/2 times worse then it was before the Great Recession.

And, when injusted for inflation, right in line with where it was in 2003 and 2004 and lower as a percent of GDP. Furthermore, it has decline by nearly $1 trillion since FY 2009.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

Don't you just hate when facts get in the way of your "the sky is falling" narrative?

Saying it is better then the absolutely ridiculous deficits that have been run by Bush/Obama since then is like defending yourself at a murder trial by claiming that you murdered less people then the last mass murderer.

And trying to ignore a great worldwide economic collapse is more ridiculous than trying to ignore the 9/11 attacks in New York when talking about terrorism in the United States.

What's your point? Nevermind, I already know what your point is...the sky is falling. Enjoy your asinine Zero Hedge articles.

So who is correct here? Is the $439B deficit the lowest in 8 years? or the highest?

The eight years part, from the source, might have been poor counting. The FY2015 deficit, when adjusted for inflation, is the lowest since FY2007, so however many years that is, last year was the lowest.

Slyfox's quote indicates an 8-year downward trend, and Eric says exactly the opposite, that it's been on the rise for 8 years.

This is why people hate politics.

It's not that hard really. Fiscal years run from October to September (I believe). FY 2008 ended in October 2008. You might remember a very significant event happening in the last half of 2008 and into 2009.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Why? Ignore for a moment debt as percent of GDP was higher coming out of WW2, the fact of the matter is total debt is a completely misleading figure. A VERY high percentage of our debt is to ourselves. It is debt we knowingly and intentionally claimed, to protect the interests of Americans. As for the foreign debt, the US currency is still the world leader and that gives us economic power which most countries do not have.

I know personal debt is bad, but governmental debt is just different and given the United States standing in the world, the fact the debt as % of GDP is still decreasing may be something to keep an eye on, but it's not something to be overly concerned with.

The OP comes from a fear mongering website. They are constantly and consistently trying to cast most economic news in a very negative light, at least that's what I gather from all the Zero Hedge articles which get posted on this forum. I don't know why they try to scare people about the economy, but they do.

The fact of the matter is reporting on the first month of the fiscal year and claiming debt soared can be misleading for so many reasons. For example (and this is just speculation, since I'm not going to go back and read the article), with it being the first couple months of the fiscal year, it makes a lot of sense that the government would have expenditures...but taxes aren't due until next April. So, obviously, the government is spending money they don't currently have, with the understanding they will make it back.

That's just one example. I didn't read the article and I'm not going to (for reasons mentioned) so I don't know where they came up with their numbers. But, being the fairly rational and intelligent poster you are, just remember to keep the source in mind before getting scared. The fact of the matter is the deficit this year is expected to be under $500 billion (something close to FY2015, if I'm not mistaken).

I wish I could be that dismissive.

The main reason I am not is we have managed to get and stay above Total Debt being greater than 100% of GDP despite political gridlock on the hill. Obama did not get all the spending he wanted, and Congress did not get all that they wanted. I would argue the only reason deficits seem to be falling is because neither side has firm control over what they want to spend on, be it foreign policy and security from the right or various domestic and social spending desires from the left.

Intergovernmental debt is something happening as a matter of law, not much can be done about that until some party controls enough of the strings to change those conditions. Debt held by the Public has shot up almost as dramatically as Debt held by the Fed. Included below...



That is $13.1 Trillion with a T, the day Bush 43 took office it was somewhere in the $3.2 Trillion range. 10x jump in less than 16 years, even more dramatic in the last 6-7, without an equal jump in GDP over the same period. The only reason it appears to have tapered off is political grid lock post the 111th Congress and the moderate (at best) economic recovery. Tells me that Total Debt will be well above GDP for a while longer, including the information from the OP article.

I become concerned not because of the nature of the OP source, but because of these numbers that can be obtained without those overly biased sources. Contrary to modern liberal economics rhetoric, debt does matter. And as you put it, especially Debt held by the Public.

 

[imagep]

I... Contrary to modern liberal economics rhetoric, debt does matter...

Those that you are calling "liberals" are agreeing with you. If the deficit falls too low, GDP may start to decline and we could have another recession. So debt does matter.

Read JohnfrmClevelan's link in post #12. I was a debt/defict hawk also, until I started learning about actual economic history, and realized that reality doesn't match debt hawk rhetoric. When your theories don't match reality, maybe it's time to change theories.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wish I could be that dismissive.

It's not about being dismissive, it's about being grounded in reality. It's easy to find something in this world to terrify you, it's a lot harder to avoid kneejerk reactions and confront reality with a logical mindset.

The main reason I am not is we have managed to get and stay above Total Debt being greater than 100% of GDP despite political gridlock on the hill. Obama did not get all the spending he wanted, and Congress did not get all that they wanted. I would argue the only reason deficits seem to be falling is because neither side has firm control over what they want to spend on, be it foreign policy and security from the right or various domestic and social spending desires from the left.

Not really. The reason deficits have been reduced is become revenue from taxes have been recovering on a fairly continual basis since the economic collapse. Go back and look at FY2009...when Bush signed the initial budget plan, the expected deficit was much lower (somewhere around $550 or $600 billion, if I remember correctly) than what it turned out to be ($1.4 trillion). In January of 2009, before Obama took office, the CBO revised their projections, because of the economic collapse, to approximately $1.2 trillion for FY2009. The biggest reason for this was the complete lack of expected revenue, because expected spending didn't change a bit between Oct 1 and January 10th.

Since then, our revenues have continued to climb as the economy as slowly, but consistently, improved. And the economy is expected to continue to improve for the near future, which means tax revenue will continue to stay high. The expected increase in deficits will come, not from lack of tax revenue or spending from Congress, but from mandatory spending as the American population grows older.

Intergovernmental debt is something happening as a matter of law, not much can be done about that until some party controls enough of the strings to change those conditions. Debt held by the Public has shot up almost as dramatically as Debt held by the Fed. Included below...

View attachment 67193633

That is $13.1 Trillion with a T, the day Bush 43 took office it was somewhere in the $3.2 Trillion range. 10x jump in less than 16 years,

But look when the biggest jump happened. The biggest jump happened right smack down in the middle of the economy collapsing. Since 2012, it has increased only minimally, pretty close to where it was before the collapse.

We cannot underestimate the devastating impact of the economic collapse on the debt. It is an outlier, not a common event.

The only reason it appears to have tapered off is political grid lock post the 111th Congress and the moderate (at best) economic recovery. Tells me that Total Debt will be well above GDP for a while longer, including the information from the OP article.

It has nothing to do with gridlock and almost every thing to do with revenues. After all, total government spending has not decreased.

Contrary to modern liberal economics rhetoric, debt does matter.

I don't think any rational person would say debt doesn't matter. But what a rational person WOULD say is that taking a simplified view of "debt is bad", without examining the myriad of reasons for it, as well as the implications of it, is immature. I don't think you're immature, as I've said I think you're a quality poster, but we simply have to move past the simplified concept of "debt is bad".

 

[Absentglare]

I wish I could be that dismissive.

The main reason I am not is we have managed to get and stay above Total Debt being greater than 100% of GDP despite political gridlock on the hill. Obama did not get all the spending he wanted, and Congress did not get all that they wanted. I would argue the only reason deficits seem to be falling is because neither side has firm control over what they want to spend on, be it foreign policy and security from the right or various domestic and social spending desires from the left.

Intergovernmental debt is something happening as a matter of law, not much can be done about that until some party controls enough of the strings to change those conditions. Debt held by the Public has shot up almost as dramatically as Debt held by the Fed. Included below...

View attachment 67193633

That is $13.1 Trillion with a T, the day Bush 43 took office it was somewhere in the $3.2 Trillion range. 10x jump in less than 16 years, even more dramatic in the last 6-7, without an equal jump in GDP over the same period. The only reason it appears to have tapered off is political grid lock post the 111th Congress and the moderate (at best) economic recovery. Tells me that Total Debt will be well above GDP for a while longer, including the information from the OP article.

I become concerned not because of the nature of the OP source, but because of these numbers that can be obtained without those overly biased sources. Contrary to modern liberal economics rhetoric, debt does matter. And as you put it, especially Debt held by the Public.

Until debt starts soaring in some race with inflation, we don't really have a huge problem with massive debt.

We do not want to pay down the debt too fast if it means cutting services to do it. That is likely to slow down the economy and actually make debt worse as shown by our red friends :

 

[MTAtech]

You really are "a glass half full" kind of guy, aren't you?
The deficit in FY2007 was $164 billion and in FY2015 it is $439 billion. Very few years have ever had higher deficits. And the important thing is the debt which is climbing to record levels as a % of GDP. One would expect a big drop in the deficit when compared to the greatest recession since the great depression. Hardly anything to crow about.

Here are two charts that tell the entire picture:

...

Instead of comparing the federal deficit before the housing crash as your baseline, realize that the deficit has shrunk 75% from its 2009 high of $1.3 trillion. Moreover, interest costs have actually declined since 2007.

I don't see any reason for the debt scolds to panic. If I owe money, that's a claim on my future. But debt levels in the economy as a whole are not a claim by some outside party on the economy as a whole. Most U.S. debt is held by those in the U.S. and are their assets. Debt does not mean that we're stealing from future generations. Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn't an indication that we’re living beyond our means, as Antonio Fatas points out. As Fatas puts it, one person's debt is another person’s asset.

As I have said here many, many times, as long as GDP growth is greater than the growth in the deficit, the U.S. economy will make the debt irrelevant -- just like it did after World War II, when the U.S. had a debt:GDP ratio of 120%.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Contrary to modern liberal economics rhetoric, debt does matter.

Well, then explain exactly why it does matter.

Like almost all of the other debt/deficit threads, this one is becoming another "my graph vs. your graph" affair, which we have all seen before. I think it would be far more instructive to move the discussion into the nuts and bolts of why that debt exists in the first place - how our government creates dollars, how reserve banking works, how banks create dollars, where do dollars flow to and from, etc.

I'll start off by reminding everyone that "government debt" does not cost the government any real resources to pay. It should not be looked at as "debt" in the normal sense of the word at all; it is a matter of accounting, and we would all be better served to recognize that and start analyzing things in that context. How many dollars has the government taken from/spent into the economy? How many of those just ended up as reserves? Was the bailout a giveaway to banks, or did it just fix their books without any net change in their positions?

The "national debt" number does matter, but not because it is actual debt. It matters because it reveals other things about the economy. But you have to understand the nuts and bolts before you can understand the economy as a whole.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Well, then explain exactly why it does matter.

Like almost all of the other debt/deficit threads, this one is becoming another "my graph vs. your graph" affair, which we have all seen before. I think it would be far more instructive to move the discussion into the nuts and bolts of why that debt exists in the first place - how our government creates dollars, how reserve banking works, how banks create dollars, where do dollars flow to and from, etc.

I'll start off by reminding everyone that "government debt" does not cost the government any real resources to pay. It should not be looked at as "debt" in the normal sense of the word at all; it is a matter of accounting, and we would all be better served to recognize that and start analyzing things in that context. How many dollars has the government taken from/spent into the economy? How many of those just ended up as reserves? Was the bailout a giveaway to banks, or did it just fix their books without any net change in their positions?

The "national debt" number does matter, but not because it is actual debt. It matters because it reveals other things about the economy. But you have to understand the nuts and bolts before you can understand the economy as a whole.

No reason to have this conversation with someone who ignores the Debt held by the Public information I posted, just to focus on why debt exists as a means to excuse it.