US National debt is beyond staggering

[MTAtech]

Too?

Looks to me like your party did it. The other party was buy reducing it.

{ Is there some alternate universe where Democrats are FOR reducing spending? }

LAFF a Thon.

The first post in this thread is yours and it is complaining about debt, not spending. calamity was rightfully noticing that the only administration to run years of surpluses was a Democratic one. Republicans howl at the moon about deficits, then push through tax-cuts and increase spending. The evidence for my position is abundant.

On spending, the Bush Admin (2001-2009) increased nominal spending by 75%. The Obama Admin (2009-2017) about 9%.

 

[fmw]

Perhaps you have read that I have often said that before one makes a definitive statement about numbers, one should look at those numbers. All through the financial crisis conservatives warned that increasing the money supply would "debase" the currency, cause hyperinflation and high interest rates. Where has this debasement, hyperinflation and high interests rates been hiding after the money supply has doubled?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TWEXB

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2

In the prices we pay.

 

[MTAtech]

In the prices we pay.

So, it's your argument that inflation has been rampant? If so, it aint so.

 

[fmw]

So, it's your argument that inflation has been rampant? If so, it aint so.

It is a matter of how you define rampant.

 

[MTAtech]

It is a matter of how you define rampant.

It's been around 1-2% for years.

 

[Kushinator]

Its all of it. I'm worried about all of it. Im worried about cumulative debt that doubled in 8 years with no indication it is ever going to stop. I worried about foreign debt holding. I'm worried about growing interest costs. I'm worried about debt that grows significantly faster than our economy. I'm worried about kicking the can down the road for future generations to have to deal with the problem. Im worried about debt spending leading to artificially stimulated markets, reckless interest and loan rates, irresponsible government, recessions, etc. I worry that people like you will get back in power and decide the answer is MORE debt and more spending and ultimately inflation. But hey...why worry...right? We should just spend. Print it...spend it...mountains of cash for everyone.

:lol:

Judging by the level of content logic displayed, this is easily one of the more ignorant posts i've seen in some time.

Reason being... you don't even know why you're worried. You're just worried! Big spooky numbers tend to keep the least informed members of society worried.

 

[fmw]

It's been around 1-2% for years.

That is rampant to me. But if you are talking about the rise in prices which are fueled by inflation, it is a bunch more than that. Sounds like a government statistic and one I don't believe.

 

[VanceMack]

:lol:

Judging by the level of content logic displayed, this is easily one of the more ignorant posts i've seen in some time.

Reason being... you don't even know why you're worried. You're just worried! Big spooky numbers tend to keep the least informed members of society worried.

Awesome...why dont you type in some random figures and give us a chart about that.

 

[Absentglare]

Awesome...why dont you type in some random figures and give us a chart about that.

That doesn't really explain why your partisan rambling was so incoherent an excuse of an argument.

In what way did the immense WW2 debt "hurt" the baby boomers? Do you know of any mechanism?

BTW, this is not a random chart, it is US debt in terms of GDP:

See that big spike? That was what happened before our 15% GDP growth golden era. It represented a significant transfer of resources to the poor and middle classes which, guess what, led to an economic boom.

Since the 70s, we've been slowly starving the poor and middle classes. Deficit spending gives us the ability to alleviate this without taking money from the rich. Problem is, the rich are so interested in justifying tax cuts, they use every tool available for that purpose, which includes cutting services. So what they do is propagate nonsense like that contained in your previous post about debt being a crushing burden.

 

[Kushinator]

Awesome...why dont you type in some random figures and give us a chart about that.

It is apparent that you lack the ability to articulate a meaningful response (you know, actually explain your fears) without chest thumping.

The forum knows this isn't the case when I post in these threads. On the contrary, I have thousands of examples where I have discussed subject matter in such a way that only dishonest hacks will disagree.

Cowering behind a piss-poor attitude isn't a great strategy on your part.

 

[sookster]

The $20 trillion debt is already twice the annual revenues collected by all the world’s governments combined.


ounting unfunded liabilities, which include promised Social Security, Medicare, and government pension payments that Washington will not have the money to pay, the federal government actually owes somewhere between $100 trillion and $200 trillion. The numbers are so ridiculously large that even the uncertainty in the figures exceeds the annual economic output of the entire planet
https://fee.org/articles/trillions-in-debt-and-were-just-scratching-the-surface/

I'm reminded of the old adage- if sometiing can't go on forever,it won't.

Government debt is paid out to bond holders as a percentage of the entire debt, simply because not all of the debt is to be repaid at once. Treasuries have different lifetimes. Some less than a year to 30 years. So when you look at the entire debt, only a fraction has to be repaid at one time.

 

[VanceMack]

It is apparent that you lack the ability to articulate a meaningful response (you know, actually explain your fears) without chest thumping.

The forum knows this isn't the case when I post in these threads. On the contrary, I have thousands of examples where I have discussed subject matter in such a way that only dishonest hacks will disagree.

Cowering behind a piss-poor attitude isn't a great strategy on your part.

Wait. Theres no chart there. Go back and try again.

 

[Kushinator]

Wait. Theres no chart there. Go back and try again.

Data isn't required to refute opinions grounded in partisan ignorance.

 

[VanceMack]

Data isn't required to refute opinions grounded in partisan ignorance.

Surely you have a chart or graph to prove THAT point. Geez...come on man....you are slipping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kushinator]

Surely you have a chart or graph to prove THAT point. Geez...come on man....you are slipping.

You can always tell when someone is desperate. They continually repeat themselves

 

[VanceMack]

You can always tell when someone is desperate. They continually repeat themselves

:lamo

"desperate"

You know whats comical? I guarantee you were fawning all over this guy and the Bush debt.

 

[Wheelgun]

How is it responsible to cut taxes when you have a debt, and worse an annual deficit too.

 

[Kushinator]

"desperate"

That's is exactly how you're acting.

You know whats comical? I guarantee you were fawning all over this guy and the Bush debt.

Here's the problem. You have limited (at best) knowledge of how the economy works, practically zero knowledge of government finance, and a partisan axe to grind. Put them all together, and we have just another partisan hack who nothing to offer other than a few easily debunked talking points.

For fun, i'll entertain this red herring just to exemplify just how pathetic your presence (in this thread) has become.

Had Dubya and his republican congress not ran hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits when the economy was near full employment, the next administration would have have a longer leash and more ammunition to deal with the financial crisis. This is simply a matter of fact. Fiscal conservatism (according to conservatives) is only a requirement when democrats are in political control.

Furthermore, there is a strong argument to be made regarding tax cuts and where the additional income was allocated. Tax cuts for wealthy households were mostly saved, and transferred to Wall Street to seek returns. What might i ask was the biggest game in town?

 

[Kushinator]

How is it responsible to cut taxes when you have a debt, and worse an annual deficit too.

There can be instances where tax rates stagnate economic opportunity. However, this is currently not the case.

 

[Blackstone]

How is it responsible to cut taxes when you have a debt, and worse an annual deficit too.

The federal government collects record income yet still has spending deficits and a ballooning debt crisis in spite of it. The irresponsibility lies on the spending side of the equation.

 

[VanceMack]

That's is exactly how you're acting.



Here's the problem. You have limited (at best) knowledge of how the economy works, practically zero knowledge of government finance, and a partisan axe to grind. Put them all together, and we have just another partisan hack who nothing to offer other than a few easily debunked talking points.

For fun, i'll entertain this red herring just to exemplify just how pathetic your presence (in this thread) has become.

Had Dubya and his republican congress not ran hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits when the economy was near full employment, the next administration would have have a longer leash and more ammunition to deal with the financial crisis. This is simply a matter of fact. Fiscal conservatism (according to conservatives) is only a requirement when democrats are in political control.

Furthermore, there is a strong argument to be made regarding tax cuts and where the additional income was allocated. Tax cuts for wealthy households were mostly saved, and transferred to Wall Street to seek returns. What might i ask was the biggest game in town?

:lamo Perfect. On cue....you do the dance.

 

[Wheelgun]

The federal government collects record income yet still has spending deficits and a ballooning debt crisis in spite of it. The irresponsibility lies on the spending side of the equation.

That is an opinion. Mine is we don't tax enough AND we spend too much.

 

[MTAtech]

:lamo

"desperate"

You know whats comical? I guarantee you were fawning all over this guy and the Bush debt.

The statement made by Obama was made when the economy was relatively good. That's quite different from the economy that Obama inherited. In those depression-like economies it is no vice for government to be the fiscal demand of last resort. You inference is that there is some type of hypocrisy advocating one policy at one time and another at a different time, when conditions are different.

 

[chromium]

A balanced U.S. budget would be a good way to bring down the whole world's economy.

The most powerful country on the planet, with the largest economy, is now firmly in the hands of economic illiterates. That should be the story.

The EU and China would recover in the long term, but not the US since it's the one that would cut spending astronomically. And we all know China is willing to see millions starve in order to achieve dominance

Much of the rest of the world is ****ed in 3rd world status with or without the US

 

[Kushinator]

:lamo Perfect. On cue....you do the dance.

You chose to reply but failed to respond to anything i stated. Linking irrelevant youtube videos is not a substitute for being capable of discussing the topic. At this point, you're merely trolling. :yawn: