0

Hi. I recently read that the current US federal budget predicts the US debt to GDP ratio will reach over 70% in 2011 and about 80% by 2020. This analysis assumes fairly strong economic growth. The question that springs to mind is, if a budget surplus can't be achieved during a ten year period of growth, when can it?

Steven.

12
Contributors
32
Replies
33
Views
7 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jbennet
Featured Replies
  • [QUOTE=Ene Uran;1120287]The government also has the power to print money. lots of it! A measly 14 trillion, ha, just a drop in the bucket![/QUOTE] But when the government abuses that power, the money becomes worthless. Read More

  • 2

    [QUOTE=WaltP;1120510]Are you implying money today is worth something? [I]"I don't want to overthrow the government. I wanna fire 'em."[/I] -- Gallagher[/QUOTE] Yes, money is worth something. You can walk into any store in the US in the morning and the same store in the evening and (generally) the items for … Read More

  • 1

    [QUOTE=apegram;1119907]"Greenies" is not the preferred nomenclature. Environmentally-Conscious Americans, please.[/QUOTE] No, "greenies" is the correct term. It's a religion, nothing more or less. They're not "environmentally conscious" at all, they just go through the moves of buying their carbon credits in order to feel good. Read More

1

We got there during the Clinton years. Not sure exactly how, but it happened. And then tax cuts, two wars, economic malaise, complete meltdowns, etc. You know, end of the world type stuff. It really went south quick, didn't it?

0

Hi. I recently read that the current US federal budget predicts the US debt to GDP ratio will reach over 70% in 2011 and about 80% by 2020. This analysis assumes fairly strong economic growth. The question that springs to mind is, if a budget surplus can't be achieved during a ten year period of growth, when can it?

Steven.

I would be interested in a link to look at to see what is really being said. There is so much 'mushy' use of language wrt budget deficit vs national debt, I like to see what underlies the conclusions.

0

Wealth created by speculation can evaporate quickly. The US government owns a huge amount of land and resources that it can use as a collateral.

0

Wealth created by speculation can evaporate quickly. The US government owns a huge amount of land and resources that it can use as a collateral.

But contrary to internet rumor, Canada cannot be had at a bargain bin price in the event of an Uncle Sam fire sale.

Edited by apegram: n/a

0

Wealth created by speculation can evaporate quickly. The US government owns a huge amount of land and resources that it can use as a collateral.

But the greenies have it all tied up with restrictions so nothing useful can be done with it. What's it really worth?

0

I would be interested in a link to look at to see what is really being said. There is so much 'mushy' use of language wrt budget deficit vs national debt, I like to see what underlies the conclusions.

Here you are: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

I admit that I haven't read any of this yet.

Steven.

0

But the greenies have it all tied up with restrictions so nothing useful can be done with it. What's it really worth?

"Greenies" is not the preferred nomenclature. Environmentally-Conscious Americans, please.

0

Wealth created by speculation can evaporate quickly.
...

So does taxpayers money that is wasted on those speculators.

0

What is important is the annual cost of the debt compared to annual GDP. That comes to about 5% of GDP. Once you have to borrow money to service the debt, then you are in deep trouble! We are not quite there yet!

The debt that our major banks have accumulated with funny money and fake loans to each other, far exceeds the national debt.

Edited by Ene Uran: n/a

0

All I know is if governments were people, every one of them would be committed to asylums. And not one seems to have any fiscal sense, nor responsibility.

With a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", how is it the people keep getting screwed?

0

The government also has the power to print money. lots of it! A measly 14 trillion, ha, just a drop in the bucket!

1

The government also has the power to print money. lots of it! A measly 14 trillion, ha, just a drop in the bucket!

But when the government abuses that power, the money becomes worthless.

Votes + Comments
Just like Zimbabwe - 14Tn wasn't national debt, it was a loaf of bread.
0

Are you implying money today is worth something?

"I don't want to overthrow the government. I wanna fire 'em."
-- Gallagher

0

All I know is if governments were people, every one of them would be committed to asylums. And not one seems to have any fiscal sense, nor responsibility.

With a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", how is it the people keep getting screwed?

Look, try to look at it with a little more sense. Governments are not people and should not act like people nor should they be expected to. Do you have an idea of what 'fiscal sense' is? What does it mean to you? Same with responsibility - what do you think a government acting responsible means?

2

Are you implying money today is worth something?

"I don't want to overthrow the government. I wanna fire 'em."
-- Gallagher

Yes, money is worth something. You can walk into any store in the US in the morning and the same store in the evening and (generally) the items for sale will be the same price. When money is not worth anything, eg. in highly inflationary economies, working people have to be paid 2 times per day because what the money buys in the morning will have changed by more than 100% by the evening. The German hyperinflation was so extreme that from Feb 1920 to May 1921 the inflation rate was 39.2% but fron July 1923 to Nov 20 1923 the inflation rate was 560,000,000,000% - what cost 1 dollar in July 1923 cost $560,000,000,000.00 on Nov '23. Yes that is $560Billion.

Edited by GrimJack: clean up

0

All I hear is as long as you don't see the clock tick, time must not be moving...

Your description of bad economy where people suddenly can't afford their life is happening in the States -- just at a slower pace.

When I was a kid, one parent would work and the other parent could stay home.

That is not true today. In most households both parents must work just to keep their head above water. And in only 50 years. And if you take a close look, it wasn't a linear change.

It's not going to be long until 2 incomes will not be enough. How many families do you know right now have in fact 3 jobs just to get by? An anomaly or a symptom?

Is this the government's doing? Not completely, but a good large chunk of it. At a minimum, they are the ones that add and raise taxes without seeming regard for the people they are governing.

How many new taxes and tax increases have you yourself voted for?
And what is the current count of taxes we are paying daily?
Are these numbers even close to each other?

0

Bubbles like the mortgage/housing bubble or the gasoline/energy bubble of recent years have been entirely created by ruthless speculators and the politicians they support. Higher fuel prices and speculation on corn for fuel in turn have driven up food prices. I would say that the average family's budget has been caught up in this, forcing working family members to look for extra income.

0

All I hear is as long as you don't see the clock tick, time must not be moving...

Your description of bad economy where people suddenly can't afford their life is happening in the States -- just at a slower pace.

When I was a kid, one parent would work and the other parent could stay home.

That is not true today. In most households both parents must work just to keep their head above water. And in only 50 years. And if you take a close look, it wasn't a linear change.

It's not going to be long until 2 incomes will not be enough. How many families do you know right now have in fact 3 jobs just to get by? An anomaly or a symptom?

Is this the government's doing? Not completely, but a good large chunk of it. At a minimum, they are the ones that add and raise taxes without seeming regard for the people they are governing.

How many new taxes and tax increases have you yourself voted for?
And what is the current count of taxes we are paying daily?
Are these numbers even close to each other?

OMFG! A when I was a kid story - ooh, that explains everything NOT. When I was a kid I could take a quarter to the movies get in for .10, then get a soda and popcorn. In 1801 England, an income of 80 pounds ($160) per years was a 'lordly' sum. in 1794 United states a clerks salary was $750 but he was the senior clerk over a whole shipyard.

When my parents bought their first home in Roundup Montana, it was a ranch with 500 acres and sold for 10,000 including cattle.

Who do you think supplies your water, electricity, roads, police, fire, schools?

Currently, the maximum tax rate is around 33% whereas in 1955 the maximum tax rate was 91%. Whine me another whine.

0

Currently, the maximum tax rate is around 33% whereas in 1955 the maximum tax rate was 91%. Whine me another whine.

You need to try understanding the terms you attempt to prove your arguments with. "Marginal Income Tax Rates" have nothing to do with my arguments. Don't just Google a term and use invalid data to justify yourself. If you bothered to check your facts, your 91% was at the top money earners ($400,000+), whereas the lowest was 20%. The majority of the country (middle class) was at the 20-30% level (up to $8000). Try this data instead.

0

WaltP,

On the same token, some of your statements mean nothing. How many taxes I voted for and how many were actually enacted have no relationship. Even if you apply this to the average citizen; who cares? People don't want to be taxed in general, and many people do not realize that taxes are necessary for national infrastructure, defense spending, government programs, etc. That is why every proposed spending point is not listed on questionnaires or voting "booths" (machines, whatever) in the U.S. - because it isn't reasonable.

Edited by BestJewSinceJC: n/a

0

You need to try understanding the terms you attempt to prove your arguments with. "Marginal Income Tax Rates" have nothing to do with my arguments. Don't just Google a term and use invalid data to justify yourself. If you bothered to check your facts, your 91% was at the top money earners ($400,000+), whereas the lowest was 20%. The majority of the country (middle class) was at the 20-30% level (up to $8000). Try this data instead.

Sorry dude, I read your link and your point still sux.

Nor did you bother to respond to my other points. You see just because you say

You need to try understanding the terms you attempt to prove your arguments with.

does not mean you are making any sense. Let me point you to some helpful information; just to help you along, here is a reasoned response. In both cases, the comments are at least as interesting as the articles themselves. I have included some pictures because it always helps when you can visualize what we are discussing.

Attachments extremeinequalitychart.jpg 316.7 KB Receipts-by-Percentage-of-GDP.jpg 29.35 KB top_rates.jpg 25.37 KB
0

The UK borrowed 33 billion in 1945 from the US to pay for rebuilding after world war 2. We managed to pay that off (with intrest) by 2006.. So the US paying off the, what, 13 trillion? of debt, considering it is roughly 60 times the size of the UK, aught to be doable within the next 100 years or so.

Edited by jbennet: n/a

1

"Greenies" is not the preferred nomenclature. Environmentally-Conscious Americans, please.

No, "greenies" is the correct term. It's a religion, nothing more or less.
They're not "environmentally conscious" at all, they just go through the moves of buying their carbon credits in order to feel good.

0

The UK borrowed 33 billion in 1945 from the US to pay for rebuilding after world war 2. We managed to pay that off (with intrest) by 2006.. So the US paying off the, what, 13 trillion? of debt, considering it is roughly 60 times the size of the UK, aught to be doable within the next 100 years or so.

except the US are trying to pay it off by taking out more loans.
Take out a $100 billion loan to pay off $10 billion, $50 billion of interest payments, and $40 billion in pork projects needed to get the bill passed through congress.

0

It was more of a The Big Lebowski reference that I couldn't resist.

But back on point, I have serious doubts on rather we'll ever be able to pay down the national debt. We'd first have to run a surplus, and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of that happening anytime soon. Even so, we'd have to collectively have the resolve to keep running that surplus, ignoring calls to either increase spending in other areas or give the excess back to the taxpayer. When we ran a surplus by the end of the Clinton administration, we turned around and cut taxes and increased spending. And the larger this thing gets, the more it will cost just to service the debt. It's really scary when you think about it. Which is why I don't.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.