No, much of the interest we're currently being punished with is due to FDR and LBJ who created these unsustainable entitlement programs. BHO is responsible for refusing to make any reforms to entitlements that were sorely needed.
That's utter horse crap. Do you feel better about yourself or something when you just spout ignorant crap like this? Social Security is not driving the debt, let alone the "interest" on the debt. As if Republicans ever gave a flying damn about the debt to begin with. Tell me ajax, what's the danger of having a $19 trillion debt? At what point are we going to see all these doomsday scenarios you guys love to talk about?
Tell me ajax, what's the danger of having a $19 trillion debt? At what point are we going to see all these doomsday scenarios you guys love to talk about?
What needs to be spent so bad that we should have any debt at all? Do you like the idea of several hours/day of your day's labor being to pay interest on debts? I know this assumes that you pay income taxes, which a large percentage of voters do not. I guess debt takes on a different perspective in such a situation.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
What needs to be spent so bad that we should have any debt at all? Do you like the idea of several hours/day of your day's labor being to pay interest on debts?
You really don't know why the debt is so high?
The outrageous debt can be blamed mostly on Right Wing policies. You know, things like drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and trillions on military and stupid wars. There is your answer. The debt tripled under Reagan. The debt doubled under George Bush and it nearly doubled the last eight years because dumb wars have a lingering financial impact and Obama wasn't able to bring tax rates back to what they were under Reagan. Blaming Obama is just stupid.
And blaming Social Security for interest is a fool's errand because it doesn't add to the debt. If you did away with Social Security benefits you'd also have to do away with all the taxes that pay for it, so it is a wash and the overall debt remains the same. Calling the program "unsustainable" is something you folks have been saying since it's inception.
The risk of high debt is what happened in Greece. If the debt becomes too high, confidence that it will be paid back among investors wanes leading to spikes in the cost of treasury notes, which in turn makes it harder to borrow. If this cycle becomes unsustainable, the government loses the capacity to borrow wealth. This is bad because governments often need to do that to function by funding its outlays. Tax receipts and outlays don't necessarily neatly match up on a month to month basis. If the government defaults, this will lead to a collapse in government services and a severe downturn in the economy. The value of the dollar will inflate to offset this leading to a decline in purchasing power. And with that comes suffering.
Uh. Under discretionary spending the military spending consumes 54% of the federal budget per annum. Uptick that another 6% for veterans benefits and you have 60% of the budget. Welfare and Medicare consume only around 11%. Overall interest on the debt consumes around 6%, so I'm not sure why Ajax is griping about 'entitlements' when it's obvious where the real problem lies.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
The outrageous debt can be blamed mostly on Right Wing policies. You know, things like drastic tax cuts for the wealthy and trillions on military and stupid wars.
The Iraq War has ended up adding at least three trillion dollars to the National debt.
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
so I'm not sure why Ajax is griping about 'entitlements' when it's obvious where the real problem lies.
Your numbers don't add up to 100%. 60+11+6=76. Why did you leave out the other 14%? What does discretionary spending mean?
In public finance, discretionary spending is government spending implemented through an appropriations bill. This spending is an optional part of fiscal policy, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory.
Entitlements are so beyond reform, they're not even included as discretionary spending.
I'm surprised you feel so strongly that too much money is spent on the military. Wasn't that your profession? Were you not proving a useful service to the American taxpayer?
Last edited by ICCrawler - ICjobs on Sat May 07, 2016 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
EAllusion wrote:The risk of high debt is what happened in Greece. If the debt becomes too high, confidence that it will be paid back among investors wanes leading to spikes in the cost of treasury notes, which in turn makes it harder to borrow. If this cycle becomes unsustainable, the government loses the capacity to borrow wealth. This is bad because governments often need to do that to function by funding its outlays. Tax receipts and outlays don't necessarily neatly match up on a month to month basis. If the government defaults, this will lead to a collapse in government services and a severe downturn in the economy. The value of the dollar will inflate to offset this leading to a decline in purchasing power. And with that comes suffering.
This is a bad comparison because Greece doesn't produce their own currency. But the question remains. Where is the breaking point? We've been hearing about all these doomsday scenarios and predictions that would happen if we let the debt get too high. When is it too high?
Kevin Graham wrote: This is a bad comparison because Greece doesn't produce their own currency. But the question remains. Where is the breaking point? We've been hearing about all these doomsday scenarios and predictions that would happen if we let the debt get too high. When is it too high?
You can't print money out of a debt crisis without economic consequence. Investors don't like it when you pay them in devalued currency. Would you buy a treasury bond if it was going to mature into a fraction of its value? If Greece had the capacity to peg its own currency, it would still be up a creek. If it was as simple as opting out of the Euro, the Greeks would have done that a long time ago. What they are faced with is a choice between doing that and accepting a severe economic downturn followed by recovery or existing on the debt/anemic economy treadmill until they hopefully grow out of it.
"Too high" isn't something that has a hard number attached to it because it exists on a gradient and is dependent on other variables. That said, 100% of annual GDP is generally considered a benchmark for there being a problem. Crisis numbers are 1.5 to 2 times that usually. But it really depends on a complex array of factors. Some nations can have a higher ratio than others and still retain good credit. We're currently at 104%.
Does anyone here believe the national debt will ever be paid off?
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.