ajax18 wrote:Does anyone here believe the national debt will ever be paid off?
It's healthy for the country to have a small amount of rolling debt. The national debt isn't like having a mortgage. I'm concerned about it getting to levels that can reasonably be considered small due to things like national interest rates, % of budget lost in financing the debt, economic growth rate, etc. We are way over anything that could be considered "small." If we could just get a string of balanced budgets together, we'll eventually grow our way into a more sustainable debt. The absolute number wouldn't even have to change. But even that seems so remote because of the political heft behind defense spending and entitlements.
It's healthy for the country to have a small amount of rolling debt.
So you're saying it's healthier for a country to have a small debt than no debt? How does this debt benefit the taxpaying citizens?
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.
It's healthy for the country to have a small amount of rolling debt.
How does this debt benefit the taxpaying citizens?
That's an oddly narrow question. But you might answer your own question by rereading what EA has already said in the thread about the role debt plays and then ask how that would play out if the US had no access to that option. Close that door, the next one down the hall is...?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
That's an oddly narrow question. But you might answer your own question by rereading what EA has already said in the thread about the role debt plays and then ask how that would play out if the US had no access to that option. Close that door, the next one down the hall is...?
Do you believe it's a healthy thing to spend more than you make?
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:If we could just get a string of balanced budgets together, we'll eventually grow our way into a more sustainable debt.
As long as deficits can come down to a level that allows the debt to GDP ratio to go down you will head towards less debt.
The absolute number wouldn't even have to change. But even that seems so remote because of the political heft behind defense spending and entitlements.
It will happen sooner or later. Later because the US will have no choice.
EAllusion wrote:If we could just get a string of balanced budgets together, we'll eventually grow our way into a more sustainable debt.
As long as deficits can come down to a level that allows the debt to GDP ratio to go down you will head towards less debt.
I have little faith in sustaining the time-frame needed for this plan. There is very little technical difference between a balanced budget and spending $100 in the red, but in order to make your point carry force we'd have to be running "normal" budget deficits, which will extend debt recovery out many, many years. And all it takes is a few year stretch of prolifigate spending to destroy that. It's better to be more strident in our approach to budgeting to bring the situation under control quickly enough to prevent that from happening.
It will happen sooner or later. Later because the US will have no choice.
I have in mind us getting religion on fiscal responsibility before the economic consequences go from annoying to dire. I'm skeptical that will turn the car around before going off the cliff.
That's an oddly narrow question. But you might answer your own question by rereading what EA has already said in the thread about the role debt plays and then ask how that would play out if the US had no access to that option. Close that door, the next one down the hall is...?
Do you believe it's a healthy thing to spend more than you make?
Again, a silly question. Large businesses, "job-creating" successful ones you might point to as the true heroes of our economy, carry debt as part of their operations. It is more complicated than those silly Facebook memes one sees that compare the government to a household. That's not to say I support simply increasing the nation's debt burden. I'm closer to EA than anyone else I've read in the thread so far, but having talked about this with him in other threads or in chat years ago I also expect I'm to his left on how willing the US ought to be to fund domestic infrastructure projects at the Federal level while being possibly to his right on military spending in that I am a little more hawkish than most libertarians. But since Obama and Clinton are certainly more hawkish than I, one can read into that what one will.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:I have little faith in sustaining the time-frame needed for this plan. There is very little technical difference between a balanced budget and spending $100 in the red, but in order to make your point carry force we'd have to be running "normal" budget deficits, which will extend debt recovery out many, many years. And all it takes is a few year stretch of prolifigate spending to destroy that. It's better to be more strident in our approach to budgeting to bring the situation under control quickly enough to prevent that from happening.
I'm not suggesting it be done long term, but that if the deficit is at a point where the debt to GDP ratio is going down, it is not a terrible place to be.
I have in mind us getting religion on fiscal responsibility before the economic consequences go from annoying to dire. I'm skeptical that will turn the car around before going off the cliff.
I can see it happening. I am less skeptical since I have seen these turn around's in other areas, but the US political system is more screwed up then these other areas.
Ajax, should those millions of stay-at-home moms start dropping their kiddos off with strangers in day care centers, so that they can go get a job and reduce that 'not in the labor force' figure?
How about retirees? Is it time to put them all back to work, too?