Over 17 trillion - maybe we should have left the lid on the can

[TGHusker]

No surprise - Oh hum

 

U.S. debt jumped a record $328 billion on Thursday, the first day the federal government was able to borrow money under the deal President Obama and Congress sealed this week

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/#ixzz2i6nfENJY

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[/left]

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/us-debt-jumps-400-billion-tops-17-trillion-first-t/

[zoogs]

Is this really something to oh hum about? The federal government needs to borrow money. This is the reason why the debt ceiling being raised was important, to almost everybody but the small group of crazies that want us to default.

 

Krugman: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html

[TGHusker]

Is this really something to oh hum about? The federal government needs to borrow money. This is the reason why the debt ceiling being raised was important, to almost everybody but the small group of crazies that want us to default.

 

Krugman: http://www.nytimes.c...tands-debt.html

My oh hum is about the congress actually doing their job and trying to curb spending, or try to balance the budget (long shot and not going to happen in this economy)

[Mavric]

Is this really something to oh hum about? The federal government needs to borrow money. This is the reason why the debt ceiling being raised was important, to almost everybody but the small group of crazies that want us to default.

 

Krugman: http://www.nytimes.c...tands-debt.html

Short term, yes.

 

The fact that not nearly enough people recognize that this is unsustainable long-term is the problem.

[zoogs]

But Washington isn’t just confused about the short run; it’s also confused about the long run. For while debt can be a problem, the way our politicians and pundits think about debt is all wrong, and exaggerates the problem’s size.

 

Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.

 

This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.

 

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

 

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

 

This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.

 

Is it, though? It seems like he's arguing against that notion.

[tschu]

Quick someone post the "Americans don't understand the federal debt" article again

 

Since apparently it's a really hard concept. We have a lot of debt and are going to continue borrowing until the end of time. And it's 100% fine and sustainable and necessary. Every single first-world country has a ton of debt (especially Britain and Japan iirc). But Republican lawmakers love to use big numbers and debt as a talking point to citizens who largely don't understand it just because it sounds good.

 

edit - DAMN. I did that thing where I didn't read the thread and still posted again. Zoogs my man you are too good.

[JJ Husker]

Ya know, I can get on this "debt isn't a problem" train. Why don't we just eliminate income tax for everyone and then borrow or print the money? I'm down with that. Worst case it causes inflation, then we can just have the feds borrow more and actually pay us. Imagine getting 25k per year from uncle sam instead of sending it to him. Fully fund all these social programs, poverty relief, hell there is nothing impossible once you believe trillions of dollars of debt doesn't matter at all. Count me in.

[BigRedBuster]

So....is there any limit to what we can spend?

[knapplc]

Ya know, I can get on this "debt isn't a problem" train. Why don't we just eliminate income tax for everyone and then borrow or print the money? I'm down with that. Worst case it causes inflation, then we can just have the feds borrow more and actually pay us. Imagine getting 25k per year from uncle sam instead of sending it to him. Fully fund all these social programs, poverty relief, hell there is nothing impossible once you believe trillions of dollars of debt doesn't matter at all. Count me in.

So....is there any limit to what we can spend?

 

zoogies answered these questions before you posted them. 10 hours before you posted them, in fact.

[BigRedBuster]

Ya know, I can get on this "debt isn't a problem" train. Why don't we just eliminate income tax for everyone and then borrow or print the money? I'm down with that. Worst case it causes inflation, then we can just have the feds borrow more and actually pay us. Imagine getting 25k per year from uncle sam instead of sending it to him. Fully fund all these social programs, poverty relief, hell there is nothing impossible once you believe trillions of dollars of debt doesn't matter at all. Count me in.

So....is there any limit to what we can spend?

 

zoogies answered these questions before you posted them. 10 hours before you posted them, in fact.

 

 

Not really if you are talking about post #5.

 

His post talks about debt not being as big of an issue because a large portion of it is owned by US public and then it discusses a little bit about a the debt as a percentage of GDP. So, I get the thought of looking at it as a percentage of GDP. So, my question maybe should be, is there a maximum percentage of GDP spending should be before it's a problem?

 

In other words, is this graph of any concern? Or, is it totally meaningless and just something used as a political talking point?

 

[knapplc]

What does it mean to you?

[BigRedBuster]

What does it mean to you?

 

 

Obviously by looking at the graph, spending as a percent of GDP has grown over time. In the early 1900s it was below 10%. Now, it is somewhere around 35% and over time the trend is to grow(although it has leveled off some since the 1980s.

 

So, my question is:

 

Is this healthy?

Does it matter?

Is there a limit to where you would say..."WHOA....that is way too high"?

 

 

I don't think any reasonable person would argue against the theory as our population grows, so will spending as measured in dollars. However, Zoogie's post talks about it as it is measured against GDP and I agree that is a more realistic and important measure.

 

So.....does that percentage matter? If it does, at what point does it matter? If it doesn't, then why did Clinton make spending such a big issue and was actually successful at it while the economy continued the growth started during the Reagan years?

[carlfense]

Is this healthy?

Does it matter?

Is there a limit to where you would say..."WHOA....that is way too high"?

. . .

So.....does that percentage matter? If it does, at what point does it matter? If it doesn't, then why did Clinton make spending such a big issue and was actually successful at it while the economy continued the growth started during the Reagan years?

Taken another step . . . if deficit spending is harmful why did the economy grow during the Reagan years?

 

I don't think that I'll ever understand the Reagan myth. The man would be primaried by the current GOP who acts like he is Republican Jesus.

[carlfense]

Also, this is awfully interesting: (disclaimer - wikipedia image)

 

Hmmm.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm trying to figure out how that answers my questions.