• The forums' spoiler embargo for all content from Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Mega Dimension DLC has been lifted! Feel free to talk about the new content from the expansion across the forums without the need of spoiler tabs!

    Please note that this lifted embargo only applies for the forums, and may still be in effect on other Bulbagarden sites.

U.S. National Debt Climbs to $12 trillion

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eredar Warlock

追放されたバカ
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
1
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

This...scares me. This is unsustainable. Honestly, the question I have is, what will be doe to stop this? This is a harbinger of inflation - and a LOT of inflation.

I don't understand why. Why do we have this debt? This didn't occur in just these last few months, a good five trillion of this came during the Bush years, but why is it continuing?

What will it mean for America if our dollar collapses? I can guess - but it will open the way for a radical change in Government, and that to a socialist, if not outright communist, society.
 
The issue is... in order to pay of this debt we have to spend more money...

Wow... We're in trouble.
 
Yeah, America is going to collapse sooner rather than later. It's inevitable, and the world is gonna go to hell when it does.
 
Was it a good time for Obama to attempt the health care (sorry I'm not to knowledgable on this) thing while the country has so much debt?
 
The debt to GDP ratio is hovering around 80-90% for the US (In good econonmic times with a $14 Trillion GDP. If it goes higher, we'll end up like Japan who have around 200% Debt-to-GDP.

I'm wondering what happened to the "Debt Cap" Congress has for this....they have seem to blown it out of water....
 
We started two inefficiently run wars for profit while cutting taxes. We intentionally redesigned medicare to maximize the profits of the drug companies. We opened gaping tax loopholes for the wealthy to squirrel their money away in foreign accounts to avoid taxes and made it harder for average American to find/keep jobs. Bush didn't just make debt, he created a culture of debt.

It's continuing because we aren't putting an end to it. We're not throwing the contractors under the bus and having our troops do the work for less. We're not moving on reforming health care. We're not putting people back to work so they can pay taxes. We're not making those who can pay taxes pay their fair share.

I'm not too afraid of inflation. I'm more afraid of a knee-jerk reaction to this which will send us into the deflation spiral that would be more devastating to the recovering economy.
 
Yawn.

Worry about this in '12-'14, if you do real deficit reduction now it'll be a Hoover-style disaster.

Also, for people who are like INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION, check the TIPS spread, nobody's expecting inflation.
 
From what I am hearing, Obama's Economic Advisers are suggesting repealing the middle class and lower class tax cuts enacted under Bush to help pay for Health Care and some of the debt.

Juicy Jazzy said:
Was it a good time for Obama to attempt the health care (sorry I'm not to knowledgable on this) thing while the country has so much debt?
Click to expand...

Depends on the final amount of the bill, but right now it was a very stupid idea by Obama. If it ends up like Pelosi's bill it will eventually end up adding significantly to the debt.

Meanwhile Obama came out today and did say something smart, how too much debt will fuel a double dip recession. Problem is he won't consider killing Health Care or what will soon be Stimulus 2.0 ( Because the first one worked sooo well [/sarcasm] ) to help avoid it.
 
The Big Al said:
We started two inefficiently run wars for profit while cutting taxes. We intentionally redesigned medicare to maximize the profits of the drug companies. We opened gaping tax loopholes for the wealthy to squirrel their money away in foreign accounts to avoid taxes and made it harder for average American to find/keep jobs. Bush didn't just make debt, he created a culture of debt.

It's continuing because we aren't putting an end to it. We're not throwing the contractors under the bus and having our troops do the work for less. We're not moving on reforming health care. We're not putting people back to work so they can pay taxes. We're not making those who can pay taxes pay their fair share.

I'm not too afraid of inflation. I'm more afraid of a knee-jerk reaction to this which will send us into the deflation spiral that would be more devastating to the recovering economy.
Click to expand...

First of all, the "Pay their fair share" argument falls dead when the top 20% of income earners pay 86% of the taxes with the top 1% paying 38.8%, according to a CBO study on the numbrts between 1979-2005. They pay their fair share all right.

Second, the way you get rid of the debt is to freeze spending and do the right kind of health reform so the Government doesn't shoulder the burden. How does creating a new bureaucracy reduce debt? Explain that to me.
 
First of all, the "Pay their fair share" argument falls dead when the top 20% of income earners pay 86% of the taxes with the top 1% paying 38.8%, according to a CBO study on the numbrts between 1979-2005. They pay their fair share all right.
Click to expand...
Just noting that this doesn't mean by default that they're paying their fare share; the top 20% of income earners may make 90% of the wealth, with the top 1% making 50% of the wealth. I know that our tax system is in fact somewhat progressive, but just checking the logic here...this by default doesn't mean anything.

Second, the way you get rid of the debt is to freeze spending and do the right kind of health reform so the Government doesn't shoulder the burden. How does creating a new bureaucracy reduce debt? Explain that to me.
Click to expand...
Simple. It reduces the rate of growth in spending. Paying money up front to decrease cost inflation is extremely efficient. Your plan is practically unfeasiable; you're basically calling for government-imposed 0% inflation, with no inflation controls on the private sector. Government purchasing power decreases and we're kinda screwed as a result.

Also, in the long run, the government can in fact raise taxes to increase revenue. It's true!
 
Arcane Mind said:
First of all, the "Pay their fair share" argument falls dead when the top 20% of income earners pay 86% of the taxes with the top 1% paying 38.8%, according to a CBO study on the numbrts between 1979-2005. They pay their fair share all right.
Click to expand...
Evkl already explained they're not. When you're making 90% of the wealth, you should pay 90% of the taxes. We should also be taxing money made by sitting poolside off investments at at least the same if not higher rate than we tax people who work for a living for that same amount of money. The current tax structure grossly favors Wall Street and the well to do to the detriment of both the government and the general public.
Second, the way you get rid of the debt is to freeze spending and do the right kind of health reform so the Government doesn't shoulder the burden. How does creating a new bureaucracy reduce debt? Explain that to me.
Click to expand...
I could have sworn I've seen this solution before. Oh, right, it's what Hoover did to turn a bad recession into The Great Depression.
 
evkl said:
Also, in the long run, the government can in fact raise taxes to increase revenue. It's true!
Click to expand...

Well Economic theories aside, that looks like what the Obama Administration is planning to do. He knows the public is fearing the deficit, so now ideas are coming out about increasing the taxes on the Middle and Lower class.
 
I thought the tax hikes being suggested were directed towards those who make more than half a million.
 
Raising taxes wouldn't raise revenue because it would mean more business goes overseas and we never actually see a dime. It makes MUCH more sense to cut spending to these pork-barrel projects and - sorry - cut Welfare.

It's a pretty simple concept. Saving money helps get out of debt. It's true of every household, so why shouldn't it be true of the Government?

EIT: Oh yes, and by the way, share of pre-tax income of the top 20% is at 55.1% according to that same CBO study, an yet they're paying 86.1% of the taxes. Weird. Sounds pretty progressive to me.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind Clinton-era tax rates if I can get a Clinton-era economy.
Arcane Mind said:
Raising taxes wouldn't raise revenue because it would mean more business goes overseas and we never actually see a dime.
Click to expand...
This is why I support taxing what is sold here instead of bought.
It makes MUCH more sense to cut spending to these pork-barrel projects and - sorry - cut Welfare.
Click to expand...
You realize that would cause the collapse of the south. Alabama gets what? 150% of their tax revenue back from the government?
It's a pretty simple concept. Saving money helps get out of debt. It's true of every household, so why shouldn't it be true of the Government?
Click to expand...
Because we're dealing with an economy having a hard time expanding. If we intentional contract a part of the economy (the government is an important part of the economy), it will stifle growth. That's what happened under Hoover.
 
EIT: Oh yes, and by the way, share of pre-tax income of the top 20% is at 55.1% according to that same CBO study, an yet they're paying 86.1% of the taxes. Weird. Sounds pretty progressive to me.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, but your argument on its own doesn't pass muster, as I pointed out.

Raising taxes wouldn't raise revenue because it would mean more business goes overseas and we never actually see a dime. It makes MUCH more sense to cut spending to these pork-barrel projects and - sorry - cut Welfare.
Click to expand...
Is there a tax rate for which increasing taxes will decrease government revenues? The central presumption of the Laffer curve that conservatives basically cite to prove this is that we're to the right of the peak. But is there any point at which this argument doesn't hold? How low do you want taxes to go?

"Pork-barrel projects" comprise a tiny fraction of the budget. Defense spending, on the other hand, is a really good place to cut. America spends 7 times more on defense than China. We're fighting two very very expensive wars. The most rational place, it seems to me, at least, to cut spending is in the defense department by ending our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Welfare I'm sure needs reform, but didn't we already play this game in the '90s?
 
Shit sucks because 90% of this forum's members will be paying that dept off -_- myself included
 
You can cut all the welfare and pork-barrel spending you want; it won't touch the deficits we're talking about. The $700 billion deficits that are being projected dwarf everything but a) entitlement spending and b) military spending (which is actually still smaller). Defeating these deficits is going to require a holistic approach - welfare cuts, appropriations reform, cuts to military spending, entitlement reform, and yes, probably higher taxes.
 
We're in it deep.:scared:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom