toldailytopic: The national debt. How much longer can the US national debt rise in su

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 17th, 2012 09:28 AM

toldailytopic: The national debt. How much longer can the US national debt rise in such dramatic fashion?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What is eventually going to happen if the national debt isn't controlled???

Here is some interesting info...

Facts about the National Debt

1. The U.S. national debt on Jan. 1, 1791, was just $75 million dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt rises by that amount about once an hour. 2. Our nation began its existence in debt after borrowing money to finance the Revolutionary War. President Andrew Jackson nearly eliminated the debt, calling it a "national curse." Jackson railed against borrowing, spending and even banks, for that matter, and he tried to eliminate all federal debt. By Jan. 1, 1835, under Jackson, the debt was just $33,733. 3. When World War II ended, the debt equaled 122 percent of GDP (GDP is a measure of the entire economy). In the 1950s and 1960s, the economy grew at an average rate of 4.3 percent a year and the debt gradually declined to 38 percent of GDP in 1970. This year, the Office of Budget and Management expects that the debt will equal nearly 100 percent of GDP. 4. Since 1938, the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5 percent. The only exceptions to the constant annual increase over the last 62 years were during the administrations of Clinton and Johnson. (Note that this is the rate of growth; the national debt still existed under both presidents.) During the Clinton presidency, debt growth was almost zero. Johnson averaged 3 percent growth of debt for the six years he served (1963-69). 5. When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was just under $1 trillion. When he left office, it was $2.6 trillion. During the eight Regan years, the US moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation. 6. The U.S. national debt has more than doubled since the year 2000. Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion. Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years. 7. FY 2013 budget projects a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, representing 5.5 percent of GDP, down from a deficit of $1.33 trillion in FY 2012, which was the fourth consecutive year of more than $1 trillion dollar deficits. 8. The U.S. national debt rises at an average of approximately $3.8 billion per day. 9. The US government now borrows approximately $5 billion every business day. [Also see: States with the most homes in foreclosure] 10. A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt. 11. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount of debt that Congress allows for the government. The current debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion effective Jan. 30, 2012. 12. The U.S. government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar that it currently spends, four times the rate in 1980.

- source

 

[chrysostom]

I hope we can make it til November

 

[steko]

It certainly doesn't look good for this nation.
What ever happened to the oath of 'defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic'?


Pro 22:7 The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

1Jn 5:19 We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

 

[PureX]

Knight, I have a hard time respecting your information when it includes misleading statements like this:

"Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.
Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years."​

Most of the debt that accumulated under Obama was caused by his having to continue funding two wars that Bush started, continue paying the price for huge tax cuts that Bush enacted, continue funding a gigantic Wall Street bail out that Bush started, and fund an attempt at a national economic restart because of a near total economic collapse that Bush allowed to happen under his watch.

Instead of trying to blame Obama and democrats for the huge increase in our national debt, why don't you encourage republicans to do what Reagan did when the debt began to rise exponentially during his presidency because he had cut taxes. Return the tax rates to what they were under Reagan, and eliminate loopholes same as he did.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I have a hard time respecting your information when it includes misleading statements like this:

"Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.
Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years."​

Most of the debt that accumulated under Obama was caused by his having to continue funding two wars that Bush started, a gigantic Wall Street bail out that Bush started, and an attempt at a national economic restart because of a near total economic collapse that Bush allowed to happen under his watch.

Instead of trying to blame Obama and democrats for the huge increase in our national debt, why don't you encourage republicans to do what Reagan did when the debt began to rise exponentially during his presidency because he had cut taxes. Return the tax rates to what they were under Reagan, and eliminate loopholes same as he did.

Pure X, the information isn't "mine". It is what it is. (in fact that info comes from the liberally biased CBS News)

You can make excuses for all the presidents....

- I.e., Reagan had to work with a Democratic majority
- Under Clinton the deficit dropped but that was mainly due to the Republicans in the House
- Etc.

That's not the point. The point of this thread is to discuss... what is eventually going to come of all of this? Where does it end?

Democrat, Republican... it looks bad no matter how you slice it. I'm not pointing fingers and any one group, it appears to me they are all guilty.

 

[PureX]

Pure X, the information isn't "mine". It is what it is. (in fact that info comes from the liberally biased CBS News)

You can make excuses for all the presidents....

- I.e., Reagan had to work with a Democratic majority
- Under Clinton the deficit dropped but that was mainly due to the Republicans in the House
- Etc.

That's not the point. The point of this thread is to discuss... what is eventually going to come of all of this? Where does it end?

Democrat, Republican... it looks bad no matter how you slice it. I'm not pointing fingers and any one group, it appears to me they are all guilty.

I don't care where the information came from, it's being used to promote an inaccurate bias. You like the bias, so you chose to present it. I don't like the bias, so I chose to expose it.

As to where the deficits will lead, no one knows. My guess is that in the end it's a lot of "hot air", in that ultimately money is just numbers on paper. If we simply declared all our debt erased, today, by government edict, what would actually happen? All the "moneychangers" of the world would cry and moan, but all the people who actually produce things and provide real services for other people would still make things and provide their services just as before. Life would go on. They claim the value of the dollar would collapse, but I don't believe it. In fact, without all that debt looming over us, I think our money would increase in value, not decrease. And money has no real value, anyway. it's just a trade mechanism. The real value of our products and services would remain intact, because it's not based on money, but on human need/desire. The people who were buying up our debt would surely be out of luck, but so what. Clearly they had more money than they needed, anyway, if they were spending it on buying up other people's debts.

I think the whole debt threat is a deliberate way of avoiding the real issues that we are not facing right now, like how the influence of legalized bribery has perverted our government process so badly that government has become nearly useless and in many cases has even become malevolent to the citizenry of the nation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, it was higher, as a proportion of GDP, during WWII. The point is, it can't continue indefinitely. There should be a plan to bring it down. Just hitting the brakes would be disasterous, but something must be done.

 

[BillyBob]

Knight, I have a hard time respecting your information when it includes misleading statements like this:

"Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.
Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years."​

Most of the debt that accumulated under Obama was caused by his having to continue funding two wars that Bush started, continue paying the price for huge tax cuts that Bush enacted, continue funding a gigantic Wall Street bail out that Bush started, and fund an attempt at a national economic restart because of a near total economic collapse that Bush allowed to happen under his watch.

Instead of trying to blame Obama and democrats for the huge increase in our national debt, why don't you encourage republicans to do what Reagan did when the debt began to rise exponentially during his presidency because he had cut taxes. Return the tax rates to what they were under Reagan, and eliminate loopholes same as he did.

Tax cuts don't cause debt, spending does.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Tax cuts don't cause debt, spending does.

That's right.

In fact....

Tax rate cuts tend to raise tax revenue generated (more consumer spending, more business ventures attempted, more need for labor, and more tax revenue generated).

Tax rate increases tend to lower tax revenue generated (less consumer spending, less risk taking, less labor, equals less tax revenue generated).

The more you try to tax the net-tax-payer the more the net-tax-payer will attempt to protect his/her money therefore the less they will spend and the less the government can collect from them. Also, the net tax payer will do everything in their power to hide and possibly remove from the system their wealth to protect it from over taxation. And when things get really bad the net-tax-payer takes their wealth and leaves the system entirely which of course leads to less possible tax revenue for the government.

Said in short... liberals who want to keep raising taxes on the net tax payers are morons.

 

[The Barbarian]

Depends on what the economy is doing at the time. It's like flying an airplane. You might say "pulling back on the stick won't make the aircraft lose altitude", but there are times when it will. Economies are like that. Doing the right things depends on what the economy happens to be doing right then, and which way it's going.

Hard lessons, but important ones.

 

[elohiym]

What is eventually going to happen if the national debt isn't controlled???

See Greece.

The point of this thread is to discuss... what is eventually going to come of all of this? Where does it end?

The sad thing is that it doesn't end until deposit expansion ends and until the U.S. Constitution is amended to prohibit the government from borrowing money. Until then, the fleecing of America will continue until we become like Greece, endure harsh austerity and a long recovery, and then repeat it all again. Boom. Bust. Boom.

...Bust. lain:

 

[chrysostom]

What is eventually going to happen if the national debt isn't controlled???

See Greece.

this is true
and
there is no way to stop it

all they can do is see how long it can be maintained

 

[HisServant]

The more the government taxes something, the less revenue it gets from the tax.... this is a proven concept.

This goes with income too... the more you tax, the less likely they are going to work even harder to accumulate excess wealth that will only be taxed more.

Just look at the tanning bed tax and see what a boondoggle that was.. they taxed the tanning salons and then built that tax revenue into next years budget.. people stopped going to tanning salons and the government took in less revenue, but it spent the money it was depending on. It's like a shell game.

 

[rexlunae]

2. Our nation began its existence in debt after borrowing money to finance the Revolutionary War. President Andrew Jackson nearly eliminated the debt, calling it a "national curse." Jackson railed against borrowing, spending and even banks, for that matter, and he tried to eliminate all federal debt. By Jan. 1, 1835, under Jackson, the debt was just $33,733.

So, the takeaway lesson is, borrowing our way to prosperity has worked for us this long, despite people like President Jackson who pronounce it to be our doom.

Also, it's worth noting that following the shutdown of the Second Bank of the United States, there was a severe depression starting two years after the debt was paid off. So, we apparently can't reach prosperity by removing the government from the economy, and Andrew Jackson's economics left much room for improvement.

3. When World War II ended, the debt equaled 122 percent of GDP (GDP is a measure of the entire economy). In the 1950s and 1960s, the economy grew at an average rate of 4.3 percent a year and the debt gradually declined to 38 percent of GDP in 1970. This year, the Office of Budget and Management expects that the debt will equal nearly 100 percent of GDP.

So after years of depression, and four years of war, our debt was 122% of GDP. And today, after a full decade of war and a parallel major recession, the debt stands at almost 100%. I'd say we've come back from worse.

The debt should grow during recessions. Tax revenue drops, and people stop working in the private sector. Government assistance and government jobs help to blunt the impact.

Inflation remains fairly low, so we're not in any imminent threat from that. I'd say we could spend more, as long as we don't get too carried away, without offsetting tax hikes. This time though, we should pay down some of that debt when the economy improves.

5. When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was just under $1 trillion. When he left office, it was $2.6 trillion. During the eight Regan years, the US moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Of course, debtor and creditor roles aren't mutually exclusive. If I could borrow money at the rates that the federal government can, I would make a killing. Incidentally, that's also a reflection of the overall soundness of US economy, as insanely high as the numbers seem.

6. The U.S. national debt has more than doubled since the year 2000.

So, in the last 12 years, it has more than doubled. But in the 8 years of Reagan, it doubled and then added another 60%. Once again, we've seen worse, even quite recently.

Under President Bush: At the end of calendar year 2000, the debt stood at $5.629 trillion. Eight years later, the federal debt stood at $9.986 trillion.
Under President Obama: The debt started at $9.986 trillion and escalated to $15.3 trillion, a 53 percent increase over three years.

Sounds like Obama has done about the same in a recession as Bush did in prosperity. Think where those debt number would have been if we hadn't cut taxes back in 2001 and 2003.

7. FY 2013 budget projects a deficit of $901 billion in 2013, representing 5.5 percent of GDP, down from a deficit of $1.33 trillion in FY 2012, which was the fourth consecutive year of more than $1 trillion dollar deficits.

Sounds like things are improving.

10. A trillion $10 bills, if they were taped end to end, would wrap around the globe more than 380 times. That amount of money would still not be enough to pay off the U.S. national debt.

Especially when you take into account how much it would cost the government to print that many new $10 bills.

:e4e:

 

[BillyBob]

Depends on what the economy is doing at the time. It's like flying an airplane. You might say "pulling back on the stick won't make the aircraft lose altitude", but there are times when it will. Economies are like that. Doing the right things depends on what the economy happens to be doing right then, and which way it's going.

Hard lessons, but important ones.

Stealing [taxing] less money from Americans is ALWAYS the right thing to do.

 

[Tolken]

The more the government taxes something, the less revenue it gets from the tax.... this is a proven concept.

Actually this is probably just a myth...charts that are available would dispute that "concept".

 

[rexlunae]

The more the government taxes something, the less revenue it gets from the tax.... this is a proven concept.

Mathematically, that can't possibly be true.

 

[BillyBob]

So, the takeaway lesson is, borrowing our way to prosperity has worked for us this long,

Oh, well then all we have to do is continue borrowing more. Problem solved.

Nevermind that the Ponzi Scheme know as Social Security is on the verge of total collapse, American liberties are being further destroyed daily, half the people in the US don't pay any taxes and are living off the half that do, Obama just stole a trillion dollars and gave it to his union buddies, our credit rating has been downgraded and the debt continues to rise to a level that the interest alone will be economically crippling.

But hey, if you are getting old and don't care about the future of your children or this country, just borrow more. You'll never be the one held responsible for paying it back, anyway. Let the next generation figure it out......:devil:

 

[rexlunae]

Oh, well then all we have to do is continue borrowing more. Problem solved.

As long as the borrowing doesn't go out of control to the point that it causes too much inflation, yes. In fact, paying off too much of the debt would be a bad idea.

Nevermind that the Ponzi Scheme know as Social Security is on the verge of total collapse,

It's not.

American liberties are being further destroyed daily,

Relevance?

half the people in the US don't pay any taxes and are living off the half that do,

That's a highly distorted figure. In 2009, and only 2009, some 47% of US households owed no income tax, in large part because of the stimulus packages that were passed and the fact that many of the wage earners lost their jobs and thus fell below the threshold for paying income taxes. That is, tax on income only. They still paid other taxes, including sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, etc. So no, they aren't just living off of you, and they include some of the most hard-hit by the recession.

Why so many people are so jealous of the poor is beyond me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Obama just stole a trillion dollars and gave it to his union buddies,

What?

our credit rating has been downgraded and the debt continues to rise to a level that the interest alone will be economically crippling.

Our credit rating was downgraded because our political process deteriorated to the point where it was unclear that we wouldn't default. Blame the Republicans who tried to use raising the debt ceiling (to support the budget they already had passed, by the way) as a bargaining chip against the President.

Hint: If you tell your creditors that you might just stop paying your debt, bad things might happen to your credit.