CBO: Debt could double GDP by 2037

[DiamondDave]

What % would you set that flat rate at?

Hey.. a reasonable question for debate.... Thank you

That would have to be determined, wouldn't it?? Depending on budget levels, tax paying (earning) population, etc.... but let's just say for shits and giggles, it starts at 20% in our current situation.. and as spending is cut, debt starts getting paid etc, calculations show it could then be reduced to 18%... or maybe calculations show that two years down the road, the need is 22% because of a war effort or whatever... but with everyone actually having a stake in the game, I honestly believe you would have much more critical attention paid to what government spends on and how much, and how government tries to expand

Ok so 20%. What do the millions of people do who are barely getting by now and living paycheck to paycheck and not able to save a dime do with their paychecks now 20% lower?

Do you just say tough luck to them?

W-O-R-K

If you gotta work 2 jobs, so be it... 3 jobs, so be it.. your personal well being or economic standing is not the responsibility of others, now is it??

 

[Truthmatters]

'The federal debt is expected to be 70% of the gross domestic product by the end of this year, and could be double the GDP by the year 2037 unless major changes are made, the Congressional Budget Office reports.

"Over the past few years, the federal government has been recording budget deficits that are the largest as a share of the economy since 1945," says a new CBO report. "Consequently, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged.

"By the end of this year," the report added, "CBO projects that the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II."

CBO: Debt could double GDP by 2037

If Congress keeps the current tax rates, the CBO says that "federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022."

 

[Polk]

But.. but.. but.. We don't have a spending problem

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Really?


a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years
b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online
d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com
f. The Final Hour: 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP
g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand | Resource Investor

Yes, we really have a revenue problem. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers can tell you that. Revenue as a share of GDP was 15.4% last year. Romney claims he'll cut spending to 20% of GDP. The gap between those numbers is around 700 billion a year.

Looking at the budget for this year, balancing the budget purely by spending cuts requires zeroing out non-defense discretionary spending, then deciding how much to cut from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.


As for the 65 trillion in liabilities over 75 years, who cares. It's an absolutely meaningless figure designed to promote the idea of crisis. If we have zero GDP growth over the next 75 years, our total output over that period is 1,125 trillion. If we average 1% growth, that increases to 1,663 trillion.

 

[Polk]

'The federal debt is expected to be 70% of the gross domestic product by the end of this year, and could be double the GDP by the year 2037 unless major changes are made, the Congressional Budget Office reports.

"Over the past few years, the federal government has been recording budget deficits that are the largest as a share of the economy since 1945," says a new CBO report. "Consequently, the amount of federal debt held by the public has surged.

"By the end of this year," the report added, "CBO projects that the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II."

CBO: Debt could double GDP by 2037

If Congress keeps the current tax rates, the CBO says that "federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022."

Breaking: Doctors report a coming rise in obesity brought about by people eating a whole chocolate cake everyday.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hey.. a reasonable question for debate.... Thank you

That would have to be determined, wouldn't it?? Depending on budget levels, tax paying (earning) population, etc.... but let's just say for shits and giggles, it starts at 20% in our current situation.. and as spending is cut, debt starts getting paid etc, calculations show it could then be reduced to 18%... or maybe calculations show that two years down the road, the need is 22% because of a war effort or whatever... but with everyone actually having a stake in the game, I honestly believe you would have much more critical attention paid to what government spends on and how much, and how government tries to expand

Ok so 20%. What do the millions of people do who are barely getting by now and living paycheck to paycheck and not able to save a dime do with their paychecks now 20% lower?

Do you just say tough luck to them?

W-O-R-K

If you gotta work 2 jobs, so be it... 3 jobs, so be it.. your personal well being or economic standing is not the responsibility of others, now is it??

LOL. Thought so.

Just so we're clear, the foundation of your plan says Fuck you to the working middle class and poor. "You're not working hard enough, work harder".

So all your fellow republicans on this site who are self admitted poor are just not working hard enough, right? Two Thumbs, Stephanie, Big Fritz, etc...they just need to work harder right?

Got it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We don't. We have a revenue problem. Even with the draconic spending cuts Romney is proposing, the deficit would still be around a trillion dollars a year.

Really?


a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years
b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online
d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com
f. The Final Hour: 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP
g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand | Resource Investor

Yes, we really have a revenue problem. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers can tell you that. Revenue as a share of GDP was 15.4% last year. Romney claims he'll cut spending to 20% of GDP. The gap between those numbers is around 700 billion a year.

Looking at the budget for this year, balancing the budget purely by spending cuts requires zeroing out non-defense discretionary spending, then deciding how much to cut from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.


As for the 65 trillion in liabilities over 75 years, who cares. It's an absolutely meaningless figure designed to promote the idea of crisis. If we have zero GDP growth over the next 75 years, our total output over that period is 1,125 trillion. If we average 1% growth, that increases to 1,663 trillion.

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

 

[francoHFW]

To review: Yup, anything can happen, especially if you listen to the Pub Propaganda Machine's fear mongering gloom and doom horseshytte. And especially if you elect "nothing is too good for the greedy rich who got us in this mess" spoiled brat W clone Romney.

If you think Pubs will ACTUALLY do anything about the debt, you're nuts. But they WILL detroy Medicare, Health Reform, and anything else regular people need to survive. A never ending disaster for the non rich and the country...Pub dupes!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Should Pubs be rewarded for putting us in this mess (WORLD DEPRESSION and dumbazz wars, huge growth of AlQaeda), and now paralyzing the gov't since 2/2010 (and they even lie about THAT)?"No compromise, un-American Tea Party GOP" (TIME).Why in the world do you vote for these disastrous, lying incompetents?

You astound me, franco....

...just when I've seen the stupidest post ever...

you reinvest a new and more daunting nadir!


The only thing that could possibly rival your post for psychiatric problems would be a copy of the DSM-IV manual.

ZZZZZZZZZZZ Very impressive argument, pompous ass Pub dupes. Sorry about facts and everything. At least you're in with the squeaky clean white hypocrites LOL- any actual example of where I'm wrong? I didn't think so. Any thing in my post or sig? More fact than a lifetime of Pub Propaganda...you're a disgrace to America, chumps.

 

[Polk]

Really?


a. National debt $13 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.5 trillion
c. State and Local pensions (underfunded) $3 trillion
d. Social Security $7.7 trillion*
e. Medicare $ 38 trillion*
f. Total US debt $64.2 trillion
g. Total GDP of entire world $61.0 trillion
*covers commitments for 75 years
b., c. The Other National Debt - Kevin D. Williamson - National Review Online
d., e. The 81% Tax Increase - Forbes.com
f. The Final Hour: 65 Trillion - U.S. Financial Obligations Exceed The Entire World's GDP
g. Silver: Declining supply, increasing demand | Resource Investor

Yes, we really have a revenue problem. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers can tell you that. Revenue as a share of GDP was 15.4% last year. Romney claims he'll cut spending to 20% of GDP. The gap between those numbers is around 700 billion a year.

Looking at the budget for this year, balancing the budget purely by spending cuts requires zeroing out non-defense discretionary spending, then deciding how much to cut from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.


As for the 65 trillion in liabilities over 75 years, who cares. It's an absolutely meaningless figure designed to promote the idea of crisis. If we have zero GDP growth over the next 75 years, our total output over that period is 1,125 trillion. If we average 1% growth, that increases to 1,663 trillion.

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, we really have a revenue problem. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers can tell you that. Revenue as a share of GDP was 15.4% last year. Romney claims he'll cut spending to 20% of GDP. The gap between those numbers is around 700 billion a year.

Looking at the budget for this year, balancing the budget purely by spending cuts requires zeroing out non-defense discretionary spending, then deciding how much to cut from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.


As for the 65 trillion in liabilities over 75 years, who cares. It's an absolutely meaningless figure designed to promote the idea of crisis. If we have zero GDP growth over the next 75 years, our total output over that period is 1,125 trillion. If we average 1% growth, that increases to 1,663 trillion.

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

"...there isn't a long term consequence..."

Do you use the same logic when considering your credit card bill, or mortgage?

 

[DiamondDave]

Ok so 20%. What do the millions of people do who are barely getting by now and living paycheck to paycheck and not able to save a dime do with their paychecks now 20% lower?

Do you just say tough luck to them?

W-O-R-K

If you gotta work 2 jobs, so be it... 3 jobs, so be it.. your personal well being or economic standing is not the responsibility of others, now is it??

LOL. Thought so.

Just so we're clear, the foundation of your plan says Fuck you to the working middle class and poor. "You're not working hard enough, work harder".

So all your fellow republicans on this site who are self admitted poor are just not working hard enough, right? Two Thumbs, Stephanie, Big Fritz, etc...they just need to work harder right?

Got it.

What it says is equal treatment for all.. not just when it benefits you... not something to be thrown aside when you want something from someone else...

Do you have to work harder?? Nope... But you don't get to say you want a cellphone at the expense of the government... You do not get something for nothing and do not get a zero bill for things others must pay for.. Well, that is unless you truly earn nothing...

How much you want to bet that if people had to actually pay an equal % share of the bill, that there would be a lot more call against huge spending?? Easy to vote for handouts and other things when you ain't paying for it...

I am a conservative, and no apologies for it... and when I was a young adult making $7 an hour, I had to make due.. Wasn't easy in the military either making $800 a month.. and yep, would have been a little harder making $640 a month... Wasn't easy when I started working a second job when my then wife gave birth, during whatever off time I had... But never once did I think, no matter how hard it was, that it was someone else's job to make up for my income standing... it was my job to get where I wanted or needed to be... and if I didn't do it, it was my place to deal with the consequences of my decisions... I was not owed, nor should anyone be owed pampering for poor decisions...

Simply put, your bill is not someone else's to pay

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, we really have a revenue problem. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers can tell you that. Revenue as a share of GDP was 15.4% last year. Romney claims he'll cut spending to 20% of GDP. The gap between those numbers is around 700 billion a year.

Looking at the budget for this year, balancing the budget purely by spending cuts requires zeroing out non-defense discretionary spending, then deciding how much to cut from Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense.


As for the 65 trillion in liabilities over 75 years, who cares. It's an absolutely meaningless figure designed to promote the idea of crisis. If we have zero GDP growth over the next 75 years, our total output over that period is 1,125 trillion. If we average 1% growth, that increases to 1,663 trillion.

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

I think we have a winner for idiotic post of the day....

 

[Avorysuds]

It's too bad the Republicans did such a bad job when they had power, they just are not a trustworthy option as they have proven to be almost as bad as Obama who is considered to be one of the worst most out of touch Presidents in this country’s history.

 

[Polk]

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

"...there isn't a long term consequence..."

Do you use the same logic when considering your credit card bill, or mortgage?

If people used your logic, no one would ever take out a mortgage in the first place.

 

[Polk]

"...who cares."

And therein lies the source of the problem.

From a review of Dr. Thomas Sowell's "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,"

Sowell takes the key political issues and challenges the reader to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) political impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) economic impact. He reminds the reader that politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

But, hey..."...who cares."

Not you.


Wise up.

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

I think we have a winner for idiotic post of the day....

Please, tell me how chaos will befall the nation from having to spend 65 trillion dollars out of a pool of over 1,000 trillion?

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for the "common sense" "i'ts just like your home budget" as long as you're cutting Dem programs for the nonrich LOL. Think of it as being unemployed and broke at 69 with no chance of getting a job...time to use a credit card buy some food and a car, pay your bills and start a business or go to school. But thanks for the depression, mich more of the same, a ton of BS for the dupes, stalling the recovery, country be damned...a disgrace- instead, you've forced us on welfare and blame the black guy. Change the channel.

How bout a jobs act- Ex McCain aide said 2% more growth, 2 million jobs, 1% lower UE, fix our Reaganist ruin of an infrastructure....Oh right, nothing like that since 2/4/2010. Brilliant!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

"...there isn't a long term consequence..."

Do you use the same logic when considering your credit card bill, or mortgage?

If people used your logic, no one would ever take out a mortgage in the first place.

I understand why you'd rather not answer the query.

 

[RightWingFerret]

Great Idea For A President Romney AD !!

 

[RDD_1210]

W-O-R-K

If you gotta work 2 jobs, so be it... 3 jobs, so be it.. your personal well being or economic standing is not the responsibility of others, now is it??

LOL. Thought so.

Just so we're clear, the foundation of your plan says Fuck you to the working middle class and poor. "You're not working hard enough, work harder".

So all your fellow republicans on this site who are self admitted poor are just not working hard enough, right? Two Thumbs, Stephanie, Big Fritz, etc...they just need to work harder right?

Got it.

What it says is equal treatment for all.. not just when it benefits you... not something to be thrown aside when you want something from someone else...

Do you have to work harder?? Nope... But you don't get to say you want a cellphone at the expense of the government... You do not get something for nothing and do not get a zero bill for things others must pay for.. Well, that is unless you truly earn nothing...

How much you want to bet that if people had to actually pay an equal % share of the bill, that there would be a lot more call against huge spending?? Easy to vote for handouts and other things when you ain't paying for it...

I am a conservative, and no apologies for it... and when I was a young adult making $7 an hour, I had to make due.. Wasn't easy in the military either making $800 a month.. and yep, would have been a little harder making $640 a month... Wasn't easy when I started working a second job when my then wife gave birth, during whatever off time I had... But never once did I think, no matter how hard it was, that it was someone else's job to make up for my income standing... it was my job to get where I wanted or needed to be... and if I didn't do it, it was my place to deal with the consequences of my decisions... I was not owed, nor should anyone be owed pampering for poor decisions...

Simply put, your bill is not someone else's to pay

You could have just said "Fuck the poor and the middle class".

 

[DiamondDave]

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

"...there isn't a long term consequence..."

Do you use the same logic when considering your credit card bill, or mortgage?

If people used your logic, no one would ever take out a mortgage in the first place.

Different having a mortgage where you have to borrow more to make the interest only payment

 

[DiamondDave]

The entire point is there isn't a long term consequence. That number is intended to scare people, but it's absolutely meaning.

I think we have a winner for idiotic post of the day....

Please, tell me how chaos will befall the nation from having to spend 65 trillion dollars out of a pool of over 1,000 trillion?

Uhh.. that 1,000 trillion is not all the government's to do with as they choose...

If you spend 65 trillion and take in 35 trillion and are now in debt more than your intake in 1 or 2 years, you are indeed in trouble and have consequences...

Unless, like you libs want, you just decide that everything is yours for the taking.. Well, I won't say unless, because as your debt and spending addiction grows, more and more people will not stand for it and fight back