Debt Burden in Advanced Economies Now a Global Threat

[BDBoop]

Debt Burden in Advanced Economies Now a Global Threat - Brookings Institution

Overall, IMF’s latest Fiscal Monitor (FM, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) and World Economic Outlook (WEO, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) show that the level of aggregate net government debt in the world rose from $21,900bn in 2007 to an expected $34,400bn in 2011. IMF forecasts indicate the level will reach $48,100bn in 2016. The ratio of world net debt to world GDP rose from 42 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in 2011, and is expected to hit 58 percent in 2016.

Over the past year, there has been a modest improvement in the forecasts for U.S. debt levels relative to earlier forecasts thanks to stronger revenues and lower spending levels than expected. If the U.S. recovery remains weak and employment growth stalls, some of this apparent improvement may be reversed. Japan’s debt ratio is expected to worsen as a result of tepid output growth and the reconstruction costs following the earthquake and tsunami. Lack of growth has also worsened the debt positions of peripheral European economies.

Sobering.

 

[Meister]

Debt Burden in Advanced Economies Now a Global Threat - Brookings Institution

Overall, IMF’s latest Fiscal Monitor (FM, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) and World Economic Outlook (WEO, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) show that the level of aggregate net government debt in the world rose from $21,900bn in 2007 to an expected $34,400bn in 2011. IMF forecasts indicate the level will reach $48,100bn in 2016. The ratio of world net debt to world GDP rose from 42 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in 2011, and is expected to hit 58 percent in 2016.

Over the past year, there has been a modest improvement in the forecasts for U.S. debt levels relative to earlier forecasts thanks to stronger revenues and lower spending levels than expected. If the U.S. recovery remains weak and employment growth stalls, some of this apparent improvement may be reversed. Japan’s debt ratio is expected to worsen as a result of tepid output growth and the reconstruction costs following the earthquake and tsunami. Lack of growth has also worsened the debt positions of peripheral European economies.

Sobering.

Just wait until the Moody's downgrade of our credit rating....that little glimmer of light will be snuffed.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

How could our Government do nothing? Unbelievable. $2 Trillion in cuts over ten years? Not even a drop in a bucket. Also,these cuts will likely never happen. How many more Wars will they start or how many more spending sprees like Stimulus and Bailouts will happen in this ten years? So don't count on these $2 Trillion in cuts. It just aint gonna happen.

 

[Meister]

The CBO is also scoring it with the sunset of the Bush tax cuts...which will in fact be a tax increase.

 

[WillowTree]

Senator Marco Rubio voted NO NO NO NO and hell NO

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Debt Burden in Advanced Economies Now a Global Threat - Brookings Institution

Overall, IMF’s latest Fiscal Monitor (FM, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) and World Economic Outlook (WEO, April 2011 and June 2011 Update) show that the level of aggregate net government debt in the world rose from $21,900bn in 2007 to an expected $34,400bn in 2011. IMF forecasts indicate the level will reach $48,100bn in 2016. The ratio of world net debt to world GDP rose from 42 percent in 2007 to 57 percent in 2011, and is expected to hit 58 percent in 2016.

Over the past year, there has been a modest improvement in the forecasts for U.S. debt levels relative to earlier forecasts thanks to stronger revenues and lower spending levels than expected. If the U.S. recovery remains weak and employment growth stalls, some of this apparent improvement may be reversed. Japan’s debt ratio is expected to worsen as a result of tepid output growth and the reconstruction costs following the earthquake and tsunami. Lack of growth has also worsened the debt positions of peripheral European economies.

Sobering.

Just wait until the Moody's downgrade of our credit rating....that little glimmer of light will be snuffed.

Yep, it's gonna start getting real ugly....if it weren't bad enough right now.

 

[Meister]

Debt Burden in Advanced Economies Now a Global Threat - Brookings Institution



Sobering.

Just wait until the Moody's downgrade of our credit rating....that little glimmer of light will be snuffed.

Yep, it's gonna start getting real ugly....if it weren't bad enough right now.

This is where the chickens really do come home to roost.

Perhaps, it's what the US needs to bring us back to reality. It will hurt.....but it will hurt a hell of a lot more if we let this go another 10-15 years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Just wait until the Moody's downgrade of our credit rating....that little glimmer of light will be snuffed.

Yep, it's gonna start getting real ugly....if it weren't bad enough right now.

This is where the chickens really do come home to roost.

Perhaps, it's what the US needs to bring us back to reality. It will hurt.....but it will hurt a hell of a lot more if we let this go another 10-15 years.

I totally agree.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, we could cut spending but we could also stop a couple wars or we could set taxes back to the 2000 rates. Remember 2000? Clinton's presidency was coming to end as was the decade. Employment was 3.9%. The government was in it's third year of running a surplus. The decade was ending with a 97% growth in GDP. The right is always seeking to turn the clock back. I say turn it back to 1990's.

Set the tax rates to the 1999 level and end the wars and the deficit problem will go away or cut some spending raise taxes and phase out the wars and the deficit problem goes away. Take a balanced approach which 2/3 of the American people want and you fix the problem.

By doing just spending cuts, it will do nothing to increase jobs and will probably push the country into another recession reducing government revenue and will exasperating the deficit problem. We went down this road in 1937 when FDR tried to balance the budget and we found ourselves in a recession that took a world war to snap us out of.

 

[Full-Auto]

Yes, we could cut spending but we could also stop a couple wars or we could set taxes back to the 2000 rates. Remember 2000? Clinton's presidency was coming to end as was the decade. Employment was 3.9%. The government was in it's third year of running a surplus. The decade was ending with a 97% growth in GDP. The right is always seeking to turn the clock back. I say turn it back to 1990's.

Set the tax rates to the 1999 level and end the wars and the deficit problem will go away or cut some spending raise taxes and phase out the wars and the deficit problem goes away. Take a balanced approach which 2/3 of the American people want and you fix the problem.

By doing just spending cuts, it will do nothing to increase jobs and will probably push the country into another recession reducing government revenue and exasperating the deficit problem. We went down this road in 1937 when FDR tried to balance the budget and we found ourselves in a recession that took a world war to snap us out of.

We dont need those types of surpluses that add to the national debt, because that is what happened.

 

[Meister]

Yes, we could cut spending but we could also stop a couple wars or we could set taxes back to the 2000 rates. Remember 2000? Clinton's presidency was coming to end as was the decade. Employment was 3.9%. The government was in it's third year of running a surplus. The decade was ending with a 97% growth in GDP. The right is always seeking to turn the clock back. I say turn it back to 1990's.

Set the tax rates to the 1999 level and end the wars and the deficit problem will go away or cut some spending raise taxes and phase out the wars and the deficit problem goes away. Take a balanced approach which 2/3 of the American people want and you fix the problem.

By doing just spending cuts, it will do nothing to increase jobs and will probably push the country into another recession reducing government revenue and will exasperating the deficit problem. We went down this road in 1937 when FDR tried to balance the budget and we found ourselves in a recession that took a world war to snap us out of.

How about we go back to the 2000 tax rate along with the 2000 spending rate? I didn't think so.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, we could cut spending but we could also stop a couple wars or we could set taxes back to the 2000 rates. Remember 2000? Clinton's presidency was coming to end as was the decade. Employment was 3.9%. The government was in it's third year of running a surplus. The decade was ending with a 97% growth in GDP. The right is always seeking to turn the clock back. I say turn it back to 1990's.

Set the tax rates to the 1999 level and end the wars and the deficit problem will go away or cut some spending raise taxes and phase out the wars and the deficit problem goes away. Take a balanced approach which 2/3 of the American people want and you fix the problem.

By doing just spending cuts, it will do nothing to increase jobs and will probably push the country into another recession reducing government revenue and exasperating the deficit problem. We went down this road in 1937 when FDR tried to balance the budget and we found ourselves in a recession that took a world war to snap us out of.

We dont need those types of surpluses that add to the national debt, because that is what happened.

Deficits and surpluses are not calculated from a change in total debt. They are calculated by subtracting revenue from expenses which is the way the CBO calculated these surpluses. However, that was not my point. Government finances were in good shape, better than they would be in years to follow.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, we could cut spending but we could also stop a couple wars or we could set taxes back to the 2000 rates. Remember 2000? Clinton's presidency was coming to end as was the decade. Employment was 3.9%. The government was in it's third year of running a surplus. The decade was ending with a 97% growth in GDP. The right is always seeking to turn the clock back. I say turn it back to 1990's.

Set the tax rates to the 1999 level and end the wars and the deficit problem will go away or cut some spending raise taxes and phase out the wars and the deficit problem goes away. Take a balanced approach which 2/3 of the American people want and you fix the problem.

By doing just spending cuts, it will do nothing to increase jobs and will probably push the country into another recession reducing government revenue and will exasperating the deficit problem. We went down this road in 1937 when FDR tried to balance the budget and we found ourselves in a recession that took a world war to snap us out of.

How about we go back to the 2000 tax rate along with the 2000 spending rate? I didn't think so.

Why? If you repeal all the Bush tax cuts, which were never really needed and end the wars, the deficit won't be a problem. However, the better approach is a balanced approach, slowly phasing out the wars, gradually reducing other spending, and reforming the tax code to produce more income and eliminate loopholes that discourage growth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Holy cow. And I thought I made a lot of threads. You on a mission girl?

 

[BoycottTheday]

After today's vote it is written in stone.


Y'all doomed.

[told ya so mode in waiting]