Debt Equals 103 Percent of GDP

beretta304

Rookie
Aug 13, 2012
8,664
76
0
A Saner Place
- According to the most recent official estimate by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product for 2012 will be $15.6061 trillion--or about $440.5 billion less than the $16.0466 in debt that the federal government had accumulated as of the close of business on Monday.

In other words, the debt is now approximately 103 percent of GDP.

The BEA, which is part of the Department of Commerce and which officially calculates GDP, based its current estimate of this year's GDP, published on Aug. 29, on economic data available through the end of the second quarter of this calender year.

If that current estimate is correct, the debt of the United States government eclipsed the value of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States on April 2 of this year.

On Friday, March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the federal debt was $15,582,078,681,188.69. By the close of business on Monday, April 2, it was $15,620,325,998,403.96.

The BEA defines GDP as: "The market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States, regardless of nationality."


America's Under Water: Debt Equals 103 Percent of GDP | cnsnews.com
 
I'm curious...does anyone believe that the effects of a government's decisions and enacted policies cease the moment they leave office?
 
- According to the most recent official estimate by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Gross Domestic Product for 2012 will be $15.6061 trillion--or about $440.5 billion less than the $16.0466 in debt that the federal government had accumulated as of the close of business on Monday.

In other words, the debt is now approximately 103 percent of GDP.

The BEA, which is part of the Department of Commerce and which officially calculates GDP, based its current estimate of this year's GDP, published on Aug. 29, on economic data available through the end of the second quarter of this calender year.

If that current estimate is correct, the debt of the United States government eclipsed the value of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States on April 2 of this year.

On Friday, March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the federal debt was $15,582,078,681,188.69. By the close of business on Monday, April 2, it was $15,620,325,998,403.96.

The BEA defines GDP as: "The market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the United States, regardless of nationality."


America's Under Water: Debt Equals 103 Percent of GDP | cnsnews.com

Ain't it awful!

Two wars of choice, off budget;
A huge tax cut, twice;
(and how about those jobs produced by the rich with their tax cuts)
A Great Recession.

And then,
Efforts to raise revenue - attacked;
Efforts to regulate Wall Street, attacked;
Efforts to stimulate the economy, attacked;
Ending the War in Iraq, attacked.

And now,
Efforts to cut taxes;
Efforts to deregulate Wall Street;
And some,
Efforts to attack Iran.

Novemenber 2012 we have a choice.
 
Increased taxes won’t lower debt

By Julie Ni Zhu | Wednesday, September 12, 2012 | Home - BostonHerald.com | Op-Ed
Raising taxes to address mounting U.S. debt is not really an option. While it may seem fair politically, it is unrealistic and counterproductive in practice.

Since the end of World War II, the top marginal income-tax rate has varied widely, from a high of 92 percent in 1953 to a low of 28 percent from 1988 to 1990. Corporate taxes also have varied during the post-war years, ranging from a high of 53 percent to a low of 35 percent.

Whether the rates have been high or low, however, during the entire nearly seven-decade period federal receipts have averaged 19.6 percent of gross domestic product. In fact, they exceeded 20 percent of GDP only once, in fiscal year 2000, during the tech boom, when they reached 20.6 percent. The top income tax rate then was 39.6 percent.

What this means is that higher tax rates do not increase federal revenues and are not a cure-all for the budget deficit.

Instead, when tax rates are increased, individuals and businesses tend to react by postponing income, finding tax shelters, moving assets offshore, and hiring armies of accountants and lawyers to protect their income. Higher taxes also can slow the economy by reducing the personal rewards for working, innovating and investing.

Instead of increasing tax revenues, as intended, higher tax rates reduce the size of the tax base. And we end up exactly where we were.

The deficit problem, therefore, is a spending problem. If revenues equal 20 percent of GDP, which is the historical post-war norm, and spending exceeds 24 percent of GDP — as it does now — we will continue to run huge deficits that will add to national debt.

Earlier this month, the debt hit a record $16 trillion. Federal spending, meanwhile, hit 25.5 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011, and is expected to exceed 24 percent this year, with a projected $1.33 trillion deficit. The proposed fiscal 2013 budget, meanwhile, projects of deficit of “just” $901 billion.

The history of U.S. taxes and spending shows that once expenditures rise above 20 percent of GDP, no level of taxing will pay for it.

It is true that higher taxes have succeeded in increasing government revenue in small, homogeneous countries such as Sweden and Finland. With the large, diverse, and often fractious population of the United States, it just doesn’t work here.

Julie Ni Zhu is a research analyst at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington.

Article URL: Increased taxes won’t lower debt - BostonHerald.com
 
OMG, how on EARTH did that happen?

federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif
 
Look fer taxes to go up...

... onna middle class...

... instead o' the rich bankers...

... an' politicians...

... who got us in this mess...

... to begin with.
:eek:
 
1) Money is no longer a commodity. Jesus knew talents and denarius types of commodity money. Even paper currencies are only rarely exchanged anymore.

2) The Total Credit Market of all notes owed is far larger than just the insignificant federal deficit.

3) The Credit Market is in trouble when income is insufficient to meet its terms.

4) Mortgage holders were unable to meet terms subsequent the second failed "Reagan Trajectory" of Bush-Cheney. Like in Reagan-Trajectory i, of Reagan-Bush, what deficit there was got spent on the already prosperous. That outcome became the Clinton Administration, and the more consumer-friendly purchasing market of those years.

5) Bush-Cheney were clearly not purchasing-friendly years, saturating incomes at all levels with spending.

6) Obama-Biden provided purchasing-friendly measures, in the Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit, but that was not even one third of the post-TARP lubricated, subsequent Stimulation. The TARP lubrication went primarily to billionaires and millionaires. Obama-Biden took some of it and kept General Motors functioning, and those workers, instead.

7) The Stock Market surged, post-March-2009, and even Bureau of Labor Statistics has trouble finding labor force participants, anymore.

8) The Republicans, however, took the Refundable Make-Work-Pay Tax Credit away, so Obama-Biden came up with the Payroll Tax Holiday,which experience in January.

9) What is currently manageable, still needs a purchasing-friendly marketplace.

10) In contrast, Romney-Ryan intend Reagan-Trajectory III: To take any spending or low income tax breaks away--a 20% lowering of tax rates will be zero income increase to 50% of the lower income market that has no current federal income tax liability. Taking spending away, what deficit there is will go to the Pentagon--famously at final costs exceeding 40% of original budgets. That is what Engineers and High-Tech peoples do!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("Stupid" is just another name for the "Seems Like Only Yesterday," Reagan Trajectory!" Then, of course, Romney-Ryan come along--as though it were all still today(?)!)
 

Forum List

Back
Top