National Debt exceeds GDP

[Intense]

The White House, supported by congressional Democrats, often points to the recession and soaring debt it inherited from the George W. Bush administration to explain why it had to dive into deficit spending.

But in his 2008 run for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama said stopping the deficit spending is the first step to recovery. "The first thing you do when you're in a hole is what? ... You stop digging. So the first thing that we're going to have to do is to stop adding to our deficit," he said.

Republicans readily point to that statement as they blame the massive increase in debt on Obama's economic stimulus plan and health care reform measures -- $5 trillion during this administration as the Treasury Department's own figures show.

"This dismal benchmark underscores the president's aversion to making tough fiscal choices in an election year," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Finance and Budget committees, said on Monday.

Cornyn said Obama should heed the warning of his fiscal commission and start slashing costly programs from the budget. The fiscal commission recommended cutting $4 trillion over 10 years from spending increases scheduled by the government's "base-line budgeting" technique.

"Next month, the president will submit his budget to Congress and voters will see if we have a leader who possesses the audacity to right the ship or one who will continue to lead us down a path that has brought economies in Western Europe to their knees."

Read more: Republicans Blast Obama After National Debt Surpasses Economic Output | Fox News

 

[DSGE]

I thought it was humourous.

What's that for? Did you read the conversation?! Because the guy I was having it with clearly didn't.

 

[Intense]

Is this supposed to be an insightful or humourous contribution? Because it's neither.

I don't give a Rat's ass what kind of contribution you think it is Asshole. Why not apply your advice to balancing your check book, and let me know what prison you land in. Fuck Off with your Bullshit Economics. It's Ass Hats like you that got us into this Clusterfuck.

EDIT: This one went too far. In the future please refrain from death wishes/threats and use of the 'C' word outside the Flame Zone

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

 

[DSGE]

I don't give a Rat's ass what kind of contribution you think it is Asshole. Why not apply your advice to balancing your check book, and let me know what prison you land in. Fuck Off with your Bullshit Economics. It's Ass Hats like you that got us into this Clusterfuck.

You're a moron with nothing but incoherent ravings to contribute to otherwise enjoyable conversation. I hope you die of AIDS, you stupid ****.

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

 

[The Infidel]

The White House, supported by congressional Democrats, often points to the recession and soaring debt it inherited from the George W. Bush administration to explain why it had to dive into deficit spending.

But in his 2008 run for office, then-Sen. Barack Obama said stopping the deficit spending is the first step to recovery. "The first thing you do when you're in a hole is what? ... You stop digging. So the first thing that we're going to have to do is to stop adding to our deficit," he said.

Republicans readily point to that statement as they blame the massive increase in debt on Obama's economic stimulus plan and health care reform measures -- $5 trillion during this administration as the Treasury Department's own figures show.

"This dismal benchmark underscores the president's aversion to making tough fiscal choices in an election year," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate Finance and Budget committees, said on Monday.

Cornyn said Obama should heed the warning of his fiscal commission and start slashing costly programs from the budget. The fiscal commission recommended cutting $4 trillion over 10 years from spending increases scheduled by the government's "base-line budgeting" technique.

"Next month, the president will submit his budget to Congress and voters will see if we have a leader who possesses the audacity to right the ship or one who will continue to lead us down a path that has brought economies in Western Europe to their knees."

Read more: Republicans Blast Obama After National Debt Surpasses Economic Output | Fox News

Senator Cornyn is a good man.

He has done good things here in Texas. Dont always agree with him but he is absolutely right on this issue.

 

[NLT]

Is this supposed to be an insightful or humourous contribution? Because it's neither.

I don't give a Rat's ass what kind of contribution you think it is Asshole. Why not apply your advice to balancing your check book, and let me know what prison you land in. Fuck Off with your Bullshit Economics. It's Ass Hats like you that got us into this Clusterfuck.

EDIT: This one went too far. In the future please refrain from death wishes/threats and use of the 'C' word outside the Flame Zone

 

[The Infidel]

You're a moron with nothing but incoherent ravings to contribute to otherwise enjoyable conversation. I hope you die of AIDS, you stupid ****.

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

 

[Intense]

You're a moron with nothing but incoherent ravings to contribute to otherwise enjoyable conversation. I hope you die of AIDS, you stupid ****.

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

I'll say it as simply as I can so you can comprehend. It is apparent that with the exception of Bullshitting, you have no marketable skills. The meaning of uncontrolled spending surpassing what your total earnings are, is that if you do not adjust, you are living on borrowed time. Hamilton type scheming or Scamming, Farrakhan Math, will not save you from the consequences of your actions. There is no substitute for "Value for Value", no matter how you package it, or how far you search for those gullible enough to trust you, the truth will catch up.

 

[Intense]

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

It can only do so temporarily, you want to incorporate a plan that takes into account the ups and downs in the cycle, as best you can.

 

[code1211]

Greece is in default with a national debt equal to 140% of its GDP.

When the Big 0 took office, the National debt was about 10.6 Trillion Dollars or about 65% of GDP.

In the first three years of his term he has managed to bring that to 100% increasing it by about 5 Trillion dollars in the process. Impressive.

At this rate we will hit 140% of GDP in the third year of the Big 0's second term. The second term that will mark the ultimate abandonment of this country by any higher authority and the end to any hope that world held to mold a future not replete with pestilence, plague, famine and ongoing punitive wars of aggression.

Will this be Bush's fault, too? Or will it just be the Big 0's DE-fault?


Explosive Growth in the National Debt · The National Debt Crisis

<snip>
To put it in perspective, consider these facts. When President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, the national debt totaled $10.6 trillion, a figure that was already unacceptably high. But by the end of Obama&#8217;s first term, the national debt is projected to be approximately $17 trillion. By the end of his second term, the national debt is projected to soar to approximately $24 trillion. And these are using the administration&#8217;s own projections, which many experts believe are overly optimistic.
<snip>

 

[DSGE]

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

 

[DSGE]

You are the moron implying that Debt does not matter. You nor your opinions are worth jack shit. Fuck Off.

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

I'll say it as simply as I can so you can comprehend. It is apparent that with the exception of Bullshitting, you have no marketable skills. The meaning of uncontrolled spending surpassing what your total earnings are, is that if you do not adjust, you are living on borrowed time. Hamilton type scheming or Scamming, Farrakhan Math, will not save you from the consequences of your actions. There is no substitute for "Value for Value", no matter how you package it, or how far you search for those gullible enough to trust you, the truth will catch up.

There's no hope for you. I don't know how modern schooling could have left somebody so far behind.

 

[lizzie]

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

But we don't pay off our national debt, nor does it look like we will be having more income each year for quite some time. In the meantime, our debt keeps growing in proportion to our revenues generated.

 

[The Infidel]

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

Or possibly barrow way too much from other sources




I hear what your saying, but ya cant deny we are on a dangerous path.

 

[Intense]

Oh, okay. So you just have the same reading comprehension problem as Edward. I'll say it one more time for the hard of hearing. It is not important what the level of debt is as a percentage of GDP. It's not like 100% of GDP is a magic number that means you're suddenly living beyond your means. Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP, yet people are still lending to them. Debt is a stock variable. GDP is a flow variable. Obviously having lots of debt isn't good, but expressing that debt as a percentage of GDP is meaningless.

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

Your House is Collateral. Worthless Stock is still worthless stock.

 

[The Infidel]

 

[DSGE]

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

But we don't pay off our national debt, nor does it look like we will be having more income each year for quite some time. In the meantime, our debt keeps growing in proportion to our revenues generated.

If creditors didn't expect that the US would be able to pay off the debt, they wouldn't lend to the US. We see the opposite; everybody flooding to buy US Treasuries.

Do you plan on being in this downturn for the next 30 years? Even so, growth at at least 1.5% will still happen. But sooner or later the Fed will get off it's arse and close the output gap.

 

[DSGE]

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

I hear what your saying, but ya cant deny we are on a dangerous path.

Sure. I don't like the fact that the debt grew so quickly in only a decade. Optimally there wouldn't have been two wars, Bush tax cuts or any fiscal stimulus.

 

[lizzie]

If creditors didn't expect that the US would be able to pay off the debt, they wouldn't lend to the US. We see the opposite; everybody flooding to buy US Treasuries.

Do you plan on being in this downturn for the next 30 years? Even so, growth at at least 1.5% will still happen. But sooner or later the Fed will get off it's arse and close the output gap.

That's just the thing. As shit-poor as we are right now, we're still the best bet going, if you're a gambling man. The problem is, gambling is foolish if your best bet is a bad hand.

This downturn will likely improve a little, but with our aging population and the number of government dependent folks we have, relative to the number of income and tax revenue generators, it's unlikely that we will ever again be monetarily stable long-term.

 

[DSGE]

Why is it used?

I cant see how a country or a household can sustain itself if its giving out more than its taking in.

I don't remember ever seeing it used in the economics community. As far as I know it's just the media that uses it.

Yeah see there's the confusion. That's why I tried to enforce that debt is a stock and GDP is a flow. It doesn't mean you're giving out more than you're taking in. It means that the stock of debt is equal to your annual intake. Take a house loan for example. Say a $200,000 loan to buy a house (your debt) on an income of $50,000 a year (your GDP). Your debt when you buy the house is 400% of your yearly income (your GDP). Does that mean you're living beyond your means? Obviously not. You have 20 years to pay your debt. And over those 20 years, you'll likely get raises and have more income each year.

Your House is Collateral. Worthless Stock is still worthless stock.

... You know stock isn't being used to mean shares, right? A 'stock variable' has nothing to do with the stock market.