Ten Inconvenient Truths About The National Debt: It's Worse Than You Think...

paulitician

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2011
38,401
4,162
1,130
1.) The amount by which the public debt — the portion of the national debt not borrowed by the U.S. government from funds it administers — has increased since President Obama took office is unprecedented, not politics as usual: more than $4.75 trillion (more than 75%), according to the Treasury Department. If the president’s second-term budget is implemented, he will end up (according to the Congressional Budget Office) increasing the public debt by $8.9 trillion. That exceeds the public debt incurred by all previous presidents combined — by more than $2.6 trillion.

2.) Large as the public debt is, it doesn’t include amounts the government has promised to pay but lacks the funds to pay. For example, the Social Security and Medicare trustees have estimated that we need more than $63 trillion right now to make promised payments for Social Security and Medicare benefits not covered by current Social Security and Medicare taxes.

3.) The government can’t keep incurring debt without consequence. High debt slows economic growth (meaning fewer jobs and less income), according to one study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff and a second study by Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo (refuting the claim that it is slow growth that causes higher public debt and not vice versa).

4.) It’s not like the government is skimping on spending. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that this year the federal government will spend 24.3 cents out of every dollar of the value of all final goods we produce and services we provide (add state and local expenditures and that figure increases to 44.2 cents).

5.) Interest payments on the debt are skyrocketing. The CBO has estimated that the president’s proposals will more than triple interest on the public debt from $237 billion in 2013 to $743 billion in 2022 (more than the Department of Defense is spending on military programs and more than seven times what the Department of Education is spending). That money will enrich other countries (the Treasury Department estimates that almost half of the debt is held by foreign investors).

6.) There aren’t enough rich people to balance the budget on their backs. Ending President Bush’s income and estate tax cuts for the “rich” (defined as individuals with taxable income exceeding $200,000 and couples with taxable income exceeding $250,000) would (according to the OMB) reduce the 2013 deficit by less than 5% ($46.6 billion)...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/ten-inconvenient-truths-about-the-national-debt/#ixzz22D4Fwj62
 
SS is pulling in less surplus...Under Bush and under Clinton, they had huge SS and Medicare surplus funds that were used....(borrowed) to lower the supposed deficits.....

We have more boomers retiring and less of them working and have smaller Social security surplus to borrow from to lower the deficit now and future presidents will have no SS surplus to hide their deficits at all....because the day of the big SS surplus funds is over... thus more borrowing from creditors like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan etc....
 
SS is pulling in less surplus...Under Bush and under Clinton, they had huge SS and Medicare surplus funds that were used....(borrowed) to lower the supposed deficits.....

We have more boomers retiring and less of them working and have smaller Social security surplus to borrow from to lower the deficit now and future presidents will have no SS surplus to hide their deficits at all....because the day of the big SS surplus funds is over... thus more borrowing from creditors like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan etc....

yeah and obummer takes the above scenario and decides to "give folks a thousand dollars" and cuts the amount of ss withdrawn from paychecks. It's gonna eat your asses up in 20 years. It makes me chuckle at your stupidity.
 
I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies, that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.
 
I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies, that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.

So what's your point?
 
I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies, that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.

So what's your point?

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.
 
California "taxes business profits" and look what's happening there. The solution all around is small government.
 
...our debt level right now is not an issue.

As of this morning, $139,643 owed by each and every tax payer...and rising fast. Not an issue at all...:eusa_eh:

How will you be paying your share? Or is that for someone else to worry about?

Correct. Not an issue at all. We have no need to pay back this debt. Ever. Why do you think we should?

edit: and by that I mean the Public Debt.
 
I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies, that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.

So what's your point?

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.

Well, that's not a point at all. That's just another one of your Obamabot delusions.
 
California "taxes business profits" and look what's happening there. The solution all around is small government.

False.

And I'm not suggesting we balance the budget solely on the backs of businesses. I'm merely pointing we can do it, and rather easily. The more fair solution would be slight increases all around, including businesses.

Broaden the tax base.
 
...our debt level right now is not an issue.

As of this morning, $139,643 owed by each and every tax payer...and rising fast. Not an issue at all...:eusa_eh:

How will you be paying your share? Or is that for someone else to worry about?

Future generations. Welcome to the new slavery to the Government/Elites. Future generations will be born into it by design.
 
...our debt level right now is not an issue.

As of this morning, $139,643 owed by each and every tax payer...and rising fast. Not an issue at all...:eusa_eh:

How will you be paying your share? Or is that for someone else to worry about?

Correct. Not an issue at all. We have no need to pay back this debt. Ever. Why do you think we should?

edit: and by that I mean the Public Debt.

Default is always an option. Is this really your position? You realize that would mean we could never borrow again, which would mean we'd HAVE to live within our means. I'm all for that but doing so by default is really going to piss off those that bought US bonds. How long do you think the global economy would stand if the US defaults?

Pretty radical...
 
As of this morning, $139,643 owed by each and every tax payer...and rising fast. Not an issue at all...:eusa_eh:

How will you be paying your share? Or is that for someone else to worry about?

Correct. Not an issue at all. We have no need to pay back this debt. Ever. Why do you think we should?

edit: and by that I mean the Public Debt.

Default is always an option. Is this really your position? You realize that would mean we could never borrow again, which would mean we'd HAVE to live within our means. I'm all for that but doing so by default is really going to piss off those that bought US bonds. How long do you think the global economy would stand if the US defaults?

Pretty radical...

And what if the EU defaults? Guess what happens? Dominoes will fall including ours. Matter of when, not if.
 
As of this morning, $139,643 owed by each and every tax payer...and rising fast. Not an issue at all...:eusa_eh:

How will you be paying your share? Or is that for someone else to worry about?

Correct. Not an issue at all. We have no need to pay back this debt. Ever. Why do you think we should?

edit: and by that I mean the Public Debt.

Default is always an option. Is this really your position? You realize that would mean we could never borrow again, which would mean we'd HAVE to live within our means. I'm all for that but doing so by default is really going to piss off those that bought US bonds. How long do you think the global economy would stand if the US defaults?

Pretty radical...

heh heh it would be radical. Which is why I didn't suggest it.
 
California "taxes business profits" and look what's happening there. The solution all around is small government.

False.

And I'm not suggesting we balance the budget solely on the backs of businesses. I'm merely pointing we can do it, and rather easily. The more fair solution would be slight increases all around, including businesses.

Broaden the tax base.

We'd need to raise about $1,300,000,000,000 in tax revenues ON TOP of the existing taxes...just to balance the budget this year. You think just broadening the base will accomplish that? What tax rates do you propose? Do you not think such tax increases would harm the economy, putting downward pressure on tax revenues?

Easy? Seriously?
 

Forum List

Back
Top