The U.S. is not drowning in debt

[Chris]

What neither side seems to recognize — or at least acknowledge — is that what matters about the debt isn’t the dollar amount per se, but how much it costs us to service it. And by that measure, the debt isn’t nearly as big a problem as it’s being made out to be.

Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.

Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about 1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.

Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

 

[Chris]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

Hardly.

If the debt is only costing us 1.6% of GDP, it is much less than the 3% it cost us under Clinton and Reagan.

Sorry to bother you with the facts.

Continue with your silly hysteria.

 

[Full-Auto]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

Hardly.

If the debt is only costing us 1.6% of GDP, it is much less than the 3% it cost us under Clinton and Reagan.

Sorry to bother you with the facts.

Continue with your silly hysteria.

Comical.

A half trillion this year alone. But lets use GDP it doesnt sound as bad.

 

[Chris]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

Hardly.

If the debt is only costing us 1.6% of GDP, it is much less than the 3% it cost us under Clinton and Reagan.

Sorry to bother you with the facts.

Continue with your silly hysteria.

Comical.

A half trillion this year alone. But lets use GDP it doesnt sound as bad.

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Full-Auto]

Hardly.

If the debt is only costing us 1.6% of GDP, it is much less than the 3% it cost us under Clinton and Reagan.

Sorry to bother you with the facts.

Continue with your silly hysteria.

Comical.

A half trillion this year alone. But lets use GDP it doesnt sound as bad.

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I dont have a paticular reason to be against that. But not until senseless spending is stopped. The only thing we should have overseas are airforce bases. We should withdraw from NATO and tell the sissy europeans time to man up.

 

[Bfgrn]

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

The Fiscal Solutions Tour is the latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation effort to rouse the public against deficits and the national debt — and in particular (though they manage to avoid saying so) to win support for measures that would impose drastic cuts on Social Security and Medicare. It features Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, former Comptroller General David Walker and the veteran economist Alice Rivlin, whose recent distinctions include serving on the Bowles-Simpson commission. They came to Austin on February 9 and (partly because Rivlin is an old friend) I went.

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct -- not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

More

HERE is our 'looming' crisis...

 

[Wiseacre]

The point of the OP is well taken, we aren't paying a huge amount of interest this year, but what about 5 or 10 years down the road? The CBO estimates the interest on our debt by 2020 to be close to 1 trillion dollars a year, and that's at the current low interest rates and assuming Obama's rosy economic forecast. If, as many expect, our credit rating is lowered, those interest rates will go up and therefore cost us more interest to borrow mony.

I heard a report his morning that healthcare spending last year was around 2.6 trillion, but is expected to be 4.6 trillion in 10 years. That extra 2 trillion is not in any of Obama's budget forecasts, they're saying costs will be contained. Bullshit, the latest estimates from the CMS says that Medicare will go broke in less than 10 years. So the debt/deficits will go higher than expected and so will the accompanying interest we have to pay on it.

 

[Chris]

Comical.

A half trillion this year alone. But lets use GDP it doesnt sound as bad.

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I dont have a paticular reason to be against that. But not until senseless spending is stopped. The only thing we should have overseas are airforce bases. We should withdraw from NATO and tell the sissy europeans time to man up.

Which senseless spending are you talking about?

The vast majority of federal spending is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which one of those would you cut?

 

[Zander]

Unfunded liabilities are the "real" problem. These are future commitments or entitlements made today with no plan in place to pay for them when they are due.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln559gjNpW4]‪Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

What neither side seems to recognize — or at least acknowledge — is that what matters about the debt isn’t the dollar amount per se, but how much it costs us to service it. And by that measure, the debt isn’t nearly as big a problem as it’s being made out to be.

Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.

Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about 1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.

Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/3-women-laughing-6.jpg

Time.com..........now theres a website you can trust for information!!

 

[Zander]

All we need to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I dont have a paticular reason to be against that. But not until senseless spending is stopped. The only thing we should have overseas are airforce bases. We should withdraw from NATO and tell the sissy europeans time to man up.

Which senseless spending are you talking about?

The vast majority of federal spending is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which one of those would you cut?

All of them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

We're 90% employed too! Black employment is almost 85% under Obama!

 

[skookerasbil]

You're a fucking idiot, you really are.

Soggy..........this dolt posts all the time over in the ENVIRONMENT forum..........one of those radical global warming alarmist k00ks.

I see alot of people on here who are politically dull, but trust me, this one has no peer.


By the way Soggy..........go on over to the DRUDGE Report today. Sweet..........things are getting more and more peachy for the president by the day. Go check out those economic numbers. And is there anybody more giddy than Jimmy Carter these days? The guy just might make it to see somebody blow more than he does.


Soggy........new Approval numbers in on Obama today over at Gallup..........Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management



40% s0ns!!!




Im laughing my balls off.................

 

[whitehall]

Not drowning in debt? Say what? Denying the truth is now a new leftie tactic? How much debt is too much? We pay a billion a day in interest on a principal we can never pay off. China owns half the Country if they want to foreclose.

 

[Oddball]

Not drowning in debt? Say what? Denying the truth is now a new leftie tactic?

No...It's bidness as usual.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Not drowning in debt? Say what? Denying the truth is now a new leftie tactic? How much debt is too much? We pay a billion a day in interest on a principal we can never pay off. China owns half the Country if they want to foreclose.

If push came to shove, do you think China might be satisfied with the West Coast, NYC & Chicago?

 

[signelect]

We are not drowning in debt we are drowning in stupidity and congressmen addicted to pork, payoff, family employment and out right illegal gifts that have made the all wealthy. Why do they pass laws that don't apply to them? Because they don't want to obey the law. They don't have to put up with TSA, cabinet members owe huge back taxes, congressmen commit fraud and only get censored and the list goes on. I am sick of it.

 

[WillowTree]

What neither side seems to recognize — or at least acknowledge — is that what matters about the debt isn’t the dollar amount per se, but how much it costs us to service it. And by that measure, the debt isn’t nearly as big a problem as it’s being made out to be.

Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.

Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about 1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.

Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

Retardeddimocrat

 

[Flopper]

What neither side seems to recognize — or at least acknowledge — is that what matters about the debt isn’t the dollar amount per se, but how much it costs us to service it. And by that measure, the debt isn’t nearly as big a problem as it’s being made out to be.

Yes, the federal debt has grown by nearly $3 trillion dollars in the past three years. And yes, the dollar amount of that debt is quite large (in excess of $14 trillion and headed toward $15 trillion should the ceiling be raised). But large numbers are not the problem. The U.S. has a large economy (slightly larger than that debt number). And, crucially, we have very low interest rates.

Because of those low rates, the amount the U.S. government pays to service its debt is, relative to the size of the economy, less than it was paying throughout the boom years of the 1980s and 1990s and for most of the last decade. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that net interest on the debt (which is what the government pays to service it) would be $225 billion for fiscal year 2011. The latest figures put that a bit higher, so let’s call it $250 billion. That’s about 1.6% of American output, which is lower than at any point since the 1970s – except for 2003 through 2005, when it was closer to 1.4%.

Under Ronald Reagan, the first George Bush, and Bill Clinton, payments on federal debt often got above 3% of GDP. Under Bush the second, payments were about where they are now. Yet suddenly, we are in a near collective hysteria.

The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt | Moneyland | TIME.com

You're assuming Teabagers don't force the country into a default, which will send interest rates on treasury bills skyrocketing.