The U.S. is not drowning in debt

[jgarden]

Country Comparison: Public debt (2010)

Rank country - (% of GDP) - Date of Information
***************************************************
1 Japan 225.80 2010 est.

5 Greece 144.00 2010 est.

6 Iceland 123.80 2010 est.

8 Italy 118.10 2010 est.

9 Singapore 102.40 2010 est. (AAA)

10 Belgium 98.60 2010 est.

11 Ireland 94.20 2010 est.

14 France 83.50 2010 est.

15 Portugal 83.20 2010 est.

18 Hungary 79.60 2010 est.

19 Germany 78.80 2010 est. (AAA)

22 Israel 77.30 2010 est.

23 United Kingdom 76.50 2010 est. (AAA)

24 Austria 70.40 2010 est.

26 Netherlands 64.60 2010 est. (AAA)

27 Spain 63.40 2010 est.

31 Brazil 60.80 2010 est.
*****************************
35 World 59.30 2010 est.
*****************************
37 United States 58.90 2010 est. (AAA)

48 Poland 53.60 2010 est.

51 Argentina 50.30 2010 est.

55 Norway 47.70 2010 est. (AAA)

56 Denmark 46.60 2010 est.

59 Finland 45.40 2010 est. (AAA)

66 Mexico 41.50 2010 est.

67 Slovakia 41.00 2010 est.

69 Sweden 40.80 2010 est. (AAA)

72 Czech Republic 40.00 2010 est.

79 Switzerland 38.20 2010 est. (AAA)

86 Canada 34.00 2010 est. (AAA)

99 New Zealand 25.50 2010 est.

103 Korea, South 23.70 2010 est.

108 Australia 22.40 2010 est. (AAA)

113 China 17.50 2010 est.

114 Saudi Arabia 16.70 2010 est.

123 Russia 9.50 2010 est.

(AAA) - nations that currently have triple A credit rating

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the data tends to support the OP's assertion - while the US has incurred substantial debt, particularly under the Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush and BH Obama Administrations, the CIA World Book ranked America's debt/GDP ratio at 37th (58.90% GDP) in 2010 - slightly below the world average.

According to the Standard & Poor's rating in June 2011, 4 nations have AAA credit ratings despite having debt/GDP ratios that far exceed the world average (59.30%).

When compared to other nations, the US debt issue has been "hyped" out of all proportion to its relate size. The main reason that nations like Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, etc. that have significantly lower debt/GDP ratios than the US is simply because they have higher tax rates - something that no American Administration is willing to contemplate.

 

[bripat9643]

The USA is drowding in a sea of media manufactured self-loathing.

About half the posters here are crazy with hate for their fellow Americans.

Perhaps that's because one half the population is trying to rob the other half of the population.

 

[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

you fucking dimocrats are holding future generations hostage and you well know it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Country Comparison: Public debt (2010)

Rank country - (% of GDP) - Date of Information
***************************************************
1 Japan 225.80 2010 est.

5 Greece 144.00 2010 est.

6 Iceland 123.80 2010 est.

8 Italy 118.10 2010 est.

9 Singapore 102.40 2010 est. (AAA)

10 Belgium 98.60 2010 est.

11 Ireland 94.20 2010 est.

14 France 83.50 2010 est.

15 Portugal 83.20 2010 est.

18 Hungary 79.60 2010 est.

19 Germany 78.80 2010 est. (AAA)

22 Israel 77.30 2010 est.

23 United Kingdom 76.50 2010 est. (AAA)

24 Austria 70.40 2010 est.

26 Netherlands 64.60 2010 est. (AAA)

27 Spain 63.40 2010 est.

31 Brazil 60.80 2010 est.
*****************************
35 World 59.30 2010 est.
*****************************
37 United States 58.90 2010 est. (AAA)

48 Poland 53.60 2010 est.

51 Argentina 50.30 2010 est.

55 Norway 47.70 2010 est. (AAA)

56 Denmark 46.60 2010 est.

59 Finland 45.40 2010 est. (AAA)

66 Mexico 41.50 2010 est.

67 Slovakia 41.00 2010 est.

69 Sweden 40.80 2010 est. (AAA)

72 Czech Republic 40.00 2010 est.

79 Switzerland 38.20 2010 est. (AAA)

86 Canada 34.00 2010 est. (AAA)

99 New Zealand 25.50 2010 est.

103 Korea, South 23.70 2010 est.

108 Australia 22.40 2010 est. (AAA)

113 China 17.50 2010 est.

114 Saudi Arabia 16.70 2010 est.

123 Russia 9.50 2010 est.

(AAA) - nations that currently have triple A credit rating

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

List of countries by credit rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the data tends to support the OP's assertion - while the US has incurred substantial debt, particularly under the Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush and BH Obama Administrations, the CIA World Book ranked America's debt/GDP ratio at 37th (58.90% GDP) in 2010 - slightly below the world average.

According to the Standard & Poor's rating in June 2011, 4 nations have AAA credit ratings despite having debt/GDP ratios that far exceed the world average (59.30%).

When compared to other nations, the US debt issue has been "hyped" out of all proportion to its relate size. The main reason that nations like Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, etc. that have significantly lower debt/GDP ratios than the US is simply because they have higher tax rates - something that no American Administration is willing to contemplate.

Dumbshit.
The current debt to GDP ratio is not 58.90% but 93%. And rising.
U.S debt to rise to $19.6 trillion by 2015 | Reuters

 

[Flopper]

What is the US Dollar backed by? Treasury bonds. What are Treasury Bonds backed by? The full faith and credit of the USA. If you own bonds, how do they pay you? Payment is made in US dollars. What is the US Dollar backed by? Treasury bonds. What are Treasury Bonds backed by? The full faith and credit of the USA. If you own bonds, how do they pay you? Payment is made in US dollars. What is the US Dollar backed by? Treasury bonds. What are Treasury Bonds backed by? The full faith and credit of the USA. If you own bonds, how do they pay you? Payment is made in US dollars. etc...etc..etc...

The US Dollar is a piece of paper - it only has value because we say it does. Once people stop believing...the jig is up. Every time we add to our national debt, that day comes a little closer....

Well we can agree on something. All US financial obligations as well as the currency has value because the United States government says it has value. That's it, which is why it's so important that the government not default on it's obligations. It's certainly important that we reduce the deficit, but it is more important that we not default on our obligations.

As Chief Justice Hughes said of the debt clause in the 14th amendment in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, he said " Congress does not have authority, even by a substantial majority, to dishonor the nation by repudiating outstanding debts it has authorized the nation to incur. The fiscal integrity of the United States is sacred and requires constitutional protection."

If we dont reduce spending substantially we will get to the point, rapidly, that we really will not be able to pay our debts. That is why reduction in spending is more important than a temporary default now.

There is no such thing as a temporary default. Once you have broken faith with your creditors, that will be a stain on our credit history and it will be reflected in the interest lenders will demand. If you default because you can’t pay, that’s one thing but if you default because you choose not to pay, that’s something entirely different. The idea that government would break faith with its creditors would live on long after the default.

Causing a financial crisis in order to avoid one some time in the future makes about as much sense as walking out in front of bus to avoid getting run over by a train some day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we can agree on something. All US financial obligations as well as the currency has value because the United States government says it has value. That's it, which is why it's so important that the government not default on it's obligations. It's certainly important that we reduce the deficit, but it is more important that we not default on our obligations.

As Chief Justice Hughes said of the debt clause in the 14th amendment in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, he said " Congress does not have authority, even by a substantial majority, to dishonor the nation by repudiating outstanding debts it has authorized the nation to incur. The fiscal integrity of the United States is sacred and requires constitutional protection."

If we dont reduce spending substantially we will get to the point, rapidly, that we really will not be able to pay our debts. That is why reduction in spending is more important than a temporary default now.

There is no such thing as a temporary default. Once you have broken faith with your creditors, that will be a stain on our credit history and it will be reflected in the interest lenders will demand. If you default because you can’t pay, that’s one thing but if you default because you choose not to pay, that’s something entirely different. The idea that government would break faith with its creditors would live on long after the default.

Causing a financial crisis in order to avoid one some time in the future makes about as much sense as walking out in front of bus to avoid getting run over by a train some day.

Bullshit.
But if we don't contain spending then we will get downgraded by the ratings agencies. And that will actually cause a loss of faith.

 

[Zander]

Well we can agree on something. All US financial obligations as well as the currency has value because the United States government says it has value. That's it, which is why it's so important that the government not default on it's obligations. It's certainly important that we reduce the deficit, but it is more important that we not default on our obligations.

As Chief Justice Hughes said of the debt clause in the 14th amendment in 1935, speaking for a unanimous Supreme Court, he said " Congress does not have authority, even by a substantial majority, to dishonor the nation by repudiating outstanding debts it has authorized the nation to incur. The fiscal integrity of the United States is sacred and requires constitutional protection."

If we dont reduce spending substantially we will get to the point, rapidly, that we really will not be able to pay our debts. That is why reduction in spending is more important than a temporary default now.

There is no such thing as a temporary default. Once you have broken faith with your creditors, that will be a stain on our credit history and it will be reflected in the interest lenders will demand. If you default because you can’t pay, that’s one thing but if you default because you choose not to pay, that’s something entirely different. The idea that government would break faith with its creditors would live on long after the default.

Causing a financial crisis in order to avoid one some time in the future makes about as much sense as walking out in front of bus to avoid getting run over by a train some day.

Well, we already defaulted once..... bondholders took a 30% haircut thanks to FDR.

The United States quite clearly and overtly defaulted on its debt as an expediency in 1933, the first year of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. This was an intentional repudiation of its obligations, supported by a resolution of Congress and later upheld by the Supreme Court. In particular, U.S. bonds, including those issued to finance the American participation in the First World War, provided the holders of the bonds with an unambiguous promise that the U.S. government would give them the option to be repaid in gold coin.

Nobody doubted the clarity of this "gold clause" provision or the intent of both the debtor, the U.S. Treasury, and the creditors, the bond buyers, that the bondholders be protected against the depreciation of paper currency by the government.

Unfortunately for the bondholders, when President Roosevelt and the Congress decided that it was a good idea to depreciate the currency in the economic crisis of the time, they also decided not to honor their unambiguous obligation to pay in gold. On June 5, 1933, Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States,"of which two key points were as follows:

• "Provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold obstruct the power of the Congress."

• "Every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment is gold is declared to be against public policy."

"Purport"? "Against public policy"? Interesting rhetoric. In plain terms, the Congress was repudiating the government's obligations. So the bondholders got only depreciated paper money. The resulting lawsuits ended up in the Supreme Court, which upheld the ability of the government to refuse to pay in gold by a vote of 5-4.

SOURCE ARTICLE

 

[Chris]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

 

[Liability]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

No.

All we NEED to do is rein in the absurd spending that the government is so hopelessly addicted to.

We need to vote out President Obama and most of the liberal Congresscritters, too.

We must undo the damage of "programs" like Obamacare.

We must compel the government to live within the channels we have set for it.

 

[Chris]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

No.

All we NEED to do is rein in the absurd spending that the government is so hopelessly addicted to.

We need to vote out President Obama and most of the liberal Congresscritters, too.

We must undo the damage of "programs" like Obamacare.

We must compel the government to live within the channels we have set for it.

Most of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which of those would you cut?

 

[Zander]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

You mean the "Obama tax cuts", he extended them after they were set to expire. He did that- not Bush. Obama owns the tax cuts and the economy.

He also has us actively fighting a new war in Libya. He's far worse than Bush.

 

[Chris]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

You mean the "Obama tax cuts", he extended them after they were set to expire. He did that- not Bush. Obama owns the tax cuts and the economy.

He also has us actively fighting a new war in Libya. He's far worse than Bush.

No, Bush owns them and the shattered economy.

The damage that Bush did will take ten years to undo.

 

[Liability]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

You mean the "Obama tax cuts", he extended them after they were set to expire. He did that- not Bush. Obama owns the tax cuts and the economy.

He also has us actively fighting a new war in Libya. He's far worse than Bush.

No, Bush owns them and the shattered economy.

The damage that Bush did will take ten years to undo.

President Bush did not do the damage.

He may have assisted as to most of his predecessors in modern times and, more importantly, ad did the Congresses in modern time.

President OBAMA gets the lion's share of the blame as far as Presidents go, if you'd stop to be honest at long last.

And it hardly matters.

Assigning blame is just your irrelevant partisan game.

DOING something about it is the real matter of concern. And that's difficult to accomplish when idiots such as you adamantly insist that the problem isn't even really a problem.

Guys like you and the jerk-off in the Oval Office whom you would eagerly go down on are a huge problem.

 

[Liability]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

No.

All we NEED to do is rein in the absurd spending that the government is so hopelessly addicted to.

We need to vote out President Obama and most of the liberal Congresscritters, too.

We must undo the damage of "programs" like Obamacare.

We must compel the government to live within the channels we have set for it.

Most of the federal budget is Social Security, Medicare, and defense.

Which of those would you cut?

First, of course, as I have said, I'd make sure that the current bills get paid as they become due. This includes all repayment of principle as due, and all interest as due.

THEN and ONLY then would I divvy up the rest.

I'd CUT all of them, but how they get cut, to what degree, and so forth are matters that would require much cooperation and haggling. Because all such cuts would be painful the current set of politicians are unwilling to even start the dialog. I would put EVERYTHING on the table.

I'd get rid of some Federal Departments and agencies WHOLESALE. Goodbye Dept. of Education. Adios; you're a ghost; you're history; you're vapor; you're OUTTA here.

I would also seek to implement some fo the plans that have already been articulated to save Social Security and Medicare. Deep six Obamacare and put that 1/2 TRILLION back into the program.

I'd seek to implement gradual changes such that those who have already LONG paid into such programs don't get screwed out of the bargain they'd made. But for folks who are now younger, I'd start the process of winnowing it down. There would be needs tests, for example.

There are all manner of things that can be done. But nothing will ever get done as long as goobers like you stick your heads in the sand and say "la la la la there's no problem"

We cannot fix a problem you won't even admit exists.

 

[Zander]

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

Undo the damage that Bush did.

You mean the "Obama tax cuts", he extended them after they were set to expire. He did that- not Bush. Obama owns the tax cuts and the economy.

He also has us actively fighting a new war in Libya. He's far worse than Bush.

No, Bush owns them and the shattered economy.

The damage that Bush did will take ten years to undo.

And Obama's will take 20.

See- we can play this game all night!! But like you, it is stupid.

We need to cut spending. Only a mindless drone thinks otherwise.

 

[Chris]

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

Or we can stop sending checks to fat welfare queens who sit on the couch and watch Oprah...

This is what it always boils down to with Republicans.

Welfare is a tiny part of the budget. About 1%.

 

[Liability]

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

Or we can stop sending checks to fat welfare queens who sit on the couch and watch Oprah...

This is what it always boils down to with Republicans.

Welfare is a tiny part of the budget. About 1%.

Chrissy's aspiration: success someday, but ...

 

[Liability]

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

Or we can stop sending checks to fat welfare queens who sit on the couch and watch Oprah...

This is what it always boils down to with Republicans.

Welfare is a tiny part of the budget. About 1%.

Check your figures.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#note