US Debt

[Siete]

Your fun little chart looks to be trending downward after Ws spike

these RW toads dont know the difference between debt and deficit or how one effects the other. Their credibility is lower than their IQ. You dont expect then to be able to read a chart do you ?

The only thing that you don't seem to grasp is how much Obama spent, and how much he increased the debt. All other talk is irrelevant.

Obams deficit blossomed to 1.4 trillion dollars in 09 when he took office .. a figure that was responsible for the deepest recession since WWII, and it belonged to 43.. The deficit dropped $1 Trillion dollars during Obamas terms leaving $4 billion that automatically gets added to the National Debt ..

like I said, prove that wrong or bust Clintons ass for a thread or two... the deficit/debt isnt the forte' for RW partisan shitsacks.

I don't need to prove it wrong, it's irrelevant. He spent the most since WWII and increased the debt more than anyone. Prove that wrong!

I don't need to prove that wrong. I am proving a different point which is obviously over your head.

you didnt get the memo ? historical data is totally wrong, and RW's are the only ones who know how to calculate the debt down to the exact penny.

and dont forget it ...

es

 

[NightFox]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

*sigh*
It's a mystery why you hyper-partisan knuckleheads cannot understand a simple concept like deltas.

The cumulative debt isn't the same thing as quantifying which Presidents actions are responsible for any given portion of it, nobody is arguing that the Treasury's nominal debt numbers are not accurate.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Let's say Obama did absolutely nothing while in office, he just went on vacation and didn't come back; so for 8 years no new legislation involving spending/revenue increases or decreases was enacted, federal spending and debt (from levels that were already in place when he took office) would have still continued to increase on autopilot based on existing legislation, inflation would still be happening within the economy and debt service costs would still be increasing. Using your simplistic reasoning you would still hold Obama responsible for the nominal deficits accumulated between the start of his two terms and the end of his two terms even though he took no action and never penned his name to anything and to add to that you'd be holding him responsible using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation.

Here endth the lesson.

 

[Siete]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

*sigh*
It's a mystery why you hyper-partisan knuckleheads cannot understand a simple concept like deltas.

The cumulative debt isn't the same thing as quantifying which Presidents actions are responsible for any given portion of it, nobody is arguing that the Treasury's nominal debt numbers are not accurate.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Let's say Obama did absolutely nothing while in office, he just went on vacation and didn't come back; so for 8 years no new legislation involving spending/revenue increases or decreases was enacted, federal spending and debt (from levels that were already in place when he took office) would have still continued to increase on autopilot based on existing legislation, inflation would still be happening within the economy and debt service costs would still be increasing. Using your simplistic reasoning you would still hold Obama responsible for the nominal deficits accumulated between the start of his two terms and the end of his two terms even though he took no action and never penned his name to anything and to add to that you'd be holding him responsible using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation.

Here endth the lesson.

two different arguments .. I understand debt service. We're still paying interest on Reagans debt without 43, Obama, or any other potus lifting a finger.

tell that to the RW idgets that believe deficits arent part of the debt ... endth that lesson if you can.

 

[NightFox]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

*sigh*
It's a mystery why you hyper-partisan knuckleheads cannot understand a simple concept like deltas.

The cumulative debt isn't the same thing as quantifying which Presidents actions are responsible for any given portion of it, nobody is arguing that the Treasury's nominal debt numbers are not accurate.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Let's say Obama did absolutely nothing while in office, he just went on vacation and didn't come back; so for 8 years no new legislation involving spending/revenue increases or decreases was enacted, federal spending and debt (from levels that were already in place when he took office) would have still continued to increase on autopilot based on existing legislation, inflation would still be happening within the economy and debt service costs would still be increasing. Using your simplistic reasoning you would still hold Obama responsible for the nominal deficits accumulated between the start of his two terms and the end of his two terms even though he took no action and never penned his name to anything and to add to that you'd be holding him responsible using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation.

Here endth the lesson.

two different arguments .. I understand debt service. We're still paying interest on Reagans debt without 43, Obama, or any other potus lifting a finger.

Apparently you neither understand debt service nor the concept of deltas, the debt accumulated as a result of Reagans actions was paid off a long time ago (and then some) or did you fail to notice that during Reagan's two terms real GDP grew an average of 3.5% and that inflation has been running at an average rate north of 2% since he left office in 1988.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't know that inflation and ROI factor into debt service costs.

endth that lesson if you can.

LOL, What lesson? the one where you demonstrate that you're financially and economically illiterate? Thanks for the effort but I've been aware of that fact for quite a while now, there wasn't any need to prove it to me again.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't seem to understand where the money is going... Here is a link that might help

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go

During 40s... to war against Nazis.

During Obama time.... War against American people + middle east?

Your point?

Look a the graph and reconsider your batshit insane point you though you made about Obama being the debt shark.

He came into office immediately after one of the worst recessions our country has ever seen. Housing crash, unemployment spike, wall street corruption... on top of that we were at WAR. The vast majority of his spending, by far, was on the military... Like by far. So what specifically are you objecting to or are you limited to looking at pretty colors on generalized charts?

Blah, blah blah...

He spent like a drunk sailor. Most since WW2.

Excuse... excuse...

He had to bail out the rich not blacks.

 

[Siete]

Barack Obama: Added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of George W. Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

• FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
• FY 2015 - $327 billion.
• FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
• FY 2013 - $672 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
• FY 2009 - $253 billion. (Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act, which spent $253 billion in FY 2009. This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.)

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001.

• FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. (Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act).
• FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion.
• FY 2007 - $501 billion.
• FY 2006 - $574 billion.
• FY 2005 - $554 billion.
• FY 2004 - $596 billion.
• FY 2003 - $555 billion.
• FY 2002 - $421 billion.

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

*sigh*
It's a mystery why you hyper-partisan knuckleheads cannot understand a simple concept like deltas.

The cumulative debt isn't the same thing as quantifying which Presidents actions are responsible for any given portion of it, nobody is arguing that the Treasury's nominal debt numbers are not accurate.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Let's say Obama did absolutely nothing while in office, he just went on vacation and didn't come back; so for 8 years no new legislation involving spending/revenue increases or decreases was enacted, federal spending and debt (from levels that were already in place when he took office) would have still continued to increase on autopilot based on existing legislation, inflation would still be happening within the economy and debt service costs would still be increasing. Using your simplistic reasoning you would still hold Obama responsible for the nominal deficits accumulated between the start of his two terms and the end of his two terms even though he took no action and never penned his name to anything and to add to that you'd be holding him responsible using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation.

Here endth the lesson.

two different arguments .. I understand debt service. We're still paying interest on Reagans debt without 43, Obama, or any other potus lifting a finger.

Apparently you neither understand debt service nor the concept of deltas, the debt accumulated as a result of Reagans actions was paid off a long time ago (and then some) or did you fail to notice that during Reagan's two terms real GDP grew an average of 3.5% and that inflation has been running at an average rate north of 2% since he left office in 1988.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't know that inflation and ROI factor into debt service costs.

endth that lesson if you can.

LOL, What lesson? the one where you demonstrate that you're financially and economically illiterate? Thanks for the effort but I've been aware of that fact for quite a while now, there wasn't any need to prove it to me again.

like I ask you before, why arent you the uber intelligent being whos totally responsible for the United States of America debt calculations, and publishing them ?

as it were, you're just another self proclaimed guru/ internet message board derp talking shit, and spinning issues to meet your arguments.

riddle me that Einstein ..

 

[BluesLegend]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

 

[NightFox]

As I've already explained in this thread using nominal cumulative operating deficits over the course of any given administration is a completely meaningless measure since it doesn't account for everything that occurred before an Administration took office, it doesn't account for inflation and it doesn't account for the total expenditures any given piece of legislation signed into law by a President incurs from both a direct expenditure standpoint and any attendant future debt service. It also doesn't account for real revenue growth that any given Presidents policies are responsible for.

Administrations don't begin office with a clean slate with respect to spending and nominal numbers don't account for purchasing power debasement nor does the spending that any given President was responsible for enacting end when that President leaves office.

then you should be the one calculating the debt and not the Treasury department, apparently you are much smarter than their computers and methods for data input.

*sigh*
It's a mystery why you hyper-partisan knuckleheads cannot understand a simple concept like deltas.

The cumulative debt isn't the same thing as quantifying which Presidents actions are responsible for any given portion of it, nobody is arguing that the Treasury's nominal debt numbers are not accurate.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Let's say Obama did absolutely nothing while in office, he just went on vacation and didn't come back; so for 8 years no new legislation involving spending/revenue increases or decreases was enacted, federal spending and debt (from levels that were already in place when he took office) would have still continued to increase on autopilot based on existing legislation, inflation would still be happening within the economy and debt service costs would still be increasing. Using your simplistic reasoning you would still hold Obama responsible for the nominal deficits accumulated between the start of his two terms and the end of his two terms even though he took no action and never penned his name to anything and to add to that you'd be holding him responsible using numbers that aren't adjusted for inflation.

Here endth the lesson.

two different arguments .. I understand debt service. We're still paying interest on Reagans debt without 43, Obama, or any other potus lifting a finger.

Apparently you neither understand debt service nor the concept of deltas, the debt accumulated as a result of Reagans actions was paid off a long time ago (and then some) or did you fail to notice that during Reagan's two terms real GDP grew an average of 3.5% and that inflation has been running at an average rate north of 2% since he left office in 1988.

Why doesn't it surprise me that you don't know that inflation and ROI factor into debt service costs.

endth that lesson if you can.

LOL, What lesson? the one where you demonstrate that you're financially and economically illiterate? Thanks for the effort but I've been aware of that fact for quite a while now, there wasn't any need to prove it to me again.

like I ask you before, why arent you the uber intelligent being whos totally responsible for the United States of America debt calculations, and publishing them ?

I realize that people with the ability to add and subtract must completely mystify you, I'd imagine it's approximately to the same degree as those with the ability to comprehend English above a 2nd grade level do. Again adding up the cumulative operating deficits isn't relevant to which Presidents actions are responsible for X amount of the total debt accumulation.

as it were, you're just another self proclaimed internet message board derp talking shit, and spinning issues to meet your arguments.

riddle me that Einstein ..

LOL, It's not a riddle, the fact that you're befuddled and thus can't formulate anything resembling a reason and evidence based counter argument stems from the fact that the subject matter is vastly beyond your capability to understand and thus (as usual) you are stuck in the mode of simplistic, hyper-partisan jabbering in a vain attempt to twist irrelevant data points to support your invariably partisan talking points.

In order to avoid being thoroughly confused You should probably stick to subject matter that you actually know something about, like soap operas.

 

[NightFox]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

 

[BluesLegend]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

 

[NightFox]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Yeah it is, you're retiring debt X and incurring debt Y, the two debts are not the same thing from an accounting standpoint, you have different terms and you're borrowing dollars that have different values in terms of purchasing power.

If I issue a bond and you buy it and then when the principle becomes due I issue another bond to pay for the principle which Joe Blow buys, my debt to you gets paid off and I incur a new debt to Joe Blow under the terms of the new bond not to mention the fact that I'm paying you back with dollars that are worth less than the dollars I originally borrowed from you (which hopefully from your perspective was made up for by the interest I paid you on the bond).

I get your point but debt roll over by the government is only part of the story, you have roll over in addition to new debt above and beyond what was rolled over, if we weren't incurring that new debt (which is caused by spending increasing faster than income) roll over would either diminish to zero or remain stable, instead it's increasing, vicious cycle.

 

[Slade3200]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

havent you heard. Now that Trumps POTUS we have unlimited debt responsibiliy.

$10 million dollar golfing weekends
$30-50 BILLION dollar walls 20 feet high
economic packages that cost $10-15 trillion dollars
$1 million a day so his trophy wife doesnt have to sleep in the same bed with him

hell, anything he decides regardless how much it costs taxpayers ITS ALL GOOD !

and the Trumpbots here will argue to the death supporting him, then blame Clinton/Obama for his spending spree.

so you're saying that trump is not different than Clinton and Obama.

thus verifying that trump is a dem

No we are saying that Don THE Con is no different than any other Republican, talks debt reduction as he jacks up the debt.

Really? When did President Trump sign off on the current budget?

Did Obama ever get around to actually having a budget?

 

[BluesLegend]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

 

[danielpalos]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

I would rather end the drug war.

 

[Slade3200]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

The debt serves an economic purpose so I wouldn't exchange the debt for a social program. Let me ask you... who gets those "interest" payments? Where does that money go?

 

[BluesLegend]

Can a government go on borrowing forever, never paying off any of the debt? Of course not, the spending party will come to an end and it will be ugly. Already the next several generations are stuck with paying our bills, we lived beyond our means and dumped the debt onto our kids and grand kids.

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

The debt serves an economic purpose so I wouldn't exchange the debt for a social program. Let me ask you... who gets those "interest" payments? Where does that money go?

China for one, any more questions.

 

[Slade3200]

Government is constantly paying off debt, the problem is that it's accumulating new debt faster than it's paying off old debt because the growth in spending exceeds the growth in income (which forces it increase net borrowing).

You're correct though, can't go on forever, eventually the accumulation becomes so large that debt service outstrips the economy's ability to pay it and default becomes the only option, either through explicit default or implicit default (hyper-inflation), both scenarios are nightmarish.

To mangle on old James Caravel phrase:

"It's the spending stupid"

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

The debt serves an economic purpose so I wouldn't exchange the debt for a social program. Let me ask you... who gets those "interest" payments? Where does that money go?

China for one, any more questions.

Yeah, how much of the interest payments go to China? And where does the rest go? Who gets the vast majority of the funds?

 

[danielpalos]

Maxing out a new credit card to pay off the old credit card is not paying off any debt.

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

The debt serves an economic purpose so I wouldn't exchange the debt for a social program. Let me ask you... who gets those "interest" payments? Where does that money go?

China for one, any more questions.

Yeah, how much of the interest payments go to China? And where does the rest go? Who gets the vast majority of the funds?

The rich?

 

[Slade3200]

Our national economy is completely different than a credit card or personal debt. I suggest you learn the different

Okay for you financially challenged liberal pea brains I'll make it simple, what social program would you rather spend the several hundred BILLION dollars a year on, that's currently being spent on interest on the national debt?

The debt serves an economic purpose so I wouldn't exchange the debt for a social program. Let me ask you... who gets those "interest" payments? Where does that money go?

China for one, any more questions.

Yeah, how much of the interest payments go to China? And where does the rest go? Who gets the vast majority of the funds?

The rich?

Let's have BluesLegend answer that... what do you say Blues, who gets more China or the rich? Who are the rich? Where does the rest go?