What deficit?

[Flopper]

The interest we pay to China for their part of our national debt is enough to completely cover the cost of running their military....
Do you think that is in the interest of national security?

Nope

China is the largest holder of US debt with about 8%. So they would get about 17.6 billion a year of the 220 billion we pay in interest. The defense department spending runs between 600 and 700 billion far more than the interest we pay China.

US Federal Revenue for 2013 - Charts Tables
National Debt Interest Payments Dwarf Other Government Spending [CHART] - US News and World Report
The TRUTH About Who Really Owns All Of America's Debt - Business Insider

 

[oldfart]

Deficits matter cuz you have to pay interest on the money you borrow. It's around $360 billion in FY2012, projected to be over $400 billion this year and that's with interest rates around 2%. The historical rate is up near 6% and the debt could reach $25 trillion in 10 years. So, who's ready to spend a trillion dollars a year just in interest payments?

You need to take a look at the semi-annual CBO report:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf

There interest rate projections for the 3-year Treasury note are 0.1% for 2012, 2.2% for 2015-8, and 4.0% for 2019-23. The corresponding predictions for the 10-year note are 1.8% for 2012, 4.5% for 2015-8, and 5.2% for 2019-23.

For comparison the Bureau of Public Debt February average rates are 0.124% on T-bills (less than 52 weeks, about $1.7 trillion outstanding), 1.885% on Treasury notes (2, 3, 5, 7, & 10 year maturities, about $7.4 trillion outstanding), 5.227% ob the 30-year long bond (about $1.2 trillion) and 3.626% on the $5.0 trillion of the Government Account Series. The Fed has been conducting "Operation Twist" to refinance the debt at a rate of about $45 billion a month by buying higher interest debt and selling lower interest debt.

Based on the CBO projections for interest rates, unemployment, GDP, and the rest of the enchilada they project interest payments on the public debt to net $223 billion for 2012 (1.4% of GDP), $389 billion per year for 2014--2018 (1.9% of GDP), and $729 billion per year for 2014--2023 (2.5% of GDP).

Now anyone telling you that this is a good picture is blowing smoke up your posterior. But so is anyone who says this is an unbearable situation.

That's not to say we have to balance the budget in the near term, I see no reason to risk another bad recession by cutting the spending that much. Nothing wrong with the sequester cuts IMHO, although Obama and democrats should have forgone the political grandstanding and agreed to a deal to shift the cuts around to ameliorate the impact. C'mon, 2.5%, don't give me this crap that the US Gov't can't find a way to reduce the INCREASE in this year's spending by a measly $85 billion out of a $3.6 trillion budget. It's not like we're trying to spend less money this year than last year.

I agree completely. You and I could balance the budget over a few beers in an afternoon. With Congress the job is probably impossible.

 

[oldfart]

The commonly accepted goal by fiscal experts and economists is a deficit which causes the national debt to increase at the same rate as GDP or less. In other words, the ratio of national debt to GDP would remain the same or decrease. So what is this number?

Commonly accepted by who? Which fiscal experts and economists advise a deficit that is tied to GDP? If this is a common goal, why has it never been mentioned before we started running an annual deficit of $1,000,000,000,000?

Commonly accepted by the CBO, JCT, the Fed, OMB, OECD, IMF, and everybody else except the Heritage Foundation and like-minded fringe figures. The fact you make this point is sufficient proof that you have no understanding of macroeconomics. This "goal" in the sense of the formula and theory behind it were old news in the 60's when I was in graduate school. I think it's in the 60's editions of Samuelson's basic economics text circa 1965.

Assuming all of that, why base our annual deficit on our national debt?

Because by a commonly accepted accounting identity the deficit IS DEFINED as the increase in the debt. Try opening an economics textbook and check the table of contents and index for "National income accounts: Definitions".

If we assume that is a permissible method, and we further assume that it will take time to get to that lower deficit level, why shouldn't we assume that 4% of the future debt of $23 trillion is a sustainable deficit? Would a $920 billion deficit be equally sustainable? If it would be, why isn't it now? Considering the fact that continually running a deficit will continue to drive the debt higher, at what point does the deficit become unsustainable?

I'm beginning to wonder if you have a reading problem. The CBO article cited CBO | The Effects of Automatic Stabilizers on the Federal Budget as of 2013
contains the definition of "sustainability". If you don't bother to read it, I am certainly not going to waste everyone's time spoon-feeding a willful economic illiterate.

Deficits have grown every year since Kennedy was elected. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure there were some boom times during that period.

You are wrong. Deficits do not grow every year. You don't understand the definitions.
In years when there is a deficit, the debt increases. In years when there is a surplus, the debt decreases. Figure 1 on Page 8 of the CBO report has a nice graph which clearly shows the fluctuation in the deficit/surplus.

You can blather about all the other stuff all day long, but you cannot deny that your assumption that a lack of revenues is the driving force of the deficit is absurd.

And your assertions are based on....?

Here is the problem with your fantasy world, despite the fact that the CBO says that automatic stabilizers will actually decrease as a result of a growing economy, they also project that deficits will start increasing again in 2018.

Since you can apparently look up sources when you so choose, you might enlighen us as to what CBO gives as the reasons for the increasing deficits in the out years? Could it be an aging population and rapidly rising health care costs? And exactly how do these factors have anything to do with automatic stablilizers? You are grasping at straws.

By the way, you should diversify your reading and stop relying on Krugman for your understanding of how the world works. There are quite a few economists who, while they believe that the government should spend, also point out that massive debt is bad.

Jeffrey Sachs: Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism

I read a wide variety of economists. I have taught Economic History, History of Economic Thought, Econometrics, Statistics, Money & Banking, Capital Markets, as well as the customary theory courses. Krugman has a pretty good predictive track record and his blog is readable. I suppose you have read other folks who predicted hyperinflation and rising interest rates for the last five years and who think austerity has set off an economic boom in Europe. Let me know what their current predictions are so I can bet against them.

 

[oldfart]

You do understand that, when your grandchildren grow up, the cash in those savings bonds, don't you? By doing that they force the government to pay back its debt. What you are advocating is the equivalent of telling your grandchildren that they have to borrow money instead of cashing in the bonds you give them.

Balderdash again. When will corporate America pay back all of its debt? This ludicrous idea that governments must become debt-free at some point is an obvious logical fallacy and I am surprised you bring up something that weak.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Commonly accepted by the CBO, JCT, the Fed, OMB, OECD, IMF, and everybody else except the Heritage Foundation and like-minded fringe figures. The fact you make this point is sufficient proof that you have no understanding of macroeconomics. This "goal" in the sense of the formula and theory behind it were old news in the 60's when I was in graduate school. I think it's in the 60's editions of Samuelson's basic economics text circa 1965.

Thanks, that explains why the everyone is forcing austerity measures on European countries.

By the way, feel free to link to any of those organizations actually saying that, or am I just supposed to believe it because you say so? Did you miss how, whenever I made a assertion, I actually provided something to back it up? That is how it is supposed to work here in the CDZ, and you started the thread here. Were you unaware of the rules when you posted here?

Because by a commonly accepted accounting identity the deficit IS DEFINED as the increase in the debt. Try opening an economics textbook and check the table of contents and index for "National income accounts: Definitions".

Once again, links would be nice. Here is a link to make my point that the debt has increased every year sine JFK. Please notice that it comes from the US Treasury, not some hack site that makes up numbers and argues that deficit to GDP is a meaningful ratio.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

I'm beginning to wonder if you have a reading problem. The CBO article cited CBO | The Effects of Automatic Stabilizers on the Federal Budget as of 2013
contains the definition of "sustainability". If you don't bother to read it, I am certainly not going to waste everyone's time spoon-feeding a willful economic illiterate.

Strange, I read it before, and just read it again, and found nothing in there that defined sustainability. In fact, the word does not even appear in the article. In fact, the only reference to to any form of the word sustain anywhere in the document is a reference maximum sustainable GDP.

Want to tell me what article you are reading?

You are wrong. Deficits do not grow every year. You don't understand the definitions.
In years when there is a deficit, the debt increases. In years when there is a surplus, the debt decreases. Figure 1 on Page 8 of the CBO report has a nice graph which clearly shows the fluctuation in the deficit/surplus.

Actually I do understand the definition, I just fucked up. Debt has increased every year since JFK was elected. See my link above for the proof.

And your assertions are based on....?

How about the fact that the CBO is predicting record levels of revenue?

Since you can apparently look up sources when you so choose, you might enlighen us as to what CBO gives as the reasons for the increasing deficits in the out years? Could it be an aging population and rapidly rising health care costs? And exactly how do these factors have anything to do with automatic stablilizers? You are grasping at straws.

Does that somehow mitigate the fact that the deficits will increase? Are we supposed to assume magical growth simply to deal with the fact that more people will be receiving government benefits?

You are the one that is grasping at straws when you argue that magic government spending is going to make the problem go away.

I read a wide variety of economists. I have taught Economic History, History of Economic Thought, Econometrics, Statistics, Money & Banking, Capital Markets, as well as the customary theory courses. Krugman has a pretty good predictive track record and his blog is readable. I suppose you have read other folks who predicted hyperinflation and rising interest rates for the last five years and who think austerity has set off an economic boom in Europe. Let me know what their current predictions are so I can bet against them.

It is wonderfully easy to make claims on the internet. One might expect someone with the history you claim for yourself to be able to find sources to back up his claims, just like I do even though I don't make those claims.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do understand that, when your grandchildren grow up, the cash in those savings bonds, don't you? By doing that they force the government to pay back its debt. What you are advocating is the equivalent of telling your grandchildren that they have to borrow money instead of cashing in the bonds you give them.

Balderdash again. When will corporate America pay back all of its debt? This ludicrous idea that governments must become debt-free at some point is an obvious logical fallacy and I am surprised you bring up something that weak.

I have no real problem with reasonable levels of debt. The problem is you are not arguing for a reasonable level of debt, you are arguing that no level of debt is unreasonable.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Based on the CBO projections for interest rates, unemployment, GDP, and the rest of the enchilada they project interest payments on the public debt to net $223 billion for 2012 (1.4% of GDP), $389 billion per year for 2014--2018 (1.9% of GDP), and $729 billion per year for 2014--2023 (2.5% of GDP). "


Hard to say what the interest rates will be or how much the debt will accumulate. But I suspect the CBO's estimates are somewhat on the rosy side, and in the out years the interest payments will more likely exceed $729 billion.

 

[oldfart]

" Based on the CBO projections for interest rates, unemployment, GDP, and the rest of the enchilada they project interest payments on the public debt to net $223 billion for 2012 (1.4% of GDP), $389 billion per year for 2014--2018 (1.9% of GDP), and $729 billion per year for 2014--2023 (2.5% of GDP). "


Hard to say what the interest rates will be or how much the debt will accumulate. But I suspect the CBO's estimates are somewhat on the rosy side, and in the out years the interest payments will more likely exceed $729 billion.

There's obviously a lot of discussion about the CBO projections among economists. I think a majority (myself included) believe that the inflation and interest rate projections are pretty close to the money, but the GDP projections, especially more than three years out are high. I personally adjust their real GDP growth rate down about 0.5% and see what Wharton Econometrics and Moody's Analytics are saying (but Moody's has been terrible lately on interest rates and that screws up their projections).

You plug those revisions into any good standard macromodel and you get $1.1 trillion or so deficit by 2023. Personally, I don't think projections that far out are worth much; too much happens in the intervening years. Only population modeling does well in those ranges.

 

[oldfart]

I have no real problem with reasonable levels of debt. The problem is you are not arguing for a reasonable level of debt, you are arguing that no level of debt is unreasonable.

I cannot find anything in any of my posts that would lead you to such a conclusion. You specifically argued for an eventual zero public debt, which is both bad policy and absurd. I pointed that out. That does not mean I think an unlimited growth rate of public debt is a good idea.

In fact, we actually began with the CBO definition of sustainable deficit in which the debt-to-GDP ratio remains constant or decreases. I later stated that I could live with policy based on this principle, but that I prefer picking deficit targets based on the needs of the economy to curb inflation (which implies lower deficits or surpluses) or to promote growth.

Stop making up straw men out of thin air; it just makes you look bad.

 

[emptystep]

Hey oldfart, (I just like saying that)

Can one do an analogy of household debt as, for example, mortgage + car loan + credit cards against household income as a comparison to national debt and GDP or is that too far a stretch?

Thanks,
ES

 

[Flopper]

Hey oldfart, (I just like saying that)

Can one do an analogy of household debt as, for example, mortgage + car loan + credit cards against household income as a comparison to national debt and GDP or is that too far a stretch?

Thanks,
ES

Comparing household debt to government debt would be a huge stretch because there is no similarity.

The government's debt never has to be paid off, unlike individual debt because government doesn't have a limited life span. Households do not have unlimited credit, can't control interest rates, make laws, raise taxes, or increase the money supply.

 

[oldfart]

Hey oldfart, (I just like saying that)

Can one do an analogy of household debt as, for example, mortgage + car loan + credit cards against household income as a comparison to national debt and GDP or is that too far a stretch?

Thanks,
ES

I think balance sheet comparisons of households, businesses, and government are appropriate. Everybody talks about national debt, but what about national assets? People who assert that the federal government is going "bankrupt" have a duty to show that the liquidation value of the public assets is less than the public debt; so how much would the Japanese pay for Yellowstone? The Chinese for the oil reserves on public land?

As you note, a comparison of debt to ability to service the debt is appropriate for all three cases.

But the big fallacy of households/businesses/government comparisons is the foundation of macroeconomics. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. Eventually spending and income will reach an equilibrium, but at what level? 5% unemployment or 40% unemployment? Not all equilibria are created equal. So if national income tends to fall toward national spending (a shortage of aggregate demand) in a downturn, and everybody tries to retrench, it's a death spiral to the zero bound. If consumer spending, business investment, and net exports are all falling the only thing left is the excess of government spending over tax receipts. If the government tries to balance the budget in this situation (which the US did 1929-1933) you get Europe today.

Conservatives think that the confidence fairy will inspire businesses to invest and thus save the economy, but it doesn't happen. Would you expand a business when the demand for your products was falling?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no real problem with reasonable levels of debt. The problem is you are not arguing for a reasonable level of debt, you are arguing that no level of debt is unreasonable.

I cannot find anything in any of my posts that would lead you to such a conclusion. You specifically argued for an eventual zero public debt, which is both bad policy and absurd. I pointed that out. That does not mean I think an unlimited growth rate of public debt is a good idea.

In fact, we actually began with the CBO definition of sustainable deficit in which the debt-to-GDP ratio remains constant or decreases. I later stated that I could live with policy based on this principle, but that I prefer picking deficit targets based on the needs of the economy to curb inflation (which implies lower deficits or surpluses) or to promote growth.

Stop making up straw men out of thin air; it just makes you look bad.

Everything in your posts leads inevitably to that conclusion. You are arguing that there is no need to reduce the deficit if the economy is growing, and that reducing it when the economy is not growing is bad. If you understand math at all, you know that deficits add to the debt, our current death is, if we use your numbers, $11.5 trillion, and going up. If we run a deficit of, again using your numbers, $450 billion this year, and increase it every year, the debt will keep climbing.

Want to explain how any of that is a straw man?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey oldfart, (I just like saying that)

Can one do an analogy of household debt as, for example, mortgage + car loan + credit cards against household income as a comparison to national debt and GDP or is that too far a stretch?

Thanks,
ES

I think balance sheet comparisons of households, businesses, and government are appropriate. Everybody talks about national debt, but what about national assets? People who assert that the federal government is going "bankrupt" have a duty to show that the liquidation value of the public assets is less than the public debt; so how much would the Japanese pay for Yellowstone? The Chinese for the oil reserves on public land?

As you note, a comparison of debt to ability to service the debt is appropriate for all three cases.

But the big fallacy of households/businesses/government comparisons is the foundation of macroeconomics. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. Eventually spending and income will reach an equilibrium, but at what level? 5% unemployment or 40% unemployment? Not all equilibria are created equal. So if national income tends to fall toward national spending (a shortage of aggregate demand) in a downturn, and everybody tries to retrench, it's a death spiral to the zero bound. If consumer spending, business investment, and net exports are all falling the only thing left is the excess of government spending over tax receipts. If the government tries to balance the budget in this situation (which the US did 1929-1933) you get Europe today.

Conservatives think that the confidence fairy will inspire businesses to invest and thus save the economy, but it doesn't happen. Would you expand a business when the demand for your products was falling?

You think the government should sell assets to pay the debt? Can I put in a bid for Yosemite, or will you admit that government assets are not fungible?

 

[emptystep]

Hey oldfart, (I just like saying that)

Can one do an analogy of household debt as, for example, mortgage + car loan + credit cards against household income as a comparison to national debt and GDP or is that too far a stretch?

Thanks,
ES

I think balance sheet comparisons of households, businesses, and government are appropriate. Everybody talks about national debt, but what about national assets? People who assert that the federal government is going "bankrupt" have a duty to show that the liquidation value of the public assets is less than the public debt; so how much would the Japanese pay for Yellowstone? The Chinese for the oil reserves on public land?

As you note, a comparison of debt to ability to service the debt is appropriate for all three cases.

But the big fallacy of households/businesses/government comparisons is the foundation of macroeconomics. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. Eventually spending and income will reach an equilibrium, but at what level? 5% unemployment or 40% unemployment? Not all equilibria are created equal. So if national income tends to fall toward national spending (a shortage of aggregate demand) in a downturn, and everybody tries to retrench, it's a death spiral to the zero bound. If consumer spending, business investment, and net exports are all falling the only thing left is the excess of government spending over tax receipts. If the government tries to balance the budget in this situation (which the US did 1929-1933) you get Europe today.

Conservatives think that the confidence fairy will inspire businesses to invest and thus save the economy, but it doesn't happen. Would you expand a business when the demand for your products was falling?

You think the government should sell assets to pay the debt? Can I put in a bid for Yosemite, or will you admit that government assets are not fungible?

Do you want Yosemite with or without any park rangers? Which actually leads into my point. Are we going to auction off Yosemite? Probably not. And while we are not going to sell off the national house to pay the national mortgage there is a certain value in have a $100,000 mortgage on a fine house compared to not owein' nothin' to nobody while living in the trailer park. That is the difference in the two budgets. One goes for the trailer park and the other goes for the big house on the hill. You will probably like the Ryan budget however since Yosemite will be up for sale and if your wealthy enough you just might be able to buy it.

While government assets might not be fungible they are something to be proud of.

This brings up another, rather interesting, point. Using debt to leverage future wealth is exactly what people like Mitt Romney do to get gonzo rich. If you told Mitt Romney to pay off all his debt he would laugh in your face, although I don't think he laughs much. He might smile in your face. If you've played Monopoly you know you don't sit on cash. With every dollar you get you buy what you land on, if you could take on debt you would, or you would have the most cash on hand to start but there is no mistaking, you are going to lose the game. Wealthy people should be screaming against the Ryan budget like it is the end of the world, which that is being over dramatic, it's just the end of the United States. China will be fine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think balance sheet comparisons of households, businesses, and government are appropriate. Everybody talks about national debt, but what about national assets? People who assert that the federal government is going "bankrupt" have a duty to show that the liquidation value of the public assets is less than the public debt; so how much would the Japanese pay for Yellowstone? The Chinese for the oil reserves on public land?

As you note, a comparison of debt to ability to service the debt is appropriate for all three cases.

But the big fallacy of households/businesses/government comparisons is the foundation of macroeconomics. My spending is your income and your spending is my income. Eventually spending and income will reach an equilibrium, but at what level? 5% unemployment or 40% unemployment? Not all equilibria are created equal. So if national income tends to fall toward national spending (a shortage of aggregate demand) in a downturn, and everybody tries to retrench, it's a death spiral to the zero bound. If consumer spending, business investment, and net exports are all falling the only thing left is the excess of government spending over tax receipts. If the government tries to balance the budget in this situation (which the US did 1929-1933) you get Europe today.

Conservatives think that the confidence fairy will inspire businesses to invest and thus save the economy, but it doesn't happen. Would you expand a business when the demand for your products was falling?

You think the government should sell assets to pay the debt? Can I put in a bid for Yosemite, or will you admit that government assets are not fungible?

Do you want Yosemite with or without any park rangers? Which actually leads into my point. Are we going to auction off Yosemite? Probably not. And while we are not going to sell off the national house to pay the national mortgage there is a certain value in have a $100,000 mortgage on a fine house compared to not owein' nothin' to nobody while living in the trailer park. That is the difference in the two budgets. One goes for the trailer park and the other goes for the big house on the hill. You will probably like the Ryan budget however since Yosemite will be up for sale and if your wealthy enough you just might be able to buy it.

While government assets might not be fungible they are something to be proud of.

This brings up another, rather interesting, point. Using debt to leverage future wealth is exactly what people like Mitt Romney do to get gonzo rich. If you told Mitt Romney to pay off all his debt he would laugh in your face, although I don't think he laughs much. He might smile in your face. If you've played Monopoly you know you don't sit on cash. With every dollar you get you buy what you land on, if you could take on debt you would, or you would have the most cash on hand to start but there is no mistaking, you are going to lose the game. Wealthy people should be screaming against the Ryan budget like it is the end of the world, which that is being over dramatic, it's just the end of the United States. China will be fine.

Why would I like the Ryan budget? It increases federal spending by 40% and makes ridiculously optimistic assumptions about economic growth. The only difference between the Ryan and the Senate budget is how much money they spend.

By the way, neither budget sells anything off.

 

[emptystep]

You think the government should sell assets to pay the debt? Can I put in a bid for Yosemite, or will you admit that government assets are not fungible?

Do you want Yosemite with or without any park rangers? Which actually leads into my point. Are we going to auction off Yosemite? Probably not. And while we are not going to sell off the national house to pay the national mortgage there is a certain value in have a $100,000 mortgage on a fine house compared to not owein' nothin' to nobody while living in the trailer park. That is the difference in the two budgets. One goes for the trailer park and the other goes for the big house on the hill. You will probably like the Ryan budget however since Yosemite will be up for sale and if your wealthy enough you just might be able to buy it.

While government assets might not be fungible they are something to be proud of.

This brings up another, rather interesting, point. Using debt to leverage future wealth is exactly what people like Mitt Romney do to get gonzo rich. If you told Mitt Romney to pay off all his debt he would laugh in your face, although I don't think he laughs much. He might smile in your face. If you've played Monopoly you know you don't sit on cash. With every dollar you get you buy what you land on, if you could take on debt you would, or you would have the most cash on hand to start but there is no mistaking, you are going to lose the game. Wealthy people should be screaming against the Ryan budget like it is the end of the world, which that is being over dramatic, it's just the end of the United States. China will be fine.

Why would I like the Ryan budget? It increases federal spending by 40% and makes ridiculously optimistic assumptions about economic growth. The only difference between the Ryan and the Senate budget is how much money they spend.

By the way, neither budget sells anything off.

Well since you feel like that I can't sell you Yosemite but I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Since you're about that bright.

 

[Rozman]

I just love these Obama ass kissers coming out and saying that a $16 Trillion going on $20 trillion debt is
nothing at all to worry about and it means nothing...

Why are they taking that stand.
Thier mission is to not let one negative criticism come within 100 miles of this president.

 

[emptystep]

I just love these Obama ass kissers coming out and saying that a $16 Trillion going on $20 trillion debt is
nothing at all to worry about and it means nothing...

Why are they taking that stand.
Thier mission is to not let one negative criticism come within 100 miles of this president.

Let's look at the function of the Ryan budget. I think we can all agree on what a stimulus package basically looks like. Whether or not a stimulus package will be successful given a whole bunch of variables is debatable. The Ryan budget is an anti-stimulus. The question is whether an anti-stimulus will flat line the economy or shrink the economy. There is just no way you are going to convince me, or any other rational individual, that you are going to grow the economy with an anti-stimulus budget.

Just a little note on the end to help clear up any confusion about how much of an anti-stimulus budget Ryan's is. The tax cut for the rich takes $4.6 trillion of revenue out of the equation, I'll even throw in a trillion either side of that. The budget is revenue neutral, I'll even throw away balancing the budget. At the very least it is a 3.6 trillion dollar anti-stimulus budget. (And I am not even going to bring up the point Ryan uses the saving from affordable care act and also says he completely does away with it. I could go on and on about items I am not going to bring up.)

 

[emptystep]

I just love these Obama ass kissers coming out and saying that a $16 Trillion going on $20 trillion debt is
nothing at all to worry about and it means nothing...

Why are they taking that stand.
Thier mission is to not let one negative criticism come within 100 miles of this president.

Let's look at the function of the Ryan budget. I think we can all agree on what a stimulus package basically looks like. Whether or not a stimulus package will be successful given a whole bunch of variables is debatable. The Ryan budget is an anti-stimulus. The question is whether an anti-stimulus will flat line the economy or shrink the economy. There is just no way you are going to convince me, or any other rational individual, that you are going to grow the economy with an anti-stimulus budget.

Just a little note on the end to help clear up any confusion about how much of an anti-stimulus budget Ryan's is. The tax cut for the rich takes $4.6 trillion of revenue out of the equation, I'll even throw in a trillion either side of that. The budget is revenue neutral, I'll even throw away balancing the budget. At the very least it is a 3.6 trillion dollar anti-stimulus budget. (And I am not even going to bring up the point Ryan uses the saving from affordable care act and also says he completely does away with it. I could go on and on about items I am not going to bring up.)

Looks like I have to update my last post a little.
Analysis Sees Hurdles in Ryan Budget Plan - Washington Wire - WSJ

Big tax-rate cuts like those in the House Republican budget would compel lawmakers to reduce tax breaks by about $5.7 trillion over the coming decade, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis.

That’s almost 30% of all the deductions, credits and other breaks that Congress now provides, the center said. “It is hard to imagine” that Congress could achieve such reductions, according to a TPC blogger, Howard Gleckman.

(That is all I can cut and paste due to it is a subscription only article.)

So to update. Ryan has a 5.7 trillion dollar over ten years anti-stimulus package. What should we calculate economic growth not to be?

[edit] I will still give you a trillion either way. So call it only a 4.7 trillion dollar anti-stimulus package.[/edit]