Has anybody glanced at the debt clock recently? (U.S. National Debt Talk.)

ShieldWife

Marchioness
If our economy continues as it is going now, with increasing debt, deficits, and entitlements, then its only a matter of time until disaster. A Ponzi scheme can only last so long before it collapses and the recent investors lose big.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
If our economy continues as it is going now, with increasing debt, deficits, and entitlements, then its only a matter of time until disaster. A Ponzi scheme can only last so long before it collapses and the recent investors lose big.

Pretty much. I've been telling people not to try to invest in stock for the long term for a while now, because all of the perceived value of those assets are built on demand that continuously increases, not the actual utility of those assets. That bubble must eventually crash.

Similarly, the US debt bubble needs to catch up with itself eventually. If some actual bloody fiscal discipline could be practiced, we could solve this problem relatively easily. Just abolish baseline budgeting, and pass a balanced budget amendment that mandates the Fed cannot operate at a deficit excepting in a time of formally-declared war, and during time of piece, must be paying enough into the debt to actually reduce the principle each year.

Of course, this isn't going to happen, because buying votes has become an entrenched part of the culture, and the government has gotten its finger into so many different issues, with so many different things people need to choose who to vote over, that the debt just is not a high enough priority.
 
I think the only reason why we are as stable as we are is because literally EVERYBODY owes everbody tens of thousands of times over, so if anyone tries to do a "Give me what you owe me," it becomes a you first. It's essentially a financial form of M.A.D, while it may stave of disaster for an indefinite amount of time, i'm not sure financial disaster is as good a determent as nuclear hellfire.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I think the only reason why we are as stable as we are is because literally EVERYBODY owes everbody tens of thousands of times over, so if anyone tries to do a "Give me what you owe me," it becomes a you first. It's essentially a financial form of M.A.D, while it may stave of disaster for an indefinite amount of time, i'm not sure financial disaster is as good a determent as nuclear hellfire.


Well that and its like being the prettiest pig in a hog contest, were pretty ugly its just that most other countries are worse.
 

gral

Well-known member
The important figure is not the total debt, but the GDP to debt ratio. In that regard, the USA is actually doing great, much better than most of Europe.

Yes, but that's not the only reason why the situation is still manageable - you also have the perception that US Treasury Bonds still is the safest investment in the world - that is, the US government will be the last one in the world to go bankrupt. Until that changes, you won't get a full economic collapse like Greece was in real danger of having, and people will still(literally) bankroll you.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Actually now that I've looked at it closely, the US debt to GDP ratio is shit compared to most European countries. I must have been looking at a different chart before, or something.
List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia (3 year old data)

Yes, but that's not the only reason why the situation is still manageable - you also have the perception that US Treasury Bonds still is the safest investment in the world - that is, the US government will be the last one in the world to go bankrupt. Until that changes, you won't get a full economic collapse like Greece was in real danger of having, and people will still(literally) bankroll you.

Well, sure. It's all a game of perception. If a bank or a company lends money to someone unstable who won't be able to return it with interest later, you get the subprime crisis. So if a person wants to get money from a bank, it's important that he has a good credit rating, i. e. the way the bank sees this person, its perception, is crucial.

Similarly, if people lend money to a government (which buying bonds basically boils down to) that can't return it with interest, you get an economic crisis, as nobody will lend money to a government that is undependable. Then the country finds itself with a budget that relies entirely and solely on taxes, which means it is either forced to cut spending drastically (and usually catastrophically, since we're talking about a huge amount of money suddenly gone), or raise taxes to insane levels to compensate, which chokes the economy to a grinding hold, as suddenly people no longer have disposable income. Usually it's a combination of both.

So again, perception matters. Every country wants to look good and have a good credit rating so that people lend it money. A country which has much more debt than it can ever hope to pay for, i. e. a high debt to GDP ratio, looks bad. A country with a good ratio looks good (if you make a lot of money, you can pay off your debts, or so the theory goes). The absolute amount is completely irrelevant.

The US has a debt of 27 trillion, but it has a GDP of 21 trillion. That's a 1.28 ratio of debt/GDP. It's pretty shit, but not WE'RE DEAD shit. The USA is 14th in the world in that regard, Greece is 2nd, Lebanon 3rd. 1st is, for some reason, Japan, but they look like they're doing fine. The UK, France are much better, at 29th and 23rd place respectively. Germany is 17th, which is not much behind the US, but it's doing good as far as I know.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
The President creates a budget. He determines who needs what and when. It is up to Congress to FUND the budget and well...…..they can veto the Presidents ideas.
 

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Much like the US Congress and every President in my lifetime, my answer to the question of America's national debt is to ignore it and hope it never effects me. Like a serial killer methodically striking houses on the block I live on.

While a bit of an exaggeration...My cynicism has thoroughly won out on the matter. No political party in the US will do anything but rhetoricize against the debt while out of power, and using money for pet projects and vote-buying schemes, be it military boondoggles or bureaucracy, is bipartisan. Out of necessity, I reserve more concern for local affairs of political finance where I might actually have hope of holding a feather of influence.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
I am worried about the debt and normally its my biggest conern how ever now I have much bigger problems.

Like the fight against our first amendment rights, I mean sure a fincial collapse is bad but right now I'm more worried about living in a communist shithole which would be even worse.
 

gral

Well-known member
Like the fight against our first amendment rights, I mean sure a fincial collapse is bad but right now I'm more worried about living in a communist shithole which would be even worse.
And you would get the financial collapse as well...

As for politicians not caring about debt, why would they? They earn recognition by doing things(which almost always means spending money), not by saving resources; in fact, failing to be a spender probably is a way to get criticized, and therefore not getting reelected. Add to that the fact that government, like companies, run on credit instead of cash, and you have every incentive to be fiscally irresponsible.
 

Typhonis

Well-known member
Well if we can pull out of the Mid East and draw back more troops our debt should lower. Also increasing our production capacity means higher GDP and that can help buy back some debt. Unless some idiot wants to tank our economy.
 

Floridaman

Well-known member
I think the only reason why we are as stable as we are is because literally EVERYBODY owes everbody tens of thousands of times over, so if anyone tries to do a "Give me what you owe me," it becomes a you first. It's essentially a financial form of M.A.D, while it may stave of disaster for an indefinite amount of time, i'm not sure financial disaster is as good a determent as nuclear hellfire.
Effectively this for the global economy.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Perhaps, but I suspect the reaction is going to be more like with Thatcher in that enough people are going to figure out that a huge welfare state isn't sustainable. Especially in light of the fact that we are already seeing the Democrats run into trouble with the economy, and they aren't likely to suddenly make a right turn and get back on track.
I doubt this. Thatcher came about due to specific circumstances unique to her and even then the UK government bar leaving the EU is still on much the same path.
At some point the money *will* run out, and more people are going to figure out that they're going to get screwed on taxes and the like if they don't cut back on the welfare state.
To payoff the national debt every U.S. taxpayer owes 225,000 dollars individually, we are beyond the point of being a sinking ship as far as the government doing anything to actually fix the national debt is concerned and furthermore the people in charge know that to be the case.



The above is an example, as neither proposed the only realistic way of of paying down the national debt, raising taxes across the board. It doesn't matter ultimately how much you state your economy will grow, it doesn't matter how much you say you will tax the rich.

The rich aren't wealthy enough to pay down the national debt alone without sending the economy into a deathspiral by reducing them to lower than beggar status hindering all future development, and increasing the size of the economy doesn't mean jack sh*t if you are unwilling to raise taxes to take advantage of it, and since neither side would become popular or electable by raising taxes, neither side will.
 
Last edited:

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
The above is an example, as neither proposed the only realistic way of of paying down the national debt, raising taxes across the board. It doesn't matter ultimately how much you state your economy will grow, it doesn't matter how much you say you will tax the rich.

The rich aren't wealthy enough to pay down the national debt alone without sending the economy into a deathspiral by reducing them to lower than beggar status hindering all future development, and increasing the size of the economy doesn't mean jack sh*t if you are unwilling to raise taxes to take advantage of it, and since neither side would become popular or electable by raising taxes, neither side will.

No.

Raising taxes does not solve the problem, has not solved the problem, and never will solve the problem.

The problem always has and always will be government spending.

When Reagan cut taxes, government revenue increased. When W. Bush cut taxes, revenue increased. When Trump cut taxes, revenue increased. When you raise taxes, you slow down the economy, and curtail future income. There's a theoretical point where further cutting taxes after that will not increase government revenue, but we've never actually reached it.

The only way that we will pay down the national debt, is by forcing actual fiscal discipline. The only way that that will happen, is a change in the culture, because there's just not enough people who care about the national debt to make it happen right now.

Legally speaking, one thing must happen, and a second thing probably needs to happen in order to get spending under control.

1. Baseline budgeting must be done away with. If you're not familiar with this insane practice, it's where each government department already assumes a % increase to their budget each year. But that's not referred to as growth, if you increase their budget past that, it's considered an increase, and if you slow the rate of growth, that's called a budget cut, even if their budget is still actually growing.

2. Balanced budget amendment. If the Federal Government is not in a formal congressionally-declared war, there will be no deficit spending whatsoever. This should be backed with a measure where if congress fails to pass a balanced budget for two years running, all members of congress are immediately booted from office, and ineligible for re-election in that year.


To think that raising taxes will actually help get the national budget under control shows an unfortunate ignorance of history, and human behavior.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
No.

Raising taxes does not solve the problem, has not solved the problem, and never will solve the problem.

The problem always has and always will be government spending.

When Reagan cut taxes, government revenue increased. When W. Bush cut taxes, revenue increased. When Trump cut taxes, revenue increased. When you raise taxes, you slow down the economy, and curtail future income. There's a theoretical point where further cutting taxes after that will not increase government revenue, but we've never actually reached it.

The only way that we will pay down the national debt, is by forcing actual fiscal discipline. The only way that that will happen, is a change in the culture, because there's just not enough people who care about the national debt to make it happen right now.

Legally speaking, one thing must happen, and a second thing probably needs to happen in order to get spending under control.

1. Baseline budgeting must be done away with. If you're not familiar with this insane practice, it's where each government department already assumes a % increase to their budget each year. But that's not referred to as growth, if you increase their budget past that, it's considered an increase, and if you slow the rate of growth, that's called a budget cut, even if their budget is still actually growing.

2. Balanced budget amendment. If the Federal Government is not in a formal congressionally-declared war, there will be no deficit spending whatsoever. This should be backed with a measure where if congress fails to pass a balanced budget for two years running, all members of congress are immediately booted from office, and ineligible for re-election in that year.


To think that raising taxes will actually help get the national budget under control shows an unfortunate ignorance of history, and human behavior.
Yes. Keep taxes low so the economy grows and the tax base expands...you bring in more taxes as the economy grows because more people become tax payers, and the more they make the more taxes are getting paid. You grow the economy by loosening regulations, lowering taxes and making it easy and cheap to do business in this country.. on top of that, keep spending low, and That's how you pay off these debts.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top