$53 Trillion and Growing

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Heyheybooboo perhaps you should focus on a solution instead of trying to play the blame game.

Your attempt to blame it all on the neocons is extremely false.
Look at the historic figures of deficit to GDP as show on pages 27 and 28 of this PDF 2008 FY budget
In the post WW 2/Truman era we have had deficits with both parties in charge with every possible combination of rule. Also, Bush's deficits are not much worse than those of Jimmy Carter in terms of percentage of GDP.

You should also notice that we have had a balanced budget with Republican Presidents with either a Democrat congress or a Republican congress.
And we've had balanced budgets with a Democrat President and Republican congress.

But we have NEVER had a balanced budget with a Democrat President and a Democrat congress. Although 1969 would be a Democratic budget, so I'll give you one balanced budget since 1951.

Perhaps you should take your own advice...

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Heyheybooboo perhaps you should focus on a solution instead of trying to play the blame game.

 

[ProfJohn]

Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

I thought the Ron Paul crowd wanted to ditch the Federal reserve, but now you are relying on their chairman to make a point for you?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Topic Title: $53 Trillion and Growing

How is our debt 6 times our deficit?

Deficit = yearly debt growth.

Bush has been in office over 6 years.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Everyone that wants to continue Johnnie's NeanderCon Voodoo Economics say, ""Aye.""

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

I thought the Ron Paul crowd wanted to ditch the Federal reserve, but now you are relying on their chairman to make a point for you?

Relying on him to make a point for me? WTF?

That has nothing to do with what I said. Nothing.

All I was saying is he, along with Walker, disagreed with what you stated above.

And WTF does any of this have to do with Ron Paul or the Fed for that matter? Are you just trying to change direction here? Let's not do that. You stated that we could grow our way out of this mess, and this preposterous notion of your's was already shot down in the OP.

Perhaps you should watch the interviews in the OP again, or for the first time as it seems to be.

Here's a hint...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Focus starting at 6:43.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
We went from paying down the debt $250 billion a year to increasing the Federal debt $600 billion a year.

Two things. The first numbers were based on assumed sustained growth. Obviously, that didn't work out well. The second number is even worse, I fear. Bush has been an economic disaster, throwing gasoline on the fire.

I wonder if in, say, 5 years, the problem will be bad enough that Congress and the President will have to acknowledge it. But really, the longer we wait, the more horrible this problem will be. Not just because of compounding interest, but because until the problem is acknowledge, more will be piled on top.

Actually, no. The reductions in Federal debt principle in the late 1990's were real. And Johnnie in his ignorance actually proved my point. When he quoted the numbers ....

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

Johnnie failed to acknowledge that in 1997 Federal debt principle was being paid off when he 'quoted' his numbers. HA! In his desire to attack me he actually paid homage to the Clinton administration.

In addition to paying down Federal debt principle the Clinton administration was 'refinancing' high-interest Federal debt from Mr. Voodoo Economics, Ronald Raygun. This simple action saved the US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in interest.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

Pyramiding debt - the underlying principle of Voodoo Economics. It has cost the US taxpayer $8.166 trillion in interest since 1980 and over the next five years will cost us an additional $2.742 trillion in interest.

Incredible ...

 

[bamacre]

Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it. A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology. But that's another argument for another thread. Regardless those days are over, and anyone who thought that growth would have continued wasn't being realistic.

The numbers today look bad, but the real nightmare is coming. And none of the leading candidates will even acknowledge the problem. McCain, Hillary, Obama, they all want to spend more, pile more on top, make this problem worse.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

my prediction: gov't prints a boatload of money, hyperinflates all the debt away, then issues a new dollar so that the cycle can repeat itself. just like 1923 germany.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it. A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology. But that's another argument for another thread.

Complete baloney. But yeah, it's an argument for another thread.

 

[bamacre]

David Walker Talks Social Security, Medicare, National Debt

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it.

A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology.

Well I'd like any rock labeled Democrat in the Whitehouse then.

You think the current rock is doing the right things?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it.

A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology.

Well I'd like any rock labeled Democrat in the Whitehouse then.

You think the current rock is doing the right things?

What is the Democrat plan for the problems laid out in the OP?

If Bush were a rock, the country would be in better shape. He has made this problem even worse.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

If they want to ignore facts, thats their problem. If you want to ignore them as well, thats your fault. But it is what it is.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it.

A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology.

Well I'd like any rock labeled Democrat in the Whitehouse then.

You think the current rock is doing the right things?

You dont think Clinton balanced the budget...do you?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

If they want to ignore facts, thats their problem. If you want to ignore them as well, thats your fault. But it is what it is.

Ignore what facts?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

If they want to ignore facts, thats their problem. If you want to ignore them as well, thats your fault. But it is what it is.

Ignore what facts?

The ones posted by ProfJohn

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it.

A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology.

Well I'd like any rock labeled Democrat in the Whitehouse then.

You think the current rock is doing the right things?

You dont think Clinton balanced the budget...do you?

Clinton did Balance the Budget, at least the operating budget. Interest on the Debt exceeded the Surplus though. As you may recall, there was a projected Surplus of > $1trillion from 2000-2010. It was upon those projections that Bush based his Tax Cuts on and marketed it as returning the Surplus to the Tax Payer.

The Clinton/Gore camp had other plans for that $1trillion. That was to keep it(or a good portion anyway) as a fund to help avert the eventual SS short-fall. That plan was the more prudent one, but people found it too humorous how Gore said "Lockbox" to take the plan seriously.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre
Those numbers looked good under Clinton, but he had nothing to do with it.

A rock could have balanced those budgets with an economy led by technology.

Well I'd like any rock labeled Democrat in the Whitehouse then.

You think the current rock is doing the right things?

You dont think Clinton balanced the budget...do you?

Clinton did Balance the Budget, at least the operating budget. Interest on the Debt exceeded the Surplus though. As you may recall, there was a projected Surplus of > $1trillion from 2000-2010. It was upon those projections that Bush based his Tax Cuts on and marketed it as returning the Surplus to the Tax Payer.

The Clinton/Gore camp had other plans for that $1trillion. That was to keep it(or a good portion anyway) as a fund to help avert the eventual SS short-fall. That plan was the more prudent one, but people found it too humorous how Gore said "Lockbox" to take the plan seriously.

Putting those funds in the same SS lockbox that we have now, will not make the SS better. You quite simply fail to understand how the system works.

Was the lockbox going to be the same lockbox we have now?
Was the lockbox going to be a coffee can in the whitehouse lawn?(bad for the economy)

Things the democrats really oppose
Was it going to invested in private funds(stockmaret is risky)
Was it going to private accounts with goverment bonds(same as current lockbox)
was it going to be private funds and private accounts(stock market is risky)


IN the end, his lockbox idea was just hot air without any details. There are only so many ways to build this lockbox and their opposed by the democrats or the same lockbox with minor differences.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

If they want to ignore facts, thats their problem. If you want to ignore them as well, thats your fault. But it is what it is.

Ignore what facts?

The ones posted by ProfJohn

Are you trying to say we can grow our way out of this problem? Did you watch the video? They shot down this preposterous notion. And that is why PJ didn't reply back.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Another interesting thing from that PDF.

Scroll down to page 131 and look at Debt vs. GDP.*
At the end of 2006 our debt vs. GDP ratio was 64.7% which is LOWER than its peak high of 67.3% in 1996. So we are actually in better shape to handle our debt today than in the mid 90s.

* When talking about debt and deficit you can NOT look at the actual dollar figures, unless you are looking at ?constant? dollars. This is because as the economy grows we develop the ability to handle increasing amounts of debt.
In fact the percent of our budget that goes to debt management is lower today than it was at any time in the 90?s. In 2006 17% of our budget went to the Treasury Department that is well off the peak of 23.6% in 1997.

As long as we grow our economy faster than we grow our debt we will be ok.

David Walker and Ben Bernanke seem to disagree with you.

If they want to ignore facts, thats their problem. If you want to ignore them as well, thats your fault. But it is what it is.

Ignore what facts?

The ones posted by ProfJohn

Are you trying to say we can grow our way out of this problem? Did you watch the video? They shot down this preposterous notion. And that is why PJ didn't reply back.

Growth is always a solution to debt. Yes we can grow ourselves out of this problem. To say otherwise is foolish.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: charrison
Growth is always a solution to debt. Yes we can grow ourselves out of this problem. To say otherwise is foolish.

Again, Walker and Bernanke disagree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Focus starting at 6:43.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
Growth is always a solution to debt. Yes we can grow ourselves out of this problem. To say otherwise is foolish.

Again, Walker and Bernanke disagree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Focus starting at 6:43.

Its their opinion for Christ's sake. Note the word opinion. Open thy eyes sir.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: charrison
Growth is always a solution to debt. Yes we can grow ourselves out of this problem. To say otherwise is foolish.

Again, Walker and Bernanke disagree...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
Focus starting at 6:43.

I dont disagree with anything in that video, but growth is always an option. Ben did not disagree with that either, but he did it would be unlikely that growth would be the only solution needed.