$19,000,000,000,000.00 National Debt And Counting (companies, vs, retirement, federal government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is too new a concept for me to trust longer term. Short and even medium term I would expect it to be useful if necessary. But IMO it most likely won't be necessary, as we will grow.
I don't know why we could not just issue short term debt. We dictate the terms.
Again at this time longer term I cannot trust zero interest rates.
We only dictate the terms so long as someone is willing to buy our debt. Buying debt becomes less attractive as the interest rates drop - unless the world economy looks weak.
If it was as simple as that, Argentina never would have had a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Since deficits don't matter why not put the funds in infrastructure, creates jobs, helps the economy and much needed repair work.
You see, I fundamentally disagree with you and Dick Cheney. I agree more with Obama and Krugman that these deficits do matter. I just agree with the 2008 versions of themselves more than the 2016 versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Debt has doubled since 2007 and yet we pay the same number of dollars in interest.
You are ignoring some obvious facts.
#1 the amount of interest on the national debt that we pay annually hasn't doubled with Obama's doubling of the national debt, due to Obama's support of QE Trickle Down economics. Every single Fed pick Obama has made, has been to a QE Trickle Down economics supporter, which suppresses this interest on the debt with low interest rates.
Obama, the biggest Trickle Down president in US history, has helped ease the annual deficit due to interest payments at least in the short run, but at what cost?
#2 if we are not able to contain the interest rates and it were to rise to the level of interest rates under Bush or Clinton -- our national deficit would soar.
#3 our national debt is set to grow back to trillion dollar annual deficits even without a rise in interest rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
If you are worried about returning to trillion dollar deficits, keep away from any of the GOP candidates, since each one has a fiscal plan that does just that.
I agree with you on Cruz and Trump's plans. However, you do realize per CNN, Bernie's plan is horrid for the national debt? CNN ran the numbers and even with the best case scenario it is bad. Hillary is also planning on pretending she can increase social security without an equal increase in revenue and not contribute to the problem. Although, I do think she "might" be the "best" of those 4 on paper for this issue at least.
Meanwhile, Kasich has a track record of being an adult with the budget at the state and federal level. It is absurd to act like Kasich is not solid on this issue given his record.
This debt is a great risk to the future of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the founders of the country, was extremely concerned about high levels of debt and he made it a high priority to pay many debts back.
I agree with you on Cruz and Trump's plans. However, you do realize per CNN, Bernie's plan is horrid for the national debt? CNN ran the numbers and even with the best case scenario it is bad. Hillary is also planning on pretending she can increase social security without an equal increase in revenue and not contribute to the problem. Although, I do think she "might" be the "best" of those 4 on paper for this issue at least.
Meanwhile, Kasich has a track record of being an adult with the budget at the state and federal level. It is absurd to act like Kasich is not solid on this issue given his record.
TAX POLICY CENTER|URBAN INSTITUTE & BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
If the receipts from the Sanders proposal were used to reduce federal debt there would be additional saving from reduced interest costs. Including the saving from lower interest payments, the Sanders proposals (net of the carbon rebate) could reduce the national debt by $18 trillion through 2026 and $56 trillion through 2036—enough to completely eliminate the publicly held debt. However, the receipts are clearly earmarked in the senator’s plan to finance specific new government spending programs and not to reduce the debt
This debt is a great risk to the future of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the founders of the country, was extremely concerned about high levels of debt and he made it a high priority to pay many debts back.
But you forget that the founding fathers owned slaves, so by today's standards that automatically discredits anything good they ever did.
If the budget is your issue...it is Hillary or Kasich. Kasich has a plan to balance the budget in 10 years, the above people's plans will not balance it.
This debt is a great risk to the future of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson himself, one of the founders of the country, was extremely concerned about high levels of debt and he made it a high priority to pay many debts back.
That's because in Thomas Jefferson's day, we owed money to European nations, denominated in their currencies. It's no secret that owing money in a currency you don't control is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Today, we owe money largely to ourselves, denominated entirely in a currency we can create at-will. Our borrowing capacity isn't infinite, but if there is a limit on global demand for dollars, we haven't come near it yet.
But mainly the comparison isn't valid because the U.S. back then was not yet monetarily sovereign.
That's because in Thomas Jefferson's day, we owed money to European nations, denominated in their currencies. It's no secret that owing money in a currency you don't control is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Today, we owe money largely to ourselves, denominated entirely in a currency we can create at-will. Our borrowing capacity isn't infinite, but if there is a limit on global demand for dollars, we haven't come near it yet.
But mainly the comparison isn't valid because the U.S. back then was not yet monetarily sovereign.
Also, the dollar was backed by gold then and debts required gold to back up the currency. That's not needed today and gives the government much more flexibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
