Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: $9,000,000,000,000 in Debt, Which Generation Will Be Paying This
Senior Citizen Voters (Baby Boomers) 3 4.69%
Mid-Age Voters 0 0%
Young Voters 12 18.75%
Our Young Children 6 9.38%
Our Grand-Children 22 34.38%
other 16 25.00%
Not Sure 5 7.81%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:45 AM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,307,373 times
Reputation: 1857

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
You know, I just went to the Google News Homepage and there isn't even a headline story of the $9 trillion debt issue.
I just Googled $9 trillion debt and the first story was an NPR piece. What were you searching for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:54 AM
 
409 posts, read 1,456,520 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozzie679 View Post
Clinton had that all taken care of. Then came wars, spending, and taxcuts. For some reason I think that was a bad equation.
Clinton was successful in tackling the yearly deficit but not the compounded debt. Other than that, I agree. Tax cuts have the same long-term fiscal effect as spending increases and should be considered as such. Wars are always expensive and not just in monetary terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
On the other hand $9 trillion is a lot of debt so I'm thinking the elderly, disabled and terminally ill will pay with their lives through cost cutting.
Let us say we magically managed to balance the budget. We would still add about $5T in debt simply from paying interest on existing debt, virtually all of it acquired between 1980 and 2008.

And if not cost cutting, how exactly do you propose achieving it? Eager to see some realistic numbers, the repercussions and a logical analysis, not just a political talking point.

Let us start with... should we reform medicare? What do you think the repercussions might be in a decade or so from now, with regard to the costs and debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:29 PM
 
409 posts, read 1,456,520 times
Reputation: 138
The books aren't truly balanced until the Revenues = Expenditures + Borrowing Costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:33 PM
 
12,270 posts, read 11,271,490 times
Reputation: 8065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Derf View Post
Tax cuts have the same long-term fiscal effect as spending increases and should be considered as such.
I'm not trying to hi-jack the thread. What do you mean? If tax cuts stimulate the economy, which in turn increase IRS revenue, how is that a spending increase? (NOT being argumentative, I'm really curious)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,319 posts, read 8,948,515 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudCapMarine View Post
$9,000,000,000,000 in Debt, Which Generation Will Be Paying This
I'll be glad to discuss this with you after you tell me WHICH GENERATION will pay for the approximately ELEVEN (11) TRILLION of EXISTING NATIONAL DEBT?

You know? The debt which is REAL ... and not PROPOSED.

The debt which is CURRENTLY on our books.

The debt which GWB ....ALONE ... contributed around FIVE (5) TRILLION!

The debt which Reagan and Bush Sr together contributed around 4.5 TRILLION!

The VAST MAJORITY of our current National Debt was run up during REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.

Need proof? Here are a few places to start:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2008

Last edited by RD5050; 08-24-2009 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,700,706 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Derf View Post
The books aren't truly balanced until the Revenues = Expenditures + Borrowing Costs.
Yep, but I wanted to keep expense from current debt interest as separate so we don't lose track of the impact from existing debt.

Its impossible to turn a ship around on a dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,456,116 times
Reputation: 24590
every penny that the government spends, hurts us. ultimately, just as cash for clunkers will quickly show, the government spending money helps a tiny bit in the short run and then hurts double in the long run. the reason is that once the government stops spending, any benefit from the spending disappears. there is no "stimulus" effect where they get things going and then positive stuff continues. so you are left with no positive, but then have all this additional debt to pay off. i dont understand why this isnt blatantly obvious to anyone who pays taxes or who expects to be paying taxes in the future. the government doesnt have a job, all their money comes from us. why should they be allowed to spend our money instead of us spending our money? why do we think somehow thats going to have a better impact on the economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:47 PM
 
409 posts, read 1,456,520 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
I'm not trying to hi-jack the thread. What do you mean? If tax cuts stimulate the economy, which in turn increase IRS revenue, how is that a spending increase? (NOT being argumentative, I'm really curious)
Tax cuts give the economy a very short term boost but result in long-term deficits. Anyone who takes a tax cut and puts it away for a rainy day does double damage to the economy. This is one major reason why Reagan left office with MUCH larger deficits than he began with. This is why George Bush Sr. called it "Voodoo Economics".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 12:48 PM
 
409 posts, read 1,456,520 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Yep, but I wanted to keep expense from current debt interest as separate so we don't lose track of the impact from existing debt.

Its impossible to turn a ship around on a dime.
No, but the first step is to stop the bleeding. You'll never stabilize the patient until you stop the bleeding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top