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.
Get a grip. The reason US debt is so popular is that the US economy is so large. When that economy shrinks to the size of Zimbabwe's we will have the same problems that they did. Pretty simple, really.
Which should happen about....never. Our economy is not going to magically turn into something the size of Zimbabwe.
Quote:
In a word, yes. Keep in mind that we will never repay the public debt, and neither will any of the other major economies that are carrying such debt, which is still all of them.
Minor quibble, we could however see it drop as a % of our GDP to a point where we could if we choose too.
Quote:
As you may not recall, the US had four consecutive budget surpluses between FY 1998 and FY 2001. Over that period a total of $363 billion worth of debt held by the public was bought back early. Can you think of anything that might have changed in 2001 that could have caused all that to end?
Well conservatives would argue it was about who controlled the congress .
Reality is-its a whole lot more complex then that. Presidents do not affect the state of our economy or debt nearly as much as most people seem to believe here.
Quote:
You are wrong. About national economics, and just as much about the proper uses of there, their, and they're. What we are doing is what we have always done, and we can simply continue doing it for as long as comets do not impact the earth and destroy our productive capacities.
LOL. Their their now, after all there just trying to have a nice conversation, dont go after they're language.
Ok....that last sentence took some pain to type. I hope people appreciate the horror of that one.
Reality is-its a whole lot more complex then that. Presidents do not affect the state of our economy or debt nearly as much as most people seem to believe here.
That's fair enough; however, Republicans predicted Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy, and the economy soared. Republicans predicted Bush's tax cuts would revitalize the economy, and it stagnated. Republicans advocated deregulation as an economic panacea up to and through the 2008 financial crisis, and then predicted Fed-triggered elevated inflation through years of near-deflation.
Presidents don't have giant levers on their desk to control everything about the economy, but at some point, being consistently wrong should have a political price.
That's fair enough; however, Republicans predicted Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy, and the economy soared. Republicans predicted Bush's tax cuts would revitalize the economy, and it stagnated. Republicans advocated deregulation as an economic panacea up to and through the 2008 financial crisis, and then predicted Fed-triggered elevated inflation through years of near-deflation.
Presidents don't have giant levers on their desk to control everything about the economy, but at some point, being consistently wrong should have a political price.
While called "clinton tax increases" or "Bush tax cuts", really those are a product of the congress voting on them. That being said, they also reflect the will of the party associated with those presidents. So while I agree with what you say, I tend to look at the congress folks who voted them up to be signed by the president, rather then the president who signed them.
In the end its a quibble. Look at congresses approval numbers, even if people don't hold them accountable for their voting and blame presidents, the rest of their shenanigans gets the disgust they deserve.
The problem is that while people can see it as a group.....they dont see them as individuals. The group is responsible for idiocy, and every member claims innocence, by blaming the group.
That's fair enough; however, Republicans predicted Clinton tax increases would destroy the economy, and the economy soared. Republicans predicted Bush's tax cuts would revitalize the economy, and it stagnated. Republicans advocated deregulation as an economic panacea up to and through the 2008 financial crisis, and then predicted Fed-triggered elevated inflation through years of near-deflation.
Presidents don't have giant levers on their desk to control everything about the economy, but at some point, being consistently wrong should have a political price.
Clintons economy stalled after his tax hikes. But when he lowered the capital gains tax and also eliminated taxes on the sale of your primary residence, that put a lot of money back in the economy. He also had the benefit of the tech bubble - which attracted a lot of those dollars from his tax cuts.
Bush's tax cut actually worked for many years. There was a near record streak of quarters with GDP over 3% for years. But his economy fell victim to a spike in oil prices and also no-money down loans with teaser rates. Combine the latter two things with Clintons elimination of capital gains on home sales, it created a bubble. When the folks lost the teaser rates and had to refinance at higher rates, they couldn't make the payments and the bubble popped.
Clintons economy stalled after his tax hikes. But when he lowered the capital gains tax and also eliminated taxes on the sale of your primary residence, that put a lot of money back in the economy. He also had the benefit of the tech bubble - which attracted a lot of those dollars from his tax cuts.
Bush's tax cut actually worked for many years. There was a near record streak of quarters with GDP over 3% for years. But his economy fell victim to a spike in oil prices and also no-money down loans with teaser rates. Combine the latter two things with Clintons elimination of capital gains on home sales, it created a bubble. When the folks lost the teaser rates and had to refinance at higher rates, they couldn't make the payments and the bubble popped.
Clinton was forced by the super-majority in Congress to tack to the right and follow Gingrich's lead. Gingrich spearheaded welfare reform and got thousands of people off the dole and working. The Congress restrained the Clinton Administration from excessive spending. This, combined with wild stock market speculation that filled the capital gains tax coffers, created a one-time temporary surplus.
G.W. Bush aided by a Republican Congress pushed through a major tax cut (and complete tax relief for the lowest earners) which combined with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars kept the economy humming right through the Dot Com Crash and 9/11. In 2006 the Congress became Democrat, partially because of frustration over the Iraq campaign, and Bush was unable to rein in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, despite repeated warnings over a housing bubble. That bubble burst near the end of the Bush Administration and Obama was stuck with dealing with it.
Obama ran as the Anti-Bush, but was unable to repeal the Bush tax cuts because, as he himself admitted, it would harm the economy.
The situation today is that we are recovering from two wars, two bubbles, and trying to absorb a huge new liability in the Affordable Care Act.
My guess is, in about five years this country will be back on an even keel, fully adjusted to the new normal, unless the next President and Congress see fit to push through more tax-and-spend legislation, or we get embroiled in another war. But short-term, war is actually good for the economy; an evil thing to say perhaps but true.
Well conservatives would argue it was about who controlled the congress.
It was the same people during Clinton's last six years as during Bush's first six years. Under Clinton, we had record surpluses. Under Bush, we had record deficits. This is just another example of how what the right-wing claims is all but inevitably a bunch of pure delusional nonsense. Several posts just above would be prime examples of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Reality is-its a whole lot more complex then that. Presidents do not affect the state of our economy or debt nearly as much as most people seem to believe here.
And quarterbacks do not affect the fortunes of football teams as much as people believe? The simple facts are that the President has a HUGE impact on the direction and success of the country.
Last edited by Major Barbara; 07-24-2015 at 05:52 AM..
Obama ran as the Anti-Bush, but was unable to repeal the Bush tax cuts because, as he himself admitted, it would harm the economy.
This is pretty disingenuous. Tax cuts are a useful way to stimulate the economy (although not nearly as useful as spending), which was necessary in 2008/9. Bush wanted to cut taxes while we were paying down our debt because he didn't want to run a budget surplus; he explicitly wanted to distribute that money to (wealthy) taxpayers instead.
So tax cuts made more sense under Obama's tenure than Bush's, because the circumstances were completely opposite. Obama wanted to stimulate a weak economy; Bush wanted to stimulate an overheated bubble economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts
trying to absorb a huge new liability in the Affordable Care Act.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The ACA is deficit-reducing, even more so than predicted.
This is pretty disingenuous. Tax cuts are a useful way to stimulate the economy (although not nearly as useful as spending), which was necessary in 2008/9. Bush wanted to cut taxes while we were paying down our debt because he didn't want to run a budget surplus; he explicitly wanted to distribute that money to (wealthy) taxpayers instead.
So tax cuts made more sense under Obama's tenure than Bush's, because the circumstances were completely opposite. Obama wanted to stimulate a weak economy; Bush wanted to stimulate an overheated bubble economy.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. The ACA is deficit-reducing, even more so than predicted.
Bush wasn't trying to "distribute money" to wealthy taxpayers. He was practicing supply side economics which is to keep money in the private sector where it is most efficiently utilized. And it worked.
It's easy to make empty, ideologically-motivated generalizations about such policies, but it's better to inform oneself and understand the nuances. If the forum is Economics, then we should talk about Economics. If the forum is "Partisan Politics", then that's where the mud slinging and partisan snipes should go.
Bush wasn't trying to "distribute money" to wealthy taxpayers. He was practicing supply side economics which is to keep money in the private sector where it is most efficiently utilized. And it worked.
It's easy to make empty, ideologically-motivated generalizations about such policies, but it's better to inform oneself and understand the nuances. If the forum is Economics, then we should talk about Economics. If the forum is "Partisan Politics", then that's where the mud slinging and partisan snipes should go.
I agree that he was practicing supply side economics, but it definitely didn't "work". We spent a decade racking up debt, neglecting our public infrastructure, and pumping private money into a giant asset bubble leading to the worst depression in 80 years.
And I definitely didn't miss the irony of your advocacy of informing oneself while simultaneously extolling the virtues of supply-side economics (or as Bush Sr. called it, voodoo economics).
I agree that he was practicing supply side economics, but it definitely didn't "work". We spent a decade racking up debt, neglecting our public infrastructure, and pumping private money into a giant asset bubble leading to the worst depression in 80 years.
And I definitely didn't miss the irony of your advocacy of informing oneself while simultaneously extolling the virtues of supply-side economics (or as Bush Sr. called it, voodoo economics).
The fiscal conservatives among us were remarking that Dubya spent like a Democrat. The reality as that Dubya pumped up the economy to have things look good for his re-election at a point where a mild recession would have eased the real estate bubble.
Getting back on-topic, I don't think the US is going to do a Greece. The US is still going to see good economic growth so the debt to GDP ratio is never going to do a Greece or a Japan. Furthermore, the US is still seeing population growth, much to the chagrin of the anti-immigration camp. We're escaping the worst of the aging and shrinking population disaster of Japan and northern Europe. The core economic problem in the United States is structural and neither political party has any answer for it. The combination of global competition and automation has produced an enormous glut of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. The wealthy investing their capital in automation are going to become richer as the poor get poorer. This creates a challenging societal problem. What do you do with the bottom half of the country lacking 21st century job skills that isn't worth paying more than the minimum wage? If you're born smart, healthy, and with engaged parents who make sure you get educated and receive a work ethic, you'll do fine. Those are the people who will drive the economy in the 21st century and keep us from doing a Greece. That isn't the case for the bottom half of the country. It's not lazy. It's the curse of bad genetics mixed with bad environment. We've hurled money at the environment part since LBJ's Great Society with little to show for it. It's politically incorrect to suggest that the genetics part needs to be addressed and we need to breed for smart, healthy people. I don't have the answer but a very big chunk of our younger population is not going to be as economically successful as their parents. This isn't 1950 when the rest of the world was bombed to rubble and the US was 50% of the world economy and paid middle class wages for repetitive task factory jobs.
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.
.
