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.
So you have NO IDEA about what debt levels may be detrimental to the US? If so, why do you support such massive deficit spending without question? Did you read the CBO report? Did you see the assumptions for markedly reduced federal spending after 2012 and interest rates ticking up only 1.5% points over ten years?
How much debt is too much? All of you liberals avoid this very simple question, yet demand massive deficit spending.
Check what your Republican presidents have been doing to the country.
Two problems with your little graph...
1. Deficits increased under Republican presidents, but they also decreased under Republican presidents. In much the same way, deficits have both increased and decreased under Democratic presidents. All of this means very little since Presidents do not rule by decree, cannot tax and cannot spend without Congress's authorization. Furthermore, Congress may spend in spite of a presidential veto as they did during Reagan's first term.
2. On each of the last three occasions that Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress, unemployment declined and either the federal budget deficit declined or the federal budget was balanced.
If you really want to lower unemployment and reduce the deficit, history indicates voting for Republicans is the way to accomplish both.
2. On each of the last three occasions that Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress, unemployment declined and either the federal budget deficit declined or the federal budget was balanced.
One little problem with that: George W. Bush went to the Barack Obama School of Funky Accounting. IF he did balance the budget (which he didn't) he did so by omitting known line items, like the two wars he was running. You would be well advised to find a different metric.
Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance the budget until 2040. That's even assuming his ridiculous assumption that his budget would lower unemployment to around 3% even pans out.
Republicans shouldn't lecture on deficits.
You're right. Good thing I'm not a Republican then, I can lecture you all I like.
The liberal followers trust Obama when he tells them it doesn't matter how high he jacks up the national debt, he's like a god or something and they trust in him completely. They believe so much in the government handouts, and in wild spending they see no reason at all not to double, triple, quadruple the debt -- whatever Obama wants. And Obama has them utterly believing that a few rich can pay for everything, most people never have to pay any taxes -- much less work.
It appears as though many liberals are perfectly content with current debt levels. However, one must simply ask a few questions.
A. How much debt is too much?
1. When money spent to service the debt is-
a.25% of federal annual revenues
b. 50% of federal revenues
c. 75% of federal revenues
d. 100% of federal revenues
2. Only when the government is unable to service the debt (i.e.> than 100% federal revenues)
3. Any debt is okay- we will just print more money
What debt level is acceptable? The Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz, the champion of federal deficit spending, has no answer for this question. Further, he has no answers for what happens when we reach that debt that "is too much". What do liberals think?
B. When we reach debt levels that are "too much", what do we do then?
The government has abused the fiat currency system, I will say that. How much is too much debt? We passed that long ago, possibly under Reagan/Bush with their starve the beast tactics. But since those days are long gone, I believe the ideal amount of debt would be about $7 trillion in todays world without increasing it unless necessary while having about $3-5 trillion in reserves. That's fiscally responsible in my opinion, remember its never good to have no debt especially in America but we have to admit too much debt isn't good as well.
The government has abused the fiat currency system, I will say that. How much is too much debt? We passed that long ago, possibly under Reagan/Bush with their starve the beast tactics. But since those days are long gone, I believe the ideal amount of debt would be about $7 trillion in todays world without increasing it unless necessary while having about $3-5 trillion in reserves. That's fiscally responsible in my opinion, remember its never good to have no debt especially in America but we have to admit too much debt isn't good as well.
Thank you. That is the first answer I have recieved.
Any liberals want to weigh in?
How much debt is too much?
Have we reached too much debt when 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of federal revenues are used to service the debt? Do you know at what levels each of the above is predicted to occur? If not, why not? Also, when we achieve those levels, what then?
The liberal followers trust Obama when he tells them it doesn't matter how high he jacks up the national debt, he's like a god or something and they trust in him completely. They believe so much in the government handouts, and in wild spending they see no reason at all not to double, triple, quadruple the debt -- whatever Obama wants. And Obama has them utterly believing that a few rich can pay for everything, most people never have to pay any taxes -- much less work.
That is true. Those same followers of Obama, who embrace current spending levels, have no idea of when that spending will cause serious consequences- no idea.
One theory, based on the assumption that the US is the world's fiat currency and that there will thus ALWAYS be demand for US dollars, regardless of how many we print, is that no debt level is unacceptable for the US. Why? It assumes, correctly, that we can print as much money as we want and, incorrectly, that there will always be those who want to buy US bonds and hold our currency. The government can just ask the fed to print up a few more trillion bucks and give them T-bills. This, they contend, can go on forever, such that no debt level is intolerable. Many economists embrace this contention and feel worry over current and future debt levels is irrational.
The other assumption is that there is not infinite demand for US bonds and currency. With that assumption, interest rates must rise to attract new buyers of bond debt. Further, if the US is not the fiat currency for the world, there is a markedly lower demand for US dollars. The two situations cause the "infinite debt" theory to unravel. Further, higher and higher percentages of annual revenues go to service the debt. When we reach levels when the lion's share of revenues go to service the debt, there is little, if any, federal revenues left over for current federal expenditures (bond holders are the first mouth at the trough).
Here is a link analyzing what is acceptable debt. Unlike the CBO projections, it assumes current spending levels. CBO projections, oddly, assume marked reductions in US federal spending (what planet are they on?).
Thank you. That is the first answer I have recieved.
Any liberals want to weigh in?
How much debt is too much?
Have we reached too much debt when 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of federal revenues are used to service the debt? Do you know at what levels each of the above is predicted to occur? If not, why not? Also, when we achieve those levels, what then?
you read? right past it, didn't you?
my answer again is $1.00
If we stop giving subsidies to farmers like yourself, the nation wouldn't be in so much debt.
How much did uncle sam pay you for not growing corn last year?
Besides, I thought you hated Obama and America right after his re-election. Did you dig your American flag out of the trash and suddenly start caring?
you read? right past it, didn't you?
my answer again is $1.00
If we stop giving subsidies to farmers like yourself, the nation wouldn't be in so much debt.
How much did uncle sam pay you for not growing corn last year?
$1?
I was looking for rational answers. ALL NATIONS have some debt. The question becomes when that debt becomes detrimental.
How much in subsidies did I recieve? ZERO. I have no ground in CRP and rent out the tillable land to farmers. I do not enroll or seek forest subsidies or wetlands subsidies, which I could recieve. I recieve only annual rent and nothing from the feds. I am not a farmer, per se; I am a physician who happens to own farmland. I consider myself to be a "lead farmer" and a "cat and dog farmer" (I acquire dumped stray animals on the road and give them a place to live on my farm. They have a very large and well appointed home for themselves, as no one else lives there on a regular basis).
How much debt is too much?
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.
