July 16, 201115 yr http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-24-Dont-believe-national-debt-hype_n.htm
July 16, 201115 yr http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-24-Dont-believe-national-debt-hype_n.htm Interesting read and thought acemona.
July 16, 201115 yr "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson
July 16, 201115 yr Not really, she's ignorant. Comparing GDP to federal debt vs a company's income to debt? C'mon, REALLY Sally? If she wants to be part of a serious conversation she needs to get a clue.
July 17, 201115 yr Not really, she's ignorant. Comparing GDP to federal debt vs a company's income to debt? C'mon, REALLY Sally? If she wants to be part of a serious conversation she needs to get a clue. I respect your opinion 75center. Can you elaborate about the differences in the comparison?
July 17, 201115 yr "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson True and not true. It means pretty much what Jefferson wrote but is not the exact quote. "if we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 29 November 1802[1] http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Wasting_the_labours_of_the_people
July 17, 201115 yr I respect your opinion 75center. Can you elaborate about the differences in the comparison? Sure, GDP is not the federal income. Now, if she wants to take federal revenues that are available to retire debt, then she has a sound comparison. The problem even with that is figuring out the revenue that is not earmarked already. My guess is that ratio is going to be huge, not about 1:1.
July 17, 201115 yr Sure, GDP is not the federal income. Now, if she wants to take federal revenues that are available to retire debt, then she has a sound comparison. The problem even with that is figuring out the revenue that is not earmarked already. My guess is that ratio is going to be huge, not about 1:1. Thanks.
July 17, 201115 yr I think the other problem and why the debt is such a huge issue is because looking ahead, the US has some huge liabilites in entitlement programs that are unfunded. If the debt is still a problem when the bills start coming due on those, we have some even bigger issues.
July 17, 201115 yr Interesting read and thought acemona. When you guys start to talk money and stuff and I have to go to outside sources. All my arguments are merely philosophical.
July 18, 201115 yr Author Spending always needs to be challenged, however, it has not changed much in its rate of growth unlike revenue. So to say spending is THE issue is simply incorrect.
July 18, 201115 yr The fact that spending has not changed much in its rate of growth makes it THE issue.
July 18, 201115 yr Author The fact that spending has not changed much in its rate of growth makes it THE issue. I partly agree. However, it hasn't gone hog-wild (relatively) as many will have you believe. Any person who is responsible for implementing a new plan that says it's ONLY a spending problem is not being honest. That's my point.
July 18, 201115 yr I partly agree. However, it hasn't gone hog-wild (relatively) as many will have you believe. Any person who is responsible for implementing a new plan that says it's ONLY a spending problem is not being honest. That's my point. I am not sure the definition of hog-wild. But in 2009 Federal Outlays jumped 15.2% over the previous year (2008). In 2008, the percent increase over 2007 in current year dollars was 8.5%. Since 1975 the average increase is 6.3%. From 1985 to 2007 the increase was only 4.7% on average. So in 2008 the increase jumped to almost double the average and in 2009 it tripled. Between 2008 and 2009 Receipts went down 19.9%. I do not believe there was a change in tax laws between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009. So the decrease almost had to drive purely by the recession. In 2007 the numbers on receipts and outlays were almost balanced. A slight deficit, but a low one historically. The the spending jumped in 2008 and again in 2009 and revenues sank by almost 20% annually. And here we are. This page has a nice excel spreadsheet available for download to play with these numbers if interested. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
July 18, 201115 yr Author I am not sure the definition of hog-wild. But in 2009 Federal Outlays jumped 15.2% over the previous year (2008). In 2008, the percent increase over 2007 in current year dollars was 8.5%. Since 1975 the average increase is 6.3%. From 1985 to 2007 the increase was only 4.7% on average. So in 2008 the increase jumped to almost double the average and in 2009 it tripled. Between 2008 and 2009 Receipts went down 19.9%. I do not believe there was a change in tax laws between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2009. So the decrease almost had to drive purely by the recession. In 2007 the numbers on receipts and outlays were almost balanced. A slight deficit, but a low one historically. The the spending jumped in 2008 and again in 2009 and revenues sank by almost 20% annually. And here we are. This page has a nice excel spreadsheet available for download to play with these numbers if interested. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 Good details. Interesting that receipts as a % of GDP has decreased by 25% since 2000. Spending as a % of GDP has increased by nearly 33% in that same time. Looks to me to be a two-headed problem.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.