Government debt

[jasonnfree]

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on economics and had great answers from people of knowledge. I've bookmarked a lot of those threads and reread them. I thought maybe a thread on government debt, it's relationship to gdp, etc. Is Obama really the big spender it's said he is when at the same time we get reports that his spending is less than other presidents? For one thing, didn't he get saddled with a lot of increased spending due to the big recession and recurring debt initiated by previous presidents? In other words, he started with great debt which didn't stop with his presidency?
Below is one link that shows Obama as a low spender, just to start the conversation I hope. Thanks.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...isenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Is Obama really the big spender

Obama had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. Does that answer your question?

 

[jasonnfree]

Is Obama really the big spender

Obama had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. Does that answer your question?

What his parents were doesn't necessarily mean what he is. How he voted before becoming president doesn't mean that's what he is as president. Sanders recently criticized Obama's chained cpi on social security for example. In many ways, obama's the most right wing democrat president we've had. He even extended the bush tax cuts in 2010 for 2 years much to the dismay of his party. He's now pushing for a trade deal (TPP) that's considered more radical than Nafta. Something no liberal would do. So no, it doesn't answer my question but thanks anyway.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How he voted before becoming president doesn't mean that's what he is as president.

except he just socialiszed 20% of the economy with Obamacare, and he's doubled U6 unemployment to 14% with idiotic socialist policies, and thats with Republicans opposing him at every turn.

Imagine where we'd be if Obama got more of what he wanted.

 

[jasonnfree]

How he voted before becoming president doesn't mean that's what he is as president.

except he just socialiszed 20% of the economy with Obamacare, and he's doubled U6 unemployment to 14% with idiotic socialist policies, and thats with Republicans opposing him at every turn.

Imagine where we'd be if Obama got more of what he wanted.

Are you sure that a President McCain would've done better with unemployment? Things might've gotten worse. It's all speculation but things were looking pretty bad for the economy by the time Obama won the election in 2008. You admit to republicans opposing him at every term. They were really fuming that Obama won the election. The nerve of that guy winning an election that McCain should have won. Maybe if they worked with him instead of sabotoging his every move things would be better?
Got those IQ links yet?

 

[Norman]

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on economics and had great answers from people of knowledge. I've bookmarked a lot of those threads and reread them. I thought maybe a thread on government debt, it's relationship to gdp, etc. Is Obama really the big spender it's said he is when at the same time we get reports that his spending is less than other presidents? For one thing, didn't he get saddled with a lot of increased spending due to the big recession and recurring debt initiated by previous presidents? In other words, he started with great debt which didn't stop with his presidency?
Below is one link that shows Obama as a low spender, just to start the conversation I hope. Thanks.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

Just look at the spending stats.

Obviously he is a big spender. Obama's government has spent more money relative to GDP and absoultely than any other elected government in USA.


Actually during WW2 the govt spent even more. Although the current spending stats are IMO incomplete and the GDP IMO inflated due to the poor reporting of inflation and such. Which makes the spending numbers look better than they are.

 

[Kimura]

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on economics and had great answers from people of knowledge. I've bookmarked a lot of those threads and reread them. I thought maybe a thread on government debt, it's relationship to gdp, etc. Is Obama really the big spender it's said he is when at the same time we get reports that his spending is less than other presidents? For one thing, didn't he get saddled with a lot of increased spending due to the big recession and recurring debt initiated by previous presidents? In other words, he started with great debt which didn't stop with his presidency?
Below is one link that shows Obama as a low spender, just to start the conversation I hope. Thanks.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

There isn't a correlation between growth and debt-to-GDP levels. I'm quite surprised that certain pundits still peddle this myth even after the Reinhart & Rogoff debacle.

US public debt is nothing more than the total savings of the US economy. People really need to let this sink in. Those federal liabilities, in the form of US securities, are assets to the public.

Any type of fiscal responsibility should include spending levels large enough so we can achieve full employment. I think Obama sacrificed Main Street for Wall Street, but a bottom up stimulus can do the trick, as opposed to shoveling money to Wall Street while we have high unemployment and all this excess capacity.

 

[Freemason9]

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on economics and had great answers from people of knowledge. I've bookmarked a lot of those threads and reread them. I thought maybe a thread on government debt, it's relationship to gdp, etc. Is Obama really the big spender it's said he is when at the same time we get reports that his spending is less than other presidents? For one thing, didn't he get saddled with a lot of increased spending due to the big recession and recurring debt initiated by previous presidents? In other words, he started with great debt which didn't stop with his presidency?
Below is one link that shows Obama as a low spender, just to start the conversation I hope. Thanks.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

There isn't a correlation between growth and debt-to-GDP levels. I'm quite surprised that certain pundits still peddle this myth even after the Reinhart & Rogoff debacle.

US public debt is nothing more than the total savings of the US economy. People really need to let this sink in. Those federal liabilities, in the form of US securities, are assets to the public.

Any type of fiscal responsibility should include spending levels large enough so we can achieve full employment. I think Obama sacrificed Main Street for Wall Street, but a bottom up stimulus can do the trick, as opposed to shoveling money to Wall Street while we have high unemployment and all this excess capacity.

Absolutely true, and thanks for posting this. The ONLY economic policy this government should pursue is full employment--however, doing so would necessarily create upward wage pressures and reduce wealth concentrations. And, since the U.S. aristocracy is descended from British aristocracy, they intend to maintain their grip on the economy--and, of course, power.

 

[Norman]

A couple of weeks ago I started a thread on economics and had great answers from people of knowledge. I've bookmarked a lot of those threads and reread them. I thought maybe a thread on government debt, it's relationship to gdp, etc. Is Obama really the big spender it's said he is when at the same time we get reports that his spending is less than other presidents? For one thing, didn't he get saddled with a lot of increased spending due to the big recession and recurring debt initiated by previous presidents? In other words, he started with great debt which didn't stop with his presidency?
Below is one link that shows Obama as a low spender, just to start the conversation I hope. Thanks.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes

There isn't a correlation between growth and debt-to-GDP levels. I'm quite surprised that certain pundits still peddle this myth even after the Reinhart & Rogoff debacle.

US public debt is nothing more than the total savings of the US economy. People really need to let this sink in. Those federal liabilities, in the form of US securities, are assets to the public.

Any type of fiscal responsibility should include spending levels large enough so we can achieve full employment. I think Obama sacrificed Main Street for Wall Street, but a bottom up stimulus can do the trick, as opposed to shoveling money to Wall Street while we have high unemployment and all this excess capacity.

I disagree with you, no surprise. First of all there OBVIOUSLY is a correlation between growth levels and government debt. To say there isn't would be completely foolish. Just think for a second, do you think an economy with government debt at 200% of gdp would perform as well as economy with no government debt

And yeah, I suppose government debt is debt to the public. However, what you forgot to mention is the fact that owing to the chinese public, central banks and some wallstreet financeer is hardly heart warming to the average american taxpayer who is on the hook for the debt.

 

[Kimura]

I disagree with you, no surprise. First of all there OBVIOUSLY is a correlation between growth levels and government debt. To say there isn't would be completely foolish. Just think for a second, do you think an economy with government debt at 200% of gdp would perform as well as economy with no government debt

There is zero evidence to support that counties with high debt-to-GDP experience any type of decrease in economic growth. None. Zip. Nada. Many economists already knew this, but the Reinhart And Rogoff coding errors were the icing on the cake. Many of us in the reality-based community knew this was case even before R&R.

Budget deficits add net added financial assets to the private sector. This creates demand for real goods and services, thus allowing us to maintain income growth. This income growth has allowed us to also save and accrue financial assets at a far greater pace than would have been possible without deficits.

And yeah, I suppose government debt is debt to the public. However, what you forgot to mention is the fact that owing to the chinese public, central banks and some wallstreet financeer is hardly heart warming to the average american taxpayer who is on the hook for the debt.

We don't owe the Chinese anything. Quite the contrary, they are dependent on US credit creation.

US public debt is effectively private wealth. It represents the private sector's propensity to save in US financial assets. This this debt provides firms, households, and the rest of the private sector a place to put their wealth in a risk-free environment.

 

[Rshermr]

Is Obama really the big spender

Obama had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. Does that answer your question?

Well, it does prove that you are what you are. Which is, a con tool posting things that are idiotic. Which is why you have no links. Absolute drivel. Most would be ashamed of themselves. But not ed. He has as much shame as he does brains. Poor guy

 

[Rshermr]

How he voted before becoming president doesn't mean that's what he is as president.

except he just socialiszed 20% of the economy with Obamacare, and he's doubled U6 unemployment to 14% with idiotic socialist policies, and thats with Republicans opposing him at every turn.

Imagine where we'd be if Obama got more of what he wanted.

Are you sure that a President McCain would've done better with unemployment? Things might've gotten worse. It's all speculation but things were looking pretty bad for the economy by the time Obama won the election in 2008. You admit to republicans opposing him at every term. They were really fuming that Obama won the election. The nerve of that guy winning an election that McCain should have won. Maybe if they worked with him instead of sabotoging his every move things would be better?
Got those IQ links yet?

Ed is sure of nothing, except that he is paid to post con dogma, and he therefor does so. If ed says it, you will find it to be untrue. Which is called the idiots law, or Ed's law for the familiar.

 

[Norman]

There is zero evidence to support that counties with high debt-to-GDP experience any type of decrease in economic growth. None. Zip. Nada. Many economists already knew this, but the Reinhart And Rogoff coding errors were the icing on the cake. Many of us in the reality-based community knew this was case even before R&R.

I wonder in which fantasy land you live in. No evidence that high debt to gdp decreases economic growth? Have you not heard of this thing called... a debt crisis?

We don't own the Chinese anything. Quite the contrary, they are dependent on US credit creation.

I haven't ever heard anything this dumb, anywhere. The chinese are not dependend on the US to export their dollars. They have a printer of their own. Chinese only take in those dollars because they appear to have value to purchase real assets. And yes, you certainly owe the chinese. If I had any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll, it's now gone.

Good bye.

 

[Stashman]

Obama is EXACTLY what he is told to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Rshermr]

There is zero evidence to support that counties with high debt-to-GDP experience any type of decrease in economic growth. None. Zip. Nada. Many economists already knew this, but the Reinhart And Rogoff coding errors were the icing on the cake. Many of us in the reality-based community knew this was case even before R&R.

I wonder in which fantasy land you live in. No evidence that high debt to gdp decreases economic growth? Have you not heard of this thing called... a debt crisis?

We don't own the Chinese anything. Quite the contrary, they are dependent on US credit creation.

I haven't ever heard anything this dumb, anywhere. The chinese are not dependend on the US to export their dollars. They have a printer of their own. Chinese only take in those dollars because they appear to have value to purchase real assets. And yes, you certainly owe the chinese. If I had any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll, it's now gone.

Good bye.

And off goes norman, to believe what he wants to believe. Sad.

 

[Kimura]

There is zero evidence to support that counties with high debt-to-GDP experience any type of decrease in economic growth. None. Zip. Nada. Many economists already knew this, but the Reinhart And Rogoff coding errors were the icing on the cake. Many of us in the reality-based community knew this was case even before R&R.

I wonder in which fantasy land you live in. No evidence that high debt to gdp decreases economic growth? Have you not heard of this thing called... a debt crisis?

Yes, not one iota of evidence. Care to elaborate?

I haven't ever heard anything this dumb, anywhere. The chinese are not dependend on the US to export their dollars. They have a printer of their own. Chinese only take in those dollars because they appear to have value to purchase real assets. And yes, you certainly owe the chinese. If I had any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll, it's now gone.

Good bye.

What do we owe them? They desire to save in US financial assets. So what? They have a reserve account, they buy US securities. End of story. It's the same as if you or I shift money between a checking and savings account. Nothing in this equation can impart any financial stress on the US.

 

[Rshermr]

There is zero evidence to support that counties with high debt-to-GDP experience any type of decrease in economic growth. None. Zip. Nada. Many economists already knew this, but the Reinhart And Rogoff coding errors were the icing on the cake. Many of us in the reality-based community knew this was case even before R&R.

I wonder in which fantasy land you live in. No evidence that high debt to gdp decreases economic growth? Have you not heard of this thing called... a debt crisis?

Yes, not one iota of evidence. Care to elaborate?

I haven't ever heard anything this dumb, anywhere. The chinese are not dependend on the US to export their dollars. They have a printer of their own. Chinese only take in those dollars because they appear to have value to purchase real assets. And yes, you certainly owe the chinese. If I had any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll, it's now gone.

Good bye.

What do we owe them? They desire to save in US financial assets. So what? They have a reserve account, they buy US securities. End of story. It's the same as if you or I shift money between a checking and savings account. Nothing in this equation can impart any financial stress on the US.

Uh, I have seen this argument before. I know you have also. It is tragic that people simply believe that since we have debt, we must have a problem. Since the debt is getting bigger, we must have a bigger problem. And though they are not sure when or to whom, there must be a day when they (OR THEIR CHILDREN!!!) are going to have to repay their portion. If it were not so sad, it would be funny.
What is really interesting, to me, at least, is that though you are being polite and trying to explain the facts to them, they get mad at YOU. Not at those who convinced them of their misunderstanding. But YOU, and you are simply trying to explain.

But you really can not help a person with a closed mind, and a lack of understanding. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[jasonnfree]

I wonder in which fantasy land you live in. No evidence that high debt to gdp decreases economic growth? Have you not heard of this thing called... a debt crisis?

Yes, not one iota of evidence. Care to elaborate?

I haven't ever heard anything this dumb, anywhere. The chinese are not dependend on the US to export their dollars. They have a printer of their own. Chinese only take in those dollars because they appear to have value to purchase real assets. And yes, you certainly owe the chinese. If I had any doubt in my mind whether you were a troll, it's now gone.

Good bye.

What do we owe them? They desire to save in US financial assets. So what? They have a reserve account, they buy US securities. End of story. It's the same as if you or I shift money between a checking and savings account. Nothing in this equation can impart any financial stress on the US.

Uh, I have seen this argument before. I know you have also. It is tragic that people simply believe that since we have debt, we must have a problem. Since the debt is getting bigger, we must have a bigger problem. And though they are not sure when or to whom, there must be a day when they (OR THEIR CHILDREN!!!) are going to have to repay their portion. If it were not so sad, it would be funny.
What is really interesting, to me, at least, is that though you are being polite and trying to explain the facts to them, they get mad at YOU. Not at those who convinced them of their misunderstanding. But YOU, and you are simply trying to explain.

But you really can not help a person with a closed mind, and a lack of understanding. Ignorance is bliss.

After reading this I looked at Forbes and their article is similar. So why the panic over the debt. Politics?

No, The United States Will Not Go Into A Debt Crisis, Not Now, Not Ever - Forbes

 

[Rshermr]

Yes, not one iota of evidence. Care to elaborate?



What do we owe them? They desire to save in US financial assets. So what? They have a reserve account, they buy US securities. End of story. It's the same as if you or I shift money between a checking and savings account. Nothing in this equation can impart any financial stress on the US.

Uh, I have seen this argument before. I know you have also. It is tragic that people simply believe that since we have debt, we must have a problem. Since the debt is getting bigger, we must have a bigger problem. And though they are not sure when or to whom, there must be a day when they (OR THEIR CHILDREN!!!) are going to have to repay their portion. If it were not so sad, it would be funny.
What is really interesting, to me, at least, is that though you are being polite and trying to explain the facts to them, they get mad at YOU. Not at those who convinced them of their misunderstanding. But YOU, and you are simply trying to explain.

But you really can not help a person with a closed mind, and a lack of understanding. Ignorance is bliss.

After reading this I looked at Forbes and their article is similar. So why the panic over the debt. Politics?

No, The United States Will Not Go Into A Debt Crisis, Not Now, Not Ever - Forbes

Yup. Exactly. Politics. And the corporations who control it.

 

[Kimura]

Yes, not one iota of evidence. Care to elaborate?



What do we owe them? They desire to save in US financial assets. So what? They have a reserve account, they buy US securities. End of story. It's the same as if you or I shift money between a checking and savings account. Nothing in this equation can impart any financial stress on the US.

Uh, I have seen this argument before. I know you have also. It is tragic that people simply believe that since we have debt, we must have a problem. Since the debt is getting bigger, we must have a bigger problem. And though they are not sure when or to whom, there must be a day when they (OR THEIR CHILDREN!!!) are going to have to repay their portion. If it were not so sad, it would be funny.
What is really interesting, to me, at least, is that though you are being polite and trying to explain the facts to them, they get mad at YOU. Not at those who convinced them of their misunderstanding. But YOU, and you are simply trying to explain.

But you really can not help a person with a closed mind, and a lack of understanding. Ignorance is bliss.

After reading this I looked at Forbes and their article is similar. So why the panic over the debt. Politics?

No, The United States Will Not Go Into A Debt Crisis, Not Now, Not Ever - Forbes

I see a massive problem: ignorance about monetary operations. You'd be amazed how many people don't understand how floating exchange regimes work vs. fixed exchange regimes. We're talking concepts such as tax and borrow and even how interest rates are determined. Members of Congress all the way up the ladder to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue really don't have a clue about how the system operates. My colleagues and I cringe on a daily basis.