How much debt is too much

[edthecynic]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

No debt is too big when a Republican is president, and no debt is too small when a Democrat is president.

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
- Ronald Wilson Reagan

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
- Dick Cheney

"I am a deficit hawk."
- Dick Cheney

 

[edthecynic]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

The Right LOVES debt, the bigger the better!

"Maybe that first, gigantic deficit the Reaganites piled up was an accident, just a combination of deluded 'supply side' tax cuts and a huge bag of good stuff for the Pentagon. But pretty quickly conservatives discovered that deficits, when done correctly, did something really cool: deficits defunded the Left."
- Thomas Frank

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

We would have to tax 100% of GDP to make you libs happy. The reason revenue is only 16% and not 20% is that 2/3 of the friggin country pays no income tax. Even among the ones that work only 50% of the people pay effective income tax > ZERO You want to start taxing the bottom 50%? Sure fine let's cancel ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS. We already cancelled the ones for the evil rich and you guys are still crying about this.

The Bush tax cuts should never have happened. Bush believed that the surplus meant that Americans were overtaxed,

that was his rationale for tax cuts.

Apparently it never occurred to him or anyone who supports his tax cuts is that a surplus is NECESSARY to pay down the debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

Rs are against raising revenue. They want us deeper in debt to foreign countries. As long as they're allowed to, they'll just keep borrowing money from other countries and taking from the poor.

Republicans run up the debt and then run against it in subsequent elections.

Paul Ryan, one of the GOP's supposed fiscal responsibility geniuses, voted FOR the unfunded expansion of Medicare in 2003,

and now he rants about how programs like Medicare are going to bankrupt us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are retarded, if we taxed enough to pay for all this spending we would have spent about 50% of GDP in Obscuma's first few years in office and still be in debt to our nose. Even today it would take 50% more revenue to pay for this shit, which would be 50% more than we taxed under Reagan. Your argument is full of shit. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

The reason revenue is only 16% and not 20% is that 2/3 of the friggin country pays no income tax.

After calling me a retard for arguing that revenue is the problem, you just now argued that revenue is the problem.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 T
when obama leaves office 20 T

At what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 T
50 T
100 T

?

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

You do realize that O has amassed more debt in 5 years than W did in 8 years. Of course you don't.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

QUOTE]










Are you really that stupid?

the debt when obama took over was 10T, today its 17T, when he leaves it will be 21T.

Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents COMBINED.

Yes, the annual deficit has been reduced from 1T to 700B, but its still a deficit and its growing every minute.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? If not, you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

He doesn't. O could spend 100 trillion and he would be down with it.

 

[edthecynic]

There will be no way back to fiscal sanity after Barry achieves his goal of destroying capitalism, and big government, is the ruling force. This design has been in effect since our first president with a Ph.D, Woodrow Wilson, was elected.

Intellectuals do not for good and sound, politics, make...

Rs raise the deficit, Obama has lowered it. Reagan made us a debtor nation and GW left us so deep in debt, we'll likely never get out. Rs want more and more laws and fewer freedoms.

But ... according to the sheeples,

You do realize that O has amassed more debt in 5 years than W did in 8 years. Of course you don't.

Of course, half of that "Obama" debt is the INTEREST on the GOP National Debt Bush passed on to Obama and future generations, and most of the other half was the continued spending on Bush's two unfinished wars.

 

[Londoner]

Does Rush Limbaugh ever analyze the different levels of spending? Or does he just give Republicans simplistic cliches?

Spending on the Hoover Dam to deliver water/energy to Southwest had/has a longterm payoff.

Spending on advanced industrial infrastructure has a longterm payoff for business (that is, government has invested massively in everything from aerospace to satellite technology).

My friend was doing research in central Africa for a company that wanted to build a mine for extracting scarce minerals. The building he was working in burnt to the ground because of an electrical fire - and the investors were scared off because this part of Africa doesn't have fire codes and reliable infrastructure (all things supplied by government). Meaning: an inability for government to spend can be just as costly.

Do you know how much government spending is devoted to stabilizing the middle east so we can have more reliable energy delivery?

People need to decide what kind of spending pays off, and what kind of spending is merely a bridge to nowhere.

Unfortunately, most "Talk Radio Republicans" are not given the information to adequately analyze government spending. In fact, I've never met a Talk Radio Republican who can explain why the large corporations who fund his information sources also beg the government for subsidies, bailouts and no-bid contracts.

If you want to analyze spending, give us a list of Federal receipts and explain why a given investment did or did not work. For instance, I think the Hoover Dam and Interstate have immense commercial multiplier effects. I think the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Defense and NASA programs has paid off. On the other hand, I think Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's Iraq War were terribly wasteful and unnecessary.

The Koch Brothers have received massive subsides for their companies, from mineral extraction to energy development. They have a lobbying army which begs government for no-bid contracts, grants and every imaginable form of taxpayer help. They also benefit form massive military spending which keeps their global supply chains and trade routes safe. They quietly take a ton of money from the taxpayer . . . and then they turn around and invest it in Talk Radio, which wages war on government spending. It's a fucking hoax.

And.

The only way to understand this shit is to turn off Rush Limbaugh and analyze exactly what the government spends money on. Then, on a case by case basis, make an argument for which spending was/is wasteful. Until you can bring some serious data and analysis to the table, you're merely repeating Talk Radio propaganda, which is paid for by special interests which draw massive funds from the taxpayer.

(How fucking sad and ironic it is to be a Talk Radio Republican)

 

[Redfish]

Ok, dems and libs, back to the original question.

you guys all supported obama in raising the debt ceiling last year. Will you support raising it again next year?

At what amount will you stop supporting more national debt?

17 trillion today and going up every minute. Give us a number, when should it be capped?

If your answer is never, please explain why.

Reagan asked for 17 debt limit increases and your side never talks about it. Bush asked for more debt limit increases than Obama, and never vetoed 1 piece of Republican Pork. Congress funded his war, and in exchange he delivered many goodies to their districts.

The Democrats believe in spending - so we know they are going to increase the debt, but your party claims to be against it. So why did Reagan and Bush ask for more debt limit increases than Carter/Clinton? Why did they spend twice as much? You can say that Congress holds the purse, but Tip Oneill begged Reagan to spend less on things like "Star Wars", which turned into a corrupt farce filled with massive no-bid defense industry payouts.

When your side controlled the Presidency and Congress during the Bush years they asked for 5 debt ceiling increases. Your information sources NEVER reported it. The people who now make up the Tea Party were fucking silent. Why?

Translation: you have no credibility.

OK, pay attention: Raising the debt was wrong when Reagan and Bush did it, its wrong when Obama did it, It has nothing to do with party. It has to do with fiscal responsibility

we on the right do not think that everything that reagan and bush did was right or good. unlike you on the left who refuse to admit that your guys screwed up just as badly if not worse.

your attempts at moral equivalency are bullshit. and for the record, the tea party was NOT silent about Bush's budgets.

 

[Redfish]

The deficits we have are more a result of taxes falling than of spending increasing. Therefore, on balance, the problem is more on the revenue side than the spending side.

A good balance would be revenues at 20% of GDP, and spending at 20% of GDP.

The reason revenue is only 16% and not 20% is that 2/3 of the friggin country pays no income tax.

After calling me a retard for arguing that revenue is the problem, you just now argued that revenue is the problem.

we have a choice----either give the government more money to waste, or tell them to stop wasting money because they are not getting any more.

If you are on a fixed income but are spending more than you take in, do you have a spending problem or a revenue problem?

 

[Erand7899]

come on sallow, RW, jake-------------weigh in. How much debt is too much?

When the interest on the debt consumes the entire revenue of the govt, is that your answer?

The U.S. "debt" MUST grow at least as much as the growth in annual GDP. This is the only way to maintain a reasonable balance in the money supply. The primary reason we had a financial crisis is that monetary growth during the Bush era (through deficit spending) primarily went into "imaginary" security instruments, and the value of those collapsed--thereby destroying a good sized hunk of the money supply. Debt creation since then was essential to restore the money supply and revive economic circulation. The only problem is that we have created too little debt, and the money supply remains tight for the productive labor class.

I'm sorry you can't grasp any of this, right wingers.

Thank God that only a few ignorant people grasp your economic theory because it is pure nonsense. Government debt is not necessary to the economy, has never been necessary to the economy, and will never be necessary to the economy. Private debt (credit) is a necessary portion of the money supply, and the dry up of consumer credit did contribute greatly to the recession that we are still digging our way out of.

The financial meltdown was caused by a huge bubble in housing and the resultant faulty financial instruments that came from that bubble. The popping of that bubble caused the financial crisis and caused the dry up of consumer credit that caused the recession.

The Dodd/Frank bill, named after the same ignorant asses that helped engineer the financial crisis, is still hindering the creation of adequate consumer credit, and is part of the reason that our economy is not thriving.

 

[Londoner]

OK, pay attention: Raising the debt was wrong when Reagan and Bush did it, its wrong when Obama did it, It has nothing to do with party. It has to do with fiscal responsibility

Fair enough. You might consider analyzing which kinds of spending paid off and which did not. I'm not asking you endorse spending money we don't have, I'm asking you to become more literate about what government does with its tax receipts.

If government increases the debt by 200 billion to create advanced satellite technology, and said technology is seeded to telecom which leads to miraculous innovations, unprecedented profits, and huge consumer benefits, than the original debt looks like a great investment. However, if government hands out no-bid drug contracts to Eli Lilly so they can bilk the taxpayer through medicare drug spending, than government is merely providing welfare to corporations on the taxpayer's nickel. [It would just be easier to have this discussion if you had data rather than RNC talking points]

It would be nice to see if you understood the specifics of how tax dollars were used, and which kinds of spending paid off. The Hoover Dam and Interstate system look like pretty good investments compared to other kinds of spending. This doesn't mean you have to give up your cliches about not spending what you don't have. That's a bumper sticker, and it's easy to say - but you'd come off as more credible if you could separate government spending on aerospace technology (which had an immense multiplier effect in commercial aviation) from "bridges to nowhere". [That is, it's pretty clear that your information sources haven't given you a detailed analysis of the commercial technology that came out of the Cold War Defense and NASA programs. Why don't you at least read a book on the relationship between those technological investments and the '80s consumer electronics boom. You should at least know all the arguments before you spew simplistic cliches that most of us happen to agree with]

Do you know how much spending is involved with running the Patent System where large corporations get the nanny government to intervene in the market and protect their investments? Koch Industries, which fund your news sources, benefit immensely from the EXPENSIVE taxpayer supplied Patent System. Is the spending for this worth it? Should we cut this EXPENSIVE government service that our capitalists claim is necessary for research investment?

This is the problem with people who only possess simplistic cliches but no data. You need to give us the impression that you're not simply repeating Republican talking points about evil spending. I agree with you that we are spending far too much, especially on the wrong things, but I'm not sure that your anti-spending cliches are moving the discussion forward. Tell us something we haven't heard. Give us some analysis so we know you understand this stuff.

For my part, I think some government spending has paid off immensely, whereas a whole lot of it has been a corrupt farce - but I wouldn't start a thread like this until I could separate spending on satellite technology from spending on protecting beetle habitats in stupid fucking wild life sanctuaries.

 

[Intense]

come on sallow, RW, jake-------------weigh in. How much debt is too much?

When the interest on the debt consumes the entire revenue of the govt, is that your answer?

The U.S. "debt" MUST grow at least as much as the growth in annual GDP. This is the only way to maintain a reasonable balance in the money supply. The primary reason we had a financial crisis is that monetary growth during the Bush era (through deficit spending) primarily went into "imaginary" security instruments, and the value of those collapsed--thereby destroying a good sized hunk of the money supply. Debt creation since then was essential to restore the money supply and revive economic circulation. The only problem is that we have created too little debt, and the money supply remains tight for the productive labor class.

I'm sorry you can't grasp any of this, right wingers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwP44S5K4YE]The Real Hustle: Three Card Monte - YouTube[/ame]

You really believe this Bullshit??? Weren't you told to Not drink the Kool-Aid???

For the fun of it, try living within your means for a while. Don't borrow more than you can effectively pay back. While you are at it, please stop giving bad advice. Thanks in advance.

 

[Intense]

Does Rush Limbaugh ever analyze the different levels of spending? Or does he just give Republicans simplistic cliches?

Spending on the Hoover Dam to deliver water/energy to Southwest had/has a longterm payoff.

Spending on advanced industrial infrastructure has a longterm payoff for business (that is, government has invested massively in everything from aerospace to satellite technology).

My friend was doing research in central Africa for a company that wanted to build a mine for extracting scarce minerals. The building he was working in burnt to the ground because of an electrical fire - and the investors were scared off because this part of Africa doesn't have fire codes and reliable infrastructure (all things supplied by government). Meaning: an inability for government to spend can be just as costly.

Do you know how much government spending is devoted to stabilizing the middle east so we can have more reliable energy delivery?

People need to decide what kind of spending pays off, and what kind of spending is merely a bridge to nowhere.

Unfortunately, most "Talk Radio Republicans" are not given the information to adequately analyze government spending. In fact, I've never met a Talk Radio Republican who can explain why the large corporations who fund his information sources also beg the government for subsidies, bailouts and no-bid contracts.

If you want to analyze spending, give us a list of Federal receipts and explain why a given investment did or did not work. For instance, I think the Hoover Dam and Interstate have immense commercial multiplier effects. I think the satellite technology that came out of the Cold War Defense and NASA programs has paid off. On the other hand, I think Reagan's Star Wars and Bush's Iraq War were terribly wasteful and unnecessary.

The Koch Brothers have received massive subsides for their companies, from mineral extraction to energy development. They have a lobbying army which begs government for no-bid contracts, grants and every imaginable form of taxpayer help. They also benefit form massive military spending which keeps their global supply chains and trade routes safe. They quietly take a ton of money from the taxpayer . . . and then they turn around and invest it in Talk Radio, which wages war on government spending. It's a fucking hoax.

And.

The only way to understand this shit is to turn off Rush Limbaugh and analyze exactly what the government spends money on. Then, on a case by case basis, make an argument for which spending was/is wasteful. Until you can bring some serious data and analysis to the table, you're merely repeating Talk Radio propaganda, which is paid for by special interests which draw massive funds from the taxpayer.

(How fucking sad and ironic it is to be a Talk Radio Republican)

You should try taking your own advice when it comes to falsely judging Conservative Talk Show Hosts. Here is something for you to digest with that...... "No Bid Government Contracts", and the corruption behind them.

 

[Redfish]

OK, pay attention: Raising the debt was wrong when Reagan and Bush did it, its wrong when Obama did it, It has nothing to do with party. It has to do with fiscal responsibility

Fair enough. You might consider analyzing which kinds of spending paid off and which did not. I'm not asking you endorse spending money we don't have, I'm asking you to become more literate about what government does with its tax receipts.

If government increases the debt by 200 billion to create advanced satellite technology, and said technology is seeded to telecom which leads to miraculous innovations, unprecedented profits, and huge consumer benefits, than the original debt looks like a great investment. However, if government hands out no-bid drug contracts to Eli Lilly so they can bilk the taxpayer through medicare drug spending, than government is merely providing welfare to corporations on the taxpayer's nickel. [It would just be easier to have this discussion if you had data rather than RNC talking points]

It would be nice to see if you understood the specifics of how tax dollars were used, and which kinds of spending paid off. The Hoover Dam and Interstate system look like pretty good investments compared to other kinds of spending. This doesn't mean you have to give up your cliches about not spending what you don't have. That's a bumper sticker, and it's easy to say - but you'd come off as more credible if you could separate government spending on aerospace technology (which had an immense multiplier effect in commercial aviation) from "bridges to nowhere". [That is, it's pretty clear that your information sources haven't given you a detailed analysis of the commercial technology that came out of the Cold War Defense and NASA programs. Why don't you at least read a book on the relationship between those technological investments and the '80s consumer electronics boom. You should at least know all the arguments before you spew simplistic cliches that most of us happen to agree with]

Do you know how much spending is involved with running the Patent System where large corporations get the nanny government to intervene in the market and protect their investments? Koch Industries, which fund your news sources, benefit immensely from the EXPENSIVE taxpayer supplied Patent System. Is the spending for this worth it? Should we cut this EXPENSIVE government service that our capitalists beg for?

This is the problem with people who only possess simplistic cliches but no data. You need to give us the impression that you're not simply repeating Republican talking points about evil spending. I agree with you that we are spending far too much, especially on the wrong things, but I'm not sure that your anti-spending cliches are moving the discussion forward. Tell us something we haven't heard. Give us some analysis so we know you understand this stuff.

For my part, I think some government spending has paid off immensely, whereas a whole lot of it has been a corrupt farce - but I wouldn't start a thread like this until I could separate spending on satellite technology from spending on protecting beetle habitats in watersheds.

OMG, a lecture from a member of failed european socialism. Please, I spent my entire working career in and around government spending and funding. I know exactly how it works.

I also know that private innovation is much more productive than government controlled innovation. The profit motive is what brings about new inventions and technology. Government "investment" i.e. spending, may be necessary for military projects and some infrastructure projects, but on the whole the govt is not an efficient investor.

But that still begs the question, govna. How much debt should this country run up before declaring an end to deficit spending? When we become a bigger version of Greece? problem is that there is no EU to bail us out like you guys did for the Greeks.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama's debt is about 6 trillion. of which 5 is the cost of averting ANOTHER full blown Pub depression and saving millions from homelessness and hunger...still 400 billion/year...

The stat that matters is the debt as percentage of GDP, WHICH AIN'T SO BAD- WHAT WE NEED IS A recovery, BRAINWASHED DEBT CULTISTS. JAPAN HAS A DEBT OVER 2 1/2 TIMES AS BAD AS OURS...

 

[thereisnospoon]

you libs never can provide an answer so here's another chance

current debt 17 t
when obama leaves office 20 t

at what point must the govt stop spending more than it takes in?

25 t
50 t
100 t

?

$1.00

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama's debt is about 6 trillion. of which 5 is the cost of averting ANOTHER full blown Pub depression and saving millions from homelessness and hunger...still 400 billion/year...

The stat that matters is the debt as percentage of GDP, WHICH AIN'T SO BAD- WHAT WE NEED IS A recovery, BRAINWASHED DEBT CULTISTS. JAPAN HAS A DEBT OVER 2 1/2 TIMES AS BAD AS OURS...

Blah blah blah,.....
Obama entering his 6th year in office and you flamers are still brown nosing Obama while blaming Bush.
That has gotten real old and been traded in for a new model.
BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA....
Blaming Bush is no longer accepted.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama's debt is about 6 trillion. of which 5 is the cost of averting ANOTHER full blown Pub depression and saving millions from homelessness and hunger...still 400 billion/year...

The stat that matters is the debt as percentage of GDP, WHICH AIN'T SO BAD- WHAT WE NEED IS A recovery, BRAINWASHED DEBT CULTISTS. JAPAN HAS A DEBT OVER 2 1/2 TIMES AS BAD AS OURS...

Blah blah blah,.....
Obama entering his 6th year in office and you flamers are still brown nosing Obama while blaming Bush.
That has gotten real old and been traded in for a new model.
BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA....
Blaming Bush is no longer accepted.

ACTUALLY, everyone outside of hater dupes know Booosh wrecked the world, but since 2/4/2013 we've been blaming mindlessly obstructionist Pubs and their phony debt crises etc for wrecking the recovery...try watching some real news. Thank god the GOP is finally squashing the TP and its loudmouth hater dupes...