Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[JQPublic1]

What Obama is going to leave the next President is much better than what he was handed when Jr. left office.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the next poor bastard will be thrilled to inherit Obama's $20 trillion debt. What a ridiculous statement.

Well, if the deficit is erased I wouldn't worry too much about the debt. If we can reach the point where more money is coming in than is going out, the debt will take care of itself!

How do we continue that trend and who is the best person, after Obama, to lead us in that direction?

 

[S.J.]

What Obama is going to leave the next President is much better than what he was handed when Jr. left office.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the next poor bastard will be thrilled to inherit Obama's $20 trillion debt. What a ridiculous statement.

Well, if the deficit is erased I wouldn't worry too much about the debt. If we can reach the point where more money is coming in than is going out, the debt will take care of itself!

How do we continue that trend and who is the best person, after Obama, to lead us in that direction?

Erased? Under Obama? Good one!

 

[ilia25]

I

What Obama is going to leave the next President is much better than what he was handed when Jr. left office.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the next poor bastard will be thrilled to inherit Obama's $20 trillion debt. What a ridiculous statement.

Well, if the deficit is erased I wouldn't worry too much about the debt. If we can reach the point where more money is coming in than is going out, the debt will take care of itself!

How do we continue that trend and who is the best person, after Obama, to lead us in that direction?

We don't have to completely erase the deficits. We just have to make them smaller than nominal GDP growth (less than 500 billion or so). That will ensure that debt/GDP ratio is falling -- meaning we are growing out of debt.

That is how the US dealt with the post-war debt:

 

[regent]

Only one president has paid off the debt and that president was a Democrat. Reagan tripled the debt and then Bush doubled it again, the country almost went under. The nation survived, however, and now Republicans complain that Obama should have paid off the debt when he took office.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Obama will be leaving behind a much better situation than he inherited. There's is no credible argument against that. But the bar wasn't really that high now was it?

 

[S.J.]

I

Oh yeah, I'm sure the next poor bastard will be thrilled to inherit Obama's $20 trillion debt. What a ridiculous statement.

Well, if the deficit is erased I wouldn't worry too much about the debt. If we can reach the point where more money is coming in than is going out, the debt will take care of itself!

How do we continue that trend and who is the best person, after Obama, to lead us in that direction?

We don't have to completely erase the deficits. We just have to make them smaller than nominal GDP growth (less than 500 billion or so). That will ensure that debt/GDP ratio is falling -- meaning we are growing out of debt.

That is how the US dealt with the post-war debt:

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

 

[Redfish]

Only one president has paid off the debt and that president was a Democrat. Reagan tripled the debt and then Bush doubled it again, the country almost went under. The nation survived, however, and now Republicans complain that Obama should have paid off the debt when he took office.

national debt when obama took office---------9T from all previous presidents--43 of them

national debt today--------------------16.5T

nothing more needs to be said. except----------------obama has been a total fiscal failure.

 

[JQPublic1]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p04.png

The GDP/Debt ratio chart does not show what the National Deficit was at any given time.
Perhaps this chart will help to clarify that issue.

 

[Mertex]

Oh yeah, I'm sure the next poor bastard will be thrilled to inherit Obama's $20 trillion debt. What a ridiculous statement.

Well, if the deficit is erased I wouldn't worry too much about the debt. If we can reach the point where more money is coming in than is going out, the debt will take care of itself!

How do we continue that trend and who is the best person, after Obama, to lead us in that direction?

Erased? Under Obama? Good one!

The last Republican doofus obliterated a surplus.

 

[regent]

The last figures I saw on Iraq and Afghanistan is the total cost will run about five trillion dollars. Hope I got it wrong?

 

[ilia25]

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

 

[JQPublic1]

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

What would be your ideal GDP/debt ratio?

 

[S.J.]

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

Sure, if you don't mind pissing away over $200 billion a year on interest.

 

[ilia25]

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

Sure, if you don't mind pissing away over $200 billion a year on interest.

It is a small price for having the economy. Besides, most of those interest payments are going to your fellow Americans.

 

[S.J.]

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

Sure, if you don't mind pissing away over $200 billion a year on interest.

It is a small price for having the economy. Besides, most of those interest payments are going to your fellow Americans.

A small price??? What planet are you living on?

 

[ilia25]

Um, yes we DO have to completely erase the deficits to reduce the debt. Simple math.

But we don't have to reduce debt. All that matters is debt/GDP ratio - we'll be fine as long as it is not growing.

What would be your ideal GDP/debt ratio?

I don't think there is such a thing. Japan, for example, has debt to GDP ratio three times bigger than the US, yet they can borrow at lower interest than we do.

Also, it is very naive to view debt as some sort of evil. Debt is what makes our economy running. Even money are nothing more than IOUs (that is paying off all debt in an economy would destroy whole money stock). And it's not some recent invention, gold money 1000s years ago were no different.

Of course bad things may happen when some entity ends up with too much debt. That is why it makes sense for the government to try and reduce its debt load when it is safe to do so. But history shows that a country that borrows in its own currency can deal with very high debt loads -- much higher than what we have now.

 

[ilia25]

Sure, if you don't mind pissing away over $200 billion a year on interest.

It is a small price for having the economy. Besides, most of those interest payments are going to your fellow Americans.

A small price??? What planet are you living on?

On a planet where 200 billion is a small price for having a 16 trillion economy. For millions Americans having jobs and bread on their table -- that is a small price to pay.

 

[JQPublic1]

Actually the revenues dropped more like a trillion if compared to pre-crisis trend. But it must be Obama's fault since he signed the budget.

Um. there is an eerie silence in here from the right side of the room.... No more name calling, no more counter arguments... I guess all those things are useless against hard point blank facts in yo face!!! heh heh heh! Look out for the Neg Reps, thats all they have when they lose!

I'm curious. What do you think that graph is showing?

Do you question my intelligence? I will not stoop to answer such an insulting question. read the explanations on the graph like I did and tell me what YOU think they mean!

 

[JQPublic1]

[/QUOTE]

NOTE THAT THE GDP/DEBT chart is different from the GDP/DEFICIT chart during the same time periods.



That could be significant! For instance, the 1940-41 GDP/Debt ratio peak was close to 100% while
the 1940 -41GDP/DEFICIT chart shows a much lower peak ratio near 30%.

The Deficit, in fact , has never been more than 30% of GDP and, notably, it is almost imperceptible on the graph during the Vietnam War years!

NOW, that idyllic period some call the "good 'ol days" has all but faded away in the face of Nixon's visit to China, NAFTA and other government efforts to undermine the American workforce

 

[S.J.]

Gawd, liberals are stupid!