American Fiscal Policy

[fonzob1]

So, "true" Republicans are supposed to support fiscally conservative government spending policy, but we began accumulating a fairly large debt during the George W. Bush era and have continued to accumulate significant amounts of debt during the Barrack Obama era. Do you have confidence in either party to reduce our debt?

U.S. Debt clock in real time:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The cost of U.S. National Security in real time:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/?redirect=cow

 

[MacLeod]

Debt and deficit are two different things, debt is what one owes whilst deficit is what is added to the debt. So would a GOP President over the last 7 years have added more to the USA's debt more than has been added under Pres. Obama.

Reducing Government debt is hard because they have to run a surplus, so perhaps a better question to ask would be which party do you think better manages the economy or is better placed to manage the economy?

 

[StarCruiser]

Neither party has done much of anything to fix the national debt in many years. Bill Clinton (ack... otherwise) did follow up on George Bush Sr's efforts in the 1990's but since then?

Part of the problem is that so much of the debt is simply due to the government's own size and corruption (DOD procurement, redundant agencies - including the Dept. of Redundancy Dept. etc...).

You can't get enough people in Congress (opposite of Progress) to agree on much of anything nowadays and getting enough to work together on that massive issue is nearly impossible.

 

[fonzob1]

Reducing Government debt is hard because they have to run a surplus, so perhaps a better question to ask would be which party do you think better manages the economy or is better placed to manage the economy?

So, do you then believe that it is not possible to reduce our national debt? I believe that is possible and should be a goal of elected officials.

 

[MacLeod]

Sure it should be a goal to run a surplus and at worst a balanced budget. In the UK the Conservative Party want to run a budget surplus. Do I think a Government can run a surplus, sure I think they can do I think they will probably not. After all something unexpected could happen which mean you might have to spend money which wasn't budgeted for. Governments might also increase spending in esp. around election time that they think will most benefit them i.e. get them the most votes.

 

[Hound of UIster]

The debt is not an issue.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Sovereign debt is fine. If anything, you worry about debt-to-GDP ratios, but even that doesn't become an issue until you're well past 100%.

People who panic about public debt loads don't really understand how countries finance their spending.

ETA: Ninja'd by the guy who used fewer words!

 

[fonzob1]

Sovereign debt is fine. If anything, you worry about debt-to-GDP ratios, but even that doesn't become an issue until you're well past 100%.

People who panic about public debt loads don't really understand how countries finance their spending.

ETA: Ninja'd by the guy who used fewer words!

So, should we bother to stop it from becoming an "issue?"

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Sovereign debt is fine. If anything, you worry about debt-to-GDP ratios, but even that doesn't become an issue until you're well past 100%.

People who panic about public debt loads don't really understand how countries finance their spending.

ETA: Ninja'd by the guy who used fewer words!

So, should we bother to stop it from becoming an "issue?"

We should try to manage debt levels responsibly, sure. Targeting zero debt is foolish, though: it's braking growth for no good reason. Especially when interest rates are at or below zero (as they are right now), it's kind of stupid not to borrow as much as you can--you are literally being paid to borrow money!

 

[fonzob1]

Sovereign debt is fine. If anything, you worry about debt-to-GDP ratios, but even that doesn't become an issue until you're well past 100%.

People who panic about public debt loads don't really understand how countries finance their spending.

ETA: Ninja'd by the guy who used fewer words!

So, should we bother to stop it from becoming an "issue?"

We should try to manage debt levels responsibly, sure. Targeting zero debt is foolish, though: it's braking growth for no good reason. Especially when interest rates are at or below zero (as they are right now), it's kind of stupid not to borrow as much as you can--you are literally being paid to borrow money!

There is interest on current debt, which costs us every year. The larger the debt grows, the more it costs us long term. It is an obvious snowball effect. I think you're seriously downplaying what kind of problem it could become. A financial collapse of the US economy would be ugly.

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
.
.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...orst-contributors-to-the-federal-debt/264193/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/10/30/deficit-more-cut-half-2009

http://zfacts.com/national-debt-facts

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oh, crap, some facts.

 

[fonzob1]

That was a great graphic. The Reagan and Bush era debts were greater primarily due to defense spending. The Soviet Union tried to keep up with Reagan era defense spending and failed. Their economy collapsed.

The Clinton era created a surplus again by drastically cutting defense spending (because we had no perceived major threats at the time) and other spending cuts. Fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, radical groups like Al Qaeda grew during his administration. That lead to more defense spending during the next Bush era. I'm not justifying or condemning. I am just pointing out that each administration had different challenges and priorities.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

So, should we bother to stop it from becoming an "issue?"

We should try to manage debt levels responsibly, sure. Targeting zero debt is foolish, though: it's braking growth for no good reason. Especially when interest rates are at or below zero (as they are right now), it's kind of stupid not to borrow as much as you can--you are literally being paid to borrow money!

There is interest on current debt, which costs us every year. The larger the debt grows, the more it costs us long term. It is an obvious snowball effect. I think you're seriously downplaying what kind of problem in could become. A financial collapse of the US economy would be ugly.

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
.
.

Interest on money borrowed right now is zero/negative.

Where's the "snowball effect"? If you're going to claim there is an effect, you'll have to demonstrate that with some facts.

 

[fonzob1]

We should try to manage debt levels responsibly, sure. Targeting zero debt is foolish, though: it's braking growth for no good reason. Especially when interest rates are at or below zero (as they are right now), it's kind of stupid not to borrow as much as you can--you are literally being paid to borrow money!

There is interest on current debt, which costs us every year. The larger the debt grows, the more it costs us long term. It is an obvious snowball effect. I think you're seriously downplaying what kind of problem it could become. A financial collapse of the US economy would be ugly.

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
.
.

Interest on money borrowed right now is zero/negative.

Where's the "snowball effect"? If you're going to claim there is an effect, you'll have to demonstrate that with some facts.

I posted a link with our annual cost in interest since 1988. It tends to increase from year to year (2015 is obviously a partial amount). That was factual.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is interest on current debt, which costs us every year. The larger the debt grows, the more it costs us long term. It is an obvious snowball effect. I think you're seriously downplaying what kind of problem it could become. A financial collapse of the US economy would be ugly.

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
.
.

Interest on money borrowed right now is zero/negative.

Where's the "snowball effect"? If you're going to claim there is an effect, you'll have to demonstrate that with some facts.

I posted a link with our annual cost in interest since 1988. It tends to increase from year to year (2015 is obviously a partial amount). That was factual.

It doesn't actually matter much when the interest is being paid by more borrowing--especially when that borrowing carries a zero/negative interest rate.

 

[fonzob1]

Interest on money borrowed right now is zero/negative.

Where's the "snowball effect"? If you're going to claim there is an effect, you'll have to demonstrate that with some facts.

I posted a link with our annual cost in interest since 1988. It tends to increase from year to year (2015 is obviously a partial amount). That was factual.

It doesn't actually matter much when the interest is being paid by more borrowing--especially when that borrowing carries a zero/negative interest rate.

Okay. If you are right that the U.S. is currently earning a negative interest rate on a loan amount substantial enough that it will negate the positive interest we owe, we should see that factored into the numbers shown at treasurydirect.gov:

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

I will keep an eye out, and at the end of the fiscal year we should see the difference.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I posted a link with our annual cost in interest since 1988. It tends to increase from year to year (2015 is obviously a partial amount). That was factual.

It doesn't actually matter much when the interest is being paid by more borrowing--especially when that borrowing carries a zero/negative interest rate.

Okay. If you are right that the U.S. is currently earning a negative interest rate on a loan amount substantial enough that it will negate the positive interest we owe, we should see that factored into the numbers shown at treasurydirect.gov:

http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

I will keep an eye out, and at the end of the fiscal year we should see the difference.

You do realize government bonds go out to 30 years, right? You won't see a full offset anytime soon.

In any case, you keep moving the goalposts.

Why is the debt a problem? Revenues continue to increase, deficits are decreasing. Our debt position is not worsening--we have enough slack we could borrow heavily if we needed to stimulate growth.

So, do you have a sound policy reason for why we should prioritize debt reduction?

 

[ichab]

Since the last two presidents have been Republican and Democratic and both have proceeded to raise the national debt higher than ever before I'll go with neither.

 

[suarezguy]

From the record it seems that the combination of a Democratic president and Republican Congress is the best to reducing the deficits, makes sense given that the Republicans tend to be more frugal on issues except on military policy which the president can have more control over.