OT: US National debt
 

There have been a lot of discussion on the media (also elsewhere than in USA) about US national debt. It is amazing when you realize, that that country takes about 1,7 billion dollars new debt every day. Look at the Debt clock and you see the amount of it. On the other hand, there is a calculation how much it is per citizen. It is actually not that much. Considering the difference of value between euro and dollar, Finland has relatively more debt than US (our debt per citizen is about 22000 euro) and our economy is considered to be in good shape. Opinions, anyone?

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I dont know about anyone else but that is more then I can afford to write a check for to reduce the debt. 25k is well over half my yearly salary - before taxes. Considering that relatively recently we had a surplus in the budget, I think we can do better then we are.

Rasorow

Re: OT: US National debt
 

If I was in the US, I'd go with a 3% raise in taxes, as long as a constitutional and legal amendment was passed saying that all of the US's elected government would immediatly loose their positions if it were used for anything but debt reduction.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

And when might that be? I don't think there has been a tru surplus since the 60's. I think it (what you're referencing) was all just a paper shuffle; somewhat similar to the Enron scam. It was just positioning against the Social Security funds the way I remember it.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Perhaps, if that was the case at least then we could cheat enough to look like we had a surplus......

Rasorow

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Don't confuse the national debt with the annual deficit. There was a real dollar surplus in the anual budget for a little while there. The total debt, which is all the accumulated deficits from year to year wasn't gone, but it was getting smaller for a couple years. Now that we are running deficits again the debt is back to increasing.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Any ideas for how to phrase that with no loopholes and without requiring a balanced budget? If so, I'm sure everyone who has ever tried to increase funding for something by dedicating all money from a new source of income to that cause would love to hear about it.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

As most of you probably know, politions DO NOT pay for things as GAS, STAMPS, you know the things that keep us going...I would like to see them start to pay for ALL the freebees they get and to stop incressing there pay when they do not even voit on the thing they are there to vote on! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Okay without trying to start a flame war here (this is a genuine question not an argument) it is my understanding that every nation on Earth has a national debt and that those "debts" are pretty much used as a sort of credit system for a nation, for example say UK owes US 5 billion dollars but instead of being forced to pay it streight up they'd be asked to back the US in a UN vote or something of that nature instead.

Now I was only using US UK as an example but is that true that often nations pay their debts to one another through non monetary means?

I mean face it if the United State called in every debt we were owed we'd get a few trillion bucks to pay off our own debts but we'd also bankrupt many nations in the process and likely be bankrupted afterwards ourselves?


Like I said I'm not doing any political US is superior stuff here I am just trying to figure out why I've heard so many people saying "national debt is a political plus sometimes". I mean I am far from a professional economist so heh http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Yah, a debt in and of itself is not always a bad thing. It's basically a line of credit. Never allowing the government to borrow for short term needs would be unrealistic and to rigid. The problem is if you run up so much debt that the interest on it becomes an unmanageable expense, or if you become unable to make your payments and default.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Ah, very interesting info there Geoschmo thanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

And the problem with the US debt is that the interest payments on it is the second biggest expense each year for the Federal government... the only thing costing more is the military. I think right now, the breakdown is something like 40% of income tax (this excludes the SSA and Medicare taxes taken out of paychecks, as these are supposed to be seperate budgets) goes to the military, and about 33% goes to interest on the debt. (I can't seem to find any numbers Online to confirm this...) Which is why I'm not happy with Bush for cutting taxes, because now I'm going to have to carry that huge debt for most of my life. I know it's not feasible to completely pay it off, and I don't expect the Feds to pay off everything. But paying off enough to get payments down to around 7%-12% of total budget from income tax would make things infinitely better (IMHO).

At the rate we're going now, there can legally be no more debt (we've hit the $7.4 trillion limit already). So, we're either increasing the limit to pay for the wars, or Bush is cutting more programs to keep his precious corporate tax cuts, or he raises taxes on everyone, going against his promises... While Osama laughs as his plans succeed yet again. Something has to break soon.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Okay that whole Last Paragraph was rather useless as you had made a good point with the first on and then just blew that out the window with your second paragraph.

Okay we get the point you don't like Bush but at least we aren't paying for his laywers while he bangs interns lol....:) Or in Kerry's case at least we're not paying for his botox hehe. (just a joke don't start anything!)

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Umm... the Last paragraph is why I don't like Bush, not me just saying I don't like him. I thought Kerry would have kept up the deficits too, just not as huge as Bush is keeping them. Just about any other politician would have run up the debt as well.

I fail to see how my point in the first paragraph (that it would be a Good Thing(tm) to get the debt down to the point where it's 7%-12% of the annual budget from income tax, instead of 33%) is invalidated by me applying it to a specific politician. Would you have prefered that I apply it to Kerry instead, even though he lost and has almost no influence on budget issues now (except as a minority senator)? That doesn't do anything.

My second paragraph makes a very valid point as I see it. The law as it stands now says the Federal government cannot accumulate more than $7.4 trillion in debt. We now have $7.4 trillion in debt, and are spending more than we have every day. At some point, Bush either has to stop paying for things, or raise taxes, or (most likely option) he continues to screw over my and your generation by shifting the burden to us. There are estimates that take the average economic growth in the US over the past few decades, and extrapolate to several decades in the future, and the estimate is that the people just now about to enter the work force will be paying 75%+ of income in taxes, if government programs stay the same. Osama stated his goal is to bankrupt this country, and so far we're doing it. And, something has to break soon.

Tell me, what part of this is not valid? Because I certainly can't see it, even after putting my conservative blinders on.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I just meant that you basically just made it sound like you were going off blaming one man for every problem of the country's economy, instead of leaving it at a good point that we need the defecit down and how to do it (or at least as far as your opinion on the matter goes), I mean face it the president does not have AS MUCH say on the economy as people seem to think, that relies mainly on what the Senate can do as well you know?

I mean face it if the Senate didn't like the Bush tax cuts they were have just used their veto powers right? (at least it is my understanding that the senate can veto any bill the President tries for if they want). So I mean you can't just blame a president for every thing that goes wrogn however convient that may be right?

And like I said at least we aren't paying his lawyers fees lol.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Senate has no veto power. The House and the Senate have to ratify the same Version of a bill, which is then sent to the President to either sign or veto. The House and Senate can over-ride the Presidential veto by 2/3rds vote (67 Senators, 290 Representatives).

My comments have nothing to do with the US economy. It's all about the Federal budget, which consists of those taxes not already set aside for Medicare and Social Security. I don't have a paycheck handy, but as I recall from my summer job, I would be paid about $480 a week, and usually $60 was deducted for income tax, $35 for Social Security, and a bit under $30 for Medicare. The amount taken depends on how you fill out tax forms, how much you make, etc. YMMV. The $35 and $30 are (technically) not supposed to be touched by Congress, but are repeatedly robbed anyway. The overall budget comes from the $60, which I think right now the Federal government is spending around $75 for every $60 it takes in. I have no official numbers in front of me, this is all ballpark figures.

Now, since this is not about the economy, it is my position that the President does indeed have huge control over the Federal budget. Especially since he has the power to veto any measures which excessively strain the budget... such as large spending programs (I've seen reports that spending has increased 8% per annum under Bush Jr, compared to about 3% for the previous four Presidents) and huge tax cuts. And true, these bills must go through Congress before being signed by the President, but both houses of Congress are held, and have been held, by the Republican Party. As a Republican and the President, Bush Jr. is the head of the Republican Party, which pretty much means... what he says, goes. Republicans can break rank and vote against these measures, but in the past decade, the Party leadership has been especially brutal to those who do this, and they are soon replaced by politicians who more easily fall into line. This is harder to do in the Senate, since they have longer (6 year) terms, but the Republican Party has found a way to deal with these mavericks as well. Exhibit A, the character assassination of John McCain, who will likely never be able to run for an office other than Senator of Arizona again.

Because of the structure of the Republican Party, the fact that Bush Jr. is the current head of the Party, and the fact that the Party controls both the Presidency and the Congress (and probably the Supreme Court within a few years), means that Republicans have almost unlimited control over the Federal budget. What used to be the fiscally responsible party is now putting to shame even the most ambitious of the Democratic Party's spending campaigns from the 40s onward. That translates to huge debt. Which, unless you're planning on being an unemployed high school student all your life (trust me, it seems like it's going to take a long time to end, but it ends up finishing FAST), you and I are going to be paying for. If there's any country left to pay for.

Oh, and as for his lawyers' fees... what do you think the Department of Justice is? Just one big law firm for the Executive Branch.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Ah okay I misunderstood you there, sorry about that I thought you were talking about the economy as a whole.

BTW though I seriously doubt Kerry would be any better except he wanted to cut budgets we rather need at the moment (i.e intelligence budget/military budget) lol that and if he had been raising taxes people would whine about that in the end so it's just all funny in my opinion.

We Americans love complaining it's our real national passtime I just wish I could remember that hilarious song I heard on the radio this morning.

Oh and at least as I said Bush isn't trying to make us pay for his lawyers like a few Democratic politicos over the years so until he does that I don't care.

Oh and okay economy/federal budget lesson for me here, How does the federal budget/federal debt effect us as a citizen in the long run if we are not paying taxes for them?
This is an honest question as I am rather fond of learning, and the field of economics/government budgeting interest me a lot (I just can't find any good books on em) so please be nice when you explain lol.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I hope you get your budget in line, for if US would go into depression, the rest of the world would soon follow. At the moment, US economy is based on the consumption of individual people, so if they one day decide to spare the money instead of buying a new car, we all are in the trouble. But there may be one good pint of Bush having his second period. If I remember it correctly, US constitution says that man can be president only twice. So no matter what, he can't have third period. Therefore he is able to make difficult economical decisions without thinking his popularity or next election. I hope he realises that and do what is necessary to stop the growth of debt.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

The Bush campaign's claim that Kerry wanted to cut military and intelligence budgets came from votes in the late 80's/early 90's, when he voted to cut back on the annual increases to those areas. At the time, it was at the urging of then Secretary of Defense... Dick Cheney. I always thought it was funny that the Bush campaign was criticizing Kerry for going along with what Cheney wanted.

But, regardless of past votes, Kerry wanted to INCREASE military and intelligence budgets, by adding two active divisions to the US Army, and increasing the prominence of Special Forces throughout the military. If his platform isn't up on his website anymore, I'm sure you can find a copy Online somewhere.

What Kerry was going to do to decrease the deficit was to repeal the tax cuts for the upper brackets ($200,000+ yearly income), close loopholes in corporate tax code that gives tax breaks for offshoring workers, put back capital gains taxes to their 90s levels (that's the tax levied on the sale of stocks), etc. Basically bring taxes to a point between what they are and what they were under Clinton for those in the highest tax bracket, while leaving the middle-class and lower brackets as they are now. He also wanted to accellerate the training of the Iraqi security forces, and try to bring in UN troops to alleviate the pressure on US forces. But probably the best that could be hoped for is half the troops in Iraq after two years.

The deficit is so large now, that it probably would have taken the entire term for Kerry to even make a dent in it. Probably what would have been the biggest thing to bring the budget down is the clash between a Republican Congress and Democratic Presidency. That combination under Clinton caused the budget to fall to the lowest common denominator politically, just so it could pass, which resulted in the surpluses. With the plans to increase military size, the deficit probably would have increased, who knows.

As for the civics lesson... it's late. I need to sleep and go to work in the morning. I'll write up something about the relation government debt has to the economic status of individual citizens (especially in the US) later. The very, very short Version: The bigger the government debt, the more taxes citizens have to pay to cover interest payments on the debt, which lowers the availible capital for citizens. In an economy like the US, driven by consumerism, this has an impact on how much people buy. As it is now, it's being made up by people accumulating their own debt to buy more things, which they then have to pay interest on, giving them less money to buy stuff. Which they make up for by borrowing to buy more, accumulating more debt, giving them less money to buy... vicious cycle. Eventually, the debts will get so high, that the economy will crash. We're already seeing warning signs with increased bankruptcies with individuals and companies, but those are just minor shockwaves. When it really hits... well, take a look what happened during the Great Depression. Then multiply it over the entire globe.

The dangers of debt...

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I recently read this in "The Economist":

It seems to me that based on campaign rhetoric, Kerry would have done no better than Bush in cutting the deficit. However, in all honesty, Kerry, if he had been elected into office, would probably not go so far as what he promised on the campaign trail and saved more money. The same issue of The Economist included a poll of 100 academic economists and concluded:

Re: OT: US National debt
 

It's amazing that the whole globe is tied so closely to the US economy, heh wow.

Well thanks for the lesson http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif it was interesting (and scarry) all I can say is I hope those campaign rhetoric types are blown out of proportions because I would hate having to raise my kids (if I ever have any) in a depression era WORLD http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif (then again that would be one hell of a way to change world economics eh?)

Well I do doubt Kerry would do any better to be honest as democrats have shown no better spending policies then republicans it's just that they are better at covering up their bullsh!t http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif (sorry but I don't like politics at all and both parties tick me off at times).
Though for the most part my family is republican (parents, grand parents, aunts uncles the whole shabang) most of them will vote democrate if they beleive the candidate is better then the republican and so will I when can vote, but I still have to say I would not have voted Kerry.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

The Great Depression did affect the entire globe. That is why it was so "Great." Recall what happened in Europe during those years...

Re: OT: US National debt
 

If i recall my history it was in 1930's, and was one of the main causes for allowing Hitler to rise to power with the Nazi Party, the rest as they say, is History.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

It was global, yes, but not to the degree that it would be now. There isn't a substantial economy in the world that is not directly and intricately tied to the US economy. Even the planned economy of China, which would normally be able to (theoretically) ignore the value of money in the outside world and focus only on internal production, would be affected since a large portion of the economy is now dedicated to foreign trade. In the Great Depression of the 1920's and 1930's, the shockwaves sent out from economic collapse were buffered somewhat by multiple layers between some economies, simply because of geographic limitations to trade. Now most of the geographic limitations are lifted, and anyone can trade with practically anyone else.

Time for work...

Re: OT: US National debt
 

That is a recent constitutional amendment that will probably be turned over soon (as soon as cloning kicks in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif)

I believe FDR did 4 terms; 1933-1945. It has been proposed numerous times to repeal that amendment and is gaining ground in many areas.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Yes it is unfortunately a new addition, the reason I say unfortunate is because some good presidents that have are going to have to leave after two terms and be replaced by an idiot instead of staying in office.
But I suppose I can understand why it was added, to keep one man from basically taking control of the country.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Don't want to be picky, but I thought that's what an election was? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

That's why I've always been agains "term limits". Elections are term limits.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I'm unsure but from that fact I think it was because by the time his second term was up it was World War 2, Bad idea to switch governments in that time. This is something that is worrying many of us Europeans, What happens if the the United States is "Officially" at war with a country during an election year?

"Official" as in there has been a formal declaration of war, unlike the situation in Iraq.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Asia would fall as fast or faster then the USA but... Europe? I think the EU would be fine this time. South/Central America wouldn't do to well.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

National debt is easy to eliminate. You just cause enough inflation that the debt becomes insignificant. The accompanying recession might be uncomfortable.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Wouldn't that cause a "great depression" that everyone is afraid of? Or was that just a joke you were making?

It's hard to tell sometimes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: US National debt
 

well you would be able to pay off your mortgage as your purchase price would be around the cost of a loaf of bread...
if you go full out turtledove inflation.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Suspending the processes of democracy during a war is definitely a bad idea... Temporarily turning the nation into an oligarchy just because of a crisis makes the whole concept of that democracy paper-thin and destroys its credibility and legitimacy. Elections were not suspended during the US Civil War. Lincoln refused to do so, even though most people would have been supportive of suspension... Neither were they suspended during either of the World Wars. Elections in New York were not suspended during the aftermath of 9/11. Elections during the middle of the Vietnam War were not suspended. The presidency transitioned from Johnson to Nixon, and the war effort was not catastrophically affected (it was in fact eventually ended by Nixon...). Continuing the regular practice of democracy during a crisis demonstrates its strength. If new people are elected to various offices, so be it. They can work with the outgoing officials up until the time the switch occurs to ensure a smooth transition. It is not as if the entire government switches immediately to the newly elected officials without any period of transition...

Re: OT: US National debt
 

The one thing I liked about Lincoln was his critics. Lincoln let his critics bash him left and right and insult him all the time and didn't suppress speech (too much, I know he censored a few papers). Then when Lincoln died, his critics stopped for a minute and looked at what Lincoln was actually saying and trying to do and said to themselves, "He was a better man than us"

But I totally agree, democracy should never be suspended in time of crisis. Hell, if 2/3rds of the US state and federal gov't was wiped out by some freak disaster, I hope they hold emergency elections instead of declaring martial law. After all, Martial Law has never been declared by a sitting president. I hope this one holds to that tradition at least.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

I doubt that. There's a reason why it's called a "world economy". No part of the world would be spared in the event of a second great depression, not the EU, not Asia, not North America. It's simply a question of how badly any given country is affected. Some would undoubtedly be worse than others.

For instance, during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union did fairly well, since they were barely industrialized, and were not exporting hardly anything. Therefore, the "global" disaster didn't really affect them a lot. Of course, the same thing could not happen in the event of another Depression, since the same situations no longer exist.

Re: OT: US National debt
 

Heh, you should read Tom Clancy's Lion and Hyena's. Great book where happens just that.