Is the huge debt a threat to our country?

[kentuck]

As the nut baggers say?

And what would be the debt if Republicans had won the White House and the House and Senate? Would it be considerably lower than the present or would it have been more? Remember that they wanted to invade Iran and wanted another $5 trillion dollar taxcut.

Also, didn't the Republicans say they did not like balanced budgets and that deficits didn't really matter?

[spanone]

1. i find it curious that the debt is only a threat when democrats add to it.

the republicans just shit away 24 billion dollars without a thought.

besides, Obama is reducing the debt at record levels....

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0916/Obama-Deficits-falling-at-fastest-rate-since-WWII.-Is-that-true

[Bunnahabhain]

3. Just FYI

the "debt" =! the "deficit"

The debt continues to grow.

[kentuck]

6. Yes. All the deficits added together equals the debt.

At present, about $17 trillion dollars officially.

[jeff47]

2. The last Republican president to leave office with a smaller debt than he entered

Was Eisenhower.

That should tell you everything you need to know about Republicans claiming the debt is a terrible problem that must be fixed right now.

[kentuck]

4. How much of the $6.5 trillion debt run up since Obama has been President actually belongs to Bush??

We can give Bush the first deficit of $1.2 trillion dollars. Also, we can give him the cost of the wars - at present about $200 billion per year - that would be another $1 trillion. Add in the Bush depression and cost of unemployment and the slowdown in revenues coming into the country and add in the Bush taxcuts and you get another $4 trillion dollars. Hey! That the entire debt!

[The Magistrate]

5. No, Sir

I have been reading for more than half a century predictions imminent disaster loomed from the Federal debt....

"Cheer up lads --- we must get a winner one day!"

[dawg]

7. Our debt isn't all that large relative to our economy.

Going on a crusade to reduce the debt makes no economic sense. Especially during a time of depressed employment and wages.

[former9thward]

8. It is not just nut baggers.

President Obama said it:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp#xTXXox8O9zGFW5hR.99

[SheilaT]

9. Even though comparing the federal budget

to a family budget is A Very Bad Idea, as long as we (meaning the country) can pay our bills, we're okay. We also have the power to tax and do other things that a family can't do, but the whole thing about debt and deficits is purely a smokescreen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. 'Threat' may be too strong a word

If the USA wants to continue running its economy as it has since WW2 at least, then it needs to keep the cost of servicing the debt under control. This is not a problem at the moment, since, with the world economy still being weak, those with money to lend (eg China) are willing to lend it to the USA at low rates, since it's still a safe place to put their money, and there's not enough growth elsewhere to justify the extra risk. But if enough other countries recover to the point at which they are both fairly safe and able to grow, then the money is going to either go elsewhere, or demand higher rates from the USA. At that point, the level of debt may become more of a problem, if it's high.

There are alternative ways, of course - slash defense spending to save some money; or decide to inflate your way out of debt - but, as well as hitting the very wealthy, that would also hit those of more modest means saving for retirement.

[stillcool]

11. it's only a threat...

to Democrats, after Republicans have created it.

[haele]

12. If one's GDP and revenue does not keep up with the debt payments, then yes, it can be a threat.

But people go into huge debt all the time to buy a car, or a house, or go to college. There's good debt and bad debt.

Good Debt is an investment for the future, and that includes huge debt (like the Apollo project, or certain subsidies, or Interstate Highways, etc...)

Bad Debt is when people who don't need to get money to thrive get it anyway (oil subsidies to big businesses, subsidies to major corporations to farm out their simpler manufacturing in prisons for $1.00 a day wages; calling it "worker training" (removing up to 50,000 living wage jobs from the economy in California and Texas), or goes to wars of choice, or is otherwise "off the books" - like shutting down the government in a pissy fit.

So if your debt helps the GDP, it's not a problem. Spending to get more money or productivity back, saving costs in the future, is good.
But if the debt outweighs or reduces future revenues, then there is a significant problem.

Haele

[solarhydrocan]

13. The threat to our country is the MIC and the bankers bailouts

what could $80 billion dollars per month do to employ people to fix bridges and roads and other infrastructure? That's the money being printed up under "Quantitative Easing"

Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to prevent the money supply falling when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1] [2][3] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets from commercial banks and other private institutions, thus increasing the monetary base.

What could 2 trillion blown on invading and conquering lands 8000 miles away have done towards energy independence?

http://nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/


What good does the CIA and the NSA do by creating legacies like the following:

Covert United States foreign regime change actions

Just since the CIA was created:

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
2.19.1 Destablization through CIA Assets
2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986
3 Since the end of the Cold War
3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

^^^ That's called "Spreading Democracy" by people that manage to keep straight faces. Seriously? Yes, seriously.

What kind of legacy is the present generation leaving to the following?

More people need to ask "Why and How did the US become a Debtor Nation?"

[Johonny]

14. No, I think the real threat is the inability of the country to reverse failed GOP economic policies

The current debate is insane. I agree the current problem is obviously a result of the fail GOP policies of the past 30 years and particularly the presidency of Bush. Even worse Obama's administration has been unable to reverse the worst of the policies of the Bush years at anything close to a rapid rate. In the meantime the GOP has constantly blamed phantom policies that don't exist for the countries problems. We are watching a debate between idiots that have exactly what they want already and yet want to double down on the stupid, and responsible legislators that believe in governance yet see their sound policy changes ignored, watered down, and filibustered.

The saddest thing is the longer conservative policies are in place, the more unhappy your local conservative is. If you don't think they are terribly unhappy just ask them. Yet in reality they have everything they 'want' already. They just can't admit what they want doesn't improve the lives of 99+% of the country. They can't admit what is making them unhappy is conservatism!

[kentuck]

15. I would like for someone to ask them the question?

What would you do to fix the mess that George W Bush and your Party created when you were in power? Ask for specifics.

[Igel]

16. We used to think so.

The huge Bush II deficits were unsustainable. Obama ran on cutting them from such high levels to much lower levels. He was applauded for it.

Then the politics changed and the deficit more than quadrupled and it was all good. Growing the deficit was something he was applauded for.

Why? Because it was the case that if the debt reached a certain percentage of revenues or GDP that there'd be problems. Until then, no problem.

Until we got near the point, then it was decided that only certain kinds of debt counted.

Now those "certain kinds of debt" are near the point where the correlation (with causal mechanisms proposed) can easily lead to a 1-1.5 percentage point in growth for the next decade or two. The response is to cite old numbers, or that the deficit has fallen at record rates.

Then again, that's from the year with the $350 billion in Obama-requested TARP and the $850 billion stimulus and the increase in baseline spending from a $450 billion spending bill that was "old business" and not worth paying attention to, but which also raised the deficit. And it also includes many billions of dollars in repaid loans--not really "revenues," but given how the government handles its accounting, it's all revenue.

One of the real dangers is that the interest rate on US Treasury notes won't stay at near record lows. That's what's keeping the payments on the national debt only at around $200-250 billion a year. If they increased, you'd see that number edge up quickly at current deficit levels. Still, I wonder what you could buy for $200 billion these days?

Politics makes for funny math.