Current debt to all the US citizens.

[BobF]

Nobody really likes to talk about the great burden put on our backs by the current government. Until near the end of Bush's government the national debt was holding at around 7.5 trillion. Then Pelosi and Reid came into power in Bush's last two years and drove that debt up to around 10 or 11 trillion dollars. Arriving next was our current President and his followers and not our debt is over 18.5 trillion dollars. Not something nice to have been done to the defensless citizens of the US. Glad only one more year and a half remain in this government. I believe that whether Hillary Clinton or others get the government, it will be much better than what we have today, for all of us regardless of political party.

https://www.informationstation.org/...legrants2015&gclid=CLvYlf31ycUCFdKIfgodz3UAFQ

[h=1]The U.S. is Now $18 Trillion in Debt[/h] What are the Ramifications?

Last week, the national debt surpassed $18 trillion. That’s $124,000 for each American household or $56,378 per individual. It took the country 205 years to accumulate its first trillion dollars of debt in 1981, but has only taken us 403 days to accumulate our most recent trillion. It’s hard to even think about numbers that big; if you were to count to a million it would take one week; if you wanted to count to a trillion it would take 31 thousand years.



Like with our personal debt, there may actually be some advantages to taking on debt. The flatscreen TV and Christmas presents we purchase with debt likely increase our standard of living and wellbeing. But this short term gain is often paid for with long term pain. And the currency of this pain is interest.


Interest is the price of debt. So, when we buy a TV on a payment plan, we are actually buying two things: the TV and the debt that goes with it. While a few extra dollars spent on interest each month may be worth it to see our favorite football players in HD, too much of our income spent interest can seriously reduce our quality of life because we must forgo other purchases to pay for it.


This is the point that the country has reached with its interest on the national debt.


Last year, the U.S. spent $430 billion on interest payments alone. This means that every year, tax payers are spending $3,500 just on interest payments. This is money that isn’t going to pay for roads, bridges, education, medical research or defense.


It gets scarier. National debt interest rates are historically low at the moment – around 2.5 percent. When they rise, interest payments will rise exponentially thanks to the wonders of compounding rates. Say interest rates rise to 5 percent – still low by historical standards. That means we will owe nearly $1 trillion a year in interest alone. That’s about two-thirds of what the federal government brings in each year in total income tax revenue!
Fewer services and higher taxes – Uncle Sam’s spendthrift ways could end up hurting us all.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I don't think that the current administration is completely responsible for the national debt, look at the last administration. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/22/1379432/-Who-is-responsible-for-the-debt

I keep hearing "Obama has added more debt than all presidents in history combined", ignore the fact that the statement is not only false and that Ronald Reagan added twice the debt as every president before him combined here is a true look at our national debt.

2001 President George Bush came into office inheriting a surplus from President Bill Clinton. The CBO projected in the 10 years from 2001-2011 the total surplus would be 5.6 trillion dollars and the national debt would be paid off by 2011, this assumed that revenue remained the same and spending didn't increase higher than inflation.

So why did President Bush leave office with a 10 trillion dollar debt instead of the projected surplus? First came government spending which increased over 5.6 trillion dollars, this on top of a huge tax cut that removed 6.1 trillion in revenue coming into the government.

When you factor in the debt almost everyone ignores the surplus that was left, if he had just kept taxes and spending at the same level, President Bush would have left office with no national debt instead of the 10.6 trillion he left.

So if you want to be honest President Bush is responsible for all debt when President Obama took office, instead of inheriting a balanced budget and a surplus.

Now factor in the yearly deficit that President Bush left President Obama of 500 billion dollars a year and the debt if Obama hadn't increased spending 1 penny would be at 13 trillion dollars all due to President Bush's policies.

Now the debt is 18 trillion so President Obama has increased spending and added 5 trillion to the debt but far less than the 13 trillion Bush added and actually this years deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower than 2008.

 

[BobF]

I have no idea where this 13 trillion Bush is supposed to have created. Debt when Bush took over was around 7 trillion from Clinton and was still only 7.5 trillion till Pelosi and Reid took over congress and drove the debt up to over 10 trillion in spite of Bush not wanting to spend so much. There was no surplus as someone has claimed. It was Pelosi and Reid that created that explosion of debt, not Bush. They were blocking Bush's regular spending till he agreed to blow a lot on unreasonable costs and debts.

I can't believe those distortions and twisted logic of the post put up. Need to see other sources of debt and wonder about what is being posted as facts.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Look to these charts and the debt goes up each year. It is not surplus debt from Bush.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif

Look to this chart and see how debt under Bush stayed pretty level in the 7 trillion range but then after Pelosi and Reid took over in Bush's term, the chart to a sharp turn to the up side and is still rising under Obama's guidance.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Another view of the national debt.

 

[SeaBreeze]

http://zfacts.com/p/57.html

Conservatives are embarassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.

As the figure shows, Reagan and Bush senior got almost exactly the budgest they requested in each of their 12 budget years.

• Reagan:
• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats.
  • This increased the debt by $144 Billion.(1)
• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.
• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress
  • Totalled slightly less than Reagan requested.
• G. H. W. Bush:
• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.
• These four Democratic budgets totalled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.
• G. W. Bush:
• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.
  • Bipartisan and totalled $20 Billion less than Bush requested.
  • The biggest cause of deficits was Bush’s enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.
• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.
• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed(2) modest Democratic attempts at spending.

In summary: Democrats controlled Congress during 8 out the 20 years. During 4 of those years, Democrats decreased the budgets proposed by the Republican presidents. Their total effect during those 8 years was to reduce Republican budgets by $17 Billion (which is only 0.2%).

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.htm

National Debt Graph by President



Oct 24, 2014. When did the National Debt go crazy? Why? Who’s to blame? Where is the debt headed? Compared to the US economy, the national debt is smaller than it was after World War II. But, take a look at what could have happened if three presidents had balanced their budgets.

The National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street

Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.

The data for actual Debt-as-%-of-GDP for 1940-2006 comes from George W. Bush’s OMB Historical Table 7.1 for FY 2008

After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically. But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt.

Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above. By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had.

Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)

Why did he do it?

So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt that was as big as a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high? How did he come to add another 128 miles to that stack? Reagan took some economics in college, and he really did want to reduce the debt. But he got snookered by some Wall Street “economists” (mostly political journalists) who told him he could have his cake and eat it too.

They came up with the brand-new theory, mentioned above, that said the government can collect more money by reducing taxes. Wouldn’t that be nice! That’s the supply-side economics that George H. W. Bush called Voodoo.It was first tested by Reagan.

Bush I tried and failed to undo the Voodoo, and Bush II reinstated it after Clinton. Altogether there were 20 Voodoo budgets. And every single time the debt not only went up, it went up faster than the economy grew — usually much faster. Before the Voodoo, 26 of the previous 35 budgets resulted in the debt shrinking relative to GDP. Reagan’s first budget was the turning point.

Debt: Total owed from past and present borrowing. Deficit: This year’s borrowing.

Of course some supply-siders noticed this too, and when Treasury Sect. Paul O’Neil complained that cutting taxes would increase the deficit, V.P. Cheney just replied “You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” In fact, many seemed to like the deficits and complain about them only when Democrats were in power. They saw them as helping to “strangle the government.”

So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge.

So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets. So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet).

They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him.

Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion.

Then Clinton took over. Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt.

Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

Why this matters

Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did.

To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor.

The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.

When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP.

There are a lot of lies in circulation. Blaming the Democrats for the debt is just one of them.

Or,What about Obama?

Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration.

It happened because of the recession. (Bush was responsible for the turn-around from surplus to deficit soon after he took office, but not for the impact of the recession on the budget.)

Nonetheless, Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices.Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit.

So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that’s over.

Now we see that the economy is growing almost as fast as the debt, so in the last year, the debt has not outstripped economic growth by much. Economic growth is the main way that the WWII debt was brought down relative to GDP.

 

[BobF]

As I have said already, this data does not follow the official data at all. Why believe it?

 

[Josiah]

This is great stuff SeaBreeze. Bob, I think is living in a Republican reality with an entirely different set of numbers then using the names Pelosi and Reid as smoke and mirrors he blames it all on Obama.

 

[BobF]

Sorry, but I have been posting real national data. Not this off the wall ways of twisted data to prove a lie. Those charts are actually using some real data and then adding on the distortions in order to try to prove a point. Waste of time for sure.

One thing to keep in mind during most of Regans and Bush terms, they were fighting against the twisted ideas of the Democrat Congress.

This looks just like the same chart those other folks copied and altered to try to prove their point. What a joke that is.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-to-gdp.html?federal-debt-to-gdp-politics.gif

 

[Don M.]

A couple of things that have contributed to this debt....the UNFUNDED wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have cost this nation the better part of 2 trillion dollars....and the Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 which decreased the Federal tax revenues by hundreds of billions, or more. There is no doubt in my mind that Washington is awash in wasteful spending...I have felt, for years, that at least 33% of every dollar we send to Washington is wasted. However, it is axiomatic that the full effects of the actions of Any Presidency are usually not felt for several years. Between the GWB policies, and the recession of 2007/2008, the national debt has risen to dangerous levels. Obama, and our Congress have both failed to take any meaningful actions to pay down this debt. Our nations debt reached these kinds of peaks vs. GDP, in the years of WWII, but the people back then had more concern about the nation and accepted tax rates as high as 92% to erase that debt. Today, it seems that no one Gives a Chit.

Obama is having to wade through the GWB legacy, and the next President will have to contend with Obama's policies...most notably the ACA (Obamacare) which is going to put our nations health care system into a death spiral.

But, have heart...there is a solution, which has been used by other nations in the past...Argentina, most recently. When the national debt becomes too great a burden, the government will probably devalue the dollar, thus reducing the amount, and interest to a fraction. The down side to that traditional tactic is that any money an individual may have managed to save, will also be worth only a fraction of its current value...and you can Bet that prices on goods and services will NOT go down accordingly.

 

[BobF]

IF TRUE, then it is but a spot on the following debts created by the recent debts of the Democrat driven party years that added over 10 trillion dollars of debt to our future government. Most of those dollars have gone to what? Some really bad decisions as no real support from the masses for ever higher debts.

Now to zfacks and what all those distorted charts mean.

http://zfacts.com/node/91

Welcome to zFacts!

Rarely are two sides equally right, and “balanced” has come to mean magnifying minor faults on one side to balance fatal flaws on the other. Get z Facts and then decide. (newsletter)



zFacts is a project of Steven Stoft. Launched in January 2003 upon the realization that Bush really was going to invade Iraq. It focuses mainly on economic policy, energy and climate, foreign policy and domestic politics. Having a science background, I’m more skeptical than liberals or conservatives. Being an economist I favor more market oriented approaches than liberals, but don’t buy the free-market religion of conservatives. And I think personal and social (government) responsibility are equally important in the design of public policy. More info here.


The writing and graphs on this website may be used freely, however I would appreciate an acknowledgment and a link to zFacts.com or the appropriate sub-page.
............................................

Unfortunately this is all the idea of one person as to what he thinks should be the facts. This is not facts to post and defend, just one persons idea of how he sees things. Almost humorous as you read along and look to his arguments compared to the more studious and accurate reports others do put together.

To get closer to the facts try places like ... http://www.cbo.gov/ ... and then browse around in the official numbers available.

An example would be this and notice the shape of the chart. Pretty much the same as was posted before. Without those additional distortions. Real government data.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/49892

 

[Jackie22]

I don't think that the current administration is completely responsible for the national debt, look at the last administration. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/22/1379432/-Who-is-responsible-for-the-debt

Thanks, SB, for this very concise explanation of the Nation's dept, it makes perfect sense.

 

[BobF]

Not true at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/22/1379432/-Who-is-responsible-for-the-debt

I keep hearing "Obama has added more debt than all presidents in history combined", ignore the fact that the statement is not only false and that Ronald Reagan added twice the debt as every president before him combined here is a true look at our national debt.


2001 President George Bush came into office inheriting a surplus from President Bill Clinton. The CBO projected in the 10 years from 2001-2011 the total surplus would be 5.6 trillion dollars and the national debt would be paid off by 2011, this assumed that revenue remained the same and spending didn't increase higher than inflation. So why did President Bush leave office with a 10 trillion dollar debt instead of the projected surplus? First came government spending which increased over 5.6 trillion dollars, this on top of a huge tax cut that removed 6.1 trillion in revenue coming into the government.


When you factor in the debt almost everyone ignores the surplus that was left, if he had just kept taxes and spending at the same level President Bush would have left office with no national debt in stead of the 10.6 trillion he left. So if you want to be honest President Bush is responsible for all debt when President Obama took office, instead of inheriting a balanced budget and a surplus. Now factor in the yearly deficit that President Bush left President Obama of 500 billion dollars a year and the debt if Obama hadn't increased spending 1 penny would be at 13 trillion dollars all due to President Bush's policies. Now the debt is 18 trillion so President Obama has increased spending and added 5 trillion to the debt but far less than the 13 trillion Bush added and actually this years deficit as a percentage of GDP is lower than 2008. Next time someone says "Obama doubled the debt" point out the facts and make sure to set them straight.

..................................

Not true at all. Clinton never left the government with a surplus. Bush did not leave office with a 10 trillion dollar debt of his own. Bush arrive on the job with the 7 trillion debt that Clinton left behind and then he was up to 7.5 trillion debt as Pelosi and Ried came into power in his last two years and drove the debt up to, and over, the 10trillion debt. By refusing to sign bills Bush had asked for to pay bills for the government until he agreed to sign their overspending bills they pushed Bush into overspending his budgets.

Some pretty tricky writing for those folks to talk of surpluses when the government has been in deficit spending for so many years already and now in one of the worst debt records ever.

Time for all to be honest with themselves and others. Far too much of this nonsense arguing. Today our debt is at over 18 trillion and most of that, from 7.5 trillion on up, under the current leadership. I had been briefly going down with Bush and his Republican party doing the job. In a year and a half we will have a new President. If it is Hillary she will face the same problem as any other President will. That is to somehow start to pay down these rediculous debts and get the US back into a well kept and prosperous ways of its past. It will likely take several Presidents to actually make some headway on reducing this debt back into something much less threatening that what we have now. Until 1975 we were steady in reducing our WWII debts, but then for some rediculous reason the government decided to go play in the sand and rapidly increase our debts again. Now we are deeply in trouble and will be for the many next generations of US citizens, no matter which political party they may follow.

 

[SeaBreeze]

I don't want to argue at all about this Bob, I have no interest in changing anyone's mind, and I understand that you only think perspectives, opinion, and "facts" are right when they come from the right. No problem, I understand completely, you're not alone unfortunately.

I understand that when Bush took office in '01, the debt was 5.73 trillion. When he left office in '09, it was 10.63 trillion. As of April of 2015, the debt under Obama is 18.15 trillion.

The big increase in the debt for the first couple of years in Obama's presidency was due to the recession, which was already taking place before he took office, when Bush was president.

Under Bush, the debt rose to fund military operations in the Middle East and increases in the health system, some of the debt was due to Bush's policies and some due to other external factors.

President Obama continued to borrow money to fund the military operations in the Middle East, I don't think he had much choice there, given the serious military actions unjustly started by G.W. Bush. Obama did however try to lower the high cost of health care by the creation of his Affordable Care Act. I understand the the deficit has decreased under President Obama, so all in all, he seems to be working well with the situation he was left with.

It's not reasonable, IMO, to always blame the democrats whenever the republicans fail, raise the debt/deficit, etc. Your making statements like "the great burden put on our backs by the current government" is not only overly dramatic, but it is untrue. I hear these dramatic exaggerations all the time on the conservative talk shows and news shows, from people who still haven't accepted that their President Obama was voted in twice 'by the people' of the United States, and refuse to credit him for any of his administration's accomplishments.

Obama could have done much more for America if the losers of the election didn't vow to fight him tooth and nail and obstruct his progress in an attempt to make him fail, when their schemes don't pan out, they become more angry and frustrated. When Obama was elected the second time, many on the right just could not handle it, and still aren't accepting it until this day. Sad situation really for the American people, especially the middle class and poor, who the right have no regard for at all.

 

[QuickSilver]

AND the fact remains..... DEBT IS NOT BAD.. NOR should it be scary.. It's used by the RIGHT as a weapon when a Democrat is in power... However, when a Republican is in power... it's not such a concern... wonder why?

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/content/why-there-nothing-scary-about-us-national-debt

Why do some people think federal government indebtedness is the major problem America faces today? There are many answers to this question. Some have legitimate, though exaggerated, concerns about so much U.S. debt held by foreigners. Others are not really worried, but use scaremongering about the allegedly “out of control national debt” as a political weapon.

Public fears can also be aroused by antiquated ways of thinking about the nature of money. More than two centuries ago, the most trustworthy money consisted of precious metals. Among merchants, and between merchants and governments, credit and debt had long been used to settle transactions. But during financial panics, wise counsel recommended a “run to gold.” Money was stuff, a physical thing, and there was apparently a finite amount of it. But in our time, most monetary transactions don’t involve the use of coins or even paper notes. Instead, we use electronic messages to buy things, pay employees or merchants, and settle debts. The mundane reality of electronic transfers is obvious for credit card users – and for U.S. Social Security recipients who, as of 2013, receive automatic deposits rather than checks each month.

Although we routinely experience electronic transfers free from coins and paper, many of our arguments about money and debt still refer to the pre-electronic world. “Where will the money come from?” ask concerned citizens and pontificating pundits. When faced with the thought that the federal government’s expenditures are exceeding revenue collections as the economy recovers from a deep recession, people seem to be looking about for bags of coins or bills. The anxious search flows from a deep-rooted cultural sense that there is only so much money in the system – that we must hoard what we have, because the only way to get more would be by revving up the printing presses, unleashing disastrous inflation. - See more at: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....y-about-us-national-debt#sthash.PVlnu5zE.dpuf

Discussions about U.S. fiscal policy would improve if we talked about money/debt as more like electricity than physical stuff that passes from hand to hand or is lugged from vault to vault. For example, a household receives a monthly pay check by automatic deposit, with some funds withheld for payroll taxes and perhaps a pension contribution. A computer program does it all instantly, electronically increasing the household’s bank balance and adding to balances at the pension fund and the U.S. Treasury, while subtracting from the employer’s account.

Similarly, when a household draws on a line of credit at a bank or credit union to buy a new living room set, the furniture dealer’s account is increased and the household’s decreased. Of course, each household faces limits in using lines of credit, arranging credit through a second mortgage, and so forth. We can liken such limits to circuit breakers that are tripped when there is too much usage. In this instance, “too much” is subjectively defined as educated estimate lenders and borrowers make about the future ability of borrowers to repay on time and in full. How much can safely be lent or borrowed depends on uncertain forecasts – and even more on trust that borrowers will make every effort to meet their obligations.

Borrowing is not just something households routinely do. Businesses regularly take out loans, even the largest corporations. And governments also borrow for many good reasons. They borrow to meet short-term needs for liquidity; they borrow to cover unbudgeted shortfalls (for example, when tax revenues decline during an economic recession); and they borrow to pursue long-term goals (such as investing in infrastructure to make the economy more productive). Even state governments in the United States regularly borrow, despite the fact that they operate under constitutional rules requiring annual budgets to balance. Every kind of borrower – households, businesses, and governments – faces some level at which additional borrowing would “trip the circuit,” that is, potentially exceed their ability to repay in the eyes of potential lenders and objective observers. Expectations and trust are inherent to the process. - See more at: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....y-about-us-national-debt#sthash.PVlnu5zE.dpuf

Right now, the U.S. government is far from hitting a circuit breaker – we know, because lenders are eager to buy Treasuries and interest rates are not rising. Many analysts realize that this is an ideal time for the federal government to borrow and spend to speed economic recovery and invest in infrastructure to spur growth. Consequently, they find all the scare talk about debt very frustrating and unproductive. The simple answer to “where will the money come from?” is that it comes from people who crave the chance to purchase U.S. Treasuries as a safe and secure investment in a world of great uncertainty. Eager lenders trust America’s economic prospects and ability to repay with interest for a long time to come.

Trusted public debt can, in short, be a very good thing. When government spends and jobs are plentiful and businesses thrive, the economy grows and so do incomes. Private and governmental loans are made and repaid, and trust is abundant – setting the whole fruitful cycle in motion once again. - See more at: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....y-about-us-national-debt#sthash.PVlnu5zE.dpuf

Bob likes to tear his hair out over the debt, because he has been fed the line of BS by Republicans out of power, looking to get back into power. He's fallen hook line and sinker. Arguing with him is useless.

 

[Jackie22]

"Sad situation really for the American people, especially the middle class and poor, who the right have no regard for at all."

Very accurate post and this sentence sums it up well.....and yet they just keep voting for them, against their own interest.

 

[QuickSilver]

"Sad situation really for the American people, especially the middle class and poor, who the right have no regard for at all."

Very accurate post and this sentence sums it up well.....and yet they just keep voting for them, against their own interest.

It's sad in that Republicans love to use the fear mongering over the National Debt as an excuse to do what they LOVE doing to begin with.. and they love it even more when a Democrat is in power... That being to cut the benefits the poor and middle class depend on. In addition as an excuse to revisit the "Holy Grail" of republicans.. the privatization of Social Security and Medicare. All you hear is "WE CAN'T AFFORD IT" or .. OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL SUFFER.... while they couldn't give a rats patooty about that.. and it's a whole lot of baloney. It's the ideology of doing away with benefits they want. This is just to scare people like BobF..

 

[Josiah]

To echo one of the quotes in your comment QS. The continued existence of very low interest rates make this an ideal time for the government to borrow money and invest is the rebuilding or our infrastructure which once was the wonder of the world and now is decaying into 3rd world class. If we had done that in 2009 and beside building roads and rail and airports, we had also made a major push towards renewable energy, we would have a roaring economy, we would be more competitive in the global economy and we would be doing something significant to reduce the danger of climate change. Alas all we've done since 2009 is start a few wars and make the 1 percenters richer.

 

[QuickSilver]

To echo one of the quotes in your comment QS. The continued existence of very low interest rates make this an ideal time for the government to borrow money and invest is the rebuilding or our infrastructure which once was the wonder of the world and now is decaying into 3rd world class. If we had done that in 2009 and beside building roads and rail and airports, we had also made a major push towards renewable energy, we would have a roaring economy, we would be more competitive in the global economy and we would be doing something significant to reduce the danger of climate change. Alas all we've done since 2009 is start a few wars and make the 1 percenters richer.

Absolutely! Austerity is NOT the way to get out of a recession or depression. Spending is.. Spending on things that will put money in the hands of the poor and middle class. JOBS being the main thing. It's a no brainer. When you give tax breaks and more money to the wealthy what do they do? Generally sock it away into foreign accounts and tax shelters. They DO NOT create jobs. When you give money to the poor and middle class, they spend every last red cent of it on goods and services, creating a demand for MORE goods and services... and JOBS.. yes.. The American people are the "job creators".. Their demand spurs Corporations to meet the demand..

 

[BobF]

Some distortions above. I have been using Obama's government releases to show that we are spending way too much and for no good reasons. What is wrong with that. I posted the governments own data and it is far different than what some folks think is 'factual' reporting when it is not. All these trillions from Bush's term till now are of the Democrats creation. So from 7.5trillion in Bush's time to 18trillion today, that is around 10trillion over spent by the Obama government so far, with another year and a half to go. The 2 or so trillion raise while Bush was President was due to Pelosi and Reid who threatened to shut down the government if Bush did not allow them to spend way over the needs. So yes, Bush was President but he was being black mailed in order to get money for the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Some folks recently wanted some honesty in these post so that is what I have kept pushing. Honesty, not far left nonsense.

 

[QuickSilver]

You haven't even read a word...

 

[BobF]

You haven't even read a word...

Read a word of ???? Somebody should rethink their posts.

I have read plenty of distorted words and responded with facts from the Obama government reports plus many other reports from respected agencies. That is what many are not reading. Read from the Obama governments publications and forget all these distorted, non government items that are full of wrongs and exaggerations.

 

[AZ Jim]

Read a word of ???? Somebody should rethink their posts.

I have read plenty of distorted words and responded with facts from the Obama government reports plus many other reports from respected agencies. That is what many are not reading. Read from the Obama governments publications and forget all these distorted, non government items that are full of wrongs and exaggerations.

Bob, your obsessive hatred borders on a serious mental problem. Why not give it a rest, think about blue skies, beautiful flowers, gentle breezes, the look in the eyes of a trusting pet, so many wondrous things to harness your mind, let them.

 

[QuickSilver]

Not to mention "information Station" and Zfacts are conservative blogs.

 

[AZ Jim]

Actually ZFacts says it was Reagan/Bush who created the debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

 

[BobF]

Bob, your obsessive hatred borders on a serious mental problem. Why not give it a rest, think about blue skies, beautiful flowers, gentle breezes, the look in the eyes of a trusting pet, so many wondrous things to harness your mind, let them.

I have no obsessive hatred but I do prefer folks to use honest and true sources. Far too much of what is posted is nonsense and untrue. Why not use true government and open sources for facts and avoid all these strange sources which seldom post any facts at all. That is what I have been trying to do all along. No distortions, just facts.

 

[BobF]

zfacts is not conservative at all, nor is it far left either. I posted the authors comments a while back but here it is again. One thing for sure is that it is certainly not something to post as fact either.

Welcome to zFacts!

Rarely are two sides equally right, and “balanced” has come to mean magnifying minor faults on one side to balance fatal flaws on the other. Get z Facts and then decide. (newsletter)


zFacts is a project of Steven Stoft. Launched in January 2003 upon the realization that Bush really was going to invade Iraq. It focuses mainly on economic policy, energy and climate, foreign policy and domestic politics. Having a science background, I’m more skeptical than liberals or conservatives. Being an economist I favor more market oriented approaches than liberals, but don’t buy the free-market religion of conservatives. And I think personal and social (government) responsibility are equally important in the design of public policy. More info here.


The writing and graphs on this website may be used freely, however I would appreciate an acknowledgment and a link to zFacts.com or the appropriate sub-page.