US national debt surpasses $9 trillion dollars

[bascule]

Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

 

(I haven't seen anything on this in the news... strange)

 

Yeah, don't tax and spend beats tax and spend any day...

 

Is Bush the most fiscally irresponsible president in US history? Is he squandering America's present economic prosperity?

 

I'll go ahead and say yes to both questions.

[iNow]

It's too bad anyone who speaks of this issue will be attacked for hating Bush, despite the fact that the evidence supports the assertion.

 

 

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

[DrDNA]

Is Bush the most fiscally irresponsible president in US history? Is he squandering America's present economic prosperity?

Yes on one and hell yes on two.

[Pangloss]

US national debt surpasses $9 trillion dollars

 

Is Bush the most fiscally irresponsible president in US history? Is he squandering America's present economic prosperity?

 

It's too bad anyone who speaks of this issue will be attacked for hating Bush' date=' despite the fact that the evidence supports the assertion.[/quote']

 

I wish you'd told me before I opened the thread that it was about George Bush. I thought you wanted to talk about the national debt. Silly me.

[bascule]

I thought you wanted to talk about the national debt. Silly me.

 

You're right... there's no reason to bring Bush into this discussion...

 

 

(and to avoid a cum hoc ergo propter hoc, I'll repeat my point from the original post: lower taxes, increase spending... SURPRISE IT DOESN'T WORK)

[Pangloss]

I have no problem with the assertion (in fact I agree with it), I just question why you're leaving Congress out of the discussion (not to mention a host of other factors), as well as mislead people about the subject of this thread. I suggest that this is deliberate, and the reason why is a predisposition to hold Bush under a microscope for ideological reasons rather than rational ones.

 

In short, you deliberately narrow the reasoning and focus the discussion, hoping that if you blow this trumpet long and loud enough, Bush will lose the bizarre and detrimental "Worst President Evah" sweepstakes that ideologues feel so strongly compelled to play.

 

Good luck with that. It didn't seem to work for conservatives in the 1990s, and I don't think it will work for liberals in the 2000s.

[bascule]

I have no problem with the assertion (in fact I agree with it), I just question why you're leaving Congress out of the discussion

 

Despite the perception of Congress having the "power of the purse" (which speaks more of their ability to levy taxes), Congress has typically been a follower when it comes to the actual creation of the budget (architected largely by the executive's OMB, or the "budget man" as Bush refers to it), and of course the President's veto power has been the typical method by which a President can regulate overspending by Congress... something Bush hasn't chosen to exercise in regard to a spending bill until SCHIP... the rest of the time watching the national debt skyrocket up 60% from where it was when he took office.

 

as well as mislead people about the subject of this thread

 

In the past I've preferred to simply ask questions pertaining directly to the topic of the thread and let it go its own way, rather than injecting my personal editorial. I stopped doing that when you requested I give my opinion in a 72 point red typeface. I'd certainly be happy to go back to simply asking questions, rather than editorializing. Your call.

[Pangloss]

Right. Like I said -- you feel Bush is responsible and Congress should not be part of this discussion.

 

Well gosh, I guess that explains the 1995 shutdown, huh? After all it was Newt Gingrich trying to cut spending that shut the government down when Clinton refused to go along, but it was Clinton who caved (though he ultimately, ironically took credit, declaring "the era of big govement is ovah"). So yup, that would certainly seem to support your position. Gotta be all Bush, for sure.

 

And it MUST be true, after all if it weren't we'd be out of Iraq by now, huh? Yup, that would seem to support your assertion. Gotta be all Bush, for sure. (So... why did we elect the Dems, exactly? Obviously we can't have been thinking that it would stop the war, could we?)

 

 

And yet... (scratches head)... somehow we still get saddled with bridges to nowhere, apparently solely because the president didn't veto them. I wonder who proposes those bridges? I guess the president must do that. Yeah, that must be it.

 

Whew, thanks for clarifying all this stuff for me. I don't know what I was thinking, suggesting that pork barrel spending might involve congress! Go figure!

[Dak]

is it neccesarily the case that deficit spending is bad? after all, as people we often buy houses and cars deficitly, because it's simply better to, say, have a house then pay it off over 20 years, rather than save up for 18 years (interest and whatnot) before being able to buy a house.

 

It makes extra sence if the investment will give a financial return (improving industry/economy would make collected taxes go up, etc); why save up for 20 years to impliment an improvement if you could borrow the money, invest it in the improvement, and then successfully make your country 'more profitable' to the point that it only takes 10 years to pay the debt back?

 

iow, is this neccesarily bad deficit-spending, or could it be good deficit-spending? (i'll admit, that's one mother-****er of a debt, so i'd lean towards bad fiscal policy. still...).

[ParanoiA]

Is Bush the most fiscally irresponsible president in US history? Is he squandering America's present economic prosperity?

 

Yep. He doesn't get the brownie points that Reagan gets from me. Reagan outspent the russians to win a war without blood. He levied our economy against there's. So I can at least understand that reality.

 

But Bush, on the other hand, seems to be competing with Reagan here, only we have blood loss to go with our empty purse. We're spending...correction, we're printing more and more money to fight with a ridiculously inferior opponent, at least in terms of equipment and sophistication.

 

One thing I would note, however, is that per your graph the two republican big deficit spenders did so at a time of war and I would add because of those wars. Only one of which, was necessary, in my opinion.

 

is it neccesarily the case that deficit spending is bad? after all, as people we often buy houses and cars deficitly, because it's simply better to, say, have a house then pay it off over 20 years, rather than save up for 18 years (interest and whatnot) before being able to buy a house.

 

Yes, it's always bad. Just like cutting off your leg is always bad, even though it may have been done to prevent the spread of infection. There are times it may be necessary, but it's always bad and it almost never needs to happen.

 

Saving up to buy things is an old school concept here in the states. Waiting until you can afford something before you buy it? Are you nuts? I want it now! I don't want to wait! Charge everything, credit me to hell and back until I'm drowning in debt, then I can turn around and blame my problems on the same capitalists I borrowed from. Yeah, they tricked me into it, took advantage of me...

 

Is it really any surprise our government behaves the same way?

 

I was thinking about this on the way home last night. That our generation, my generation, has taken apathy another step. That each generation, since and including the baby boomers, we dumb ourselves down a little more. We become a little more detached and disinterested in economics, business, currency, and so forth and little more focused on "fun". Pop culture indulgence.

 

Which is why I think we're having these problems. I don't think the masses really understand money. I know that most of the people I work with that criticize capitalism, the rich, corporations - the more pretentious types, don't understand how currency works. Many of them still believed our money was backed by gold. And they couldn't tell me what inflation was - the best answer I got was some drivel about how rich people weren't rich enough and slowly, constantly raised prices.

 

They don't understand the essentials of economy, yet they have an opinion about all of it - a militant opinion layered with pejoratives and accusations.

 

And because of all that, and because politicians say what we want to hear and fill the role we want them to fill, no one makes our money situation a priority. Any politician who does make it a priority is considered a kook or a bore.

[Phi for All]

I was thinking about this on the way home last night. That our generation, my generation, has taken apathy another step. That each generation, since and including the baby boomers, we dumb ourselves down a little more. We become a little more detached and disinterested in economics, business, currency, and so forth and little more focused on "fun". Pop culture indulgence.

We used to enjoy smaller homes, with more socializing at each other's homes and theaters and parks and restaurants. We read or watched our news from journalists we trusted more, there was less professional spin to wade through, and we had more live discussion about politics and social issues with co-workers, friends and family because we had more time. Before personal computers and cable TV brought us access to an abundance of information, we were focused on fewer things.

 

I started hearing about gangs and gang culture back in the eighties and many in the middle+/- classes started fearing for the safety of their own neighborhoods. Community designs changed to fit a fortress mentality. We suddenly became all about security and convenience. We demanded massive designer spaces that can house home theaters and gyms and offices. Kids bedrooms now come standard with cutouts for computer desks, televisions and stereos.

 

We've saved ourselves all that nasty "going out of the house" time and that equally nasty "relating with other members of the family" time. We use that extra time to work harder to buy all the equipment we used to rent, and once we're done with our 10 hours of work / commute and 4 hours of home / family time we take the 2 hours left to utilize / process all that extra input we have access to. Everyone's knowledge becomes more specialized and varied as more input / data is made available to us.

 

We've created our own little kingdoms where it's easy to let our internal politics take precedence over national politics. We'll allow politicians more and more slack as long as our own fortress is not too badly or immediately compromised.

 

Whoa, sorry, blah blah blog. Had to get that off.

[Dak]

Yes, it's always bad. Just like cutting off your leg is always bad, even though it may have been done to prevent the spread of infection. There are times it may be necessary, but it's always bad and it almost never needs to happen.

 

well, i dunno. i agree that it's almost allways bad. but did you live with your parents till you were 40 and had saved up enough for your own place? Dunno what the country-scale equivelent of that would be, but i'm sure there's analogues.

 

I agree with what you said about the general population's attetude towards money, tho. the 'correct' responce would arguably be to raise tax and/or spend less to pay off the debt. but people want things for free, and want them NOW. so, obviously, it's the govournment that promises increased spending without the increased tax rate that gets elected.

[DrDNA]

Since the only way it will go down is to increase revenues and/or substantially decrease expenditures, what programs do you propose to cut and/or what sources of gov revenue do you propose to increase?

 

Name someone who has the political cojones to cut any gov program, except perhaps defense? It is absolute political suicide, but I'll vote for them (as long as the cut doesn't effect me personally).

 

Note that (according to the table below) we spend about 10 times more on debt interest than we do on either science and technology or energy programs.

 

I'm not sure why medicare is separate from medicade and other health related....

 

So what are you gonna cut or increase???

 

 

Note also that this is from wiki, so take it for what it is worth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

 

Quote:

 

"Total receipts

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2007 were $2.4 trillion.

 

$1.1 trillion - Individual income tax

$884.1 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

$260.6 billion - Corporate income tax

$74.6 billion - Excise taxes

$28.1 billion - Customs duties

$23.7 billion - Estate and gift taxes

$48.4 billion - Other

The IRS estimated that there were about $345 billion in uncollected taxes.[1]

 

[edit] Total spending

The President's budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

 

$699.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security

$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare

$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related

$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt

$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training

$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation

$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits

$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice

$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment

$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs

$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture

$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development

$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology

$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy

$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government "

End Quote.

[ParanoiA]

Well I suppose we could screw the rich a little bit more. I mean, we outnumber them right?

 

 

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/021307TaxPermanenceSN.pdf - page 6.

 

According to that, those greedy rich bastards are still making the bottom 50% cover 3% of the personal income tax bill - I guess the good ole boy network is alive and well...

 

At some point, we're going to actually have to live within our means...kinda like the rest of us do individually. I can't keep augmenting my credit card collection indefinitely. Sooner or later, I have to start actually forking over money for the stuff I want. Geez...you'd think "grown-up" legislators would know this...

[DrDNA]

I've got it....we could make all 30 million (or pick any number) "illegal immigrants" legal so they will have to pay taxes (and contribute to social security)...that should add about 10% more people to the roles......

 

So 30 million people (of which I guesstimate half would have taxable earned income) = 15 million people X 15% of their income paid to federal income tax and I guesstimate an average yearly income of $15,000 (assuming about $7/hour)..... = $33.75 billion per year to the federal income tax system.

 

Of course we will apply all of that to the national debt interest payment of $243.7 billion/yr (NOT, but assuming we did)........ = ONLY $209.95 billion in interest per year more to go! Woo hoo! After we figure out how to make that up, then we can start paying down the $9 trillion of principle

 

 

Here is some more data fer ya.......

Quote:

"New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns."End Quote.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

[Dak]

So what are you gonna cut or increase???

 

from your figures:

 

I may be getting confused about US v UK meanings of 'billion' and 'trillion', but it seems to me that the annual interest on debt (0.2437 trillion) could be gained with a 0.22% increase on individual income tax, which would at least keep the debt from growing any larger.

 

You could allways bump up personal income tax less, by bumping up corporate income tax as well.

[DrDNA]

I may be getting confused about US v UK meanings of 'billion' and 'trillion', but it seems to me that the annual interest on debt (0.2437 trillion) could be gained with a 0.22% increase on individual income tax, which would at least keep the debt from growing any larger.

 

You could allways bump up personal income tax less, by bumping up corporate income tax as well.

 

 

I think our meanings of billion and trillion dollars seem to be the same.

1 billion USD = 1 E9 USD = 1,000,000,000 USD

1 trillion USD = 1 E12 USD = 1,000,000,000,000 USD. That many zeros regarding dollars is almost beyond my comprehension and at 9 trillion in debt now, of course we are about to add another zero.

 

At approx. 1/4 the personal tax amount, pumping up corp taxes should have less of an impact:

From the data above:

"$1.1 trillion - Individual income tax"

"$260.6 billion - Corporate income tax "

Besides, there is always the (probably quite valid) argument that raising corp taxes will chase even more businesses off shore which would actually drive the numbers down and result in a drop in jobs, personal tax revenue, contribute to trade defict, etc.

 

Regarding the debt not growing any larger, your statement might be correct if there was a cap on spending. Unfortunately, we don't see that happening anytime in the near future.

 

EDIT:

DAK,

I just came back and did the math for the 0.22% increase you proposed in personal taxes. It would only add about $2.2 billion USD (using the amount for current personal tax revenues of approx $1 trillion USD) to the governments coffers. So, it would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. It would take a 22% increase to increase personal income tax revenues by $220 billion ($0.220 trillion) USD.

[Dak]

oh yes, sorry. it'd be an increase by a factor of 0.22, or of 22%

 

well, it's alot, but it's certainly doable. maybe you'd need to up the minimum wage, or the non-taxable income limit (if you have such a thing) to protect the poorest, but otherwize it'd at least stop the debt increasing.

 

slash defence and don't increase anything else, and you're starting to pay the debt off.

 

It's like the environment -- you'll have to address this at some point, and the later you leave it, the harder/more exensive it'll be to deal with. tho good luck to anyone trying to get elected on the back of that statement