Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 04, 2015, 10:57:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
87988 Posts in 2283 Topics by 1070 Members
Latest Member: Nexquietus
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print
Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 138315 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12692


« Reply #900 on: August 15, 2015, 12:38:17 AM »


Kind of ignores the catastrophic debt, eh?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34188


« Reply #901 on: August 15, 2015, 07:39:40 AM »

To a certain extent you are correct, yes it does.

Yet if the economy grows at 2% and the deficit is 2% at GDP, doesn't that imply a decline over time to the debt/GDP ratio? 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12692


« Reply #902 on: August 15, 2015, 08:17:58 PM »

How is that in anyway meaningful for the brokest nation in human history?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34188


« Reply #903 on: August 15, 2015, 08:37:48 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12692


« Reply #904 on: August 15, 2015, 08:45:35 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/news/economy/japan-debt-imf/

Japan: Roughly 11 trillion in debt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-true-size-of-federal-government-debt-is-210-trillion/article/2565559

US: approximately 210 trillion.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12692


« Reply #905 on: August 15, 2015, 08:59:53 PM »

Forgive me the quibble with your hyperbole, but proportionally we are not even close to being the brokest nation in history.   For example, doesn't Japan have a debt/GDP ratio of something like 245%?

Anyway, if my math is correct, current numbers mean a very slight decline in debt/GDP ratio.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/news/economy/japan-debt-imf/

Japan: Roughly 11 trillion in debt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-true-size-of-federal-government-debt-is-210-trillion/article/2565559

US: approximately 210 trillion.



http://simonthorpesideas.blogspot.com/2015/02/global-debt-is-now-25-times-total-money.html

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mwjUm8Lz7Y4
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 785


« Reply #906 on: August 15, 2015, 09:33:58 PM »

LOL.  "Everything is Awesome" should be Wesbury's and Grannis' theme song.   grin

Because everything truly IS awesome "when you're living in a dream!"
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34188


« Reply #907 on: August 15, 2015, 11:10:29 PM »

GM:

The WE piece you post says "U.S. government debt stands at $210 trillion, not the official $13.1 trillion". 

Ummm , , , aren't we at $18+T?   

A strange error to make , , ,

Still, of course I get the point about unfunded liabilities-- and it is quite valid-- but without a proper grasp of the numbers it is hard to know how accurate they are.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12692


« Reply #908 on: August 15, 2015, 11:37:17 PM »

GM:

The WE piece you post says "U.S. government debt stands at $210 trillion, not the official $13.1 trillion". 

Ummm , , , aren't we at $18+T?   

A strange error to make , , ,

Still, of course I get the point about unfunded liabilities-- and it is quite valid-- but without a proper grasp of the numbers it is hard to know how accurate they are.

I doubt anyone has the real numbers at this point. The key element is how severe a situation we are facing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 34188


« Reply #909 on: August 16, 2015, 06:19:48 AM »

And only Chris Christie is talking about reigning in entitlements , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6672


« Reply #910 on: August 16, 2015, 10:10:20 PM »

Yes, crazy discrepancy measuring 2 different things, the debt we owe today versus the fiscal gap projecting forward.

Debt at 18T is really only $13T owed to the public.  Even that isn't owed to anyone in the sense of it ever being paid it back when the target is to always run permanent deficits.  It's just an interest cost burden that could easily double or quadruple as interest rates go up, even without further deficits.

Where did GM's $210T number come from?  A few sources below and this description:

"using the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 75-year Alternate Fiscal Scenario projection, Kotlikoff calculated that the U.S.’ “fiscal gap” –which he defines as “the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts”

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/03/12/washingtons-210-trillion-deficit/
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/08-federal-debt-worse-than-you-think-haskins
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Kotlikoff-GDP-debt-deficit/2015/03/10/id/629314/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/13/ben-carsons-claim-that-the-u-s-owes-211-trillion-beyond-the-reported-federal-debt/
http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/7986/is-the-210-trillion-fiscal-gap-measurement-valid-true-and-is-it-possible-to-fix

I have doubts about that methodology (75 years projections?) but the current problem is a hell of a lot bigger than amount currently owed.


More importantly to me is the growth figure.  2% growth is exaggerated.  2% now is after 0% over the winter and it doesn't even average 2%, and that isn't even breakeven growth.  

The current revenue surge is temporary, and so is the narrowing deficit.  Growth has nowhere to go but down under anti-growth policies and the deficit is already projected to double back up by the end of the decade.

Seems like an odd time to see a grown economists do an endzone dance.

The good news is that if we were to get our act together starting now, we could survive all our self-inflicted wounds.  The bad new is that it seems like a physical impossibility that we can get our act together now.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2015, 10:24:32 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!