59 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
The question is not what we could buy with $1 trillion. It is how we are going to pay for the $1 trillion worth of stuff we already bought. |
US has had a debt for almost its entire history. The absolute number is meaningless, it only becomes relevant as a percentage of GDP. For instance, the “paltry” $317 billion debt in 1965 was over 40 percent of GDP. Today we are around 85%. I’m curious why you think it is frightening to think about what the government does with the money. Or at least why it is any more frightening now than before, since most government spending doesn’t really change that much from year to year and relatively little of it is discretionary. |
I think it’s more interesting to think of the national debt as a percentage of Government revenue. Think of it in terms of your own budget. Your total debt as a percentage of your annual income. If you count my law school debt and the house I bought right after law school, at the time, I was at about 400% – if my income were $100,000, my debt was $400,000. These ratios tend to be pretty high for doctors and lawyers upon finishing school, but given high income potential, there is usually an ability to pay off the ratios (assuming you did well and went to a good school). In 2010, the projected federal government income tax revenue is about $2.1 trillion. The projected national debt is about $13.7 trillion. This would be like you having a $50,000 per year job, but having a total personal debt of about $326,000. Assuming your income constant and a relatively low borrowing rate (which the government has), it would still take a really long time to pay off this debt (like 30 years) while maintaining your normal spending and that’s assuming you don’t add anything more to your debt. The key to paying off debt for the federal government is just like paying off debt in your own life. You have to either cut what you spend and dedicate the savings to paying off debt, or generate more revenue. There are lots of debates about how best you do those things. |
The difference between individuals and the government is that the government doesn’t necessarily have a lifespan and so can keep rolling over its debt indefinitely. What matters more is keeping borrowing costs reasonable. Remember less than ten years ago Greenspan was predicting continued surpluses and the govt actually stopped auctioning the 30-year bond (brought back in 2006). People were worried about what would happen to the treasuries market if the debt was totally repaid. |
you forgot to mention that you could spend $1 trillion on a meaningless war in a country that didn’t attack us killing hundreds of thousands of people…you could also do that with a trillion dollars. |
#1, That was the first thing that came to my mind too. |
More seriously, (if you can get more serious than an illegal aggressive war that is unpaid for and put on a credit card for our children to pay), merely stating that we spent $1 trillion more than we got in is deceptive, because it doesn’t show the bigger picture, particularly if you compare with the unadjusted for inflation debt of the 1950s. This country is a highly rich country, the richest in the world. Our annual GDP is $14 trillion dollars. So our overall debt doesn’t yet exceed our annual projected worth. http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ As you can see from that website, there are so many different ways that you can stabilize the debt and get back to a surplus without even raising taxes on anyone. I would love to see Americans stop worrying about debt only when Democrats are in charge. I wish the worry was there in 2002-2003 when we were discussing a war that was not to be paid for by any taxes, but put on a credit card. Where was the concern then? |
1. Last Lemming – precisely. 2. Bill – I don’t think it is more frightening now than before. I personally have a bit of a mistrust of the Government’s ability to properly spend funds 3. Jota G – There are a lot of ideas on how to begin paying down the debt but no one is acting on any of the ideas 5. Daniel – oh yeah… That has certainly cost a fortune in both Blood and Treasure 7. Daniel – We like to blame the Dems for overspending which is expected, however, the Republicans have now set a new standard of fiscal undiscipline. With no fiscally wise members left in the Government we are in trouble |
Devyn,
Wha??? which is expected? By whom? Who peddles the notion that Democrats overspend? And how does that reflect on actual reality, Devyn? Just look at actual reality. Republicans since Ronald Reagan have been under this ridiculous spell that cutting taxes somehow increases revenue above and beyond what the revenue was before those taxes were cut. This is an utterly ridiculous and preposterous position to take and not based on actual reality. Thus, when this was enacted, the Reagan tax cuts, government tax revenue declined and suddenly the government was faced with massive deficits! With Reagan’s tax cuts and his massive increases in defense spending, this country’s debt TRIPLED! When George H W Bush proposed responsible measures to rein in debt, by increasing targeted taxes, his base revolted against him, causing him to lose the 1992 election. Clinton then increased taxes and cut spending and magically a surplus appeared. Imagine that. Then George W Bush gets on the scene with the exact same mentality (and same people too) as Reagan and unsurprisingly, deficits reappear. So who overspends, Devyn? Obama cannot be blamed for being put in the position he has been in. He came in the fiscal year 2009 which was absolutely horrendous and somehow he’s gotta ensure the economy comes back on track, that the unemployed are taken care of, and the deficits covered? I know the right wing attempts to portray Obama as His Oneness, as if he’s some sort of superman, but he really isn’t. He’s a smart constitutional scholar and a good motivational speaker, but he’s not going to right the mess he inherited from people who still just don’t get it, and who are actively thwarting his every attempt at fixing the mess. Democrats overspending is a Republican talking point, and is not based on actual reality. |
Daniel, “Smart”, okay, but Obama’s a “constitutional scholar”? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think he ever published an article on any constitutional topic after law school in any peer-reviewed legal journal. You’d have to have a really, really loose definition of “constitutional scholar” for him to qualify. “Obama cannot be blamed for being put in the position he has been in.” He can, however, be held responsible for the actions he’s taken. |
I for one don’t think the government will ever get the deficit to zero… my money is on the deficit having an easier time reaching the quadrillion mark than it reaching the zero mark. |
Dan, you should join the Tea Party. Their reason for being is the notion that Republican politicians have been lousy at limitting spending. |
John Mansfield, Yet the Tea Party praises Ronald Reagan. Please explain this contradiction. |
Daniel (13) There’s no contradiction, but why waste the energy when it won’t do anything to sway your opinion? |
Jota, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. And the definition of scholar is one who studies, particularly at advanced levels. One doesn’t have to actually write for a peer reviewed journal in order to be considered a scholar. One merely needs to have studied the subject at advanced levels. Obama is a constitutional scholar whether you like it or not. |
Jota, There is a contradiction. John Mansfield says I should consider joining the Tea Party because the Tea Party supposedly stands against “politicians [who] have been lousy at limiting spending.” Those are his words. Ronald Reagan fits that definition to a capital T. Ronald Reagan was a politician who was lousy at limiting spending. He should therefore get the ire of the Tea Party, if they actually stood for what they say they stand for. No Tea Partier should be praising Ronald Reagan, because he TRIPLED the national debt. |
He was a part-time lecturer, not even a tenure track professor. To be considered a “scholar” of anything in the legal profession you have to publish on the topic. You would have to have a very, very broad definition of “constitutional scholar” to put Obama in that category. |
who says that to be considered a scholar of anything in the legal profession, that you have to publish on the topic? Can you show me where this standard comes from? |
Daniel (16), Your assumption is that John’s description of the Tea Party, of which I am not a member, is accurate and complete. John’s description is incomplete. There is not a contradiction between (1) praising Ronald Reagan and (2) what whose in the Tea Party movement believe. |
Jota, I’m going by what John Mansfield says. He didn’t add any other description of the Tea Party except that they stand against politicians who have been lousy at limiting spending. I’m sure there’s more. Surely they’re against big government. Oh wait, they’ll have to stand against Ronald Reagan yet again. Surely they’re against cutting and running from terrorists. Oh wait, they’ll have to stand against Ronald Reagan yet again. On multiple fronts, according to what the Tea Party stands for, they ought to attack Reagan as a commie hippie. But then again, the Tea Party never truly stood by their principles (those ever changing, purposefully ambiguous principles), because the Tea Party is nothing more than the Republican party rebranded for being the failure it is. The Tea Party is represented by spoiled crybabies who are sore losers, pissed off that they lost the 2008 election. They cannot believe they lost. And to a black man with a Muslim name, no less! Truly they are pissed off. |
Daniel (18), I do. I know of no one in legal academia who if asked generically (at least before they might have suspected they were covering for Obama’s label): “Would you consider someone who has never published a peer-reviewed article after law school and who’s only academic experience is teaching constitutional law part-time as a lecturer, a ‘Constitutional Scholar’?” I’m an attorney, licensed in two states. I graduated from a top-ten law school. I’ve taught on legal topics, including constitutional ones. I’ve been peer-reviewed and published. I don’t consider myself a “Constitutional Scholar” while I may be a scholar of the Constitution. |
Daniel (20), Again, it’s not worth the energy to argue with you because you’re not here to be instructed, you’re just here to rant and throw accusations. |
instructed? Is that how it works here? You instruct? No debate, eh? No conversation. This is a teacher/student conversation to you. PS: a scholar of the Constitution is literally a Constitutional scholar. Just FYI. I’m instructing you. |
Well, I’m pretty sure that I’m not here “to be instructed” either. |
I guess Jota doesn’t agree with BYU’s famous scholar as to who is a scholar. :) http://www.mormonmentality.org/2010/07/19/getting-spicy-at-byu.htm |
Daniel, how do you feel about the Daily Beast? I was listening to this late night talk show and they were talking about national debt and I think Greece’s gdp to debt ratio was 200% and ours was 80, so we’re not as bad as Greece. Our government consists of Republicans and Democrats. Both parties are whacked. Leaders of both parties have screwed up. This isn’t a partisan issue. |
Daily Beast is a much better conservative source. However, don’t fall into the moral equivalency trap, Arlene. While there are whacked leaders on both sides, a description of the level of wackiness is required. Show me someone on the left that is equivalent to Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I dare you. look at this video of Glenn Beck, where he compares Obama to Julius Caesar, who wants to assassinate Tea Partiers, and who should be taken out in the same manner as Caesar was. I dare you to find someone credible on the left who has as much sway as Beck has on the right and find him saying anything as dangerous and ridiculous as Glenn Beck. |
Am I the only one that feels a hint of nostalgia seeing this many Dan(iel) posts in so short a time in the same thread? [sigh] If only DKL were here, it’d be just like old times… |
Whoever had “comment #20″ in the racism pool, please pick up your winnings. |
We have a two party system in the United States: the politicians and the rest of us. There is way more in common between any two politicians, regardless of party (Maximize the Incumbency!), than any politician and any taxpayer. They prove that everyday. That’s why I always vote against the incumbent, regardless of party. At least keep them amateurs. That’s my straight ticket. |
Daniel (23) & Bill (24), “Instructed” was a poor choice of word. What I meant was that Daniel is not actually open to persuasion, he is set in his ways and not amenable to any convincing otherwise, thus to attempt to do so is a futile exercise and a waste of time and energy. |
I personally think we are headed down a path of national fiscal suicide. Its not just the deficits. Its also the coming medicare/SS disaster. Either taxes will need to be raised or benefits cut. Probably both. |
Lawyers with a JD are not considered to have the academic credentials as a PhD. Most “scholars” at the academic level have a PhD, whether or not they “instruct” or “published”. - queuno, who is published but hasn’t finished the %^&* dissertation yet. |
Daniel – Read Robert Reich at Salon (or other places) these days? There’s your left-wing Glenn Beck for you. Guy is a few nuts short of a full picnic… |
Arlene (26): You’re right. There are nuts and jerks on both sides. That’s why it’s never good to get caught up in the cult of personality surrounding a single political figure. It is rare that one won’t, at some point, be disappointed. It’s much better to base your views around principles and then agree with people when they agree with those principles and disagree when they don’t. I n reading your various posts, I’ve observed that that’s what you usually do. |
Actually, Olbermann is more like Glenn Beck. |
Queuno (35): You can also add to your list: Al Gore |
wow – I leave to do some work and Daniel strikes. Dan – I am fairly moderate in my thinking, but you (#7) cannot disagree with the premise that Dems have traditionally been accused of aggressive spending. While the reality of it may be different that is what the tradition is, the perception is still valid. Personally, I think arguing about who is the over spending party is a bit silly as most of the time in the last few decades we have had split power anyway. Nevertheless, I think the trends are Dems spend aggressively on domestic things while Reps spend aggressively on military and foreign affairs. I think there is a happy medium, but we are nowhere near that. |
Too easy Daniel |
Devyn, #37,
That’s better said. They’ve been accused of aggressive spending. How accurate the accusation is, is up for debate. To say that it is expected that Democrats overspend is just inaccurate. It’s not a valid perception, but it is a perception. |
MAC, Are you kidding? As an example you use a parody of the guy? Com’on, have the courage to at least link to one of his actual pieces… |
Jota,
So you’re telling me you are open to persuasion, that you are willing to expect the position of liberals and Democrats. I somehow highly doubt it. |
I am certainly open to expect the position of liberals and democrats. :) |
This thread is funny, in a sad kind of way. Folks, the national debt and the budget deficit are not the same thing. Dan, your predictable knee jerk reactions are a parody of yourself. Maybe you shoud do SNL. |
queuno, okay, so I’m looking at Robert Reich’s Salon page. I see topics such as “new finance bill: mountain of paper, molehill of reform.” “Why China’s currency announcement is hokum.” “Wishy washy Obama missed an opportunity.” I just went down the whole list and for the life of me cannot find something stupid. Now, let’s go to Glenn Beck’s page. “Reid: bailouts are GREAT!” “Muslim Day at Six Flags, on 9/12″ “Glenn Beck: The Red Phone Finally Rings” I can’t find things of substance there. Also, in searching both sites, I cannot find much of anything where Robert Reich uses Nazi in his things, but there are four pages of results from Glenn Beck using the word Nazi. I don’t think this comparison holds muster. Particularly since Robert Reich doesn’t attempt to speak for a movement, or try to rile up anyone against the government. Maybe you could share an example that you found that would be as hokey as Glenn Beck’s normal stuff (not even the truly crazy stuff). As far as Keith Olbermann is concerned, yes, he would be a better example, except that no one on the left considers him a political leader as those on the right do. No Democratic politician cares whether or not they are under the condemnation by Keith Olbermann, but the same cannot be said of Republican politicians who cannot say bad things about either Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, without having to grovel out an apology for the error of their ways. And that is because Glenn Beck speaks to the base of the Republican party in a way no liberal commentator does. And thus there is no comparison to anyone on the left. There are examples where someone on the left has attempted to compare Bush to Hitler, for example, but those people or organizations are generally shunned for doing so. This is not the case on the right, because in their heart of hearts, tea partiers truly believe Obama is like Hitler. If they didn’t believe this, they would not make billboard signs indicating such a comparison. They would denounce Glenn Beck every freaking time he compares Obama to Hitler. But they don’t. Because that’s what they believe. They are crazy and deserve all the scorn regular Americans can dole out. |
MCQ,
did you really think things would somehow magically change? I didn’t think they would. We’re a sad lot in this country. And that’s a damn shame. |
MCQ – Correct. The national debt (the total pot that the federal government owes) is the accumulation of years of annual budget deficits (i.e., when the federal government spends more than it takes in). |
Daniel, Parodies are funniest when they are accurate, and that one is pretty funny. |
MCQ, the only one who appears to be confused about the difference between debt and deficit is REIG (11), who could not conceive of a zero deficit (even though such has been the case in recent memory), and who probably meant to have said debt (which has not been zero since Andrew Jackson). |
Imagine the level of debate in this thread occurring in the houses of Congress and you will understand why no responsible proposal to significantly reduce the deficit even sees the light of day–they are to busy with the caricaturing of one another to bother with substance. |
Dan, when I said the thread was sad, I meant mostly you. Bill, the post was about the deficit. You’re the one who stated talking about the national debt. LL, true enough, but it’s not our job to solve this problem, so we can just make fun of Dan if we want to. Congress, on the other hand, has an obligation to actually get something done. In any case, I’m not sure I agree with deficit reduction in poor economic times. One could argue that when the economy is struggling, the government actually has an obligation to engage in deficit spending. There’s nothing inherently wrong with deficits per se. It’s the fact that we appear to be out of control that bothers me. |
MCQ, if you read the post, you would see that it was almost entirely a quote of another article. My mention of the debt was a corrective to the totally contextless citation in that article of the figure of $317 billion for the debt in 1965. It was the original post that brought up the debt, not me. |
Bill, you’re right that the article mentions the debt, but the post appeared (at least to me) to be talking solely about the current year’s budget deficit. That’s why I was surprised by the comments on the national debt. |
I would love to see Americans stop worrying about debt only when Democrats are in charge. I wish the worry was there in 2002-2003 when we were discussing a war that was not to be paid for by any taxes, but put on a credit card. Where was the concern then? You obviously don’t get constant e-mails from ultraconservative friends. They were anti-war and were ballistic over George Bush and his spending. Frankly, the Republicans are like a drunken uncle who went on a bender with part of the rent money, the Democrats are like your crazy aunt who justified a party for the cats because of the bender … with another chunk of the rent money. Anyway Daniel, the people I run into who want me to join the Tea Party have a great deal of irritation and anger directed at the majority of Republicans. It is not just Democrats they are angry at, just Democrats who seem to demonize them. I’m an attorney, licensed in two states. I graduated from a top-ten law school. I’ve taught on legal topics, including constitutional ones. I’ve been peer-reviewed and published. I don’t consider myself a “Constitutional Scholar” while I may be a scholar of the Constitution … hmm, I’m licensed in two states too, but graduated from the JRLC at BYU. I’ve been peer reviewed, published over forty articles, taught post graduate students, but I’m not considered a scholar of the type Daniel is talking about. He doesn’t really seem to understand the status issues that adjuncts have ;) As for the Glen Beck’s of the left in action? http://volokh.com/2010/07/22/latest-journolist-revelations-attacks-on-palin/ |
Really Stephen? Leftist journalists coordinating how to counter Palin is comparable to Glenn Beck calling the president a racist, socialist, communist Nazi? And you wonder why I have such contempt for most commentators here. Y’all are ridiculous. |
test |
let me try again, as my other comment went to spam. Stephen, really? You’re going to compare a bunch of liberal journalists debating how to counter Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck who calls the president of the United States a racist Nazi? |
Pls don’t feed the trolls. |
Daniel, I don’t listen to or read Glenn Beck, but the liberal journalists said some pretty nasty things about Palin. Of course, you are counter that many of those things are true, but I think we are getting off topic. The deficit is a real mess. We need to go back to the era of Bill Clinton when something was being done about it. |