Had a thought...our nations debt...what does it cost us?

[dezii]

We hear talk about our debt..now in many trillions...and how we sell bonds and such with interest on them to cover our debt and how all that is "bad" for we citizens...

I was thinking ...how bad....? A quick google came up with the following...

To me, just a old senior fart, it seems after reading the following posted article..it is real bad for us, but that is me...possible better knowlegable folks here can explain to me that while not good, not as bad as I seem to think it is...Just saying.
--------------------------------------------
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will continue to grow rapidly, rising from $389 billion in fiscal year 2019 (the current fiscal year) to $914 billion in 2028. Overall, net interest costs will total nearly $7 trillion over the next decade."
-------------------------------------------------

www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/11/we-will-soon-be-spending-more-on-national-debt-interest-than-on-these-vital-programs

[djAdvocate]

our future.

debt is a tax on our grandkids.

they will curse us for it.

[tallguy]

When I was in college I did a paper on the national debt for an Economics class.  It was around the time Reagan was getting elected for his first term.  I argued the dangers of the debt over the long-term.  It was less than $1Trillion at the time, or less than we run annually under Trump now.  I have been a deficit hawk for a LONG time.

The Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country, in terms of the influence on at least a generation or two of Republicans that "tax cuts are a panacea for all ills" and "debt is no big deal."  Neither is true, and anyone believing in either of those should never be allowed anywhere near public office.  George H.W. Bush had it right in 1980, when he derided Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics."  Unfortunately, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, and Bush witnessed what it took to get elected in this country.  The debt tripled under Reagan, setting the stage for the downward spiral to follow.  Bush continued it, even having his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge likely costing him re-election when he was forced to increase some taxes in response to economic and congressional realities.  Bush may not have won without the pledge, but it was still a stupid thing to say and he never should have said it.  Bill Clinton presided over a time when the debt actually decreased.

The second real villain in regards to the debt was George W. Bush.  He took office at a time when projected surpluses (if they had in fact materialized) would have actually paid off the entire debt, if only he would have chosen not to f*** it up.  But no, in his ignorance and stupidity he chose to f*** it up.  Instead of paying off the debt, he doubled it.  For nothing.

Interest on the debt has long been one of the largest elements of government spending.  If we were not paying this interest there are a number of years that would not have had a deficit at all.  More worrisome is that if we were not artificially keeping rates low for such a long period, that interest may in fact have already pushed us past the point of no return.  We may be past it at this point anyway.  It is my belief that the debt is the thing that will ultimately destroy us as a country.  We had opportunities to fix it and we f***ed it up.  Reagan set the danger in motion, and Bush killed what may have been our last real chance to fix it.  The names of both should rot in history forever.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

it would have been one thing if Bush had spent the paltry federal income on infrastructure project that would be benefitting our country now and for a generation.  instead, he spent it on Iraq.

in a film by Sut Jollay (sic), one of the people interviewed described that decision thusly:

"it is like mortgaging your home and buying crack.  it is the most irresponsible spending a government can do- deficit spending on foreign invasion.  our grandkids will curse us".

that last part of the quote is the one I repeatedly use in these discussions.

[tallguy]

I have often said that the only two times that deficit spending is appropriate are during recession and war.  That really should not apply to wars that you start yourself, however.

Barack Obama is at least somewhat excused because he had to deal not only with a recession, but the worst financial crisis since the Depression.  Trump has no such excuse.  Deficit spending during times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.  It should be impeachable...on either side.  

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2019 14:22:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I have often said that the only two times that deficit spending is appropriate are during recession and war.  That really should not apply to wars that you start yourself, however.

Barack Obama is at least somewhat excused because he had to deal not only with a recession, but the worst financial crisis since the Depression.  Trump has no such excuse.  Deficit spending during times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.  It should be impeachable...on either side.  

especially an unprovoked war, like Iraq. it was immoral. it is the same sort of thing that we use the Hague for.

which is where he should have ended up.

[tallguy]

Aug 28, 2019 14:24:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2019 14:22:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I have often said that the only two times that deficit spending is appropriate are during recession and war.  That really should not apply to wars that you start yourself, however.

Barack Obama is at least somewhat excused because he had to deal not only with a recession, but the worst financial crisis since the Depression.  Trump has no such excuse.  Deficit spending during times of peace and prosperity is unconscionable.  It should be impeachable...on either side.  

especially an unprovoked war, like Iraq. it was immoral. it is the same sort of thing that we use the Hague for.

which is where he should have ended up.

Well, now you're talking war crimes.  I was limiting my post to economic crimes.  But yes, he can rot in hell for either, or both.  Worst president in at least three generations...until this current one. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 28, 2019 14:29:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 28, 2019 14:24:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

especially an unprovoked war, like Iraq. it was immoral. it is the same sort of thing that we use the Hague for.

which is where he should have ended up.

Well, now you're talking war crimes.  I was limiting my post to economic crimes.  But yes, he can rot in hell for either, or both.  Worst president in at least three generations...until this current one. 

we are in perfect accord on this.

[tallguy]

Aug 28, 2019 15:08:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 28, 2019 14:29:24 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Well, now you're talking war crimes.  I was limiting my post to economic crimes.  But yes, he can rot in hell for either, or both.  Worst president in at least three generations...until this current one. 

we are in perfect accord on this.

Not really a surprise.  

[dondub]

Hey! get a room.

[dondub]

A large part of my basis for having the political affiliation as NOT Repo-Con, started with Reagan and his tax cuts and deficits. The party of fiscal responsibility was irrevocably irresponsible. It continues apace. Thanks a lot you lying F'ers.

[Deleted]

The good news is the GOP will be all about the deficit/debt again the next time a Democrat is in the Oval Office.

[Deleted]

I’m going to make a delicious quiche for for DJ and TG’s commitment ceremony 😆

[tallguy]

We'd have to arrange it around my GF's schedule....  Plus I travel a lot now myself and may not get back to his area for a while.

[dezii]

Aug 28, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

When I was in college I did a paper on the national debt for an Economics class.  It was around the time Reagan was getting elected for his first term.  I argued the dangers of the debt over the long-term.  It was less than $1Trillion at the time, or less than we run annually under Trump now.  I have been a deficit hawk for a LONG time.

The Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country, in terms of the influence on at least a generation or two of Republicans that "tax cuts are a panacea for all ills" and "debt is no big deal."  Neither is true, and anyone believing in either of those should never be allowed anywhere near public office.  George H.W. Bush had it right in 1980, when he derided Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics."  Unfortunately, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, and Bush witnessed what it took to get elected in this country.  The debt tripled under Reagan, setting the stage for the downward spiral to follow.  Bush continued it, even having his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge likely costing him re-election when he was forced to increase some taxes in response to economic and congressional realities.  Bush may not have won without the pledge, but it was still a stupid thing to say and he never should have said it.  Bill Clinton presided over a time when the debt actually decreased.

The second real villain in regards to the debt was George W. Bush.  He took office at a time when projected surpluses (if they had in fact materialized) would have actually paid off the entire debt, if only he would have chosen not to f*** it up.  But no, in his ignorance and stupidity he chose to f*** it up.  Instead of paying off the debt, he doubled it.  For nothing.

Interest on the debt has long been one of the largest elements of government spending.  If we were not paying this interest there are a number of years that would not have had a deficit at all.  More worrisome is that if we were not artificially keeping rates low for such a long period, that interest may in fact have already pushed us past the point of no return.  We may be past it at this point anyway.  It is my belief that the debt is the thing that will ultimately destroy us as a country.  We had opportunities to fix it and we f***ed it up.  Reagan set the danger in motion, and Bush killed what may have been our last real chance to fix it.  The names of both should rot in history forever.

I am thinking that when the debt and interest costs reach the point of reaching point of no return, the political ones in power at the time will renege on the debt...possible stop interest on whatever ...slowly returning the principal to those buyers...retrench on programs...defense included...and the country will go through some tough times for a period of time...possible increased taxes to help pay off debt...Just my idea.

[Deleted]

Aug 28, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

When I was in college I did a paper on the national debt for an Economics class.  It was around the time Reagan was getting elected for his first term.  I argued the dangers of the debt over the long-term.  It was less than $1Trillion at the time, or less than we run annually under Trump now.  I have been a deficit hawk for a LONG time.

The Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country, in terms of the influence on at least a generation or two of Republicans that "tax cuts are a panacea for all ills" and "debt is no big deal."  Neither is true, and anyone believing in either of those should never be allowed anywhere near public office.  George H.W. Bush had it right in 1980, when he derided Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics."  Unfortunately, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, and Bush witnessed what it took to get elected in this country.  The debt tripled under Reagan, setting the stage for the downward spiral to follow.  Bush continued it, even having his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge likely costing him re-election when he was forced to increase some taxes in response to economic and congressional realities.  Bush may not have won without the pledge, but it was still a stupid thing to say and he never should have said it.  Bill Clinton presided over a time when the debt actually decreased.

The second real villain in regards to the debt was George W. Bush.  He took office at a time when projected surpluses (if they had in fact materialized) would have actually paid off the entire debt, if only he would have chosen not to f*** it up.  But no, in his ignorance and stupidity he chose to f*** it up.  Instead of paying off the debt, he doubled it.  For nothing.

Interest on the debt has long been one of the largest elements of government spending.  If we were not paying this interest there are a number of years that would not have had a deficit at all.  More worrisome is that if we were not artificially keeping rates low for such a long period, that interest may in fact have already pushed us past the point of no return.  We may be past it at this point anyway.  It is my belief that the debt is the thing that will ultimately destroy us as a country.  We had opportunities to fix it and we f***ed it up.  Reagan set the danger in motion, and Bush killed what may have been our last real chance to fix it.  The names of both should rot in history forever.

Along with non thinking presidents like Obama, who doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined. 

Right now, the debt number is more important than any perceived precedent being set by past presidents.  

[tbop77]

Aug 30, 2019 8:33:15 GMT -5 @x said:

Aug 28, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

When I was in college I did a paper on the national debt for an Economics class.  It was around the time Reagan was getting elected for his first term.  I argued the dangers of the debt over the long-term.  It was less than $1Trillion at the time, or less than we run annually under Trump now.  I have been a deficit hawk for a LONG time.

The Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country, in terms of the influence on at least a generation or two of Republicans that "tax cuts are a panacea for all ills" and "debt is no big deal."  Neither is true, and anyone believing in either of those should never be allowed anywhere near public office.  George H.W. Bush had it right in 1980, when he derided Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics."  Unfortunately, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, and Bush witnessed what it took to get elected in this country.  The debt tripled under Reagan, setting the stage for the downward spiral to follow.  Bush continued it, even having his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge likely costing him re-election when he was forced to increase some taxes in response to economic and congressional realities.  Bush may not have won without the pledge, but it was still a stupid thing to say and he never should have said it.  Bill Clinton presided over a time when the debt actually decreased.

The second real villain in regards to the debt was George W. Bush.  He took office at a time when projected surpluses (if they had in fact materialized) would have actually paid off the entire debt, if only he would have chosen not to f*** it up.  But no, in his ignorance and stupidity he chose to f*** it up.  Instead of paying off the debt, he doubled it.  For nothing.

Interest on the debt has long been one of the largest elements of government spending.  If we were not paying this interest there are a number of years that would not have had a deficit at all.  More worrisome is that if we were not artificially keeping rates low for such a long period, that interest may in fact have already pushed us past the point of no return.  We may be past it at this point anyway.  It is my belief that the debt is the thing that will ultimately destroy us as a country.  We had opportunities to fix it and we f***ed it up.  Reagan set the danger in motion, and Bush killed what may have been our last real chance to fix it.  The names of both should rot in history forever.

Along with non thinking presidents like Obama, who doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined. 

Right now, the debt number is more important than any perceived precedent being set by past presidents.  

And these guys were thinking presidents?  

The day Ronald Reagan was sworn in - the national debt was 934 billion. The day he left office the debt was 2. 697 trillion. Almost TRIPLE. Bush 41 added over 80% and Bush 43 added 110%.

www.thomhartmann.com/users/nealedwards/blog/2015/11/bring-when-conservative-mentions-obamas-doubled-national-debt

[dondub]

But Obama. An excellent fall back position for those Repo-Con that can’t accept their own reality of fiscal malfeasance.

[Deleted]

It would be great if both parties could agree to be able to balance the budget and pay for what we spend, instead the unofficial agreement is to supercharge the debt at every opportunity.

I'm disgusted with both parties for this but the GOP gets the hypocritical nod for railing against it so hard when not in power and becoming even worse than the Dems when they do take the reigns.

[billisonboard]

There was a fundamental shift in the world's economic underpinning during the 1970's. OPEC is a prime illustration of that change. It was the point that the United States lost the advantages gained during WWII has well as control of some longer term economic colonies.

We were like the person who loses their high paying job. We needed to make some serious changes at that point. We didn't. We had a choice between Carter telling us to put on a sweater or Reagan telling us things were okay. (We did have a good third option who I worked to get elected.) Instead of tightening our belt, we pulled out the credit card. And here we are today.

[tallguy]

Aug 30, 2019 8:33:15 GMT -5 @x said:

Aug 28, 2019 14:05:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

When I was in college I did a paper on the national debt for an Economics class.  It was around the time Reagan was getting elected for his first term.  I argued the dangers of the debt over the long-term.  It was less than $1Trillion at the time, or less than we run annually under Trump now.  I have been a deficit hawk for a LONG time.

The Reagan presidency was a disaster for this country, in terms of the influence on at least a generation or two of Republicans that "tax cuts are a panacea for all ills" and "debt is no big deal."  Neither is true, and anyone believing in either of those should never be allowed anywhere near public office.  George H.W. Bush had it right in 1980, when he derided Reagan's plans as "voodoo economics."  Unfortunately, Reagan won the nomination and the presidency, and Bush witnessed what it took to get elected in this country.  The debt tripled under Reagan, setting the stage for the downward spiral to follow.  Bush continued it, even having his "Read my lips: No new taxes" pledge likely costing him re-election when he was forced to increase some taxes in response to economic and congressional realities.  Bush may not have won without the pledge, but it was still a stupid thing to say and he never should have said it.  Bill Clinton presided over a time when the debt actually decreased.

The second real villain in regards to the debt was George W. Bush.  He took office at a time when projected surpluses (if they had in fact materialized) would have actually paid off the entire debt, if only he would have chosen not to f*** it up.  But no, in his ignorance and stupidity he chose to f*** it up.  Instead of paying off the debt, he doubled it.  For nothing.

Interest on the debt has long been one of the largest elements of government spending.  If we were not paying this interest there are a number of years that would not have had a deficit at all.  More worrisome is that if we were not artificially keeping rates low for such a long period, that interest may in fact have already pushed us past the point of no return.  We may be past it at this point anyway.  It is my belief that the debt is the thing that will ultimately destroy us as a country.  We had opportunities to fix it and we f***ed it up.  Reagan set the danger in motion, and Bush killed what may have been our last real chance to fix it.  The names of both should rot in history forever.

Along with non thinking presidents like Obama, who doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined. 

Right now, the debt number is more important than any perceived precedent being set by past presidents.  

First, the "of all the previous presidents combined" part is unnececessary.  That holds true for all.  Reagan tripled the debt of all the previous presidents combined.  Bush doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined.  Yours is merely an attempt to make Obama's part in this sound worse than it is.  Second, reread reply #4.  Obama was not great on the debt, but he was dealing with the fallout of the worst financial crisis in the memory of almost everybody alive today.  Additionally, did he not try to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts, and was prevented by a Republican Congress?  It would not have had a huge effect on the debt, but would have not increased it as much.  

Republican presidents are far worse than Democratic presidents on the debt.  It has been so since Reagan, and continues today.  Both parties spend more than they should, but at least Democratic presidents are not slavishly devoted to the idea of tax cuts fixing every problem.  Tax cuts exacerbate this particular problem, and this problem is the one that will destroy us.


F*** Reagan.  F*** Bush.  F*** Trump.  All should rot in hell. 

[tallguy]

Aug 30, 2019 9:19:08 GMT -5 @aj said:

It would be great if both parties could agree to be able to balance the budget and pay for what we spend, instead the unofficial agreement is to supercharge the debt at every opportunity.

I'm disgusted with both parties for this but the GOP gets the hypocritical nod for railing against it so hard when not in power and becoming even worse than the Dems when they do take the reigns.

Exactly right.

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2019 8:57:54 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Aug 30, 2019 8:33:15 GMT -5 @x said:

Along with non thinking presidents like Obama, who doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined. 

Right now, the debt number is more important than any perceived precedent being set by past presidents.  

And these guys were thinking presidents?  

The day Ronald Reagan was sworn in - the national debt was 934 billion. The day he left office the debt was 2. 697 trillion. Almost TRIPLE. Bush 41 added over 80% and Bush 43 added 110%.

www.thomhartmann.com/users/nealedwards/blog/2015/11/bring-when-conservative-mentions-obamas-doubled-national-debt

They were thinking enough to know that the Feds target rate for inflation would soon make that number not seem so big.

You can always play games with the % rate. 

It's how you say it to make it do what you want. 

People who just love Reagan can tout all he did, and say he did it with only 20% of the spending that Obama enabled. 


The dollar as a fiat currency is quite strong right now, even flirting with a record value against other currencies.

Any political detractor from either side of the aisle, uses this ad nauseum, in regards to debt. 

It's all in the timing. 


When it cycles back down, so will the expense of the debt. 

Higher debt maintenance is part of a strong economy, through higher interest rates, always has been. 

If you're not blinded by the current hate politics, one of the strong points of reigning in a near overheating economy, is through tariffs vs fed rate increases.

Passes the cost of slowing/controlling our economy,  onto the countries who take advantage of our free trade agreements through currency value manipulation.  

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2019 9:21:55 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There was a fundamental shift in the world's economic underpinning during the 1970's. OPEC is a prime illustration of that change. It was the point that the United States lost the advantages gained during WWII has well as control of some longer term economic colonies.

We were like the person who loses their high paying job. We needed to make some serious changes at that point. We didn't. We had a choice between Carter telling us to put on a sweater or Reagan telling us things were okay. (We did have a good third option who I worked to get elected.) Instead of tightening our belt, we pulled out the credit card. And here we are today.

Exactly !  

[Deleted]

Aug 30, 2019 10:05:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 30, 2019 8:33:15 GMT -5 @x said:

Along with non thinking presidents like Obama, who doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined. 

Right now, the debt number is more important than any perceived precedent being set by past presidents.  

First, the "of all the previous presidents combined" part is unnececessary.  That holds true for all.  Reagan tripled the debt of all the previous presidents combined.  Bush doubled the debt of all the previous presidents combined.  Yours is merely an attempt to make Obama's part in this sound worse than it is.  Second, reread reply #4.  Obama was not great on the debt, but he was dealing with the fallout of the worst financial crisis in the memory of almost everybody alive today.  Additionally, did he not try to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts, and was prevented by a Republican Congress?  It would not have had a huge effect on the debt, but would have not increased it as much.  

Republican presidents are far worse than Democratic presidents on the debt.  It has been so since Reagan, and continues today.  Both parties spend more than they should, but at least Democratic presidents are not slavishly devoted to the idea of tax cuts fixing every problem.  Tax cuts exacerbate this particular problem, and this problem is the one that will destroy us.


F*** Reagan.  F*** Bush.  F*** Trump.  All should rot in hell. 

Yeah, OK.

[Deleted]

Does make you think where all our democrat candidates are going with the 'top this' versions of what they're going to be spending on. 

As an overall, no debt discussions should be in the forefront of any democrat platform. 

It will work against them.

I did notice in the first debates, that no questions were asked on how all the things promised, were going to be payed for. 

Bernie is well into the trillions.

[tbop77]

Aug 30, 2019 13:04:13 GMT -5 @x said:

Does make you think where all our democrat candidates are going with the 'top this' versions of what they're going to be spending on. 

As an overall, no debt discussions should be in the forefront of any democrat platform. 

It will work against them.

I did notice in the first debates, that no questions were asked on how all the things promised, were going to be payed for. 

Bernie is well into the trillions.

Given President Trump couldn't even tout his tax cuts during the mid-terms, I doubt he'll be running on the debt issue either.  
Our debt is a serious issue, I do not understand how the American public cannot grasp that.  The stupid things our money is spent on, interesting read:

www.scribd.com/document/423699234/Dr-Rand-Paul-s-Summer-2019-Edition-of-The-Waste-Report#download&from_embed

[dondub]

Aug 30, 2019 13:04:13 GMT -5 @x said:

Does make you think where all our democrat candidates are going with the 'top this' versions of what they're going to be spending on. 

As an overall, no debt discussions should be in the forefront of any democrat platform. 

It will work against them.

I did notice in the first debates, that no questions were asked on how all the things promised, were going to be payed for. 

Bernie is well into the trillions.

No he’s not.

[weltschmerz]

Aug 31, 2019 6:46:39 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

Aug 30, 2019 13:04:13 GMT -5 @x said:

Does make you think where all our democrat candidates are going with the 'top this' versions of what they're going to be spending on. 

As an overall, no debt discussions should be in the forefront of any democrat platform. 

It will work against them.

I did notice in the first debates, that no questions were asked on how all the things promised, were going to be payed for. 

Bernie is well into the trillions.

Given President Trump couldn't even tout his tax cuts during the mid-terms, I doubt he'll be running on the debt issue either.  
Our debt is a serious issue, I do not understand how the American public cannot grasp that.  The stupid things our money is spent on, interesting read:

www.scribd.com/document/423699234/Dr-Rand-Paul-s-Summer-2019-Edition-of-The-Waste-Report#download&from_embed

Trump wants to cut taxes for rich people yet again

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/31/20840700/indexing-capital-gains-to-inflation-example-donald-trump-twitter

[djAdvocate]

Aug 30, 2019 12:45:29 GMT -5 @x said:

Aug 30, 2019 8:57:54 GMT -5 tbop77 said:

And these guys were thinking presidents?  

The day Ronald Reagan was sworn in - the national debt was 934 billion. The day he left office the debt was 2. 697 trillion. Almost TRIPLE. Bush 41 added over 80% and Bush 43 added 110%.

www.thomhartmann.com/users/nealedwards/blog/2015/11/bring-when-conservative-mentions-obamas-doubled-national-debt

They were thinking enough to know that the Feds target rate for inflation would soon make that number not seem so big.

You can always play games with the % rate. 

true. but here is the ONLY % that I care about:

prior to Reagan, the preceding presidents from Truman to Nixon had driven the debt as a percentage of GDP down from 120% to 30%. Ford ran it up, and Carter ran it down, and every president since that time has run it up, except Clinton.

so, one might ask themselves: what differentiates these administrations?

one thing: Supply Side Economics.

period.

we need to jettison it, or we are utterly doomed, imo.