We do not have an immediate Debt crisis

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[militaryhorn]

Roger35 do you actually care more about what people think about the president or more about the direction the country is heading?

Do you not believe that the country is heading to severe financial hardship? I feel that any rational person regardless of political affiliation can see that the current state of our discretionary, must pays (social security, medicare, etc.) and interest on the debt budgets cannot be sustained if we continue the way we are.

I will even say lets tax at the rate that the president wants and reform all of our must pay programs and retool our budget that is more realistic with our revenues. Could you live with that?

That is the problem I have with the current administration, I don't think they would compromise even if the Pubs agreed to raise the taxes to where the Dems want.

Everyone will have to take a hit on something that they currently enjoy but they don't because they want change as long as it doesn't affect them. The current congressmen and women will not make the tough choices because they are more worried about who is in control, getting reelected and working for the people with real power...the select few who have billions of dollars.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It depends on what you mean by "debt crisis." If we're talking about the interest payments on the national debt becoming overwhelmingly large, then we're not in a debt crisis. Right now we're spending around $225B per year on interest. It's a lot, but it's certainly workable.

However, this is about the same amount as we were spending on interest back in the mid '90s, when the national debt was a fraction of what it is today. That tells me that interest rates are what's keeping the cost of servicing the debt low - not the absence of debt. So what happens if interest rates go up? The interest payments will get a lot harder to manage.

As for the future, we're running deficits at around 8.5 percent of GDP. We haven't borrowed at that rate since 1945. That and even higher levels may be sustainable in the short term. For example, the 1943 deficit was an astounding 30.8 percent of GDP.

However, the difference is that those monster deficits of the '40s were driven by a war that was over and one with in a few years. In fact, between 1945 and 1946, Congress cut spending from $93B to $55B. (Can you ******* imagine Congress making a spending cut like that today???)

We're not spending most of our money on war anymore. We're spending it on permanent, structural budget items that are projected to only get more expensive over time and with no relief in sight. That's the real crisis.

 

[Bayerithe]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[EuroHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[UTChE96]

Folks like Roger35 are the reason we are doomed. The Republicans should be excoriated for not pushing debt reduction enough yet Roger's only problem is that they pushed it in the first place. I do not know how much evidence folks like Roger need to show them what our fate holds but they are about to get a whole bunch of it. Yes, we are doomed.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It's hilarious that in reading that, roger's take is that since it's not an "immediate crisis" that we should just ignore it and do other things... apparently until it DOES become a crisis.

The sad thing is that's how this administration runs things (which is probably why roger identifies with it.) If it's not on fire, don't worry about it.

"Benghazi's been attacked over and over and the consulate wants more assistance". "Are there insurgents streaming over the walls? Then shut up about it!"

"We have a looming budget crisis." "Has the government had to shut down? Are the Chinese foreclosing on our debt? Then shut up about it!"