America Without Debt

[Banana Jelly]

Do you really think America without the borrowing of money from China, Japan and other countries, do you think that America could be what it is today? America is in a huge pile of debt which is in the negatives. It's looking red and America is getting higher in dept every 3 billion dollar's a day.

Now can you imagine how America would look like if it hasn't borrowed money, while other countries refuse to lend America money. Imagine the Army, Economy, Government. Do you think it would still be number one?


http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[JP226]

Typically everytime the US has paid off it's debt a recession has followed. As to why? Who knows. Debt is not a bad thing in and of itself and as long as we are borrowing other countries are investing. It wouldn't be out of the question to think that the world in total would be worse off. We may be better off, but don't think we'd be sitting pretty with the current levels of prosperity.

[Banana Jelly]

Imagine if America paid of it's debt in full... America's total number of $$$ that it would have would be in the negatives.

America's debt is currently $14.3 trillion, now that is dangerously close to what US has in total in GDP according to CIA world factbook

[JP226]

Debt and the balance of trade are tricky things and the problem people have is they try to apply their own relationships to debt on a country as a whole. When in reality it's more like a bank generally. In the case of now, maybe the whole credit card argument isn't too far off. Traditionally however, as long as you are growing at say I dunno annual 8 to 10% and borrowing at a rate below that, you could theoretically borrow forever.

[bushbush]

you can't really think of macroeconomics like it's your own family budget-book. It doesn't work that way. Listen to JP on this.

[Banana Jelly]

US's GDP growth is 0.4%


Check this out

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[bushbush]

US's GDP growth is 0.4%


Check this out

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

and that's in bad times, if US can go back to the roaring 90s growing at 5% a year, consider how gigantic the base already is, the debt now can look a lot smaller in a few years.

[xcorps]

and that's in bad times, if US can go back to the roaring 90s growing at 5% a year, consider how gigantic the base already is, the debt now can look a lot smaller in a few years.

That might happen if we can get the liberals out of Congress.

[bushbush]

That might happen if we can get the liberals out of Congress.

the last time US had a surplus budget and solid growth, it was led by a so called "liberal".

[JP226]

Until the '09 numbers get finalized, we're about 3% right now annually.

[xcorps]

Check and see who was in charge of the Congress.

[bushbush]

Check and see who was in charge of the Congress.

the congress that lost two budget fights with Clinton?

[xcorps]

umm, Congress can't lose a budget fight.

[bushbush]

umm, Congress can't lose a budget fight.

??? You don't remember the budget crisis and government shutdowns?

and no, Clinton proposed the budget and directed the economic policy (he was the first president ot really use the National Economic Council).

[JP226]

The one thing i've learned about government, and trust me I'm no fan of liberals, but both sides screw you over (maybe not the conservatives and libertarians but the republicans do). I'm not a big fan of taxes. I'm also not someone willing to jump in and say policy A is bad because it's a tax increase. I keep an open mind, but living in a state thoroughly dominated by republicans, fat chance you can find a tax cut. Take last year's legislative session, we probably went through several tax cut propositions. I think for instance in the corporate arena, something on order of 20 tax cuts proposals. Another 10 to 15 in sales tax, samething with communications (cable bill) etc etc. All of those combined were drowned by the tax increase of a billion dollars on cigarettes. Whether it's a billion dollar tax increase on corporations, sales or cigarettes, you're hitting a billion dollars worth of wealth in the economy and the ripple effects are significant. The tax cuts were simply a waste of time.

And that goes for spending too. We're probably dominated at the least 60 40 R to D, but they don't cut. Jeb did, loved the guy and I think we need more ruthless politicians like that guy. He had a damn vision. BUt the others? Absolutely useless.

[xcorps]

And he ended up further to the center (fiscally) than when he was elected.

[JP226]

and no, Clinton proposed the budget and directed the economic policy (he was the first president ot really use the National Economic Council).

I wouldn't say HE proposed it. When a president comes up with a budget I garantee you they are on the phone chatting with the legislature as to what is feasible and what's not. The last thing anyone wants is a hard fought budget battle. There is alot of input from both branches prior to the exec proposal.

[Nietzsche]

I guess the next question that will tickle the electorate is how much debt is irresponsible. Surely there is a tipping point in a cute economists graph that indicates "out here there be monsters." While I'm sure there will be considerable debate on the topic, $13 trillion in debts seems quite excessive good times or bad. Too much debt inspires inflationary policies which diminishes the wealth of all. I would think there would be more interest in diverting just such a disaster. You can only inflate away so much debt. You can only hope for more revenue in times of prosperity. At some point, spending must be reigned in or collapse is a apocalyptic certainty.