The National Debt

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
seasick	The National Debt	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4718 ( 4-Jun-2008 04:12:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The National Debt of the US Federal Government. Referenced from the US Treasury web site. As of June 2, 2008 Debt Held by the Public: $5,299,425,239,865.48 Inter-Governmental Holdings: $4,096,913,314,130.09 Total National Debt: $9,396,338,553,995.57 Nine trillion, three hundred ninety-six billion, three hundred thirty-eight million, five hundred fifty-three thousand, nine hundred ninety-five dollars and fifty-seven cents. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np Visit Smart Ship Development Lab on the Naval Fiction Board, new episodes weekly. Last Edited By: seasick 4-Jun-2008 04:22:35. Edited 1 time.
DCmontana		#1	[-]
Posts: 435 ( 4-Jun-2008 16:41:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I can't afford my share. If I don't pay, will it hurt my credit rating?
Nightwatch2		#2	[-]
Posts: 3634 ( 4-Jun-2008 17:25:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	a horrendous scandal caused by unscrupulous politicians across the political spectrum of every party raiding the treasury and running up the debt so they can insert earmarks and push socialist programs to buy votes for their next re-election. Clearly one of the failings of this adminstration, and all previous administrations, and more relevantly, on every Congress over the last several decades. now - having said that. The National Debt consists of bonds held as assets by the national and international banking system. If we were to actually pay off the debt in 4 years (a complete impossibilty but put forth as a discussion point) the banking system would collapse!! we can carry the debt, particularly as inflation (another political scandal of our various adminstrations and Congresses) devalues that debt and makes it easier to pay the annual interest on that debt. What we clearly do have to do is reign in government spending and balance the budget so that we can stop running annual deficits. That would at least stop the interest on the debt from continuing to increase. Of note, the interest on the debt is higher than our defense budget. That is clearly draining resources from programs of real necessity. One solution would be for the voters to stop voting in politicians who "bring home the bacon" to their district. Not likely. If you really want to lay blame where it belongs, lay it at the feet of the voters - all of us. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
jim3au		#3	[-]
Posts: 1528 ( 4-Jun-2008 21:21:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare." The recent growth in the national debt of the USA removes options for the administrations that follow. Nightwatch is correct up to a point. The US needs a crippling bout of inflation with a firm hand on spending and increases in taxation [through inflation] to get the debt under control. Spending more on defence will not be an option for the next president of the USA. Government spending will need to be contained. Social security might appear to be a source of budget savings but it is going to cause serious impoverishment of suburbs and large parts of states of the USA. It will not be pretty. Not only will not everyone who wants be on welfare but not everyone who presently would qualify will be on welfare. The reductions in defence spending will require a much less muscular foreign policy. Foreign aid is cheaper than war. It will require a firm hand on the nations purse strings while the economy is grown to afford the debt. What the economy cannot afford is for the debt to continue to grow both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. This government debt, and the reluctance of major international savers to lend to the USA, will mean an ongoing fall in the US Dollar. The next president of the US is likely to preside over some tough times. The tougher the president is on reducing the government budget deficit, the shorter the tough times will be and the shorter that presidency will be. Calvin Coolidge was a tough act to follow. He reduced taxation and the national debt at the same time. There is a very strong argument that one of the reasons for the Great Depression and its severity in the USA was the disparity in incomes between the very wealthy and the rest. Another little problem under his administration was the easy credit. The liquidity of the economy allowed the asset inflation that ultimately resulted in share prices that were unsupportable on fundamentals. But there was also inflation in land values too. The result was a prolonged depression only cured by WWII. WWII produced full employment and a massive redistribution of wealth. It also produced very high levels of national debt. Those levels of national debt were sustainable because of very high economic growth world wide. I have been wondering if the next presidential election might not be a good one to lose.
wabpilot		#4	[-]
Posts: 2072 ( 4-Jun-2008 21:55:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jim3au wrote: The recent growth in the national debt of the USA removes options for the administrations that follow. Nightwatch is correct up to a point. The US needs a crippling bout of inflation with a firm hand on spending and increases in taxation [through inflation] to get the debt under control. The US national debt hit its high point during WWII at slightly over 120% of GDP. It has fallen since then to a low of just over 30% of GDP and risen to its current level of roughly 63% or GDP. Here is a graph to help you visualize the debt as compared to GDP over the years. The US national debt is not unmanageable under any terms. It will require a firm hand on the nations purse strings while the economy is grown to afford the debt. What the economy cannot afford is for the debt to continue to grow both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. Your theory falls apart when you compare it to the reality of our debt as a portion of GDP. Clearly, the US economy can afford a lot more public debt. In fact, other than the UK, European governments run higher debt ratios than the US. This government debt, and the reluctance of major international savers to lend to the USA, will mean an ongoing fall in the US Dollar. The fall of the US dollar has largely been caused by lowering US interest rates. Of note, the dollar rose when the Federal Reserve announced that it was not planning on further lowering of interest rates. Good news to people like me who like to spend a lot of time away from the USA, but bad news for people like me who finance their vacationing with dividends from export related businesses. The next president of the US is likely to preside over some tough times. The tougher the president is on reducing the government budget deficit, the shorter the tough times will be and the shorter that presidency will be. Or not. Business cycles are notorious for ignoring the occupant of the White House. I have been wondering if the next presidential election might not be a good one to lose. Why? The business cycle is going to reward the next POTUS with increased tax revenues regardless of his economic policies. Which sadly means the next POTUS will probably spend like a drunken sailor on liberty. But, so did Clinton. Of recent Presidencies, only Reagan's is marked by intentional spending to accomplish a particular goal, beyond re-election.
Nightwatch2		#5	[-]
Posts: 3638 ( 4-Jun-2008 22:30:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	" Nightwatch is correct up to a point. The US needs a crippling bout of inflation with a firm hand on spending and increases in taxation [through inflation] to get the debt under control. " absolutely not my recommended program!!!!!!! a sure path to economic ruin!!! how about you try that out down there first! oh yea, you are..... let us all know in a few years how that insanity works out for you all. wabpilot is correct on all of his points. I am pointing to a rising debt fueled by runaway spending caused by utter bs thrown into the budgets. But I also pointed out that the debt consists of secure assets in many portfolios. the fix is to restrain spending by the government. spending and taxation are actually two different formulas, a point most liberals (being economically illiterate and intellectually challenged) don't get. tax policies should be focused on maximizing revenue. a government maximizes its revenue most effectively by expanding the tax base - in other words, growing their economies. This is best accomplished by low and stable tax rates that encourage business formation and expansion. (see JFK tax policy) The business cycle will, of course, make the revenues dependent upon that cycle which doesn't make life easy for government budeteers. Also, the idiot leftist socialists don't understand the above (as economics is beyond their intelletual capacity) and they assume a fixed economy they can play with rather than the dynamic process that it is. That results in punitive tax increases that assume a static tax base which has failed miserably every time that it has been tried. (The ony time it appears to have succeeded was the Clinton tax jihad, but that correlation ignores the fact that changes in the economy lag changes in governmental policies by several years. The reality is that the "Bush I recession" was over by the election that threw him prematurely out of office, the Bush I Expansion is what the Massive Clinto TAX Jihad cashed in on, resulting in the Clinton stagnation and recession the last years of his miserable adminstration. ) so, to recover from our current government financial mess (which is not the same as our overall economy which is doing just fine and NOT in a recession) all we really need to do is reign in government spending and make permanent the Bush II Tax Cuts. we need both of the above. "because not everyone can be on welfare" is a sarcastic commentary on the expansion of government subsidization and nationalization of everything they can by the idiot leftist socialists who will destroy our economy and our Constitution if we continue to let them try. When everyone is collecting a federal check and dependent upon the government for their day to day lives, we will have lost. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
seasick		#6	[-]
Posts: 4721 ( 5-Jun-2008 02:48:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"because not everyone can be on welfare" is a sarcastic commentary on the expansion of government subsidization and nationalization of everything they can by the idiot leftist socialists who will destroy our economy and our Constitution if we continue to let them try. When everyone is collecting a federal check and dependent upon the government for their day to day lives, we will have lost. The WBush administration has made the largest assault on the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition acts in the 1890s. Holding people and not giving them access to the courts or even meet with a lawyer is a bigger threat to America than Osama Bin Ladan and his gang of Saudi Wabi wackos and cohorts. I hve no sympathy for those who want to end Habus Corpus. I'm going to have sadistic pleasure when Obama takes office and his Attorney General (Hillary?) gets to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't by fiat, just like the Patriot act allows. I'm sure anti-abortion groups and militia types will start streaming down to Gitmo. The militia will want to be held as prisioners of war but will instead be held incognito as illegal combatants.
Dcnwilltex		#7	[-]
Posts: 1280 ( 5-Jun-2008 04:07:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Holding people and not giving them access to the courts or even meet with a lawyer is a bigger threat to America than Osama Bin Ladan and his gang of Saudi Wabi wackos and cohorts. So you're saying captured Viet Cong and North Korean Partisans were permitted lawyers? Where was the Legal Council for Nazi 5th Column members that were summarily executed? Does that make Truman a criminal? B.
seasick		#8	[-]
Posts: 4722 ( 5-Jun-2008 05:35:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	So you're saying captured Viet Cong and North Korean Partisans were permitted lawyers? Where was the Legal Council for Nazi 5th Column members that were summarily executed? Does that make Truman a criminal VC and NK Partisans were classified as POW. The NAZI fifth column IIRC were executed as criminals under martial law. Truman lynched Captain McVey so yes he was a crook. I also count no bid contracts for Haliburton entered into by the WBush administration starting one year after the invasion to be corporate welfare. Last Edited By: seasick 7-Jun-2008 06:34:56. Edited 1 times.
kell553		#9	[-]
Posts: 862 ( 5-Jun-2008 07:09:35) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Holding people and not giving them access to the courts or even meet with a lawyer Nice use of the euphemism "people." Why not be truthful and call them what they really are. Terrorists who were fighting against the United States, representing an ideology rather than a recognized Nation, while not wearing any semblence of a uniform to distinguish them from civillians. None of them are US citizens (Hamdi was based on Birthright; 14th Ammendment; but once that was established he was transferred to a brig in the US) and under the circumstances of their capture none should be eligible for access to the US Civil Legal system.
wabpilot		#10	[-]
Posts: 2073 ( 5-Jun-2008 13:19:26) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dcnwilltex wrote: Holding people and not giving them access to the courts or even meet with a lawyer is a bigger threat to America than Osama Bin Ladan and his gang of Saudi Wabi wackos and cohorts. So you're saying captured Viet Cong and North Korean Partisans were permitted lawyers? Where was the Legal Council for Nazi 5th Column members that were summarily executed? Does that make Truman a criminal? B. The Viet Cong and North Korean partisans were treated as enemy prisoners of war. The Nazis you refer to were tried before military tribunals, but they did have legal counsel. They were also accorded rights to appeal their convictions and petition for Habeas Corpus relief. There was a time when the US seemed to oblige itself to follow its own laws and traditions. John McCain has opposed the drift of the Bush administration away from treating our enemies as EPWs.
wabpilot		#11	[-]
Posts: 2074 ( 5-Jun-2008 13:35:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	kell553 wrote: Holding people and not giving them access to the courts or even meet with a lawyer Nice use of the euphemism "people." In fact they are people. People who are our enemies. People whom we must defeat. But, in defeating them, we must not become them. Why not be truthful and call them what they really are. Terrorists who were fighting against the United States, representing an ideology rather than a recognized Nation, while not wearing any semblence of a uniform to distinguish them from civillians. That makes them war criminals. War criminals of the worst sort. War criminals who need to be tried for their crimes and executed. None of them are US citizens (Hamdi was based on Birthright; 14th Ammendment; but once that was established he was transferred to a brig in the US) ... Unless your citizenship is based on naturalization, the only other claim to US citizenship is birthright. ... and under the circumstances of their capture none should be eligible for access to the US Civil Legal system. The United States has signed certain treaties and the US Senate has ratified them. Further, torture is prohibited by statute. These treaties and statutes make it clear that the law extends to conduct of the executive branch beyond our shores. While I have no love for the terrorists, I do not want to see our servicemen and women subjected to prosecution for torture or other crimes simply because the Bush administration decided to ignore the law and our nation's treaty obligations. Further, I do not wish to cede the moral high ground to the terrorists and their allies on the left.
Fred the Great	Just to get back on subject . . .	#12	[-]
Posts: 886 ( 5-Jun-2008 13:37:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	. . . and because Jim hasn't got around to it yet. absolutely not my recommended program!!!!!!! a sure path to economic ruin!!! how about you try that out down there first! oh yea, you are..... let us all know in a few years how that insanity works out for you all. Australia has a stronger performing economy than the US. Net federal government is zero. That was quite an achievement of the previous federal government. We've had something like 10 successive surplus budgets. Surplus. Only spending what you need to and putting the rest in the bank, or giving it back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. Got to love tax cuts.
Dcnwilltex		#13	[-]
Posts: 1281 ( 5-Jun-2008 14:30:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Viet Cong and North Korean partisans were treated as enemy prisoners of war. The Nazis you refer to were tried before military tribunals, but they did have legal counsel. They were also accorded rights to appeal their convictions and petition for Habeas Corpus relief. No they all did not, some handed to allies who placed a bullet in their head. The Nazis were Summarily executed since they were foreign agents out of uniform. If you work for the enemy out of uniform, you are not entitled to the rights of a citizen. If you are aboard an American vessel registered under the American Flag, you are not afforded the constitutional rights even if you are American. The Commander has the right to drop you on the spot. B
kell553		#14	[-]
Posts: 863 ( 5-Jun-2008 19:40:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The United States has signed certain treaties and the US Senate has ratified them. A Treaty is an agreement between 2 or more States or Nations. AQ is neither, nor as a group is not a signatory to any treaties. Now, if we were at War against a specific nation...say Iran...and had captured many of their uniformed soldiers, then we would have certain obligations and duties in the treatment and care of those prisoners. But with AQ we are trying to compare apples to steam engines and come up wiuth the same operating rules.
Nightwatch2		#15	[-]
Posts: 3641 ( 5-Jun-2008 21:36:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"The Viet Cong and North Korean partisans were treated as enemy prisoners of war." the enemy terrorists captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated even better than those of the above who were held by the US. Those partisans noted above for the most part were handed to our allies in that fight who executed a lot of them according to the prevailing international laws of war where partisans, fighting out of any recognized uniform, were not accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention. by Presidential policy, all of our detainees have been afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention. Those who were held without trial were held without trial because the courts blocked the military tribunals pending Congressional legislation to authorize them. claiming that as an assault by the Bush administration on individual liberties and the rule of law when it was, in fact, the Dems and the ACLU who blocked the very actions called for, is disengenuous in the extreme. I would call it manipulative political back-stabbing, but then those terms are somewhat duplicatively repetitive....... Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
wabpilot		#16	[-]
Posts: 2075 ( 6-Jun-2008 00:05:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dcnwilltex wrote: The Nazis were Summarily executed since they were foreign agents out of uniform. Wrong. The Nazis caught in the US were captured, charged and tried before military tribunals. Tribunals governed by the prevailing military laws. The accused had lawyers who were acting under orders to do their best, within the bounds of the law to obtain an acquital. (The same orders any military defense lawyer gets today. I have had to issue a couple of those as a convening authority.) Upon their convictions, the Nazi sabateurs were allowed an appeal and even a Hapeas Corpus petition. Then, when their appeals and petitions were denied, they were executed. Not summary executions, but lawful executions. It is all a matter of historical record, including the U.S. Supreme Court case denying their Habeas petitions. If you work for the enemy out of uniform, you are not entitled to the rights of a citizen. If you are writing about a US citizen then yes, you are entitled to the rights of a citizen. Treason does not abrogate your rights. It gets you the death penalty, but it does not cut off your rights. See the US Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to criminals even traitors. If you are aboard an American vessel registered under the American Flag, you are not afforded the constitutional rights even if you are American. The Commander has the right to drop you on the spot. You will have to cite some authority for that proposition. I have never heard of any rule or law that allows a master mariner, let alone a naval officer to carryout an illegal act. In fact, when I went to OCS and again at the NWC, it was emphasized that we were requrired to obey all legal orders, but were prohibited from obeying illegal orders, or violating the law or constitution we were sworn to uphold. If we did that, no matter what our position, that was a violation of the UCMJ as well as potentially other laws duly passed by the congress. I have never held a command at sea, but I did have a a department head tour at sea, and I never saw or heard of any authority that would allow the ship's captain to act in the way you suggest.
Nightwatch2		#17	[-]
Posts: 3646 ( 6-Jun-2008 00:10:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Australia has a stronger performing economy than the US. Net federal government is zero. That was quite an achievement of the previous federal government. We've had something like 10 successive surplus budgets. Surplus. Only spending what you need to and putting the rest in the bank, or giving it back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. Got to love tax cuts." not after you implement the cap and trade nonsense that jim3au has been foaming at the mouth to get! that's my point. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
jim3au	Bush II's Fiscal Adventure	#18	[-]
Posts: 1530 ( 7-Jun-2008 00:47:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What your problem is Nightwatch is that you are trying to defend the indefensible. George W. Bush's fiscal policies have been adventurist at best and at worst ideologically based rubbish. You have the further difficulty that by all fair measures, the economy performed better under the Clinton Administration than it has under the Bush Administration. Someone said that the economy was set up for a period of growth under Bush senior's presidency and there is a modicum of truth in that but right now, the USA cannot afford to have the national debt grow as fast as it is. The US can afford the level of debt at which it presently is but to stop the growth is going to take a pretty nasty piece of fiscal turn around. Taxes will have to rise and spending will have to be held to a much lower rate of growth. [It is suggestive that the US Defense budget and the interest bill on the foreign debt are of similar size.] As has been said, that will be easiest when there is at least moderate inflation. The US Dollar is going down because of very low real interest rates. I believe official cash rates are negative. They are this low because the US financial system is trying to survive a crisis that is of epic proportions and the Federal Reserve is flooding the economy with cash. The US is probably one of the easiest places in the world to borrow a billion dollars right now. It is also the easiest place in the world for a crippled merchant bank to recapitalise its balance sheet. The ballooning national debt is very much a secondary concern compared to a collapsing financial system. What brought about this mess was easy cash made easier by successive large government deficits. What is being used as a cure is even easier cash and continuing large government deficits. I have not got that exactly right, the easy cash and budget deficits are buying time for the regulators and the financial institutions to get their respective houses in order. Concerning the exchange rate, the budget deficits and financing them, actually kept the US Dollar higher than it would have otherwise been. the US was running large current account deficits but that was being financed by large US borrowings and this showed up in the capital account. I do not expect that the US Dollar will go up any time soon. It may have a way to fall yet but it is, I reckon, where it will be now for years. A lower dollar is good news for American business. When business appreciates that the dollar is down to stay, there should be a lot more investment in export and import substitution businesses. What would facilitate that real investment increase is less competition from the government for the savings of Americans. US Government budget surpluses would be good for US business. But all this presupposes that the US can survive her present financial system woes. It is important to remember that this financial crisis is international. Spain, Britain and Australia have suffered from the exact same problems to a greater or lesser extent. The problems being asset inflation particularly in real estate and shares associated with easy finance stopping and in fact, reversing. This produced a lot of stressed financial institutions and a tightening of credit world wide. To ameliorate this credit crunch, central banks have been pumping liquidity into their respective systems like never before. We have to get through this year and next before we will know whether we have survived.
seasick		#19	[-]
Posts: 4735 ( 7-Jun-2008 06:49:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As of June 2, 2008 Debt Held by the Public: $5,299,425,239,865.48 Inter-Governmental Holdings: $4,096,913,314,130.09 Total National Debt: $9,396,338,553,995.57 As of June 5, 2008 Debt Held by the Public: $5,307,426,828,369.59 Inter-Governmental Holdings: $4,100,067,474,477.98 Total National Debt: $9,407,494,302,847.57 3 day and $11,155,768,852.00 that is about $3,718,000,000 a day, or $155,000,000 an hour, or $2,582,000 an minute, $43,000 a second, or $43 a millisecond. Wow, even Paris Hilton can't spend money that fast.
Dcnwilltex		#20	[-]
Posts: 1282 ( 7-Jun-2008 13:59:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"Wrong. The Nazis caught in the US were captured, charged and tried before military tribunals. Tribunals governed by the prevailing military laws. The accused had lawyers who were acting under orders to do their best, within the bounds of the law to obtain an acquital." Really? Skorzenzy's 5th columnists may beg to difffer. Yes they were tried in accordance to the Laws of Warfare, That means a formalized Kangaroo court requiring a 2/3 majority with the detachment commander presiding. The defense is any commissioned Officer who can spell U.C.M.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f you are aboard an American vessel registered under the American Flag, you are not afforded the constitutional rights even if you are American. The Commander has the right to drop you on the spot. You will have to cite some authority for that proposition. I have never heard of any rule or law that allows a master mariner, let alone a naval officer to carryout an illegal act. Well with starters the UCMJ, The manual for Courts Martial, (specifically Art 94(b)(3) aka Sedition). the 11th article of war, and "Rocks and Shoals" the naval predecessor to the UCMJ. Basically all state a trial may be presided by and sentence imposed by any officer of Flag Rank or the commander of a detachment. Executions can be carried out following the Presidents approval. I heard the same spiel about the UCMJ in NCO academies, ROTC , OBC and and other courses. However, one instructor explained that the UCMJ operates primarily under the Napoleonic Code, not the Constitution. Summarized the Napoleonic Code states you are guilty until proven innocent, thus detentions for the sake of public order is permissible. Order and Security is to be maintained above all other considerations. B.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

The National Debt

The National Debt

Quick Reply