American Debt Explained

[lukin]

This is a very interesting way to understand the debt problem in the USA. This should make sense even to government sheep that call themselves "progressives".

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700

Money the family spent: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Budget cuts: $385

Obamanomics at its best. Oh well, America has to deal with what it voted in.

[Bonam]

This is a very interesting way to understand the debt problem in the USA. This should make sense even to government sheep that call themselves "progressives".

U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000

New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

National debt: $14,271,000,000,000

Recent [April] budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700

Money the family spent: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Budget cuts: $385

Obamanomics at its best. Oh well, America has to deal with what it voted in.

As long as the interest rate on the "credit card" is 0-2% and only getting lower, why not?

[lukin]

As long as the interest rate on the "credit card" is 0-2% and only getting lower, why not?

Gotta love the Chinese and their more-than-reasonable interest rates.

America is toast. let the lefties celebrate. too bad they didn't know how hard it's going to come back to bite them in their calloused asses.

[waldo]

... government sheep that call themselves "progressives".

if it actually has real meaning in lukinWorld, just what is a government sheep, particularly in lieu of U.S. Debt History - See Reagan-Bush41/Bush43

[lukin]

if it actually has real meaning in lukinWorld, just what is a government sheep, particularly in lieu of U.S. Debt History - See Reagan-Bush41/Bush43

Hermit, look at what has happened since Obama.

Here's the debt as a percentage of the GDP.

1999- 61.2% Clinton

2000 - 57.6% Bush

2007 - 64.8 - Bush

2008- 69.6

2009 - 84.4% Obama ----wow what an increase ( more useless gov't jobs)

2010 - 93.4% Obama----!!!!!!

2011 - 96.8% Who's the president?

You see, hermit, I deal with facts. You bore the hell out of everyone. You are like a robot with little purpose.

Please don't tell on me waldo for calling you hermit. You ratted on me like a child last time and got me banned for a month. Your a mouse. I have no use for men afraid of the outdoors.

Edited September 22, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

if it actually has real meaning in lukinWorld, just what is a government sheep, particularly in lieu of U.S. Debt History - See Reagan-Bush41/Bush43

Here's the debt as a percentage of the GDP.

1999 - 61.2% Clinton

2000 - 57.6% Bush

2007 - 64.8 Bush

2008 - 69.6

2009 - 84.4% Obama ----wow what an increase ( more useless gov't jobs)

2010 - 93.4% Obama----!!!!!!

2011 - 96.8% Who's the president?

You see, I deal with facts.

considering you've taken the liberty of presuming to "Explain American Debt", one would think, particularly since I gave you such a purty picture, you wouldn't allow your facts to fail you... once again! Have another look at the linked pic and chew on these real facts (not your made up stuff!)

President	  Years	    Start Debt/GDP  End Debt/GDP  Increase Debt	  Increase Debt/GDP
			                          (Billions of $)	
Ronald Reagan	1981–1985     32.50%	      43.80%	      823	       11.30%

Ronald Reagan	1985–1989     43.80%	      53.10%	    1,050	        9.30%

Bush 41	        1989–1993     53.10%	      66.10%	    1,483	       13.00%

Bill Clinton	1993–1997     66.10%	      65.40%	    1,018	       -0.70%

Bill Clinton	1997–2001     65.40%	      56.40%	      401	       -9.00%

Bush 43	        2001–2005     56.40%	      63.50%	    2,135	        7.10%

Bush 43	        2005–2009     63.50%	      84.20%	    3,971	       20.70%

Barack Obama	2009–2010     84.20%	      93.20%	    1,653	        9.00%

as one can clearly see, and you can't avoid, the real facts show exactly the %Debt (Start vs. End), the overall debt added (in Billions) and, the %Increase in Debt/GDP. Clearly, Obama inherited the worst of the worst from Dubya, Clinton brought the debt down and Reagan and BushDaddy simply ramped it up!

[bush_cheney2004]

....as one can clearly see, and you can't avoid, the real facts show exactly the %Debt (Start vs. End), the overall debt added (in Billions) and, the %Increase in Debt/GDP. Clearly, Obama inherited the worst of the worst from Dubya, Clinton brought the debt down and Reagan and BushDaddy simply ramped it up!

Wrong...Clinton brought the debt down as a percentage of GDP...the US national debt (federal) increased over the terms of President Bill Clinton:

FYear 	President 	Party  	Spending 	Federal Debt 	GDP 	Inflation Adjustor


1994 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,462 	$1,642 	1.7% 	$4,643 	$5,216 	4.6% 	$6,961 	$7,820 	3.8% 	0.89
1995 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,516 	$1,662 	1.2% 	$4,920 	$5,395 	3.4% 	$7,326 	$8,033 	2.7% 	0.91
1996 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,561 	$1,673 	0.7% 	$5,181 	$5,554 	3.0% 	$7,694 	$8,248 	2.7% 	0.93
1997 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,601 	$1,684 	0.7% 	$5,369 	$5,647 	1.7% 	$8,182 	$8,606 	4.3% 	0.95
1998 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,653 	$1,721 	2.2% 	$5,478 	$5,704 	1.0% 	$8,628 	$8,985 	4.4% 	0.96
1999 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,702 	$1,746 	1.5% 	$5,605 	$5,750 	0.8% 	$9,125 	$9,361 	4.2% 	0.97
2000 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,789 	$1,789 	2.5% 	$5,628 	$5,628 	-2.1% 	$9,710 	$9,710 	3.7% 	1.00
2001 	Clinton 	Democratic 	$1,863 	$1,821 	1.8% 	$5,769 	$5,638 	0.2% 	$10058 	$9,829 	1.2% 	1.02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Technically, the US national debt has never gone down since 1961. Playing games with data may work for the climate change circus, but not the US debt.

Edited September 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

*bump* someone has some splainin to do!

[sharkman]

As long as the interest rate on the "credit card" is 0-2% and only getting lower, why not?

And this mindset is exactly why there are so many consumer bankruptcies in the US, and to a lesser extent in Canada. Those who think like this have absolutely no idea where the US economy is headed and therefore think Obama is doing a 'good' job.

[GostHacked]

As long as the interest rate on the "credit card" is 0-2% and only getting lower, why not?

So low that they start paying ME back?

[GostHacked]

Is the debt getting higher? Yes.

Is it being paid off fast enough? No.

When will the USA be debt free? Never.

Replace USA with any other country, rinse, repeate.

[Bonam]

So low that they start paying ME back?

Essentially, yes. If you can borrow money at 2% and invest it in projects that have a higher rate of return than that, then you make money by borrowing money. For example, I had a credit card offer that let me have a $100k cash advance on 0% interest rate for 1 year. So I took it and put it into a savings account for the year which paid 3% at the time. Then about a week before the 0% interest rate expired I paid the $100k back, never paid a cent of interest or fees, and pocketed the $3000 in interest that I earned in the savings account.

[Pliny]

Essentially, yes. If you can borrow money at 2% and invest it in projects that have a higher rate of return than that, then you make money by borrowing money. For example, I had a credit card offer that let me have a $100k cash advance on 0% interest rate for 1 year. So I took it and put it into a savings account for the year which paid 3% at the time. Then about a week before the 0% interest rate expired I paid the $100k back, never paid a cent of interest or fees, and pocketed the $3000 in interest that I earned in the savings account.

But since inflation was 3% you broke even. Your investment would have to be greater than the rate of inflation before you start getting ahead.

[Pliny]

considering you've taken the liberty of presuming to "Explain American Debt", one would think, particularly since I gave you such a purty picture, you wouldn't allow your facts to fail you... once again! Have another look at the linked pic and chew on these real facts (not your made up stuff!)

President	  Years	    Start Debt/GDP  End Debt/GDP  Increase Debt	  Increase Debt/GDP
			                          (Billions of $)	
Ronald Reagan	1981–1985     32.50%	      43.80%	      823	       11.30%

Ronald Reagan	1985–1989     43.80%	      53.10%	    1,050	        9.30%

Bush 41	        1989–1993     53.10%	      66.10%	    1,483	       13.00%

Bill Clinton	1993–1997     66.10%	      65.40%	    1,018	       -0.70%

Bill Clinton	1997–2001     65.40%	      56.40%	      401	       -9.00%

Bush 43	        2001–2005     56.40%	      63.50%	    2,135	        7.10%

Bush 43	        2005–2009     63.50%	      84.20%	    3,971	       20.70%

Barack Obama	2009–2010     84.20%	      93.20%	    1,653	        9.00%

as one can clearly see, and you can't avoid, the real facts show exactly the %Debt (Start vs. End), the overall debt added (in Billions) and, the %Increase in Debt/GDP. Clearly, Obama inherited the worst of the worst from Dubya, Clinton brought the debt down and Reagan and BushDaddy simply ramped it up!

In Bush's first four years he upped the debt $2.135 trillion. Bad boy! Then in his second 4 year term he upped it $3.971 trillion. Almost 4 trillion. My goodness. Hope and change is necessary.

In the first two years of Obama's administration he added $1.6 trillion to the debt and it looks like he is just getting started. let's see if he can, and I think he already has, surpassed George in his second 4 yr. term.

[waldo]

In Bush's first four years he upped the debt $2.135 trillion. Bad boy! Then in his second 4 year term he upped it $3.971 trillion. Almost 4 trillion. My goodness. Hope and change is necessary.

In the first two years of Obama's administration he added $1.6 trillion to the debt and it looks like he is just getting started. let's see if he can, and I think he already has, surpassed George in his second 4 yr. term.

whaaa! BushSon adds over 6 Trillion to the U.S. debt and sets in place the "BushSon Effect" for Obama to deal with; i.e., the U.S. Congressional Budget Office projected $1.2 trillion in deficit before Obama even took office... based on BushSon's actions, coupled with economic conditions... notwithstanding BushSon's wars, BushSon's policies and the economic downturn that all began under BushSon, continue to inflate the U.S. debt under Obama. And, freaking amazingly, to the flailing partisan hacks that repeatedly beak off mindlessly about their "progressives" boogeyman, "American Debt Explained", is all about Obama!

(on edit: per MLW facilitator suggestion/notice, changed the well known term of endearment, "Chimp", to "BushSon"... presenting a clear distinction between "BushSon" & "BushDaddy")

Edited September 27, 2011 by waldo

[BubberMiley]

But since inflation was 3% you broke even. Your investment would have to be greater than the rate of inflation before you start getting ahead.

Wow. Your math skills are worse than I thought.

[Michael Hardner]

whaaa! The Chimp adds over 6 Trillion to the U.S. debt a...

As has been pointed out recently, you're contravening forum policy when you call politicians names. I had to point it out on a thread involving McGuinty, so I do so here as well.

[punked]

We do understand Macro and Micro economics are very very different things. There is a reason Henry Ford paid his workers 3-4 times as much as anyone else. Even though he could have had low wages to save money, him paying people a good wage drove demand. This isn't something you can explain with a household budget. Lets stop trying to make complex things into simple things.

[punked]

Hermit, look at what has happened since Obama.

Here's the debt as a percentage of the GDP.

1999- 61.2% Clinton

2000 - 57.6% Bush

2007 - 64.8 - Bush

2008- 69.6

2009 - 84.4% Obama ----wow what an increase ( more useless gov't jobs)

2010 - 93.4% Obama----!!!!!!

2011 - 96.8% Who's the president?

You see, hermit, I deal with facts. You bore the hell out of everyone. You are like a robot with little purpose.

Please don't tell on me waldo for calling you hermit. You ratted on me like a child last time and got me banned for a month. Your a mouse. I have no use for men afraid of the outdoors.

Hate to tell your numbers are inflated. Debt to GDP is easy to keep down if you have a large GDP which is driven by a housing bubble driving your GDP through the roof when it should be much lower then it is. I am sure Obama could start an unsustainable bubble to but that would be bad policy because it would kill America as we seen by the bubble Bush created sorry your numbers make you look silly.

[blueblood]

I'd say obama is copying bush's bubble policies. Bush got to drop the interest rate and go into debt to get out of the dotcom bubble, and obama is basically doing the same thing. However, doing that just inflates prices and reduces savings a la the housing bubble. Only now there is a debt bubble and its about to pop. If americans are trying to save, why not let interest rates rise to where they really should be, let the savings grow, and use that as capital to get the economy going again?

[Bonam]

But since inflation was 3% you broke even. Your investment would have to be greater than the rate of inflation before you start getting ahead.

No, I didn't "break even". I had $3,000 more than I would have otherwise had. My investment was $0 since I borrowed the money and then paid it back without any fees or interest.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Bonam

[punked]

I'd say obama is copying bush's bubble policies. Bush got to drop the interest rate and go into debt to get out of the dotcom bubble, and obama is basically doing the same thing. However, doing that just inflates prices and reduces savings a la the housing bubble. Only now there is a debt bubble and its about to pop. If americans are trying to save, why not let interest rates rise to where they really should be, let the savings grow, and use that as capital to get the economy going again?

Because then it becomes a tax on employment and unemployment sky rockets that is why.

[bud]

America is toast. let the lefties celebrate. too bad they didn't know how hard it's going to come back to bite them in their calloused asses.

increase of national debt/GDP by presidents:

carter: -3.3%

reagan: +11.3%

reagan: +9.3%

george sr.: +13.0%

clinton: -0.7%

clinton: -9.0%

dubya: +7.1

dubya: +20.7

obama: +9.0

[bud]

ps - neither of the presidents above should be called lefties. a real lefty would never become the president of united states. carter was more of a centrist and obama and clinton would be considered just right of centre.

[blueblood]

Because then it becomes a tax on employment and unemployment sky rockets that is why.

In the short term your right, employment would fall. However employment is falling, debt is rising and producers (myself included) are sitting on cash. If producers are going to be sitting on cash because of uncertain economic future, why not get better paid for it? Over time as more and more savings occurs interest rates should fall naturally. I agree with you that in the short term a free market solution is very painful and many people will lose their jobs, however I believe that some medicine tastes bad, but in the end works. Why not let the job sector and housing market liquidate itself and let the labor and resources reallocate to things that are more productive.

To be honest its a stretch for me to advocate this because in the short term commodity prices would drop which would hurt my bottom line. It would be in my short term best interest for a QE3 in fact. However, I don't think that's good for the economy as a whole and my operation long term.

Its a shame because credit can be very useful, unfortunately many people rich and poor abused it and put us in the mess we're in today.