Who is going to pay the debt?

All those Republicans who refused to raise the debt ceiling believe it is an option.

 

Why should our elected representatives not follow our supreme law of the land as a moral example and fix that Standard for the People?

 

That's just an incredible spin the media was putting on the situation. Actually it was the Democrats who were threatening not to make payments on the debt unless the Republicans agreed to get into even more debt. The Democrats seem to have no problem with permanently and irreparably ruining the United States credit rating, though they hypocritically pretended otherwise, trying to make the Republicans look bad. The Democrats have gone on a spending spree and do not want to be hampered by a mere debt ceiling.

 

The Democrats want to spread the burden by increasing taxes. Which Republicans refuse to do because it means the 1% might get less. The Republicans seem to have no problem with permanently and irreparably ruining the United States credit rating, though they hypocritically pretended otherwise, trying to make the Republicans look bad. The Republicans have gone on a revenue cutting spree they want to enforce by a debt ceiling, except of course when they are in power.

 

It shouldn't matter how much we spend as long as it generates a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

 

I would like to take this time and opportunity to enjoin our elected representatives to bear true witness to our own laws regarding being fiscally responsible enough to pay the debts of the United States.

 

Talk about spin, eh? There isn't any "even more debt" that wasn't decided on years ago. Including $5,000,000,000,000 in war debt that was decided on while Obie was still organizing communities in Chi-town. Nah, my friend, refusing to raise the debt ceiling was just another futile attempt to make Obama look bad, as the Republicans had promised to do.

 

$16,400,000,000,000 of debt.

First and obvious point to make is that we don't pay a penny of debt until we eliminate deficit spending and have one penny in surplus.

According to Obama budget projections which extend out 10 years, during these next ten years there will always be deficit spending. So part of the answer to your question of who is going to pay the debt, we know not a penny will be paid during the next ten years. Worse yet...the debt will increase to something well over $20 trillion by 2020!

Lastly, even in our wildest dreams of eliminating deficit spending, which would be a balanced budget, which in political speak is an oxy-moron, if we assume taxpayers will cough up $100 billion per year to go towards paying down the debt, it will take 164 years to pay the $16.4 trillion. Or 200 years to pay down $20 trillion in debt. This will be tantamount to owing $50K on a credit card and paying the minimum payment each month; it will never be paid off!

BTW...and FYI...using the current Obama budget, and to have $100 billion in surplus to go towards debt, American taxpayers will need to pay another $1.5 trillion in taxes per year!! The nation apparently cannot even tolerate the current $85 billion in forced spending cuts without slipping back into a recession so it is literally impossible to obtain $1.5 trillion in taxes.

Answer to your question; everyone paying taxes in the USA for the next 200 to 500 years will be paying the debt...

 

Lot of bogus facts about revenue rates and all that. Revenue has only been higher in the tech boom of the 90s:

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1950_2015USp_F0t

The second highest peak of revenue as a % of GDP? After the Bush Tax cuts and the end of the 2001 recession, but before the Democrats took control of Congress again.
Here you go:

1950 293.7 151.326 22.70 a
1951 339.3 153.917 24.32 i
1952 358.3 156.552 27.98 a
1953 379.3 159.232 27.62 a
1954 380.4 161.958 28.46 a
1955 414.7 164.731 25.66 a
1956 437.4 167.551 27.35 a
1957 461.1 170.420 28.01 a
1958 467.2 173.337 27.91 a
1959 506.6 176.305 26.26 a
1960 526.4 179.323 29.08 a
1961 544.8 181.588 29.14 a
1962 585.7 183.881 27.54 a
1963 617.8 186.204 27.89 a
1964 663.6 188.555 27.74 a
1965 719.1 190.937 26.92 a
1966 787.7 193.348 27.34 a
1967 832.4 195.790 28.84 a
1968 909.8 198.263 27.85 a
1969 984.4 200.766 30.46 a
1970 1038.3 203.302 30.92 a
1971 1126.8 205.515 29.06 a
1972 1237.9 207.752 29.55 a
1973 1382.3 210.013 29.60 a
1974 1499.5 212.299 30.63 a
1975 1637.7 214.609 30.14 a
1976 1824.6 216.945 29.99 a
1977 2030.1 219.307 31.07 a
1978 2293.8 221.694 30.59 a
1979 2562.2 224.107 31.09 a
1980 2788.1 226.546 31.77 a
1981 3126.8 228.670 32.48 a
1982 3253.2 230.815 33.10 a
1983 3534.6 232.979 31.23 a
1984 3930.9 235.164 31.07 a
1985 4217.5 237.369 31.95 a
1986 4460.1 239.595 32.27 a
1987 4736.4 241.842 33.40 a
1988 5100.4 244.110 32.86 a
1989 5482.1 246.399 33.24 i
1990 5800.5 248.710 33.23 a
1991 5992.1 251.802 33.07 a
1992 6342.3 254.933 33.07 a
1993 6667.4 258.103 33.39 a
1994 7085.2 261.312 33.51 a
1995 7414.7 264.561 34.27 a
1996 7838.5 267.850 34.85 a
1997 8332.4 271.180 35.40 a
1998 8793.5 274.552 36.25 a
1999 9353.5 277.966 35.83 a
2000 9951.5 282.172 36.93 a
2001 10286.2 285.082 34.30 i
2002 10642.3 287.804 31.00 a
2003 11142.2 290.326 31.03 i
2004 11853.3 293.046 32.83 a
2005 12623 295.507 33.62 a
2006 13377.2 298.109 35.10 a
2007 14028.7 300.733 36.86 a
2008 14369.1 303.380 32.48 a
2009 13939 306.051 26.27 a
2010 14508.2 308.746 32.47 a
2011 14958.6 311.592 34.05 e
2012 15601.5 314.123 32.90 g
2013 16335 316.847 34.10 g
2014 17155.6 319.594 34.76 g
2015 18177.8 322.366 34.86

 

Your data includes state and local data. The post you responded to is talking about the federal government.

Here's the data for the Federal government:

Year - Revenues - % GDP
1950 39.4 13.4%
1951 51.6 15.2%
1952 66.2 18.5%
1953 69.6 18.3%
1954 69.7 18.3%
1955 65.5 15.8%
1956 74.6 17.0%
1957 80.0 17.3%
1958 79.6 17.0%
1959 79.2 15.6%
1960 92.5 17.6%
1961 94.4 17.3%
1962 99.7 17.0%
1963 106.6 17.3%
1964 112.6 17.0%
1965 116.8 16.2%
1966 130.8 16.6%
1967 148.8 17.9%
1968 153.0 16.8%
1969 186.9 19.0%
1970 192.8 18.6%
1971 187.1 16.6%
1972 207.3 16.7%
1973 230.8 16.7%
1974 263.2 17.6%
1975 279.1 17.0%
1976 298.1 16.3%
1977 355.6 17.5%
1978 399.6 17.4%
1979 463.3 18.1%
1980 517.1 18.5%
1981 599.3 19.2%
1982 617.8 19.0%
1983 600.6 17.0%
1984 666.5 17.0%
1985 734.1 17.4%
1986 769.2 17.2%
1987 854.4 18.0%
1988 909.3 17.8%
1989 991.2 18.1%
1990 1,032.0 17.8%
1991 1,055.0 17.6%
1992 1,091.3 17.2%
1993 1,154.4 17.3%
1994 1,258.6 17.8%
1995 1,351.8 18.2%
1996 1,453.1 18.5%
1997 1,579.3 19.0%
1998 1,721.8 19.6%
1999 1,827.5 19.5%
2000 2,025.2 20.4%
2001 1,991.2 19.4%
2002 1,853.2 17.4%
2003 1,782.3 16.0%
2004 1,880.1 15.9%
2005 2,153.9 17.1%
2006 2,406.7 18.0%
2007 2,567.7 18.3%
2008 2,523.6 17.7%
2009 2,104.6 15.1%
2010 2,161.7 14.9%
2011 2,302.0 15.3%
2012 2,450.0 15.6%

Source data: CBO.gov, BEA.gov.

Now you can see the effect of the Bush tax cuts. Revenues proportionate to GDP tanked with the tax cuts and never got within 2 percentage points of where they were the year before they were passed. And of course the last few years with the stimulus tax cuts on top of the Bush tax cuts and the Great Recession were devastating to revenues, and therefore the budget. Revenues, proportionate to GDP, were about ~$750 billion per year lower than they were in 2000.

 

Transfer payments from to Feds to state changed too though. It is the overall revenue stream that matters. Anything else is a shell game. You can only take so much etc... In any event the real tax amount is always the amount spent not the revenue. Debt is monetized. We ate going to print our way out of this hidden taxes etc..Bush tax cuts are a misnomer. They are just a shift in revenue sourcing.

THis is also a fun page:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php

See how high interest payments are? That is the real trouble. We have a situation where we need to inflate to get out of the debt, but if interest rates go too high that debt will be unbearable. Hurts the elderly the most, they will be stuck with ever rising CPI and tiny returns on safe investments like annuities and CDs.

I will find another one with the state transfer payment decline, you will see there was no real bush tax cuts, it was just a shift b/c of lower transfer payments.

eh...having trouble finding the graph. It is pretty interesting though. In either event it doesn matter, if the spending goes back the the fed the states will want the funding from it. You are stuck paying the bill they ring up no matter what it is.

In either event, the federal revenue averaged 17% during that entire history and that much during the Bush years too. He didn't go below historical averages, to be technical he is just slightly above it.

 

I have an idea to pay the debt of all of Europe and the US..........

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/296579-breaking-world-elites-banking-info-revealed.html

32 trillion dollars being stored in offshore accounts....problem solved.

 

One really has to ask why so many Western countries insist on continually borrowing money. It is not as if this money is actually being invested. If it was, they would have been able to pay off the debt long ago. Funny how politicians refer to spending money as "investing in our future"

 

What you don't get is that they mean it literally. "Investing in our Future", not yours, theirs.

 

Bailing out wealthy citizens in the several States and paying their multimillion dollar bonuses in the process is not an investment; but a form of "insurance" that helps the wealthiest not lose as much money as they otherwise would without that public sector intervention in private sector markets.

 

Not when we are talking about the federal government.

I agree. I've been warning about deficits since Bush and the Republicans squandered the surplus under Clinton with tax cuts and military spending increases. Write your Republican reps and tell them to compromise on a budget deal with tax increases.

OK, I'd be interested to see that.

States make their own decision on taxes and spending.

17% was too low when spending averaged about 20%.

 

Interesting article. The wealth of nations stashed away in the hands of a few.

And we wonder why the economic recovery is sluggish.

 

Kind of like how funny it is why they say tax cuts put more money in the hands of people who spend it. Pimp's article shows where a lot of it goes.

 

I agree they should have spent less. Pelosi and the Democrats spiked it though, you will notice the deficits were going down until they came around. Big ole spending increase!

Besides it is disingenuous to make the argument that the Republicans are responsible for all the spending that goes on in the federal budget, lots of which they have been fighting for years. Bush added military spending, and Medicare part D. He kept tax revenues average. Spending minus war was fairly low as a % of GDP until Pelosi. Most Dems voted for both wars, (Hilary, Kerry etc...), but not Obama, so that part of the debt shouldnt be counted against him. He likes Afghanistan though, so that should etc... This is a better way of judging politicians propensity for spending. Blaming Reagan for Johnson's War on Poverty spending under his administration is just spin. Besides, it is time to get over Bush. Did you hear Republicans complain about Johnson's spending in Vietnam?

 

Or they shouldn't have cut taxes. I didn't notice that at all. I notice spending went up dramatically while the Republicans controlled Congress, and deficits went (including SS) from a $236 billion surplus in 2000 to a $400 billion deficit in 2004, but for it dropped a bit after that when they stopped cutting taxes. Is that what you mean?

As far as spending, in 2008 Bush was president and could have vetoed spending bills. But there was this event called the Great Recession you might recall.

I don't recall making the argument that Republicans are responsible for all spending.

Bush slashed tax revenues from where they where under Clinton, and dramatically increased spending, as is reflected in the numbers:

Year - Rev:GDP - Spend:GDP
2000 20.4% 18.0%
2001 19.4% 18.1%
2002 17.4% 18.9%
2003 16.0% 19.4%
2004 15.9% 19.3%
2005 17.1% 19.6%
2006 18.0% 19.8%
2007 18.3% 19.5%
2008 17.7% 20.9%
2009 15.1% 25.2%

It wasn't the war on poverty that ramped up spending in the 80s.

But fair enough looking forward. Write your Republican reps and tell them to compromise on a tax increase so we can get a serious budget deal done.

 

I believe we should end the entitlement spending on our wars on abstractions of crime, drugs, poverty, and terror. Why can we afford it, if apparently and objectively in our market based political-economy, the wealthiest are not paying wartime tax rates for them.

 

No need for more taxes. If we were at historical spending levels we would have a balanced budget already. No point taking money from the economy and giving it to government while there is so much cronyism going on and no success stories for their social programs.

 

Bush did not keep revenues average, average revenues since 1950 were around 19.6% of GDP, Bush lowered them to 15% while increasing spending. The trick was that they back loaded the deficit to after they left office. This is born out by the CBO, which in 2006 projected a budget deficit of $800Billion in 2009.

It is quite obvious that the republicans have failed to act in a fiscally responsible manner. If they had they would not have increased the deficit and doubled the national debt while the economy was booming in the 2000s, a time when the economic impact of tax increases and a pay down of the national debt would have the least impact on the economy. In the 2000s the mantra of the Republicans was that deficits don't matter because the economy will soon grow enough to reduce them to zero.

The problem with that was that all the economic growth was in capital gains but the republicans had cut capital gains taxes so much that their projections of revenue growth failed to materialize. Instead of recognizing this they blame the Democrat's spending. Excluding the unfunded increases in spending voted by the Republicans in the 2000s and the Bush bank bailouts and the one time Obama stimulus, as a percentage of GDP government spending has actually declined and is projected to continue declining until about 2020.

The real problem is revenues. Government revenues averaged a little over 19% of GDP since 1950 and spending has averaged a little below 20%. Revenues are now around 16% of GDP and projected to stay there for the foreseeable future. Government spending is currently about 21% of GDP and projected to decline to a little below 20% by 2016.

The long term problem is not spending unless your interest is to eliminate all social spending, with consequences you are so unable to fathom that you believe it feasible.

 

the children and anyone holding American currency of course

 

Not true. Our social policies have no beneficial effect. No one can find a single city made better by them. Dems are responsible for about 80% of our spending policies. Spending spike under Pepsi went higher with pelvis Obama. Blaming evrything on republicans and nothing on democrats just shows limbs ugh like partisanship.