Is the size of the U.S. national debt a pressing issue? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 02:09:16 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Is the size of the U.S. national debt a pressing issue? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: We all agree it's an issue, but is it an urgent one?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 65

Author Topic: Is the size of the U.S. national debt a pressing issue?  (Read 1466 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« on: January 29, 2014, 04:31:33 PM »

The problem is not so much the debt as the ongoing deficit. Ideally we should be running about neutral right now. The economy isn't is such a great shape as to justify running surpluses to save for a rainy day, but neither is it so bad that we ought to be running an annual deficit.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2014, 08:16:41 PM »

Despite the ranting of right-wing loons and The Serious People, folks who actually know about this stuff mostly all say that it isn't an issue, especially when compared with much more pressing issues like growth and employment or climate change.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-in-shutdown-debate-focus-on-growth-not-deficit/2013/10/13/c944c20c-3428-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html

There is one extremely major flaw in the CBO projections.  They assume that each and every year will be an average year and that no significant changes in taxing and spending will occur.  Becoming complacent about the deficit because of those assumptions is sheer lunacy.  The idea that we won't have another recession in the next few decades that causes the government to stimulate the economy by providing tax cuts, extended safety net programs and/or infrastructure spending is simply not in keeping with experience or with good public policy.

Countercyclical spending works, but has as a political defect that politicians have generally been loath to run the necessary surpluses in good times needed to sustain them in the long term.  The last thing our idiot congresscritters of either party need to hear is we don't need to worry about the deficit in the long term.  Now we don't need a drastic ten-year plan to eliminate the national debt.  Indeed, we don't need to eliminate the debt, tho it would be nice to trim it.  What we do need to do is get our deficit sufficiently under control that we do run some modest surpluses from time to time.  As I said earlier, our economy is doing marginally okay, but could be better so for now a roughly balanced budget, with a slight shading towards minor deficit spending should be our goal.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2014, 07:48:54 PM »

Yes, because the military budget could easily be reduced by more than 90%.
Cuts of that level are only possible if you don't mind having Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and likely some others deciding they need nuclear weapons of their own once Uncle Sam decides to withdraw from being the world's policeman.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.