National Debt to GDP ratios globally

[phk]

From visualeconomics

[Bono]

Canada's number is wrong.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Canada's number is wrong.

     Yeah, I recall hearing that Canada's percentage is lower than the US's percentage.

[Tender Branson]

Austria's number was at 59% in 2007 and 62% in 2008, but might hit 80% by 2013 if forecasts are accurate.

In the first quarter of 2009 it was 66% of GDP.

http://www.statistik.at/web_en/statistics/Public_finance_taxes/maastricht_edp_indicators/government_debt/029318.html

[opebo]

Very reassuring figures here!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's who you can blame for our debt.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Here's who you can blame for our debt.

Amusing, eh?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here's who you can blame for our debt.

Amusing, eh?

With the Deficit going to hit about 2 Trillion this year or close to it and Obama will get us moving up pretty quickly. For instance Bush increased the debt by 5 Trillion Dollars over 8 years, Obama will reach that in 3 or 4 years. Keep in mind also that if the Economy doesn't meet the rosy growth projections in Obama's budget it will happen a lot a quicker.

[opebo]

With the Deficit going to hit about 2 Trillion this year or close to it and Obama will get us moving up pretty quickly. For instance Bush increased the debt by 5 Trillion Dollars over 8 years, Obama will reach that in 3 or 4 years. Keep in mind also that if the Economy doesn't meet the rosy growth projections in Obama's budget it will happen a lot a quicker.

Yes, and the argument is that the top tax rate is still too low - in point of fact unchanged from the right-wing years!

[TeePee4Prez]

With the Deficit going to hit about 2 Trillion this year or close to it and Obama will get us moving up pretty quickly. For instance Bush increased the debt by 5 Trillion Dollars over 8 years, Obama will reach that in 3 or 4 years. Keep in mind also that if the Economy doesn't meet the rosy growth projections in Obama's budget it will happen a lot a quicker.

Yes, and the argument is that the top tax rate is still too low - in point of fact unchanged from the right-wing years!

I think we need to raise the rate into the low 40s, but in a new $1 million+ bracket.  $400,000 in places like NYC or SF really ain't much if you have a family.  We also need to reevaluate payroll taxes.

[opebo]

I think we need to raise the rate into the low 40s, but in a new $1 million+ bracket.  $400,000 in places like NYC or SF really ain't much if you have a family.  We also need to reevaluate payroll taxes.

Yes, payroll taxes should go all the way up to the highest incomes.  But I would prefer a top regular income tax rate in the 70 percent range.

[TeePee4Prez]

I think we need to raise the rate into the low 40s, but in a new $1 million+ bracket.  $400,000 in places like NYC or SF really ain't much if you have a family.  We also need to reevaluate payroll taxes.

Yes, payroll taxes should go all the way up to the highest incomes.  But I would prefer a top regular income tax rate in the 70 percent range.

Clinton had the right idea.  Balance growth with overall fairness and don't kill people on taxes- the Third Way.  He may have went a little too far on deregulation.  Too much Keynesianism causes stagflation as witnessed in the 1970s.  Too much favortism towards the rich caused the Great Depression and the mess we have now.   

[Sbane]

I think we need to raise the rate into the low 40s, but in a new $1 million+ bracket.  $400,000 in places like NYC or SF really ain't much if you have a family.  We also need to reevaluate payroll taxes.

Yes, payroll taxes should go all the way up to the highest incomes.  But I would prefer a top regular income tax rate in the 70 percent range.

Clinton had the right idea.  Balance growth with overall fairness and don't kill people on taxes- the Third Way.  He may have went a little too far on deregulation.  Too much Keynesianism causes stagflation as witnessed in the 1970s.  Too much favortism towards the rich caused the Great Depression and the mess we have now.   

I agree. There certainly needs to be some balance between the different economic theories. Relying on just one theory can cause problems, such as the republicans caused by relying too much on tax cuts. Tax cutting was great when the top tax rate was 60% but they have a different economic effect when you cut them from 40 to 35%.

[opebo]

Too much Keynesianism causes stagflation as witnessed in the 1970s.  

Actually that was the oil price shocks coupled with Keyensianism.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we need to raise the rate into the low 40s, but in a new $1 million+ bracket.  $400,000 in places like NYC or SF really ain't much if you have a family.  We also need to reevaluate payroll taxes.

Yes, payroll taxes should go all the way up to the highest incomes.  But I would prefer a top regular income tax rate in the 70 percent range.

Clinton had the right idea.  Balance growth with overall fairness and don't kill people on taxes- the Third Way.  He may have went a little too far on deregulation.  Too much Keynesianism causes stagflation as witnessed in the 1970s.  Too much favortism towards the rich caused the Great Depression and the mess we have now.   

I agree. There certainly needs to be some balance between the different economic theories. Relying on just one theory can cause problems, such as the republicans caused by relying too much on tax cuts. Tax cutting was great when the top tax rate was 60% but they have a different economic effect when you cut them from 40 to 35%.

The Republicans essentially screwed up when they read to much into Reagan's success in the 80's and failing to see the the differences between then and now.

With the Deficit going to hit about 2 Trillion this year or close to it and Obama will get us moving up pretty quickly. For instance Bush increased the debt by 5 Trillion Dollars over 8 years, Obama will reach that in 3 or 4 years. Keep in mind also that if the Economy doesn't meet the rosy growth projections in Obama's budget it will happen a lot a quicker.

Yes, and the argument is that the top tax rate is still too low - in point of fact unchanged from the right-wing years!

Yes but taking it up to even 45% would barely make a dent in the deficit. We shouldn't forget that Clinton raised taxes on everyone, not just the rich. Plus Obama is increasing spending much faster then Clinton was. For instance even Obama's model's which include the top two tax rates going up(39% and 36%) still have a 700 Billion dollar deficit four years from now. Remember that he is also factoring in high growth rates over the next few years. The consensus is that the growth rates will be half as much. Even if the Growth rates are that high Obama will ad 3 to 4 Trillion dollars in Debt over the next four years. And we will still be running a higher deficit then under any previous President, even if his numbers are true.

[12th Doctor]

Here's who you can blame for our debt.

Amusing, eh?

OMGZ.... this economy stuff is actually complicated.

BTW... notice in the last graph how, with one exception, unemployment always seems to spike at the tail end of Democrat Administrations, and has traditionally waned at the end of Republican ones.  The one exception being from Eisenhower to Kennedy, which is strange because Kennedy was the one Democrat President who pursued what would now be thought of as "conservative" economic policies.

The National Debt climbed alot under Reagan, but he came into office with some of the highest inflation rates in history, and his primary goal in fixing the economy was to get the money supply under control, which he did with stunning success.  Even though this accelerated the downturn that was already well underway when Carter left, it also stunted a much larger economic malaise that would have dominated the 80's had Reagan not acted.

But, I wouldn't expect you to understand any of this.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Looking at that map makes me glad I'm not an American or Italian for that matter.

And I have to agree with some of the conservatives here, even though Reaganomics is mostly to blame, Obama hasn't done better... yet. I'm still hoping he will improve, and in a year or two manage to balance his budget and get things going in the right direction again. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[12th Doctor]

Looking at that map makes me glad I'm not an American or Italian for that matter.

And I have to agree with some of the conservatives here, even though Reaganomics is mostly to blame, Obama hasn't done better... yet. I'm still hoping he will improve, and in a year or two manage to balance his budget and get things going in the right direction again. I'm not holding my breath though.

No, Reaganomics is not to blame.  "Lower taxes" was not Reagan's entire economic plan.  Getting inflation under control while avoiding a massive economic depression, which Reagan did with more success than any President, was actually the key goal of the Reagan economic policy, and he achieved this with flying colors.

Reagan inherited one of the worst economies in history from Carter, who had inherited a pretty bad economy from Nixon/Ford, who had inherited a huge downturn from Johnson, who had messed up the Kennedy recover, which was a recovery from what was actually a pretty bad economy going back to WWII (the 50's were a myth, made possible only by artificial government manipulation of the into the economy).

Reagan desperately needed to reverse the trend that had put them there, which was essentially decades of economic policy that was scattered, incoherent, and heavier on fluff than on results.  The fact that we were now stuck in one of the most bizarre economic arrangements in global history did not help... but Reagan had a significant hand in ending that as well.