|
|
When the Clock Goes, "Tock-Tick"
Those of you who think the national debt is a real and present danger to the country should find this very reassuring:
... The debt clock is now ticking backwards.As a portion of GDP, total debt is 64.6% and dropping; publicly held debt (the more important statistic) is 36.2% and dropping. This blog is one of the few places on the web, if not the only one, where that good news is prominently displayed. Everyone else is just giving you a partial score; try googling "debt clock" and see what I mean.
Now, there was a whole bunch of people out there who gave the Clinton administration all sorts of kudos for balancing the budget and paying off the debt. With the budget on track to balance itself late next year, and the debt already being payed down, shouldn't we expect the same for the current administration? You know, the one that managed it without the largest tax increase in US history?
Dammit. I hate when heads explode in the left side of the peanut gallery. It makes such a mess.
Oh god.
I don't want to see another argument of deficit vs. debt again.
Posted by: ellen on August 8, 2007 12:12 PMI do - it's fun to be right.
Posted by: Ron on August 8, 2007 12:35 PM The Fed just lowered the banks' borrowing rate. The stated purpose was to encourage bank borrowing.
Now think about it: The Fed wants banks to borrow more. Why?
Because increased borrowing increases the supply of money in the economy, and a growing economy requires a growing supply of money.
In fact, all money is debt. There is no form of money that is not debt.
So, increased debt is required if the economy is to grow.
Every depression in U.S. history began after a series of federal surpluses. Every recovery began with federal deficits.
The Clinton surpluses led to the most recent recession, while the Bush deficits led to the recovery.
Historically, Total Debt (public and private) debt growth parallels GDP growth.
Two more facts: Debt growth has not increased inflation. The federal government cannot go bankrupt. Even were all federal taxes to be eliminated, the federal government would not go bankrupt and we would not have inflation.
Now tell me again: Why all the concern about federal debt, and the future of federal agencies, Social Security and Medicare?
Posted by: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell on August 22, 2007 10:42 AMTwo more facts: Debt growth has not increased inflation. The federal government cannot go bankrupt. Even were all federal taxes to be eliminated, the federal government would not go bankrupt and we would not have inflation.
Are these your predictions or actual facts? And if they're facts, what support do you offer?
Posted by: ron on August 22, 2007 12:08 PMOnly half right... the Fed can't go bankrupt, because they are the ones that print the money. Or more accurately, they are the ones that give their money any value. Instead of going bankrupt, governments cause runaway inflation until people simply stop using their currency because simple barter is less effort than hauling around literal truckloads of worse-than-worthless paper.
The only bankruptcy governments experience is being overthrown, and governments can easily ensure that the only possible source of such coups is either their own military, or an outsider's.
Posted by: Tatterdemalian on August 23, 2007 09:43 AMOddly enough, that's what I thought. But the view was interesting enough that I figured I'd ask for proof.
Especially the no tax proposition. Just doesn't sound right.
Posted by: ron on August 23, 2007 10:03 AM