Portugal is junk

Remove all ads!

I define the debt by the actual numerical representation of that concept. Any other way of expressing it is false.

 

Again, I will post it for just you, because I want to help and the issue of the debt is important, as DMC notes in the topic:

 

jeez are you really this dense or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
The Nat'l debt went UP every single year, there is no way to argue there was a surplus. Want to see the numbers for other presidents?

 

Actually, I was thinking the same thing about you, but I was trying not to be a jerk to you. Ah, well....

 

_statement deleted by author_

(actually this statement should be in a PM as it detracts from the issue at hand)

 

Well, if you say so. I guess you just don't like being argued with on some topics. You didn't bother to explain who was actually lying until I called you on it. But I'll just take that part of it as a misunderstanding. Yes, I did call you on your post, which provided no links, no evidence to support your claims and although I still commented that your point came from a different PoV, which I also showed why you might believe what you did, nevertheless, I guess you wish to continue to ignore that.

Nevertheless, I posted a good source which proved my point about HOW the deficit was defined by different approaches. And I will post it again for you, one last time:

So you don't agree??? Surprise!

 

Trying to say that you can represent the nat'l debt any other way that a true numerical representaion is just dishonest smoke & mirrors.
And again I will post for you,

You can't say you saved money when you borrowed an additional $1.39 trillion dollars during that time. The only way to do that is to use "washington" math where 2+2 = 1.
Also you are being dishonest since you know that the public debt is just a part of the nat'l debt.

 

Cut the "dishonest" crap, rg. Either you can debate the issue on the facts, or you can't. It depends upon how one defines "debt." I will post it for you again:

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

And this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/

But I guess it's just easier for you to claim that those who disagree with you, while presenting multiple sources that contradict your beliefs, are just "dishonest."

 

It feels like I have just read the same two posts eight times over. I swear I haven't had that much to drink that I'm seeing things in eights.

 

Hmm, now I'm interested if the treasury website indexes its figures for inflation. Even at low rates (i.e. 2% per year), dollars in 2000 will likely cost less than dollars in 1990.

 

Shaman,

While I believe the interest rate is closer to 3%, your statement is true. It is for that reason that most economists agree that having some level of national debt isn't a bad thing - just not as high as what we currently have.

 

Chandos, FACT the nat'l debt went UP 1.3 Trillion under clinton. How can you try to claim there was a surplus? Everything you have posted is partisan trickery.(I want to clarify this, I'm not saying you are the one using partisan trickery, just those that came up with the statements)
[Seperate issue that illustrates the problem]
Remember the CBO is only allowed to use the figures given to them. Thats how they were able to say obamacare would save money, they took out the doctors supplemental bill(the so called "doc fix") which is 200 billion over 2010-2019. CBO, stated it would save 143 billion over this time period.

As far as those intra governmental obligations go?

Now you could make the argument that as a percentage of GDP, the nat'l debt has been reduced by clinton. I can agree with that, however, the nat'l debt in terms of the actual amount still went up.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

That's exactly right. The government should not have a surplus at all, since it means that they are taking more than they have to, and that's a bad thing for the economy, unless that capital is somewhere reinvested.

While the government shouldn't be run like a business, the fact is businesses borrow money all the time, even VERY profitable businesses borrow money. They borrow money during the fiscal year and in the end of year still make a profit. Large institutions borrow money all the time. So what's the big deal?

Coming from you that's a freakin' joke. Did you even bother to look at the site you linked? Talk about partisan hacks....

Edit: You still have not been able to come to terms that there are two ways to measure the debt: Gross and net, depending upon which is used. The CBO and the Treasury used the "net" figures as was pointed out in the Politifact evaluation on the truth meter. They quoted both a conservative and a liberal economist that explained the difference, which you should take the time to read. That would certainly clear things up a bit for you.

 

Yeah, this is complicated stuff that I really wish I understood. I know that national debt is not the same as personal debt (since we as individuals are not allowed to print money). I know that a lot of the debt is the result of trade imbalances. Since we buy more from China than they buy from us, that leaves a surplus of dollars in Chinese coffers. The fed then has the option of printing more money to fill the local gap (but still raising the total world dollar amount in the process--i.e. inflation), or to entice China to return those dollars by offering interest and a promise to one day pay in-full. Ideally this repayment would then be done at a time when China is buying more from us than we are from them, thereby allowing Chinese consumers to not become dollar starved so that they may continue to buy American goods (and returning those dollars to the American market in a non-inflationary manner.) Problem is, that scenerio has not availed itself to us for a long, long time--and doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future either...


You know, sometimes I wonder if this whole world debt crisis rigamarole is really just a lot of end-is-nigh fear-mongering. I mean, what is debt? It is to owe someone else for something that you have consumed. You now owe them something of equal value which they may consume at a future date. OK. So how can all the major powers of the world be in such massive debt? Has the entire world consumed more than it produced? That is not possible. Consumption plus savings has to equal production, right? So then what is this "debt"?

 

True dat. But not all of the world is in massive debt. China, as you point out, has a surplus. So does Saudi Arabia, and a whole lot of other oil-producing Middle Eastern nations.

 

Are we talking about public debt now or foreign debt? I'm not quite on clear. I think it's public debt though in which case domestic actors (banks) usually own a great share of the debt and its only in part financed by foreign actors, in these cases too banks are the greatest owners. Governments technically gain very little in taking debt of foreign countries. Importing money => Larger money supply => Higher rate of inflation.

However there is a indirect advantage which China is currently applying much to annoyance of the western world. When they import foreign currency and public debt they can use it to bolster their currency reserves which in turn can be used for currency manipulation. China keeps the value of the Yuan low by using these currency reserves to their advantage. The low value of the Yuan in turn allows them to get a competitive advantage for their exports.

 

I would assume, at least on the ongoing topic of national debt, that it refers to both domestic (public) and foreign debt.

 

Yes but foreign debt in itself is a common economic indicator and includes both private and public debt abroad.

EDIT: Public debt abroad is typically called sovereign debt instead. Of course I've seen enough variations between European and American term usage to know that it might be different in the US.

 

Yes, there may be different usages, but I think we're talking about total debt. I also don't hear much use of the terms private versus public debt in the news, and I think that's because of how we use the term. If you asked the typical American about public debt, they would probably assume you are talking aobut the Social Security trust fund, and the amount of money the government owes the fund.

(The SS fund is currently solvent - every year more money has been paid into it than has been paid out. However, the government hasn't built a big bank to hold all the excess money it gets every year. It takes the excess and uses it for other programs, and basically rights an IOU to the trust fund. The problem is that within the next few years, the projected number of payments will exceed what has been taken in, but there's no money in there to make up the shortfall. I will point out that this particular example should be a low priority for the US to pay back. Paying it back won't make our nation any richer or poorer, because we basically owe this money to ourselves.)