National debt seen heading for crisis level

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/5/10 | Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

[AzaleaCity5691]

True and false.

It is probably true that if they had done nothing during the Great Depression we might have naturally returned to full employment late in the 1930s.

The problem was, by the time Franklin Roosevelt came in it looked as if our government might collapse. Roosevelt did most of the things he did out of a belief that if you didn’t then the system would fail. The New Deal was not about restoring hope to America or in of that other BS. It was about one thing and one thing only. Preserving public order and preserving the government of the United States of America. Let no one tell you any different.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Actually, many federal government jobs are worse for the economy than just sending out entitlement checks for no work. They are both negative, but a federal job is often a waste of money AND time.

[Norman Bates]

To start a quote in italics use this grouping < i > except no spaces. Then enter the text. To close the italics quote use this grouping < / i > except no spaces. But when using HTML you have to format paragraphs as well. < br > will give you a one line break. < p > will start a new paragraph (a two line break).

For bold < b > and to close < / b > again no spaces.

[DoughtyOne]

Look, you can try to comfort yourself by playing games with the figures, but the recognized government debt when Bush took over was around $5.7 billion dollars. When he left office it was around 10.?. I have forgotten the exact figures since I looked it up, but the growth percentage was just over 90%.

It really disturbs me to people on my side try to fudge the figures to absolve their fair haired guy.

The debt Obama has amassed since Bush left office can be jobbed too if folks put their efforts behind. Why can’t we just be honest with ourselves?

At the present rate, Obama will nearly double the national debt in his first term. We’re basing that on the figure when Bush left office.

If we game these numbers, they cease to of any value whatsoever.

[avacado]

"Look, you can try to comfort yourself by playing games with the figures, but the recognized government debt when Bush took over was around $5.7 billion dollars. When he left office it was around 10.?."

I explained very clearly what defines national debt as opposed to budget deficit. If you need to not learn, fine by me.

[DoughtyOne]

You really don’t get it do you. We are giving away trillions, and you’re upset about billions. It’s the oldest game in the leftist play-book. Get the Conservatives on our side by appearing to try to cut the national debt by cutting sound institutions, while blowing out the expenditures for things we have no business of funding.

If you are serious about cutting back, start talking about the government handouts.

[j-damn]

*And before you attack me just consider how this country responded to WWI and II vs the current one. In both cases people were asked to sacrifice and they did. *

Millions of men and women under arms and the entire globe [save S. America] were war theaters or on war footing.

No comparison.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Confiscating gold, destroying incentives for productive labor, and dinking around with public projects did not improve America’s economic situation or quality of life. I guess you could label FDR a success... if you regard the increase of central planning power as the goal, but it’s my view the purpose of just government is to protect liberty. FDR attacked liberty and private property.

[Norman Bates]

Italics:

< i >Give me a break.< / i >

Give me a break.

Bold:

< b >We are a nation of 310 million people.< / b >

We are a nation of 310 million people.

With one line break:

< i >Give me a break.< / i >< br > < b >We are a nation of 310 million people.< / b >

Give me a break.
We are a nation of 310 million people.

With paragraph break:

< i >Give me a break.< / i >< p > < b >We are a nation of 310 million people.< / b >

Give me a break.

We are a nation of 310 million people.

Underscore:

< u >80% of the population lives in urban areas.< / u >

80% of the population lives in urban areas.

Strikeout:

< s >The idea that any substantial number people can survive on subsistence farming is nonsense.< / s >

The idea that any substantial number people can survive on subsistence farming is nonsense.

[kabar]

Plenty of people in urban areas had victory gardens during World War II. I live in a city of 200,000 in a metro area of 600,000. I would say that almost everyone who has a yard in the city I live in has the capability to grow enough food to keep their families alive. It might only be enough to sustain 1,000 calories a day but it is enough to keep them alive.

The America of WWII is far different than we have now. We had only 132 million people. They weren't as concentrated in urban areas. We also did not have a welfare state except for the nascent SS program. One in 8 Americans now receives food stamps. One in five is on Medicaid. We have a society that is largely based on an entitlement mentality and sees government as their benefactor. America living on 1000 calories a day would spark a revolution and chaos.

those ARMs wouldn’t matter because very quickly the principal would be settled and the government would definitely step in and modify the mortgages so that people couldn’t get screwed on interest.

LOL. Yeah government is the answer so people "don't get screwed on interest." Whatever happened to personal accountability and the rule of law as applies to contractural obligations?

[dfwgator]

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[DoughtyOne]

To hear you tell it, the $900 billion TARP program left only $1 trillion more in debt that Bush was responsible for in eight years. Take the medication addition to Medicare out, and hey, the national debt didn’t really increase after all, because of Bush actions. Who cares if the national debt went from $5.7 trillion to over $10 trillion under him. Not a problem at all...

Meanwhile we have to service the whole national debt.

So one again, play your dumb ass games if you like, we’re still having to service the total debt.

The national debt went up from $5.7 to around $10.? dollars, and you think that absolves Bush of any responsibility.

Okay great. Then don’t come to this forum and criticize Obama debt any longer.

It you think it’s okay for our guy to watch the national debt go up by 90% on his watch, then don’t come here and belch if the national debt goes up by 90% on Obama’s watch.

I’ll be here taking both party’s leaders to task on the issue.

[kabar]

Whether it is a state job or a federal job every job that there is increases consumption and demand for that consumption and in the case of the federal government, the higher job security increases the likelihood of more consumption from the person holding it, thereby increasing demand and pepping up the private market.

Where did you learn your economics? Who the hell do you think pays for those federal employee salaries? Where does the money come from? The federal government produces nothing except for more federal jobs. The private sector pays for the costs of government. The money that goes to the government in the form of higher taxes takes money out of the private sector.

[Norman Bates]

Well we could start with a strict curtailment of foreign aid. We have to put our house in order first.

Could farm subsidies be ended?

[Cheap_Hessian]

There is no value in consumption. Demand is limitless but supply is scarce.

[Uncle Hal]

Interesting the SF Chronicle would have this since they are one of the biggest rooters for Obama in the MSM.

[boxlunch]

Where did you learn your economics? Who the hell do you think pays for those federal employee salaries? Where does the money come from? The federal government produces nothing except for more federal jobs. The private sector pays for the costs of government. The money that goes to the government in the form of higher taxes takes money out of the private sector.

Ditto that!

[DoughtyOne]

Norman, we are at war with other global players. Yes we do provide foreign aid to other nations. And if we weren’t doing it, it would be about ten minutes before China would be. And then our troops would be brought home from around the world and guess whose would replace them.

It is all a part of hegemony and who is going to fill the global vacuum of leadership.

If we look at foreign aid as a percentage of our national spending (even healthy spending), it’s not outlandish at all.

The United States has had a more stable food supply than just about any other nation on earth. We have sold wheat and other food stuffs to nations all over the world. Part of the reason why food prices don’t fluctuate, and whole food lines don’t go from surplus to zero every so often, is because the government pays varying amounts of people to not grow food. The prices stay roughly steady, and it remains profitable for people that do produce, to do so.

I get the government involvement part of it, and I don’t necessarily like it. I’m just not convinced we would get the outcome we wanted if the farm subsidies were eliminated.

I am not happy to see those funds growing exponentially, so I do see some problems. And after saying all this, if someone could come to me with a great explanation that would reveal how things could be stabilized as well without all of them, I would be willing to listen.

[unkus]

National Defense is going to take a disasterous hit.

[mojitojoe]

I see a declining global role for the US and a reduction in defense spending. Unfortunately, we will not have the luxury of someone else picking up the bill like Europe did, i.e., the US provided the security umbrella to allow them to increase the social welfare state.
___________
Bingo!! Thank goodness someone else understands this.