[Steven W.]

as they say, figures often lie and liars figure ;)

[AntiGuv]

Some very important & intriguing observations. Marked for later!

[Southack]

No doubt the gloom and doomers will rue this article!

[Thane_Banquo]

There are lies, damn lies, and...

[Blood of Tyrants]

Medicare... accounts for $37 trillion of the $44 trillion debt. Almost all the rest is accounted for by Social Security

The Rats have been squealing like stuck hogs over the $44 trillion number now it turns out that the cause of the debt is their programs.

[Tauzero]

"This fact puts a lie to the notion that recent tax cuts have somehow contributed significantly to a $44 trillion debt."

Umm yes.

"The imbalances in Social Security and Medicare are inherent in those programs and will not be cured except by fundamentally restructuring them. Raising taxes or rescinding recent tax cuts will not suffice. Payroll taxes would have to roughly double immediately and stay at that level forever to cover the deficit, or income taxes would have to rise by 70 percent.

Of course, if taxes did rise by such an amount, future economic growth would be affected. We would not get $682 trillion of GDP in the future, but considerably less. That will require even higher taxes to pay promised benefits, which in turn will further reduce growth."

Umm, yes. Bruce neatly summarizes exactly why this is worth worrying about.

[playball0]

Very well-reasoned. It's unusual to see a publish article on government taxes and finance so well thought out.

[E=MC²]

I've been wondering about prior posts comparing apples (today's economy) with oranges (net present value of the total U.S. debt in PERPETUITY). Finally, someone has pointed out this flaw.

[bjcintennessee]

Ping for later read.

[WRhine]

When the size of the future economy is calculated the same way as the $44 trillion debt figure, it comes to $682 trillion. Thus this astronomical debt that so alarmed the editors of the Financial Times turns out to equal just 6.5 percent of the gross domestic product — something to be concerned about, but hardly a crisis in the making.

Great! Let's keep on spending.

[ContentiousObjector]

What do you think of the national debt?

I like cheese

What?

I said, I like cheese

What does cheese have to do with the national debt?

Nothing

So why are we talking about cheese?

Because I like cheese

The above is a perfect example of a pointless discussion, comparing the national debt to the GDP is like talking about how much you like cheese, it's absolutly irrelevant.

Comparing the national debt or deficit to anything other than government revenue or tresury holding is pointless, unless you happen to favor 100% taxation.

The debt and deficit are absolutly out of control, if Al Gore were in the white house and this was happening every other thread on free republic would be devoted to trashing his irresponsible economic policy.

[SamAdams76]

So on a personal scale, I guess this means I can run up a $600,000 debt because I'll be making $10,000,000 a year 75 years from now. Now I might not make it another 75 years but you younger Freepers will cover for me, won't you?

[sourcery]

Key point: "When the size of the future economy is calculated the same way as the $44 trillion debt figure." The devil is in the details. Let's hope the reported projections of the size of the future economy are realistic, and not the product of Rosie Scenario.

Nevertheless, this would seem to be good news. And the identification of Medicare and Social Security as the main culprits would also seem to be good amunition against the Socialists.

[piasa]

.