NationStates Jolt Archive

Here (http://toptips.com/debtclock.html) is what our current debt stands at, thanks to our brilliant government of past and present. I am utterly dismayed.

Here (http://toptips.com/debtclock.html) is what our current debt stands at, thanks to our brilliant government of past and present. I am utterly dismayed.

Thanks FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and other Bush.

Also, I would like to thank the honorable dictators of Hussein, Stalin and other Soviet Leaders, Hitler, Tojo, Noriega, etc.

I would also like to thank Congress as well since they control the purse strings. Don't you guys know how to cut programs that are needless?

Here (http://toptips.com/debtclock.html) is what our current debt stands at, thanks to our brilliant government of past and present. I am utterly dismayed.

You're not alone with the dismaying national debt clocks...

http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml

(Does yours include state and municipal debt as well as federal, or just federal?)

I would also like to thank Congress as well since they control the purse strings. Don't you guys know how to cut programs that are needless?
You mean like the cost of the needless war in Iraq? (http://costofwar.com/index-public-education.html)

You mean like tax cuts that favoured the rich? (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2005-daily/17-11-2005/world/w1.htm)

You mean like a military that costs the equivalent of all the rest of the world's militaries combined? (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

Bush + Republican Congress = huge debt

So much for fiscal conservatives huh?

You mean like the cost of the needless war in Iraq? (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)

You mean like tax cuts that favoured the rich? (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2005-daily/17-11-2005/world/w1.htm)

You mean like a military that costs the equivalent of all the rest of the world's militaries combined? (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

Bush + Republican Congress = huge debt

So much for fiscal conservatives huh?
I don't apologize for anyone when it comes to the nation debt, but I will say this. HOLY PROPAGANDA WEBSITES BATMAN!

Thanks FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and other Bush.

Also, I would like to thank the honorable dictators of Hussein, Stalin and other Soviet Leaders, Hitler, Tojo, Noriega, etc.

I would also like to thank Congress as well since they control the purse strings. Don't you guys know how to cut programs that are needless?

Don't forget to thank the person that invented national debt. When everything still had to be paid in gold, there was no such thing.
So thank you King of England, William of Orange, for inventing national debt in 1694 to finance the war against the French. Another great invention by us Dutch. (Well, ok, he's probably more german, but he was stadhouder for the Netherlands when England asked him to become King there)

Don't worry...this will all be paid off once every man, woman, child AND dog in the United States pays 16,000 dollars...

Perhaps you would prefer the Institute for Policy Studies (http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/#us)?

C. Economic Costs

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.

Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: In August 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels would nearly double the projected federal budget deficit over the next ten years. According to current estimates, during that time the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion.

Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 210,000 of the National Guard’s 330,000 soldiers have been called up, with an average mobilization of 460 days. Government studies show that about half of all reservists and Guard members report a loss of income when they go on active duty—typically more than $4,000 a year. About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service and are especially likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.

The cost of service?

Thanks FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and other Bush.

<ahem>

The Federal deficit was reduced every single year Clinton was in office. I'd be interested in seeing how you reason out that he gets a share of the blame here.

pitty they dont have the same for australia....

The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved four spending bills for Iraq with funds totaling $204.4 billion and is in the process of approving a “bridge fund” for $45.3 billion to cover operations until another supplemental spending package can be passed, most likely slated for Spring 2006. Broken down per person in the United States, the cost so far is $727, making the Iraq War the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years.


Extremely misleading. World War 2 cost the equivalent of 2.091 trillion dollars or $15,655.17 per person, and Vietnam/Korea cost 346.7 and 263.9 billion each, with per capita costs of 1,739.62 and 1,692.04. Furthermore, much of the Iraq money hasn't even been spent yet, so it's possible that the money might ultimately be refunded or rechanneled in to other programs.

The Federal deficit was reduced every single year Clinton was in office. I'd be interested in seeing how you reason out that he gets a share of the blame here.

He still ran deficits, and you also have to remember that none of the national debt was ever paid down despite the surpluses of the late 90's. Now that doesn't mean he deserves castigation for this; the fiscal prudence of the 90's was an excellent move both by the president and Congress.

Quit whining, it's been in the trillions for ages. Oh well!!

Quit whining, it's been in the trillions for ages. Oh well!!
And the holder of the second most US securities? Communist China.

China is still the second-biggest holder of Treasuries with more than US$243 billion (HK$1.9 trillion) at the end of June, up from US$165 billion a year earlier.

I find that kind of ironic, to say the least.

And the holder of the second most US securities? Communist China.

China is still the second-biggest holder of Treasuries with more than US$243 billion (HK$1.9 trillion) at the end of June, up from US$165 billion a year earlier.

I find that kind of ironic, to say the least.

They can demand the money all they like. It doesn't mean we'll give it to them!!!! Plenty of nations did that!

[i]China is still the second-biggest holder of Treasuries with more than US$243 billion (HK$1.9 trillion) at the end of June, up from US$165 billion a year earlier.[/i.

They are the safest investment in the world, and have the highest interest rate of any nation in the OECD. China would be buying Treasuries even if we wern't running up debt because they're a great investment.

They are the safest investment in the world, and have the highest interest rate of any nation in the OECD. China would be buying Treasuries even if we wern't running up debt because they're a great investment.
That and they need plenty of US Dollars to keep their currency peg.

<ahem>

The Federal deficit was reduced every single year Clinton was in office. I'd be interested in seeing how you reason out that he gets a share of the blame here.

<Ahem>

We're talking about the debt and NOT the deficit. Thanks for not paying attention though.

And CH, if you noticed, I did say the other Bush. Thanks for not paying attention as well.

That and they need plenty of US Dollars to keep their currency peg.

True. Personally, I believe China should loosen the peg because it gives them an unfair trade advantage and increases our trade deficit with them (of course, resulting in the buying more treasuries) through undervalued currency rather than demand.

True. Personally, I believe China should loosen the peg because it gives them an unfair trade advantage and increases our trade deficit with them (of course, resulting in the buying more treasuries) through undervalued currency rather than demand.

I thought China had bowed to pressure a few months ago and unpegged?

<google search>

Yes, yes they did. In July.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100351.html

I thought China had bowed to pressure a few months ago and unpegged?
Yes, yes they did. In July.

They kind of did; they allowed it to increase in strength slightly and gave it a small trading range. I wanted them to gradually go further and loosen it more and more until it became totally unpegged, but for now that is not going to happen.

Thanks for the article; I actually needed to find what they loosened it too and a few other numbers.

True. Personally, I believe China should loosen the peg because it gives them an unfair trade advantage and increases our trade deficit with them (of course, resulting in the buying more treasuries) through undervalued currency rather than demand.
You're assuming too much maliciousness. ;)

Problem is that a fully free exchange rate will lead to
a) Real Inflation rates becoming similar
b) A breakdown of fiscal policy

I think it's primarily the second point - the Chinese are obviously good with fiscal policy, but not so good with monetary policy, given that their financial system is more or less running on borrowed time. Floating their currency now would kill them, or at least hurt a lot.
So they do it slowly, while reforming their banking system so that in the future the OMOs of their central bank will work properly.

Yes, yes they did. In July.
That was part of the slow move towards free exchange rates. You can expect them to keep doing it slowly - increasing the range (immediatly resulting in it resting at the top limit again) in small steps over years and years.

You're assuming too much maliciousness. ;)

What can I say? I have to admit though, I was one of the few people around here who wanted CNOOC to buy Unocal.

Problem is that a fully free exchange rate will lead to
a) Real Inflation rates becoming similar
b) A breakdown of fiscal policy

I think it's primarily the second point - the Chinese are obviously good with fiscal policy, but not so good with monetary policy, given that their financial system is more or less running on borrowed time. Floating their currency now would kill them, or at least hurt a lot.
So they do it slowly, while reforming their banking system so that in the future the OMOs of their central bank will work properly.

I hadn't considered the effects it would have on monetary policy; that definitely is an excellent reason to slow down; China most definitely wants to avoid another 1997-esque crisis for more reason than one, and if they were to unpeg it suddenly, it would undoubtedly happen as the yuan surged.

Wow. As interesting as that site is, I don't know if I can trust something with that many advertisements, so many spelling and grammer mistakes, and a lot of sentences which end in an !.
All it all it was very poignant about the people we vote into office and how the money is spent. Also it didn’t say anything about debt, although thought of as a terrible thing, to actually be a beneficial thing. The things we spend our money on are “investments” and could in future days. Take Iraq, although a giant mess and every day we hemorrhage money on that there is a chance it could develop and from tariffs we gain money, and from their independence and prominence they take up fights which we might. Lets not get into that, but debt is a good thing. Remember haste makes waste; money sitting around is not growing.
I think this web pages point is about the wasteful spending, which I can see. I personally think maybe the government should tighten its belt a little bit more, perhaps squeeze some pennies, cut a lot of fat from government programs, and maybe make sure contracts are projects are running to full efficiency. Sadly this administration hasn’t done that in the past and probably won’t do that now.

National debt is superficial. There is no way we are ever going to pay it off. It is just an accumulating number that the government exploits to crank up taxes.

National debt is superficial. There is no way we are ever going to pay it off. It is just an accumulating number that the government exploits to crank up taxes.
It really does exist.
There are many people in the world who have a piece of paper that says "I.O.U." issued by the US Government. It's not simply some number, it's not superficial - it is real dollars, real money that has to come from somewhere.

<Ahem>

We're talking about the debt and NOT the deficit. Thanks for not paying attention though.

...

:rolleyes:

...

Ummm...

...

No, I won't say it. You couldn't actually be that dense. That had to have been satire or something... no taking the bait for me

He still ran deficits,

Considering the massive deficit he was handed by Bush Sr that was an inevitability.

I would also like to thank Congress as well since they control the purse strings. Don't you guys know how to cut programs that are needless?
I love how us socialist canadians are running a surplus with all these nice social programs while you guys have an absolutely massive defecit.


Oddly enough, this is the second time today I pointed this out. My dad was complaining about the liberals here, I pointed out how the provincial conservatives (Ontario) left a large defecit and how in the states, the current defecit was enormous... it's not just the "socialist" governing parties that can rack up defecits.

It really does exist.
There are many people in the world who have a piece of paper that says "I.O.U." issued by the US Government. It's not simply some number, it's not superficial - it is real dollars, real money that has to come from somewhere.
I"m curious, since you seem to know more about this subject than I do...

But who do countries go to when they borrow so much money? What happens if a country breaks into little pieces or gets taken over and doesn't exist anymore? Does the debt just disappear? I'm genuninely curious.

That piece of paper, we have to pay it back flat causing more debt... We can't just not pay. I mean we could by liquidating the funds, almost like bankruptcy, but that will drive trust in American bonds, and even American currency that as we all know is backed by trust in the government, down. Or we can pay it back by cutting programs, which does lower the debt, but also lowers our capital wealth. Options one and three work. Both promote trust and bond buying, stabilizing the debt. Option three is only if we believe the debt is out of control. Centralizing and simplifying everything means less is wasted and more efficient, just worth less and easier to bring back a surplus.

I"m curious, since you seem to know more about this subject than I do...
I just do Economics, not international finance and the like...so I'm not a real specialist either.

But who do countries go to when they borrow so much money?
Anyone I believe. You could go to your government and buy a bond from them, and that would be a little bit of national debt.
In practice they have corporations, other countries (in the US' case a lot of it goes to China) and all sorts of people.

What happens if a country breaks into little pieces or gets taken over and doesn't exist anymore? Does the debt just disappear?
Yes. It's a bit of a legal issue, but generally people just quickly try to get rid of their bonds from governments that look like they're gonna be gone soon.
It's about credit ratings and the like - that was the issue they were worried about with the debt cancellation for all those African countries earlier this year.

to Dakini... "But who do countries go to when they borrow so much money? What happens if a country breaks into little pieces or gets taken over and doesn't exist anymore? Does the debt just disappear? I'm genuninely curious."

YES!!!

Prime example, Iraq. Saddam owed SOOO much money to France... just one of the many reasons why France didn't want us to invade. All the contracts and bonds were signed to the Bathest regime, not to the country. Once the regime was toppled those contracts and bonds owed to Frace were worth as much as the paper they were printed on.
Remember most currency is backed by trust. France cant collect money from a dead regime thats worthless.
Think of American Currency, the basic unit of internation trade is the US 100 dollar bill. Why? because people trust the economy and the government which backs it.
Also when they borrowed so much money that they can't pay back, what do they do, sell more bonds, tax, cut programs, or sell thigns from one government to another ie. weapons.

Ironically, the "National Debt Clock" is an incredibly complex and expensive piece of machinery. It takes nearly 40 thousand federal employees to maintain it, and the expense consumes nearly 30 percent of the nation's Federal budget.

Here (http://toptips.com/debtclock.html) is what our current debt stands at, thanks to our brilliant government of past and present. I am utterly dismayed.

Something to remember.

If you owe the bank 500 dollars, you have a problem.

If you owe the world over a trillion dollars, the world has a problem.

Think about it - the rest of the world can't afford to have the US fail to pay them back. The crash would take the whole world down.

It is a global community and i think other nations are helping. Here, sadly, i do not know any specifics. Post some plz :) !

<Ahem>

We're talking about the debt and NOT the deficit. Thanks for not paying attention though.

And CH, if you noticed, I did say the other Bush. Thanks for not paying attention as well.
I guess you are not an accountant either? Increased deficits create increased National Debts.

Besides, wasn't it you that stated:

"Don't you guys know how to cut programs that are needless?"

Programs are either cut or augmented, either decreasing or increasing the deficit. The fact remains that even if you decrease the deficit, the National Debt continues to increase. The only time that the Debt gets payed down is when there is a budgetary surplus.

George Bush and his Republican honchos have created record deficits.

And I do not know why you included Clinton on the list. He is the first President in over 50 years to actually run a budgetary surplus. How did he do that? Oh yeah, by cutting military spending.

BTW, Corny, what "needless" programs would you cut?

Think about it - the rest of the world can't afford to have the US fail to pay them back. The crash would take the whole world down.
Total GDP on the planet: About US$ 55.5 trillion.

It'll hurt, but rest assured that it'll hurt the US much more than it will hurt the rest of the world. The direct effect is simply stronger than the indirect one.