Serious question, that has me worried

[PresidentTRUMP]

Okay forget the arguments over the election. Let's say the polls are right or close to it and Hillary wins Nov. 8th and becomes president.

How are we going to dig ourselves out of $17trillion in debt? We cant keep losing Billions a year and expect life to continue as it is. This by no means is a shot against her, any party, or any person. When our debt is now 73% of our GDP its a MAJOR MAJOR problem. The interest alone on the debt is crazy.

What can we do as a country to fix this? Is it already too late? How do we start paying this down.....

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Is this the new Buffalo Bill?

[Ebsy]

When Clinton takes office, the national debt will be rather close to 20 trillion, not 17 trillion.

[PresidentTRUMP]

I have no idea who that is and am not interested in jokes or anything of the like. This problem is as serious as any facing us, what is the solution, is there one at this point or is it to late already?

[MasterJedi]

Trump's plan grows the deficit by trillions, a lot more than Clinton. How do you defend that?

[heatcharger]

Perhaps a progressive tax policy coupled with cutting military spending would help relieve the debt. Of course, Republicans are not actually serious about this at all and think that the National Endowment for Arts makes up 50% of our budget.

[PresidentTRUMP]

When Clinton takes office, the national debt will be rather close to 20 trillion, not 17 trillion.

Okay, that's not comforting, what can she do to start paying it down? The interest alone is going to be huge. We can argue all we want about the election who we like ect. but this is something that really really worries me. Again, this is a problem created by everyone, blaming one side or the other isn't a solution....can we do something about this and what?

[PresidentTRUMP]

Trump's plan grows the deficit by trillions, a lot more than Clinton. How do you defend that?

I'm not here to argue about that. I already stated let's assume Clinton wins, that's fine, I will live. I am asking for real solutions or ideas in a meaningful discussion on how we can start paying it back.

Please let's not make this about Trump and Clinton. This thread isn't about that.

[Maxwell]

take this thread to economics or individual politics then if we can't talk about each candidates plans to deal with the debt.

[Del Tachi]

2016election, the national debt peaked at about 120% of GDP shortly following World War II in 1946.  By 1980, debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen to 30%.  How do you think that this happened, considering that at no point between 1945 and 1980 was the federal budget balanced?

Hint:  Not trying to be facetious; this is a very important math/economics/civics lesson.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the national debt is effectively meaningless lol

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

She plans to raise taxes on the wealthy, notably through the "Buffett Rule", which is simple, sensible and will go a long way to eliminating the kinds of tax loopholes which are starving our government of the money which it is going to spend anyway.

[PresidentTRUMP]

2016election, the national debt peaked at about 120% of GDP shortly following World War II in 1946.  By 1980, debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen to 30%.  How do you think that this happened, considering that at no point between 1945 and 1980 was the federal budget balanced?

Hint:  Not trying to be facetious; this is a very important math/economics/civics lesson.

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

[Yank2133]

I love how when Republicans lose elections they suddenly start to care about the debt.

[Person Man]

Wasn't it Reagan that said defecits don't matter?

[SirMuxALot]

It helps to recognize that monetary inflation is a form of taxation.  That's the only form of tax that is likely to pay off the debt.

Ds would like you to believe that if we just make the tax rate curve steep enough, we'll rake in so much revenue from those one-percenters that the problem takes care of itself.  The math does not support that theory.  Example: Impose a 100% tax rate on incomes > $1 million, and you only get revenue that covers 2-3 months of federal government spending.  And even if you do successfully impose such a tax, it should be obvious that you won't get anywhere that same level of revenue next year.

A decade of strong economic growth (say 4-5% a year) would also do wonders for federal revenues.  But of course, in order for that to help pay down debt, we would need to see some significant spending restraint over that same timeframe.  That has been politically difficult in the last 40-50 years.

So we're left with the insidious, hidden form of taxation known as inflation.  It doesn't mean we will have runaway Zimbabwe style hyper-inflation.  But inevitably we will see this secular trend of low inflation come to an end at some point.  Some even argue that the way the BLS currently calculates inflation is sufficiently flawed that the official inflation figures are already hiding much more significant current inflation rates.  John Williams at shadowstats.com makes that very case.

[Ebowed]

The only way to deal with the debt effectively is to completely vanquish the fiscally irresponsible Republicans once and for all.

Sadly, due to Republican obstruction in Congress, we have not been able to pay down the incredible deficits amassed by the George W. Bush administration.

We can only hope that the Republicans will be thrown out on November 8 so that we may finally be served by politicians who understand arithmetic.

[Del Tachi]

2016election, the national debt peaked at about 120% of GDP shortly following World War II in 1946.  By 1980, debt as a percentage of GDP had fallen to 30%.  How do you think that this happened, considering that at no point between 1945 and 1980 was the federal budget balanced?

Hint:  Not trying to be facetious; this is a very important math/economics/civics lesson.

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

Considering that the national debt was being added to every year between 1945 and 1980 (as there were no balanced budgets during that time), yet debt as a  % of GDP fell from 120% to 30%, what must have happened?

Hint:  Remember, that we are COMPARING debt to GDP.  So if debt is going ↑, how is debt as a % of GDP going ↓?  What must the relationship be between the change in debt and the change in GDP?

I really want you to get this.

[SirMuxALot]

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

His measure was a ratio.  Debt over GDP.  The cited high point post WWII was 120%.  That number went down.

The way it went down was not by the debt going down.  It went down by the GDP rising much faster than the debt.  (Denominator rose faster than numerator.)

That is indeed a potential answer to our present debt problem, but our current 1.5% GDP growth isn't getting that done.  If 1.5% GDP growth as far as the eye can see is indeed the new normal, then the debt ratio will not improve and it could reach a day of reckoning.

[Devout Centrist]

The debt should grow at a slower rate than it is currently. However, with the global bond markets crying for more debt, I don't see an issue right now.

Look, the number is meaningless and paying it off even more so. All that matters is preventing it from growing too large relative to our national GDP.

[SirMuxALot]

Sadly, due to Republican obstruction in Congress, we have not been able to pay down the incredible deficits amassed by the George W. Bush administration.

What was the biggest Bush deficit?  (Remember, if you're going to include a deficit that included TARP out-going payments, then you'll need to add the TARP payback amounts to the Obama deficits that he benefited from.)

What was the smallest Obama deficit?

What was the average Bush deficit?

What was the average Obama deficit?

And what exactly did the Republicans block that would have either: 1) lowered spending, or 2) increased revenue?  Remember that Obama did succeed in expiring the Bush top tax rate reductions, so the highest marginal rate is now actually above (when you include new surtaxes) what the top rate was when Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Neither candidate addresses this matter adequately; if they did, they'd by down by 20 points and 47 states.

The key, I would think, is to reduce and eliminate the deficit.  Such a step would reduce the percentage of GDP that interest on the debt is.  

This, by the way, might actually be something the parties could agree on.

[Del Tachi]

Please elaborate as i may be missing the obvious point you are trying to make, thank you.

His measure was a ratio.  Debt over GDP.  The cited high point post WWII was 120%.  That number went down.

The way it went down was not by the debt going down.  It went down by the GDP rising much faster than the debt.  (Denominator rose faster than numerator.)

That is indeed a potential answer to our present debt problem, but our current 1.5% GDP growth isn't getting that done.  If 1.5% GDP growth as far as the eye can see is indeed the new normal, then the debt ratio will not improve and it could reach a day of reckoning.

1.5% GDP growth as the "new normal" will definitely be the case if we keep slowing public expenditures at the risk of "growing the debt".

After the monstrous debt we had after World War II,  we bumped up public spending to build the Interstate Highway System, national electric grid, send GI's to college and buy them homes, and invest in medical/defense research.  This Cold War-fueled discretionary spending spree was why economic growth in the 20th Century was so astounding.

If we want the economy to grow in a way that makes the $20 trillion dollar debt a non-issue, we have to be willing to spend additional trillions of dollars to make similar kinds of investments in our 21st century economy.  

[Del Tachi]

Neither candidate addresses this matter adequately; if they did, they'd by down by 20 points and 47 states.

The key, I would think, is to reduce and eliminate the deficit.  Such a step would reduce the percentage of GDP that interest on the debt is.

This, by the way, might actually be something the parties could agree on.

Do you realize what kind of tangible costs this would have on all Americans, yourself included?

[Ebowed]

Sadly, due to Republican obstruction in Congress, we have not been able to pay down the incredible deficits amassed by the George W. Bush administration.

What was the biggest Bush deficit?  (Remember, if you're going to include a deficit that included TARP out-going payments, then you'll need to add the TARP payback amounts to the Obama deficits that he benefited from.)

What was the smallest Obama deficit?

What was the average Bush deficit?

What was the average Obama deficit?

And what exactly did the Republicans block that would have either: 1) lowered spending, or 2) increased revenue?  Remember that Obama did succeed in expiring the Bush top tax rate reductions, so the highest marginal rate is now actually above (when you include new surtaxes) what the top rate was when Bush was inaugurated in January 2001.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The George W. Bush administration jammed through a pharmaceutical corporate welfare law, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and two sets of tax cuts that went almost entirely to the wealthy and did nothing to improve the economy.

None of these programs - none - were funded at the time.  (It only took a few years for the Republicans to regain their sense of urgency when it came to funding veterans' programs, hurricane relief, and health care benefits for 9/11 first responders.  Apparently we don't have the money to look after our veterans, only the money to senselessly send them into an illegal war on the basis of fabricated evidence.  Disgusting.  Treason.  Criminal.)

These commitments rolled over to the next administration, which has been left unable to properly address this criminal spending due to Republican refusal to even consider increases on marginal tax rates.

You don't have to convince me that extending even part of the Bush Debt, those fiscally reckless tax cuts, was one of Obama's worst compromises with the Republican leadership.