Is Public Debt a Good Thing

[Bono]

or
Are you a neo-con?
its your choose

[MODU]

Yes.  Having a debt is expected since our nation is suppose to be run as a non-for-profit organization.  If the nation is making a profit, then they are over-taxing the population or not allocating their resources correctly.

[Gabu]

I don't know nearly enough about macroeconomics to be able to comment on stuff relating to public debt.

Not that that's stopped anyone else, of course.

[Bono]

Yes.  Having a debt is expected since our nation is suppose to be run as a non-for-profit organization.  If the nation is making a profit, then they are over-taxing the population or not allocating their resources correctly.

So, you're perfectly happy sacrificng the future of your children for your own welfare?
Typical of a baby boomer.

[MODU]

Yes.  Having a debt is expected since our nation is suppose to be run as a non-for-profit organization.  If the nation is making a profit, then they are over-taxing the population or not allocating their resources correctly.

So, you're perfectly happy sacrificng the future of your children for your own welfare?
Typical of a baby boomer.

hahaha . . . now there is a leap.  Nowhere did I say I was for uncontrolled public debt.  Considering I'm quite vocal about pork control, I'm about 180 from your description.

[Bono]

Yes.  Having a debt is expected since our nation is suppose to be run as a non-for-profit organization.  If the nation is making a profit, then they are over-taxing the population or not allocating their resources correctly.

So, you're perfectly happy sacrificng the future of your children for your own welfare?
Typical of a baby boomer.

hahaha . . . now there is a leap.  Nowhere did I say I was for uncontrolled public debt.  Considering I'm quite vocal about pork control, I'm about 180 from your description.

But that's what constant deficits will amount to.
I can understand saying it is okay to run a deficit once in a while, but constant deficits will lead to uncontroled public debt, it is that logical.

[MODU]

But that's what constant deficits will amount to.
I can understand saying it is okay to run a deficit once in a while, but constant deficits will lead to uncontroled public debt, it is that logical.

Most not-for-profits run constant deficits.  They have a sliding scale in their budgets to ebb and flow with their income to ensure they don't go over.  On a government scale, this would be close to the concept of a balanced budget, with some variances.  However, even under a balanced budget, it's better to carry some deficit since it allows others to invest in the country, creating/improving its credit rating. 

[Bono]

But that's what constant deficits will amount to.
I can understand saying it is okay to run a deficit once in a while, but constant deficits will lead to uncontroled public debt, it is that logical.

Most not-for-profits run constant deficits.  They have a sliding scale in their budgets to ebb and flow with their income to ensure they don't go over.  On a government scale, this would be close to the concept of a balanced budget, with some variances.  However, even under a balanced budget, it's better to carry some deficit since it allows others to invest in the country, creating/improving its credit rating. 

Lending is not investing...
Still, you haven't answered how to deal with the piling debt.

[MODU]

Still, you haven't answered how to deal with the piling debt.

That's because you never asked.    Anyway, you never pay it off, but always carry some debt in proportion to the economy.  It's kept in check by unexpected rise in tax revenue or cheaper than projected expenses.  If tax revenue dips constantly for a few years, you trim more fat off the budget to get in line. 

[Bono]

unexpected rise in tax revenue or cheaper than projected expenses. 

Quite the optimist are we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fat shoudl't be there to begin with!

[MasterJedi]

I voted yes because sometimes it's needed to make things happen and to get things done. Preferably we wouldn't have one but sometimes it's necessary.

[David S]

Since government cannot always know exactly how much revenue it will raise compared to planned expenditures it is understandable if bonds must be issued to balance the books sometimes. But they should be paid off as soon as possible. It is not good to run huge deficits year after year and keep raising the national debt. Its over 8 trillion dollars now with no sign of ever being reduced.  Interest must be paid on the debt and the taxpayers get stuck with it.

The debt is just a symptom of the fiscal irresponsibility that prevails in Washington. The unfunded liabilities for the big social programs, SS, medicare and medicaid dwarfs the debt. As I recall it is near 70 trillion dollars. Our children and grandchildren will have to deal with that.

[MODU]

unexpected rise in tax revenue or cheaper than projected expenses. 

Quite the optimist are we?

No, a realist.  Happens frequently actually (tax revenues being higher than projected).  The problem is, it gets lost behind pork projects and underestimating the burden of some wellfare state programs during the year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fat shoudl't be there to begin with!
[/quote]

No, it shouldn't.  But try to convince Congress of that.  Why do you think we've had continuing discussions on pork (and now the line-item veto) on here?

[opebo]

Public Debt is fine if it is employed to counter cyclical downturns, and to implement long term public investments such as infrastruction.  High progressive taxes are a better way to realize the appropriate funds for redistribution, however.

[RJ]

Contrary to what I may have led others to believe in the past, some public debt isn't a bad thing as long as its managable. $400 billion per anum for a long period is unacceptable.

I believe the correct question should be does an acceptable budget have more to do with the economy or budget management?

[nlm]

Since government cannot always know exactly how much revenue it will raise compared to planned expenditures it is understandable if bonds must be issued to balance the books sometimes. But they should be paid off as soon as possible. It is not good to run huge deficits year after year and keep raising the national debt. Its over 8 trillion dollars now with no sign of ever being reduced.  Interest must be paid on the debt and the taxpayers get stuck with it.

The debt is just a symptom of the fiscal irresponsibility that prevails in Washington. The unfunded liabilities for the big social programs, SS, medicare and medicaid dwarfs the debt. As I recall it is near 70 trillion dollars. Our children and grandchildren will have to deal with that.

You got it. Debt may be required at some points, but I have no idea how anybody could answer the question "Is public debt a GOOD thing?" with a yes. Of course it's not a good thing - it's a line item on our taxes that we get nothing for. The only reason we should have debt is if there is no other choice - but there have been plenty of other choices over the time period we have been mounding up our public debt. Our public debt as it currently stands is just a reflection of the irresponsablity of our elected leaders and, to a degree, the people that vote for them.

[Inverted Things]

I voted yes because sometimes it's needed to make things happen and to get things done. Preferably we wouldn't have one but sometimes it's necessary.

Running a slight deficit does help the economy by putting more money into circulation.

[Democratic Hawk]

In theory and ideally, no. It would be great if budgets could be balanced continuosly but getting down to practicality and reality, deficicit spending often can't be avoided

Still, when there is a deficit, it should some manageabe level or within a reasonable limit

Dave