Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
We'll need to make some hard choices, which are politically unpopular, to prevent a future national debt crisis. Unfortunately, I don't think this is possible in the current environment.
That's a tough one. I remember when the sky was falling when it hit 1 trillion around 1980. The world is coming to an end for the USA everyone was screaming. THIS CAN'T GO ON!! The difference for the USA is if nobody else buys our debt we buy it ourselves. We print the money. So.... when is too much? I don't know. When we can no longer print money or no longer the reserve currency, maybe that's when it's too much. I've read we own 20% of our own debt so say at 36 trillion, we owe ourselves about 7 trillion of that. Crazy.
Kent Smetters from The Penn Wharton Budget Model participated in this WSJ video. He states: "If the publicly held debt goes roughly above 175% of GDP things get pretty hard at that point and 200% is really the drop dead limit. And the reason why is once you hit that limit you couldn't possibly raise taxes enough at that point to meet the interest payments."
I don't know if Mr. Smetters' analysis is correct but hopefully debt/GDP will not breach the 175% threshold! Our national debt was 124% of GDP as of Q4 2024...
You are correct - this is not a new issue and it wasn't caused by any one political party. However, it must be acknowledged that the current budget bill will exacerbate the problem. It's probably best to refrain from responding to threads when you have no meaningful or relevant contributions to make.
If this is very worrisome, why didn't you start a similar thread 1-2-3 years ago? We all know that the next posts are going to be very political. Why not use the off-topic forum?
F>>>>0 - if you believe the thread is heading into no-no land why do you even bother reading it? These days one could make nearly any topic political w/o much effort at all. Just like you do with some of your comments.
At least the myth that one party is fiscally responsible can finally be set to rest. Yep, both parties have had a hand in it. We did have a balanced budget in Clinton's time. Then GW tossed it and went on to double the debt during his term. The worst? Reagan. He tripled the national debt in his 8 years.
But, "the other guy did it too" isn't very comforting. Obviously, deficit reduction isn't going to happen in 2025. Even with a $300 billion dollar new tax. That expectation is long gone, along with Elon.
F>>>>0 - if you believe the thread is heading into no-no land why do you even bother reading it? These days one could make nearly any topic political w/o much effort at all. Just like you do with some of your comments.
Yes, anyone can easily guess how a particular topic will evolve. And avoid it. I am reminded of the story of the woman who called the police on her neighbor to complain he was walking about naked. They showed up and could not see anything. She replied, "Yeah, but if you climb up on this chair, and look over his curtains."
When is it genuinely bad? When the wealthiest get away with murder, paying next to nothing in taxes and the safety net for the working class is gutted in order to keep the wealthy even more obscenely wealthy. When is enough, enough? How much shit do you NEED? Where I was raised, naked greed was actually considered to be evil. But not according to Gordon Gecko, eh? It's already genuinely bad, both in terms of the cost in human dignity and in terms of raw numbers. The poor and working class live with dignity stolen from them, and the wealthiest live in a hopeless, pathetic, obscene, undignified, insulated cocoon. This is not political, one way or another. It's about ethics vs no ethics. But ya, as I am wont to assert: everything is political.
What the hell is this both-parties false equivalence nonsense? Anyone can look at the history of deficits and the debt since World War II, Democrat vs Republican.
My understanding is the federal government has run a surplus only four times within the last 50 years and the latest surplus was in 2001. Please share any additional pertinent information you may have.
Comments
More like "the current catastrophe".
He states:
"If the publicly held debt goes roughly above 175% of GDP things get pretty hard at that point
and 200% is really the drop dead limit. And the reason why is once you hit that limit
you couldn't possibly raise taxes enough at that point to meet the interest payments."
I don't know if Mr. Smetters' analysis is correct but hopefully debt/GDP will not breach the 175% threshold!
Our national debt was 124% of GDP as of Q4 2024...
You are correct - this is not a new issue and it wasn't caused by any one political party.
However, it must be acknowledged that the current budget bill will exacerbate the problem.
It's probably best to refrain from responding to threads when you have no meaningful
or relevant contributions to make.
If this is very worrisome, why didn't you start a similar thread 1-2-3 years ago?
We all know that the next posts are going to be very political.
Why not use the off-topic forum?
But, "the other guy did it too" isn't very comforting. Obviously, deficit reduction isn't going to happen in 2025. Even with a $300 billion dollar new tax. That expectation is long gone, along with Elon.
Maybe he is an elderly lady?
I'll be darned! He finally figured out what so many here have been saying for such a long time. We can only hope that he remembers it.
My understanding is the federal government has run a surplus only four times
within the last 50 years and the latest surplus was in 2001.
Please share any additional pertinent information you may have.