National Debt vs GDP - why does it matter?

[pickled_heretic]

yes, we have 310 million people in our country, who cares? we also have a GDP to match that number.

[vaylorie]

Yeah,... Defense Spending is the problem...


(as a % of GDP)
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(as a % of GDP)

stopped reading, we're talking about federal budgets not GDP, thanks.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

stopped reading, we're talking about federal budgets not GDP, thanks.

GDP is a measuring stick that scales (roughly) with population increase. GDP is not the point here.

[pickled_heretic]

honestly you could not have posted a more asinine and irrelevant graph.

[Aadill]

vay, I think you're missing the overall point:

Frankly I don't mind defense spending when it's spent on defense. You know, like research (the same research that brought us superplastics, internet, etc), and general security (CIA, FBI) and even terrorist extraction/eradication... but just like every other department they are mismanaged.

Furthermore, all of those projected lines on your graph are pretty much following the same path as the ones on this graph:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



Coupled with this, what else would you expect? Some people want to remove all of this mandatory spending but still be covered under magic age-cutoff point of Medicaid/Medicare/Obamacare. The very people that are clamoring for the shutdown of the government in exchange for their private funds? It's self defeating, in my opinion.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[pickled_heretic]

vay is saying that mandatory spending should be on the table? absolutely, defense spending is under that "mandatory spending" umbrella. nobody is disagreeing that i can see.

[vaylorie]

Look, the point is... if you want to have a discussion around federal spending and sustainability of US financials, then you have to look at mandatory spending programs. I'm not asserting that defense doesn't need cuts, but the common rhetoric that defense spending and not enough taxes on the wealthy is the root of the problem is a misnomer.

Mandatory spending needs REFORM (read: not cut completely) as does defense and health care. People frame the discussion as discretionary spending (calling out defense) is the only consideration here.

Defense spending is not under the mandatory spending umbrella based on government budget terminology. Congress has no ability to control mandatory spending during the normal budget process and only with new legislation to reign it in and provide reform.

[gloinz]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look, the point is... if you want to have a discussion around federal spending and sustainability of US financials, then you have to look at mandatory spending programs. I'm not asserting that defense doesn't need cuts, but the common rhetoric that defense spending and not enough taxes on the wealthy is the root of the problem is a misnomer.

Mandatory spending needs REFORM (read: not cut completely) as does defense and health care. People frame the discussion as discretionary spending (calling out defense) is the only consideration here.

Defense spending is not under the mandatory spending umbrella based on government budget terminology. Congress has no ability to control mandatory spending during the normal budget process and only with new legislation to reign it in and provide reform.

Buffett has been talking about this for a while, but the debt ceiling negotiations have given him another chance to point out a fact: tax rates for the rich have been declining for over two decades. As rates have dropped, the super-rich have done quite well -- from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

tax the rich then see wut needs to be cut imo
the best years of our country when we created the interstate system went to space bla bla bla were when we taxed rich people proportionally to how much money they make in our country. problem

however with a global economy if you are getting taxed out your ass here you are likely to go somewhere else... so in the end we lose either way imo