Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Thats when having a skill set and willingness to trade services become your cash. The sheep will always do what sheep do.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If you actually believed this, you wouldn't post a fraction of the combative things you post
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
We
Growing Deficits Are Projected to Drive Up Debt
In CBO’s baseline projections (which incorporate the assumption that current laws will generally remain the same), growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, health care, and interest payments on federal debt—outpaces growth in revenues over the coming 10 years. The budget deficit increases modestly through 2018 but then starts to rise more sharply, reaching $1.4 trillion in 2026. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit remains at roughly 2.9 percent through 2018, starts to rise, and reaches 4.9 percent by the end of the 10-year projection period. The projected cumulative deficit between 2017 and 2026 is $9.4 trillion.
The projected deficits would push debt held by the public up to 86 percent of GDP by the end of the 10-year period, a little more than twice the average over the past five decades. Beyond the 10-year period, if current laws remained in place, the pressures that had contributed to rising deficits during the baseline period would accelerate and push debt up even more sharply. Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to equal 155 percent of GDP, a higher percentage than any previously recorded in the United States.
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation:
When interest rates increased from their current levels to more typical ones, federal spending on interest payments would rise substantially.Because federal borrowing reduces total saving in the economy over time, the nation’s capital stock would ultimately be smaller than it would be if debt was smaller, and productivity and total wages would be lower.Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges.The likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase. There would be a greater risk that investors would become unwilling to finance the government’s borrowing needs unless they were compensated with very high interest rates; if that happened, interest rates on federal debt would rise suddenly and sharply.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51129
We should never be running at a deficit. It puts us in the vulnerable position of having to borrow money. Our debt is already 76% of our gdp.
Growing Deficits Are Projected to Drive Up Debt
In CBO’s baseline projections (which incorporate the assumption that current laws will generally remain the same), growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, health care, and interest payments on federal debt—outpaces growth in revenues over the coming 10 years. The budget deficit increases modestly through 2018 but then starts to rise more sharply, reaching $1.4 trillion in 2026. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit remains at roughly 2.9 percent through 2018, starts to rise, and reaches 4.9 percent by the end of the 10-year projection period. The projected cumulative deficit between 2017 and 2026 is $9.4 trillion.
The projected deficits would push debt held by the public up to 86 percent of GDP by the end of the 10-year period, a little more than twice the average over the past five decades. Beyond the 10-year period, if current laws remained in place, the pressures that had contributed to rising deficits during the baseline period would accelerate and push debt up even more sharply. Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to equal 155 percent of GDP, a higher percentage than any previously recorded in the United States.
Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation:
When interest rates increased from their current levels to more typical ones, federal spending on interest payments would rise substantially.Because federal borrowing reduces total saving in the economy over time, the nation’s capital stock would ultimately be smaller than it would be if debt was smaller, and productivity and total wages would be lower.Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges.The likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase. There would be a greater risk that investors would become unwilling to finance the government’s borrowing needs unless they were compensated with very high interest rates; if that happened, interest rates on federal debt would rise suddenly and sharply.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51129
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Maybe if your read a few of the links and citations you wouldn't see it as combative. More like exasperation.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You have to run deficit spending to get out of recessions/depressions. There is no other successful way to do it, go look through history and see if you can find one single instance of rising out of a depression without deficit spending
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
'Their' purpose. The notion that the government is 'them' and not 'us' is very convenient for those who would use its power for their own ends.
So I ask again; why not insist on accurate numbers, without fudge factors that cheat the results to suit the whims of those in office?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I'm on this forum every day reading the things conservatives post. It's absolutely never been "Let's work together against this common enemy we both share", it's always "Fuck you and your stupid ideas, you're an idiot who should die!"
So spare me
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Is that what I just did? Point out that their numbers are flat out lies? Chesus was running with their numbers but then posted a graph showing the true numbers.
Is there a problem?
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
I think the insults and threats seem weighted on your side a bit more. RIU is very hostile toward conservatives.
How can the atmosphere not be tense when you are attacked immediately for being conservative.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
Read the CBO citation I posted.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If this is the case, why do deficits shrink and surpluses appear only under democratic administrations?
Because the Republicans are used to lying to their base and getting away with it.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's just it. Many if not most conservatives feel like attacks on their ideological stupidity ARE personal.
They aren't, the conservative in question just can't keep the two separate.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Right. The right wing publishes all this- then their political picks run record breaking deficits anyway. I'm tired of the lies by misdirection. That's why I'm not a 'conservative'. They can't even pick a word to label themselves that isn't misleading. Nothing about the modern 'conservative' movement is about keeping things the same.
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
CBO is non partisan.
You are playing right into the divide of our nation. Also the administration is not the one who plans the budget. Congress does that.
You are on the offensive and then point out how defensive we are. Lol.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
The rules the CBO is bound to play by when determining statistics most certainly ARE partisan.
I'm only on offense because defense is what got this country INTO this mess.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What you said in your first sentence is your own conclusion and not very wise. There are two instances when deficit spending is necessary, war and recession. The first instance was a ginned up one by a right wing president. The second was inherited from that right wing president.
When I look at the graphs you posted earlier, I'm surprised that anybody would not see the opportunity lost in the first decade of this century when GBjr ran up the debt during a time in which the economy was in good shape. The recession which started at the end of GBjr's term was adroitly handled by a leader who knew better than to cut spending in the teeth of an economic downturn. The last president to use spending cuts in an attempt to control the deficit during a downturn was Hoover, also a Republican. By 2015, one can see that Obama's work in this area is done and the deficit is no longer growing. So thanks for the graphic.
This bit about deficit projections is funny in that all the right wing candidates will make it worse if they have their way. Sanders is the only one who is serious about cutting it by increasing taxes and programs that will stimulate growth in this economy. Everybody else is same-same or same-worse.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Unemployment is much much higher than the Obama administration Admits.
I know for a fact. My kid, retired mother and dead grandfather are not counted as unemployed. But they are.
I know for a fact. My kid, retired mother and dead grandfather are not counted as unemployed. But they are.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
yeah right. you starting to forget your own bullshit now
londonfog
Well-Known Member
@Flaming Pie you stated that our government should not be running a deficit. You do realize that welfare does contribute to our deficit. Whats the reason for a woman with a husband to be on welfare, which is contributing to our deficit ?
Last edited: