How are "both sides" to blame for the national debt?

[Dawson Leery]

[Atman]

1. Bush and the GOP created it...the Democrats did nothing to stop them.

That's the best explanation I can come up with.

.

[Armstead]

3. That's it

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Politicians vote for popular stuff.

The Iraq war was popular -- not in these circles, to be sure, but in the country, yes.
And once it was underway, support for it was very popular. (Even Lincoln, though he vehemently opposed the Mexican War, voted, as Representative, for supplies for the troops in the field

The Afghan war was very popular.

Medicaid Part D was popular.

Tax cuts are always super-popular.

Complaining about politicians voting for popular things is like having your waiter take an ice-cream sundae back to the kitchen because it isn't hot enough.

[Armstead]

11. Then why not do some constructive popular stuff?

There have been many things that have had popular support, would have been great for the country and its citizens.

But the politicians -- Democrats as well as Republicans don't touch them with ten-foot poles Because they might be "too liberal." or even "socialistic."

Funny how politicians only seem to become bean counters when popular things have the aroma of liberalism.

A better analogy is sending your ice cream back because you asked for chocolate and got vanilla instead.

[HappyMe]

8. True. Wash, rinse, repeat. nt

[lpbk2713]

2. The stage was set during the BushCo Regime.

THEY owned all branches of government and they stacked the deck in their favor.
A lot of the impediments we are dealing with today were of their inception.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Sheer repetition. n/t

[HughBeaumont]

5. I'd show 'em this:

or this . . .

[librechik]

7. excellent--says it all. And Boehner knows this. He's just a liar.

[Gregorian]

22. That belongs in it's own thread. It's a great visual.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. The debt is large but not MAJOR CRISIS large.

This whole event is a stage show. There is no debt crisis. The debt ceiling is raised routinely every year.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. These might sound like stupid questions...

but I ask them with all due respect.

Is there a point where the national debt actually becomes a crisis?

If the answer is yes, where would that point be?

If the answer is no, does that mean the US Government can spend with impunity forever?

Aren't the current problems in the EuroZone tied to national debt problems?

This whole thing is actually quite a puzzle for me. I don't understand how a country can outspend its revenues year after year and have its citizens clamor for more spending when the coffers are so empty the country has to borrow $.40 of every $1 it spends without it becoming a crisis sooner or later.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. The UK had, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars....

....a national debt in excess of 220% of GDP, which crippled her for a century. That's why when we read histories of the 19th century, Britain's such a minor player.

Which is another way of saying, every country is different and there is no magic number.

[ixion]

15. The debt ceiling is not infinite

hence there is no such thing as a 'routine' increase. Every increase moves us one step closer to default, and digs the hole deeper.

[Davis_X_Machina]

16. If you were growing faser than you were borrowing..

....and that's how the UK pulled it off (second Industrial revolution, and sixty years of peace) it wouldn't matter.

Every situation is different.

[ixion]

19. If it were to account for peak growth periods, that would be one thing... it's not

it's a continual upward slope, with only statistical troughs.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. No it doesn't.

Default only happens naturally when we can no longer raise the revenue to service our debt. It could happen unnaturally because loons in the loonislature refuse to increase the ceiling.

Increases to the debt ceiling may or may not move us forward toward that point, wherever it is.
Assuming that this magical boundary is a function of the ratio between debt and GDP, an increase that is greater than growth in GDP in the interval between raises would one that moved us closer, one that was lower than the growth in GDP would not. We've had larger debt v gdp levels and not gone into default - see WWII - only back then when we went to war WE BLOODY WELL RAISED TAXES ON THE RICH AT THE SAME TIME rather than giving them a HUGE UNSUSTAINABLE CUT. But I digress.

[ixion]

18. I understand about the default. That's not the issue, though (it's a symptom)

The issue is an ever-increasing debt load. If you have to continually to raise the debt ceiling, it means that you're using debt consistently to cover the overhead (including things like debt service), eventually, as you point out, you're no longer able to manage that load and you default.

If we needed to increase the ceiling to handle peaks, that's one thing. This is a continual uphill climb, however, hence every step does set us closer to default.

Incidentally, I've always opposed raising the debt ceiling, no matter who may be in office, because since they 80's we've been raising it for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. So it is only 'ever increasing' if federal revenues are not keeping pace.

Presumably federal revenue is linked to GDP - which is why debt/gdp is an interesting number. We didn't stop piling on debt from WWII (the last peak) until now - the debt ceiling was raised over and over again. But debt grew more slowly than GDP and federal revenue from WWII until 1981 when the Reaganites took over.



Since Reagan we have cut revenue while the GDP grew and increased spending and thus find ourselves near WWII levels. But these levels are not in themselves ruinous. It is a massive farce that we have done this with no existential crisis, that basically we volunteered ourselves for a state of permanent war and funded it with tax cuts. But again - there is no evidence that our current situation is a crisis, and long term stability can be restored simply by letting the bush tax cuts expire.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Because The Tee Vee Says So

[ixion]

14. Because both sides have been present as it became an issue

would be why.

[Marrah_G]

20. The blames lies in those who crave power and control

[kentuck]

21. A pox on both their houses.

That's what the "media" says the people are saying. Because they don't want to tell the truth.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

23. When the right-wing does something particularly awful, they come like a swarm.

Blathering "both sides do it blah blah blah they're all the same blah blah blah..."

It's like soccer. If your team sucks, you play for a tie.

[Romulox]

25. Because the wars, bankster bailouts, taxcuts for the rich, "free trade" etc.

that has brought the US to its knees have been bipartisan policies.