World considers a Trump presidency, and many shudder

[CousinEddie]

Debt now $19 Trillion and climbing. Perhaps numbers speak clearer than comparing inter party percentages?

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

US-Federal-Debt-1992-2014-Presidents-Performance.png

obama-debt-added2.jpg

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

Easy there big fella, Ron Reagan is the patron saint for the GOP. They won't believe you.

Bizarre as it seems, the conservatives look up to the guy that invented "super debt".

Blew the budget by 190%. More than all US presidents combined at that point.

I'll tell you what. He took the USA on a spending spree with our grandkids money!

We are still paying the interest on that fiasco.

Lets hope the next Clinton will balance the budget again.

That was nice.

[Boon Mee]

A nice little graphic that sums up why The Donald is going all the way:

[Linzz]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

You must be unaware that in most of your posts you indulge in polemic.

Do I need to provide supporting data to the self evident truth that increasing aged retiree numbers will create a heavier burden on health care costs? But before you rush to correct me that it's just numbers and size doesn't matter, interest rates may just have to increase to alleviate the looming pension crisis. But that's a big problem for federal and state budgets depending on low interest rates to sustain debt. So what gives? Wipe out government budgets or wipe out the guarantees for pensioners?

Looks like managing the economy by raising and lowering interest rates is becoming a disaster. Never mind Trump (to get back on topic) there's a punishing of irresponsible fiscal policy already. From memory Illinois faced a $560m pension deficit recently and the Central States Pension fund is proposing to pay out only 50% of it's obligation.

Same is happening in Europe, Germany in particular. Low or negative interest rates is not the answer.Central banks may have to raise interest rates to rescue pension funds.Perhaps the beginnings of the next financial meltdown.

[boomerangutang]

Republicans make a lot of noise about lessening government spending. Yet, when Rep candidates are asked what they would cut, they often respond with obfuscation, sweeping generalizations and deflection. Sometimes, however, they do articulate. Trump said he'd do away with the Dept. of Education and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). I don't think T knows why he would abolish the DOE, though he probably picked that idea up from Cruz. Similarly with the EPA, Trump doesn't seem to know why he would abolish it, except he muddles something about a cold day in NYC with snow on the ground, which somehow proves global warming is a non-issue.

I saw a senate hearing with Cruz heading an inquisition against a representative from NASA. Cruz was trying to get the rep to admit that NASA's monitoring of global temperatures (ground, atmosphere, sea surfaces) wasn't part of NASA's responsibility. Needless to say, Cruz failed badly. The NASA administrator, in a polite/concise manner, showed all in attendance that NASA was concerned with science and measurements. Non-science folks like Cruz and Trump don't have a healthy respect for science, if data/measurements don't back their myopic views of the world.

[stillbornagain]

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

Good effort.

Hi Chuckd

I want to thank you so much for the nice picture. It was really very thoughtful of you. The thing is, the posting I made was meant for grownups. That's why I used hard words like inflation and funny letters like GDP. I am trying to think of a way to put all that stuff into pictures so maybe you, too, could understand. In the meantime, don't let anyone tell you that you aren't special. Because you really, really are.

Love,

Uncle Still

[Scott]

I very strongly suggest you get back on topic and stop with the personal baiting of other members.

Some off-topic posts and replies have been removed.

[boomerangutang]

You think % are silly because % don't back what you're trying to convey.

What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET. I noticed, in your chart above, that Carter wasn't shown. His Federal budget hardly increased at all, after Ford's. The two budgets that increased the most (from preceding budgets) were Reagan's and Bush Jr's. Sorry (not really) if that doesn't convey the myth that you're trying to put forth, but instead shows clearly that Republicans are far-away more reckless spenders than Democrats.

Who was the biggest fan of spending hundreds of billions on SDI/Star Wars? Reagan. Even though nothing useful came out of it, except scheming corporations (friends with the men holding the purse strings) got a whole lot richer. Who got the US into a war under false pretenses, and who was on governing boards of several corporations which hold contracts to supply troops? Bush Jr, and Cheney. Connect the dots. Perhaps it's been conveniently forgotten, but when Romney and Ryan were running 4 years ago, they promised to increase military spending MUCH MORE than military brass were asking for. It's not enough that the US military is rife with wasteful spending and spends more than most other countries' military budgets combined. Republicans want to shovel ever more (than they want) in their laps. Trump has said recently how the US military is very weak (which is not true) underfinanced (also not true) and that he would drastically increase military spending (true). .....as if we need another reason to add to the dozens of reasons why Trump would be a disaster for America.

" What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET."

Sorry to pop your little plastic bubble, but budgets have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

We are discussing actual expenditures, not anticipated. Therefore, "What some of us are showing is...WRONG."

What you have been quoting is the amount each administration has increased the national debt based on what the debt was at the beginning of their administration and what it was at the end, or in Obama's case, through today.

Perhaps we are discussing different aspects of budget increases. What concerns me most is not so much dollar amounts, as % increase from one administration to the next. Personally, I've had zero debt for decades. So I'm better positioned to talk about lowering debt than 95% of Americans, as far as practicing what I preach. Businesses, the American people and US/State/city governments grow up with the idea that debt is necessary. Indeed, any business or rich person who doesn't actively try to borrow as much as they can are considered dumb. Trump is a prime example of that American mind-set. He had 2.5 million before he got out of h.s. - purportedly from working part-time for his dad. He got 3 million loan from his dad soon after. A bit after that, his dad co-signed for $30 million in bank loans. His dad also plopped down a million in cash in his son's lap at the New Jersey casino. That casino went belly-up anyway. There are probably a lot more stories of Trump sucking up loans. Whether he paid some back with % is debatable. Not the sort of man that should be taking over a debt-riddled country. Would you assign a junkie to be in charge of a heroin dispensing facility?

World War II, .... pretty good reason(s) why we don't need another Democrat in office either.

Ask Europeans, Russkies, Jews, gypsies, Chinese, Aussies, Kiwis, or SE Asians or Hawaiians (over the age of 50) whether it was a good idea for the US to get involved with WWII.

[jmd8800]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

You must be unaware that in most of your posts you indulge in polemic.

Do I need to provide supporting data to the self evident truth that increasing aged retiree numbers will create a heavier burden on health care costs? But before you rush to correct me that it's just numbers and size doesn't matter, interest rates may just have to increase to alleviate the looming pension crisis. But that's a big problem for federal and state budgets depending on low interest rates to sustain debt. So what gives? Wipe out government budgets or wipe out the guarantees for pensioners?

Looks like managing the economy by raising and lowering interest rates is becoming a disaster. Never mind Trump (to get back on topic) there's a punishing of irresponsible fiscal policy already. From memory Illinois faced a $560m pension deficit recently and the Central States Pension fund is proposing to pay out only 50% of it's obligation.

Same is happening in Europe, Germany in particular. Low or negative interest rates is not the answer.Central banks may have to raise interest rates to rescue pension funds.Perhaps the beginnings of the next financial meltdown.

You are correct about pension plans. However, I do not think the Fed Reserve is concerned about this. In fact I think it is part of the plan to pave a road to pension plans (both public and private) so Wall St can haul the looted pension money back to their coffers.

In December of 2014 the Congress approved the removal of guarantees (ERISA) of pension plans like mine. So after 36 years of 'deferred wages', the road is paved. I'm just waiting for the trucks to show up at my pension plan's office and haul the money away. I'll likely get a letter in the mail a week before this happens, saying sorry but your pension plan was mismanaged..you lose. Of course the DJIA will rise a bit the next day with a few billion dollars added to the casino.

BTW.. If I remember correctly the changes made were part of a spending bill. Not a legislative bill. The congress people's votes on this rider are kept secret.

[boomerangutang]

When I was in my 20's I met Bill, who had put in a career at Studebaker. He bought a tiny parcel next to mine and lived in a cheapo trailer. He said Studebaker (car maker) had reneged on paying pensions when it went out of business, ....or perhaps it was just pensions for the lower-downs which got clipped. Just sayin', nothing's for sure....

[chuckd]

Debt now $19 Trillion and climbing. Perhaps numbers speak clearer than comparing inter party percentages?

BL-obama-presidents-debt-celing_600.jpg

US-Federal-Debt-1992-2014-Presidents-Performance.png

obama-debt-added2.jpg

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

Easy there big fella, Ron Reagan is the patron saint for the GOP. They won't believe you.

Bizarre as it seems, the conservatives look up to the guy that invented "super debt".

Blew the budget by 190%. More than all US presidents combined at that point.

I'll tell you what. He took the USA on a spending spree with our grandkids money!

We are still paying the interest on that fiasco.

Lets hope the next Clinton will balance the budget again.

That was nice.

"Lets hope the next Clinton will balance the budget again."

Then you better pray Chelsea has a Republican Congress and Newt Gingrich is still available.

[stillbornagain]

You think % are silly because % don't back what you're trying to convey.

What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET. I noticed, in your chart above, that Carter wasn't shown. His Federal budget hardly increased at all, after Ford's. The two budgets that increased the most (from preceding budgets) were Reagan's and Bush Jr's. Sorry (not really) if that doesn't convey the myth that you're trying to put forth, but instead shows clearly that Republicans are far-away more reckless spenders than Democrats.

Who was the biggest fan of spending hundreds of billions on SDI/Star Wars? Reagan. Even though nothing useful came out of it, except scheming corporations (friends with the men holding the purse strings) got a whole lot richer. Who got the US into a war under false pretenses, and who was on governing boards of several corporations which hold contracts to supply troops? Bush Jr, and Cheney. Connect the dots. Perhaps it's been conveniently forgotten, but when Romney and Ryan were running 4 years ago, they promised to increase military spending MUCH MORE than military brass were asking for. It's not enough that the US military is rife with wasteful spending and spends more than most other countries' military budgets combined. Republicans want to shovel ever more (than they want) in their laps. Trump has said recently how the US military is very weak (which is not true) underfinanced (also not true) and that he would drastically increase military spending (true). .....as if we need another reason to add to the dozens of reasons why Trump would be a disaster for America.

" What some of us are showing is, THE % INCREASE OF BUDGET FROM THE PRIOR BUDGET."

Sorry to pop your little plastic bubble, but budgets have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

We are discussing actual expenditures, not anticipated. Therefore, "What some of us are showing is...WRONG."

What you have been quoting is the amount each administration has increased the national debt based on what the debt was at the beginning of their administration and what it was at the end, or in Obama's case, through today.

Perhaps we are discussing different aspects of budget increases. What concerns me most is not so much dollar amounts, as % increase from one administration to the next. Personally, I've had zero debt for decades. So I'm better positioned to talk about lowering debt than 95% of Americans, as far as practicing what I preach. Businesses, the American people and US/State/city governments grow up with the idea that debt is necessary. Indeed, any business or rich person who doesn't actively try to borrow as much as they can are considered dumb. Trump is a prime example of that American mind-set. He had 2.5 million before he got out of h.s. - purportedly from working part-time for his dad. He got 3 million loan from his dad soon after. A bit after that, his dad co-signed for $30 million in bank loans. His dad also plopped down a million in cash in his son's lap at the New Jersey casino. That casino went belly-up anyway. There are probably a lot more stories of Trump sucking up loans. Whether he paid some back with % is debatable. Not the sort of man that should be taking over a debt-riddled country. Would you assign a junkie to be in charge of a heroin dispensing facility?

World War II, .... pretty good reason(s) why we don't need another Democrat in office either.

Ask Europeans, Russkies, Jews, gypsies, Chinese, Aussies, Kiwis, or SE Asians or Hawaiians (over the age of 50) whether it was a good idea for the US to get involved with WWII.

I guess Chuckd is from the Pat Buchanan wing of the party. And the Korean War for that matter. I think 50 million South Koreans would disagree with him. And the most enthusiastic backers of the Vietnam War were the Republicans. It was mostly the Democrats who turned against Lyndon Johnson. So much so that he decided not to run again for President. And when Nixon came into power what did he do to end it? Well, he bombed Cambodia. And supported a coup to oust the popular Prince Sihanouk. I'm sure that relatively small number of Cambodians who survived Pol Pot are very grateful to him.

Edited April 14, 2016 by stillbornagain

[stillbornagain]

When I was in my 20's I met Bill, who had put in a career at Studebaker. He bought a tiny parcel next to mine and lived in a cheapo trailer. He said Studebaker (car maker) had reneged on paying pensions when it went out of business, ....or perhaps it was just pensions for the lower-downs which got clipped. Just sayin', nothing's for sure....

All the way back in the 1980's large corporations sued to recoup some of the money that they had put into pension funds. Their argument was that since the funds were performing so well, they were entitled to take back the excess. The Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4, went in their favor. As you might expect, it was the conservative justices - being financial illiterated -who lined up behind big business. A few years later, when market prices plummeted, a lot of those pension funds failed or were unable to pay full benefits. But since these same justices also tended to line up behind conservative social issues, even middle class conservatives liked them. Among these justices was the late Antonin Scalia. We see the same kind of thing from George W. Bush. After he won the 2004 election where he touted his opposition to gay marriage and mobilized his base, when he got into office he dropped the issue and decided to privatize social security. That was a step too far. Even the base could see that he was trying to screw them over in favor of the wealthy. But this has consistently been the very successful tactic of the Republican party. Use emotional issues to get elected, and then pass bills that favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and poor. But Trump voters, in their own twisted and confused way, partially see through that. Hence such sayings as "Keep the government's hands off of my Medicare."

[lostboy]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

You must be unaware that in most of your posts you indulge in polemic.

Do I need to provide supporting data to the self evident truth that increasing aged retiree numbers will create a heavier burden on health care costs? But before you rush to correct me that it's just numbers and size doesn't matter, interest rates may just have to increase to alleviate the looming pension crisis. But that's a big problem for federal and state budgets depending on low interest rates to sustain debt. So what gives? Wipe out government budgets or wipe out the guarantees for pensioners?

Looks like managing the economy by raising and lowering interest rates is becoming a disaster. Never mind Trump (to get back on topic) there's a punishing of irresponsible fiscal policy already. From memory Illinois faced a $560m pension deficit recently and the Central States Pension fund is proposing to pay out only 50% of it's obligation.

Same is happening in Europe, Germany in particular. Low or negative interest rates is not the answer.Central banks may have to raise interest rates to rescue pension funds.Perhaps the beginnings of the next financial meltdown.

The question that remains unanswered is how much debt is too much. This is not an ideological question but a technical question. Use of polemic is natural in a discussion on economic policy but you and a number of others have been posting a bunch of numbers, charts and expositions on the size of the US national debt, which President grew the largest debt and related issues ad nauseous. There is still an ongoing peeing contest about this responsibility issue.

My contention is that there is no indication from the markets that current or future debt levels in the US are unsustainable. It does not really matter what individual elements are affecting or will affect the size of the debt. You are certainly correct, in my view and despite the lack of supporting data, that health care costs and pension costs will contribute to increasing debt. That is not my point. As long as the debt burden is sustainable, then whats the problem. Debt is and will remain a primary instrument in funding the government.

I do believe that your discussion on interest rates is going off on a tangent to the issue that I have raised. I have no problem with that. You can post whatever you want but I do not believe that monetary policy, which deals with interest rates has anything to do with fiscal policy, which deals with receipts and expenditures of the government in terms of impacting the sustainability of debt. They are certainly interconnected in terms of providing a range of instruments in managing an economy.

The Levy Economics Institute says that "The CBO’s assumption that the United States must offer a real interest rate on the public debt higher than the real growth rate by itself creates an unsustainability that is not otherwise there. Changing that one assumption completely alters the long-term dynamic of the public debt." http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/is-the-federal-debt-unsustainable

I listened to a presentation by Steven Keen, Chief Economist at the Institute for Dynamic Economic Analysis http://www.ideaeconomics.org/stevekeen/ last year at the FCCT. He and his supporters are significant debt hawks. Keen and IDEA believe that "The debt and asset price bubbles were ignored by conventional "Neoclassical" economists on the basis of a set of a priori beliefs about the nature of a market economy that are spurious, but deeply entrenched. Understanding how this crisis came about will require a new, dynamic, monetary approach to economic theory that contradicts the neat, plausible and false Neoclassical model that currently dominates academic economics and popular political debate."http://www.ideaeconomics.org/basics/

It seems, however that Keen is involved in a splinter economic movement that disputes the current received wisdom of economics as taught in US Universities. He may or may not be correct. I am still searching for evidence that clearly refutes the classical economic principles of debt and stimulus.

In response to your comments on low interest rates, in relation to debt management "Debt management can be used at low interest rates to lower bond yields, to provide bank assets and thereby help maintain broad money growth, or to save on interest payments. "http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt0906e.pdf

So I am left still with my original thesis that current and future debt levels are sustainable and the ideological debate on size is quite irrelevant on technical terms; merely on emotional terms.

[stillbornagain]

Easy there big fella, Ron Reagan is the patron saint for the GOP. They won't believe you.

Bizarre as it seems, the conservatives look up to the guy that invented "super debt".

Blew the budget by 190%. More than all US presidents combined at that point.

I'll tell you what. He took the USA on a spending spree with our grandkids money!

We are still paying the interest on that fiasco.

Lets hope the next Clinton will balance the budget again.

That was nice.

"Lets hope the next Clinton will balance the budget again."

Then you better pray Chelsea has a Republican Congress and Newt Gingrich is still available.

Oh, it was thanks to the Republican Congress that Clinton raised taxes?

[chuckd]

What amazes me is how financially, shall we say, naive are those on the right. For instance take Reagan's total addition to the debt. Yes it was 1.9 trillion dollars. But that was in that decade's dollars. But when you adjust for inflation , which on average for those 8 years comes to 210% in present day dollars, then Reagan's total in present day dollars was about 4.0 trillion. But it gets even better. You see the GDP back then was virtually half of what it is now (actually slightly less.) So, that means, in relation to the size of the present day economy it comes to about 8 trillion dollars. So, he's actually still leading Obama. And that despite that fact that the recession he faced was far less of a danger to the world economy than the one that Obama faced. Go Ronnie!

Good effort.

<snip>

Hi Chuckd

I want to thank you so much for the nice picture. It was really very thoughtful of you. The thing is, the posting I made was meant for grownups. That's why I used hard words like inflation and funny letters like GDP. I am trying to think of a way to put all that stuff into pictures so maybe you, too, could understand. In the meantime, don't let anyone tell you that you aren't special. Because you really, really are.

Love,

Uncle Still

Thank you for the kind words.

Using your twisted logic concerning adjusting for inflation, then will it not be safe to assume that, should inflation remain approximately the same for the next 30+ years, Obama's addition of some $10 Trillion to the national debt in today's dollars will suddenly become $20 Trillion or even $40 Trillion with GDP factored in?

As you can tell, I am not a trained economist. I always hired people like you to do my clerical work. I'm just a poor dumb country boy that somehow believes President Reagan's addition of some $1.9 Trillion to the national debt had less adverse impact than President Obama's estimated $10 Trillion addition.

By the way, here is another opinion on your GDP play:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

Debt increase* End-of-term GDP* Percentage

Reagan $1,873 $8,850 21%

GHW Bush 1,484 $9,410 16%

Clinton 1,268 $12,680 12%

GW Bush 4,899 $14,580 34%

Obama 7,198 $16,160 44%

(*in billions)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And then, here is President Obama in his own words:

PS: If you watched the video, you will hear President Obama call the national debt under Bush of $30,000 for every man, woman and child as being "irresponsible and unpatriotic".

It is now $58,000 for every man, woman and child in the US.

You can have some more fun juggling the numbers. Don't expect me to waste any more time playing your numbers game.

Cheers

[Jai Dee]

One flame post has been removed from this thread.

Keep it civil please.

[thaibeachlovers]

Well I was up for a discussion but clearly you are not. A link to an article about Debt to GDP Ratio and another link to a paper on contingent liabilities. I have an ongoing unresolved argument with an IMF debt management specialist on the meaning of implicit guarantees and I will be proven correct in the end. Implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on. Explicit guarantees are contingent. They should be recorded in GFMIS of course but aggregating them with total debt is misleading.

For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/shiller-most-people-who-look-at-debt-to.html

What's your other points? Oh, inflation. Please tell us why you would want to deflate the US economy? As for transaction costs, so what? All transactions have costs. It is built into pricing models. The issue is the NPV of the debt in relation to the economic stimulus or financial return it provides.

The Right Wing are meant to love markets. Yet not the debt market. Ideological economics at its best.

While "implicit guarantees are only worth the paper they are not written on" might be true in regards to the uncertainty of projections, growing aging baby boomer population is real and thereby healthcare costs are a certainty for growing budget deficits pushing debt to higher levels. Unsustainable debt levels into the future would have to be addressed through spending cuts and raising revenues either by taxation or further borrowing.

"For those people who throw around Debt to GDP ratios as a scare tactic to get people worried about the wrong thing - "Most people who look at Debt to GDP ratios are Stupid" http://www.economicp...at-debt-to.html "

Thanks for the link. The last paragraph is especially good:

"Bottom line: Shiller's argument isn't about people being stupid. It's an attempt by Shiller to hoodwink people into supporting an ever growing big government interventionist state, and cause people to ignore common sense rough guides as to what is going on in the economy."

Left Wing ideological economics at it's best

You retreat to the absolutism of numbers and then sink even further into polemic.

Your point about increased debt burdens as a result of higher health care costs for aging baby boomers may or may not be true. You do not provide any data to support the supposition. Assuming that government funded health care costs will increase and this is funded by debt, then all you are saying is that the number will increase. Back to being a size queen. My argument is that in this case size does not matter. What matters is the capacity of the market to sustain the debt. The market does not support your statement that such future debt levels are unsustainable. Here is some actual data on the market https://ycharts.com/indicators/20_year_treasury_rate

US fiscal policy is a more significant determinant of future debt sustainability. The markets will soon punish irresponsible fiscal policy. Watch the reactions of the markets when the details of Trumps fiscal policies emerge, if they ever do.

Again, higher debt numbers are not alarming. What matters is the capacity of the market to manage the debt burden, irrespective of what drives the increase in debt.

Your retreat into polemic about left leaning ideology is entirely irrelevant to my point.

You must be unaware that in most of your posts you indulge in polemic.

Do I need to provide supporting data to the self evident truth that increasing aged retiree numbers will create a heavier burden on health care costs? But before you rush to correct me that it's just numbers and size doesn't matter, interest rates may just have to increase to alleviate the looming pension crisis. But that's a big problem for federal and state budgets depending on low interest rates to sustain debt. So what gives? Wipe out government budgets or wipe out the guarantees for pensioners?

Looks like managing the economy by raising and lowering interest rates is becoming a disaster. Never mind Trump (to get back on topic) there's a punishing of irresponsible fiscal policy already. From memory Illinois faced a $560m pension deficit recently and the Central States Pension fund is proposing to pay out only 50% of it's obligation.

Same is happening in Europe, Germany in particular. Low or negative interest rates is not the answer.Central banks may have to raise interest rates to rescue pension funds.Perhaps the beginnings of the next financial meltdown.

You are correct about increasing aged numbers etc. However, expecting any government to actually do anything to change things for the better is irrational, IMO. Governments only do what they need to do to stay in office.

I give you the scenario that the aged ( and they will be the majority of voters ) will only vote for politicians that support them- that will bankrupt the country, any country, but it's possible in a "democracy".

I don't have an answer to give you, because I don't think the solution would be acceptable to most on here, but I hope they bring in voluntary euthanasia, as I don't want to be around when the poo really hits the rotating device.

However, I doubt that even Trump would be foolish enough to put euthanasia as an election policy.

[jmd8800]

To get this thread back on topic about the world shuddering a Trump presidency.

My opinion is...Trump is the outcome of many years of hollowing out the American democracy: http://billmoyers.com/story/blowing-the-biggest-political-story-of-the-last-fifty-years/

And the biggest reason for worry with Trump is that he pretty much falls into what is termed a 'right wing authoritrian' personality. (Notice I say right wing personality NOT political.) One of the foremost experts on right wing authoritarian personality is Bob Altemeyer. You can find his work here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ He has written a 250 plus page pdf book (free ..no charge) for the average person to read. He takes 40 years of research and writes something most can understand. Everyone concerned about world politics today should read this.

And added pdf file by B Altemeyer, which bring us back to the world shuddering a Trump presidency: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306542024/Donald-Trump-a-comment-by-Bob-Altemeyer

Enjoy a happy Songkran!

[thaihome]

To get this thread back on topic about the world shuddering a Trump presidency.

My opinion is...Trump is the outcome of many years of hollowing out the American democracy: http://billmoyers.com/story/blowing-the-biggest-political-story-of-the-last-fifty-years/

And the biggest reason for worry with Trump is that he pretty much falls into what is termed a 'right wing authoritrian' personality. (Notice I say right wing personality NOT political.) One of the foremost experts on right wing authoritarian personality is Bob Altemeyer. You can find his work here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ He has written a 250 plus page pdf book (free ..no charge) for the average person to read. He takes 40 years of research and writes something most can understand. Everyone concerned about world politics today should read this.

And added pdf file by B Altemeyer, which bring us back to the world shuddering a Trump presidency: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306542024/Donald-Trump-a-comment-by-Bob-Altemeyer

Enjoy a happy Songkran!

Another new book that explains what happened to the conservative movement is "Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism--From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond" by E.J. Dionne. "...In meticulous and chronological detail, Dionne recounts how since the 1964 landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater, the Republicans ultra-conservative nominee for president, GOP candidates and even presidents have promised radical conservative action they could never deliver..." (Capital Times )

Unfortunately, not free.

TH

[boomerangutang]

The non-verbal brief video below shows truths which Trump and his followers don't want to know, because it concerns foreigners.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwatNwJOMs

[jmd8800]

To get this thread back on topic about the world shuddering a Trump presidency.

My opinion is...Trump is the outcome of many years of hollowing out the American democracy: http://billmoyers.com/story/blowing-the-biggest-political-story-of-the-last-fifty-years/

And the biggest reason for worry with Trump is that he pretty much falls into what is termed a 'right wing authoritrian' personality. (Notice I say right wing personality NOT political.) One of the foremost experts on right wing authoritarian personality is Bob Altemeyer. You can find his work here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ He has written a 250 plus page pdf book (free ..no charge) for the average person to read. He takes 40 years of research and writes something most can understand. Everyone concerned about world politics today should read this.

And added pdf file by B Altemeyer, which bring us back to the world shuddering a Trump presidency: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306542024/Donald-Trump-a-comment-by-Bob-Altemeyer

Enjoy a happy Songkran!

Another new book that explains what happened to the conservative movement is "Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism--From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond" by E.J. Dionne. "...In meticulous and chronological detail, Dionne recounts how since the 1964 landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater, the Republicans ultra-conservative nominee for president, GOP candidates and even presidents have promised radical conservative action they could never deliver..." (Capital Times )

Unfortunately, not free.

TH

This book by Altemeyer does not explain what went wrong with the conservative movements. It explains how the 'right wing authoritarian follower' mind works first, then it shows how the 'right wing authoritarian leader' personality compliments the followers.

It is not a political book. But it explains a lot of the global politics of today.

There is a lot written on this subject. "Whose Freedom" by George Lakoff comes to mind.

[CousinEddie]

Obama reviews the "golden age" of the Republicans.

https://youtu.be/BCqJRJptDsY?t=1m27s

[Linzz]

To get this thread back on topic about the world shuddering a Trump presidency.

My opinion is...Trump is the outcome of many years of hollowing out the American democracy: http://billmoyers.com/story/blowing-the-biggest-political-story-of-the-last-fifty-years/

And the biggest reason for worry with Trump is that he pretty much falls into what is termed a 'right wing authoritrian' personality. (Notice I say right wing personality NOT political.) One of the foremost experts on right wing authoritarian personality is Bob Altemeyer. You can find his work here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ He has written a 250 plus page pdf book (free ..no charge) for the average person to read. He takes 40 years of research and writes something most can understand. Everyone concerned about world politics today should read this.

And added pdf file by B Altemeyer, which bring us back to the world shuddering a Trump presidency: https://www.scribd.com/doc/306542024/Donald-Trump-a-comment-by-Bob-Altemeyer

Enjoy a happy Songkran!

I didn't read your 250 page (!) first link but in your second I am uncomfortable with simplistic categorization of the complexity of people, it's just far too smug and superior.

I just hope we don't get back to the " Trump is another Hitler or Mussolini" excitement which from memory occupied the beginnings of this thread and others. Trump may be self aggrandizing, extravagantly vulgar and narcissistic but his use of hyperbole has caused excitement, consternation, polarizing, distain and most importantly for him, much publicity. I heard he said "push hyperbole as far as you can, then make a deal". I haven't read "The Art of the Deal" but I don't think you can compare it to Mein Kampf. I'm sure a paper could be produced on the demographic of Trump haters too, and adherents would range from the honest with a keen sense of social justice and doctrinal socialists through to envious covetors who just categorically hate people with money because it's not them.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Linzz

[stillbornagain]

Good effort.

<snip>

Hi Chuckd

I want to thank you so much for the nice picture. It was really very thoughtful of you. The thing is, the posting I made was meant for grownups. That's why I used hard words like inflation and funny letters like GDP. I am trying to think of a way to put all that stuff into pictures so maybe you, too, could understand. In the meantime, don't let anyone tell you that you aren't special. Because you really, really are.

Love,

Uncle Still

Thank you for the kind words.

Using your twisted logic concerning adjusting for inflation, then will it not be safe to assume that, should inflation remain approximately the same for the next 30+ years, Obama's addition of some $10 Trillion to the national debt in today's dollars will suddenly become $20 Trillion or even $40 Trillion with GDP factored in?

As you can tell, I am not a trained economist. I always hired people like you to do my clerical work. I'm just a poor dumb country boy that somehow believes President Reagan's addition of some $1.9 Trillion to the national debt had less adverse impact than President Obama's estimated $10 Trillion addition.

By the way, here is another opinion on your GDP play:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

One alternative method looks at the dollar amount of the debt increase divided by the dollar amount of GDP at the end of each term. Obama’s numbers for the debt and GDP are only through Sept. 30, 2014, and thus should be considered a temporary figure, as an improving economy might boost the GDP and thus improve his ratio. At current trends, however, it is likely that Obama’s performance would be the worst among recent presidents, according to this calculation. (He would still trail Roosevelt and Wilson among presidents in the last hundred years.)

Debt increase* End-of-term GDP* Percentage

Reagan $1,873 $8,850 21%

GHW Bush 1,484 $9,410 16%

Clinton 1,268 $12,680 12%

GW Bush 4,899 $14,580 34%

Obama 7,198 $16,160 44%

(*in billions)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And then, here is President Obama in his own words:

PS: If you watched the video, you will hear President Obama call the national debt under Bush of $30,000 for every man, woman and child as being "irresponsible and unpatriotic".

It is now $58,000 for every man, woman and child in the US.

You can have some more fun juggling the numbers. Don't expect me to waste any more time playing your numbers game.

Cheers

Hi Chuckd

Guess What. Fact checker was wrong! And Glenn Kessler has now amended his Washington Post article to reflect that fact. Reagan is now all the way up to 34%. And he owes it all to you. If you hadn't cited this article, I never would have checked its numbers. You can click on the link for yourself. I am going to recommend that the Democratic National Committee give you a medal for being instrumental in the further debunking of Ronald Reagan. Actually, the real number for Reagan should be 38% because of inflation factors that Glenn didn't want to include. Well, it's his column)Thank you so much. I really owe you now.

Here's a quote from Glenn: I do think these revisions are quite unfair to George H.W. Bush. Interest rates were very high on long term treasury bills in the Reagan era. Well above the rate of inflation. So much of the debt that is attributed to George H.W. Bush really is the responsibility of Reagan. Whereas the long term Treasury bills Obama is using actually lag the rate of inflation. In effect, investors are paying the USA to hold their money.

Here's a quote from Glenn:"NOTE: In 2016, a sharp-eyed reader spotted an error in the chart below, in that we had mistakenly used an inflation-adjusted GDP figures, rather thannominal GDP. The mistake mainly reduced the percentages for Reagan and George H.W. Bush. We have corrected the numbers and also updated the figures for Obama through Dec. 15, 2015."

I do think these revisions are quite unfair to George H.W. Bush. Interest rates were very high on long term treasury bills in the Reagan era. Well above the rate of inflation. So much of the debt that is attributed to George H.W. Bush really is the responsibility of Reagan. A fairer accounting would push Reagan well above 40%. Whereas the long term Treasury bills Obama is using actually lag the rate of inflation. In effect, investors are paying the USA to hold their money

Edited April 15, 2016 by stillbornagain

[boomerangutang]

I just hope we don't get back to the " Trump is another Hitler or Mussolini" excitement which from memory occupied the beginnings of this thread and others. Trump may be self aggrandizing, extravagantly vulgar and narcissistic but his use of hyperbole has caused excitement, consternation, polarizing, distain and most importantly for him, much publicity. I heard he said "push hyperbole as far as you can, then make a deal". I haven't read "The Art of the Deal" but I don't think you can compare it to Mein Kampf. I'm sure a paper could be produced on the demographic of Trump haters too, and adherents would range from the honest with a keen sense of social justice and doctrinal socialists through to envious covetors who just categorically hate people with money because it's not them.

I don't like Trump, but I don't say he "....is another Hitler or Mussolini"

I would however say Trump resembles Mussolini (and I put that idea forth on T.Visa 2 days before T made a big splash in the news for quoting M).

Here are some of the ways T is like M:

>>> They both pout, gestilate and repeat a lot

>>> They love to stir up crowds with us vs them rhetoric

>>> Everything for them is either love or hate, happiness or anger

>>> They encourage their fans to be violent - particularly against any who don't fully agree with their message

>>> They pick the wrong side in a big competition.

[jmd8800]

When discussing these issues there is no reason to bring up Hitler or Mussolini. The personality types stand on their own. The question is..do you want this type of person to be a leader of the USA.

As the quote goes: "Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people." It is up to the participants in the forum to keep it focused on ideas not people.

Regardless of personality type one must seriously ask themselves how we got to this point. For me, that is the disturbing question.

[CousinEddie]

I just hope we don't get back to the " Trump is another Hitler or Mussolini" excitement which from memory occupied the beginnings of this thread and others. Trump may be self aggrandizing, extravagantly vulgar and narcissistic but his use of hyperbole has caused excitement, consternation, polarizing, distain and most importantly for him, much publicity. I heard he said "push hyperbole as far as you can, then make a deal". I haven't read "The Art of the Deal" but I don't think you can compare it to Mein Kampf. I'm sure a paper could be produced on the demographic of Trump haters too, and adherents would range from the honest with a keen sense of social justice and doctrinal socialists through to envious covetors who just categorically hate people with money because it's not them.

I don't like Trump, but I don't say he "....is another Hitler or Mussolini"

I would however say Trump resembles Mussolini (and I put that idea forth on T.Visa 2 days before T made a big splash in the news for quoting M).

Here are some of the ways T is like M:

>>> They both pout, gestilate and repeat a lot

>>> They love to stir up crowds with us vs them rhetoric

>>> Everything for them is either love or hate, happiness or anger

>>> They encourage their fans to be violent - particularly against any who don't fully agree with their message

>>> They pick the wrong side in a big competition.

Trump is Hitler..... without the brains.

[Ulysses G.]

Guess What. Fact checker was wrong! And Glenn Kessler has now amended his Washington Post article to reflect that fact.

Far be it from me to call you a liar, but it sure seems strange that you do bother posting a link to this mythical repudiation of his former stance. Provide one please.

[Ulysses G.]

Trump is Hitler..... without the brains.

More like... without the DISEASED brains.

Donald Trump is a plain-spoken, accomplished, businessman He is not a racist and he does not want to commit genocide. He has very little in common with Adolph Hitler and anyone who tells you otherwise is either incredibly ignorant or highly delusional.

[stillbornagain]

Far be it from me to call you a liar, but it sure seems strange that you do bother posting a link to this mythical repudiation of his former stance. Provide one please.

Did it really require too much effort from you to scroll back up to chuckd's post? Internet still a bit difficult for you?

Here's the link. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/12/08/does-obama-have-the-worst-record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/

Read it and weep.