NOW I understand...

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Airhead
Steve, do you believe we'd be better off if we abolished the minimum wage, abolished the 40 hour week, abolished OSHA and workplace safety, and abolished child labor laws? All these came about because of the Labor movement, which is currently under Republican assault.

Unions provide jobs which allow people to live a middle class lifestyle. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

You realize the middle class makes $100,000 a year?  

Karaya

[Toad]

Oboe, regardless of how different things are "now", it's pretty clear that over the last 40+ years the debt has gone up every single year.

One could point out that lots of things have been "quite different" over that period of time but the penchant of Congress to routinely spend more than the government takes in appears to be unchanging.

[Airhead]

That's true, Toad, but the issue of tax cuts (which benefited the wealthiest BTW)  in the face of a rising deficit is what the Dems opposed. Frankly, that seemed the practical approach, but voters chose to burden our children's generation with even more debt.

Agreed tho, I'd like to know what percentage of GNP is service on the debt, and if it's significantly more or not. I just hate giving our kids a situation where a huge percentage of their assets are required to pay for wars, tax cuts or whatever- UN membership, even- that took place twenty, thirty years before they garnered any real political clout. It would be nice to give the next generation of leadership a clean slate to work with, or at least a less expensive burden of paying for our decisions.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Airhead
I'd like to know what percentage of GNP is service on the debt, and if it's significantly more or not.

http://www.house.gov/budget/update090804r.pdf

[Steve]

I guess you're the true internet toughguy, Toughguy

nah, I'm just a guy.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Airhead
(which benefited the wealthiest BTW)  

Ok, let's get the obvious out of the way first.

If I pay 15% taxes on say $45,000 per year and you pay 28% taxes on $150,000 and we both get a roughly equal percentage tax cut, who will get the most dollars back?

Now we've got that clearly settled, I agree with you... partly.

The tax cuts might be a bit too large at this time, considering the war/security spending.

OTOH, using government spending to "prime the pump" also isn't a new tactic and was perhaps made most famous by Franklin D.

Suffice it to say, again, that nothing you see right now is new. All these economic tactics, charades and voodoo have been done before by Presidents of both parties.

The economy is, despite the crepe hangers, recovering somewhat. Without the tax cuts would it be better or worse?

Is it the best course? I don't know. They don't know. You don't know. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep going through these same cycles, would we?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Toad
Oboe, regardless of how different things are "now", it's pretty clear that over the last 40+ years the debt has gone up every single year.

One could point out that lots of things have been "quite different" over that period of time but the penchant of Congress to routinely spend more than the government takes in appears to be unchanging.

No arguing with those fact, Toad, that's for sure.   btw are those figures in today's dollars?    I'm just not sure if you are concluding that its OK for debt to continue to rise because of  this past history.

Consider the baby boomers aging and retiring.    This is a looming issue, and nothing like it is reflected in the 40 yr history of the ever increasing debt load.  

Or, consider the globalization of our economy.    Hasn't even been an issue for very many years, yet the job loss and wage depression due to its effects are beginning to be felt, and will only increase.   How can U.S. workers compete with people happy to work on 10% of what US workers get?

Consider who we owe the money to.   Odds are, it used to be US citizens and domestic corporations, and now we are in debt to foreigners.   Truthfully I'm not sure what the implications of loads of foreign debt are, but I'm not comfortable with it.    

What I'm suggesting is though we may have gotten away with it in the past, common sense tells me there is a wall somewhere out there, and we are speeding toward it.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Toad
Anyone want to find a similar listing that shows the National Debt as a percentage of GNP? That would be interesting too.
[/B]

1930  16.6% of GDP
1931  20.1%
1932  28.9%
1933  39.3%
1934  44.2%
1935  41.2%
1936  43.0%
1937  41.5%
1938  41.8%
1939  45.4%
1940  52.5%
1941  50.5%
1942  54.9%
1943  79.2%
1944  97.6%
1945  117.5%
1946  121.6%
1947  109.5%
1948  98.2%
1949  93.0%
1950  93.9%
1951  79.5%
1952  74.3%
1953  71.3%
1954  71.6%
1955  69.4%
1956  63.8%
1957  60.4%
1958  60.7%
1959  58.5%
1960  55.9%
1961  55.1%
1962  53.3%
1963  51.7%
1964  49.2%
1965  46.8%
1966  43.4%
1967  41.9%
1968  42.4%
1969  38.5%
1970  37.6%
1971  37.7%
1972  37.0%
1973  35.5%
1974  33.6%
1975  34.8%
1976  36.2%
1977  35.8%
1978  33.1%
1980  33.3%
1981  32.5%
1982  35.2%
1983  39.9%
1984  40.7%
1985  43.9%
1986  48.2%
1987  50.4%
1988  51.9%
1989  53.0%
1990  55.9%
1991  60.7%
1992  64.3%
1993  66.3%
1994  66.8%
1995  67.2%
1996  67.3%
1997  65.6%
1998  63.4%
1999  61.5%
2000  57.3%
2001  54.5%
2002  52.2%

Looks like the Debt as a percentage of the GDP has been higher than it is now for much of the last 70 years.

graph

[oboe]

The statistical mean for your set of numbers is 55.16%.

I noticed your data set excludes 2003 and 2004, which no doubt would be higher than 2002.   But, I wouldn't be surprised if we are currently close to the historic average, perhaps a higher.

I don't take any comfort in this number.    If you can, find out how many workers were employed to support a single retiree's social security pension during since SS's beginning.  Then look at projections of how many workers will be working to support a retiree in the next 40 years.    With the baby boom retiring, the number of retirees will soar, while the number of workers has  decreased by millions in the last few years, as have their wages.
What do you think will happen to retiree's healthcare costs in the next 40 years?   Up or down?

With manufacturing jobs shipped to Asia and high paying service sector jobs being shipped to India, how many Walmart and McDonald's workers does it take to equal the SS contribution of a former manufacturing or service worker?  Probably 3 or 4.

This is what I'm concerned about for our future.

[lazs2]

in the 70's your social security extortion was only a certain amount per year... they only extorted so much per person and average wage earners would stop paying after about 10 or 11 months of every year.

I can't imagine that there is anyone who seriously expects to retire and live on SS benifiets.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
btw are those figures in today's dollars?

It doesn't say that they are adjusted. However, you can still conclude that in any given short term period in that chart, the dollar values are very similar. Therefore, it's valid that it just keeps going up.

No, I don't think it's "OK", but like the sun rising tomorrow in the East, I also realize that it's going to happen despite my best efforts, wishes or desires.


   Consider the baby boomers aging and retiring...    
Or, consider the globalization of our economy. Consider who we owe the money to.  

Consider this note that was at the bottom of the debt list I clipped:

NOTE 2: World War I increased the Debt by $25 Billion.

The Great Depression increased the Debt by $33 Billion and

World War II increased the Debt by $222 Billion. The

Clinton "peace time" years increased the Debt by $1,200 Billion.

I expect that the Geo. W. Bush years will be just as bad, except that Bush has the "War on Terrorism" to fund.

"It's the entitlements stupid!"

 

What I'm suggesting is though we may have gotten away with it in the past, common sense tells me there is a wall somewhere out there, and we are speeding toward it.

Maybe, but I'm sure that opinion was voiced several times by erudite scholars in the decades since Eisenhower.

I'm pretty sure of this. Unless there IS such a wall and unless we do hit it head on going 1000 mph, Congress will not change its ways. The spending will continue, the debt will rise.

Because "we the people" not only let them get away with it, we encourage them and we like the results.

[Toad]

Originally posted by oboe
The statistical mean for your set of numbers is 55.16%.
...I don't take any comfort in this number.  

Nor should you. But perhaps you should take no more discomfort from it than we all have over the last 40-50 years of deficit spending and National Indebtedness?

Looks pretty much like "business as usual".

As for the baby boomers, it's quite simple. Either SS taxes will go up dramatically or benefits/entitlements will go down dramatically (or a combination of both) UNLESS there's some incredible positive change in the economy.