As of close of business on July 31, 2014, our debt has risen to $17,618,599,653,160.19. That crippling level of debt is itself astonishing but what is equally astonishing is that $7 trillion of that debt has been added in just the five and a half years of the Obama Administration. That $7 trillion is more than the debt accumulated from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.
I remain in disbelief over the continued spending of Congress and the White House — I was also critical of George W. Bush who was not a fiscal conservative and the wars launched under his leadership contributed to these costs. Despite this mounting debt, neither the Congress nor the White House hesitated to send hundreds of millions more to Israel to pay for part of its defense or billions to places like Afghanistan and Iraq despite the loss of over $4 trillion in those wars.
I readily admit that I am more conservative on spending and taxes than many on this blog. However, I am not fanatically against debt as a concept. I just object to the cavalier attitude toward spending and more importantly the lack of priority. The greatest national security threats in this country are not Afghanistan or Iraq but our crumbling public education system, underfunded science and environmental programs, and such growing menaces as pandemics like Ebola.
As recent report showed that the level of waste in rebuilding Afghanistan alone is far greater than previously thought. John Sopko, the inspector general charged with monitoring aid sent by the U.S. to Afghanistan, found billions of dollars more wasted in Afghanistan. One small example are two $40.5 million C-130 transport planes that the U.S. government gave the Afghan Air Force even though it cannot use the planes. Such moronic forms of waste result in a shocking finding that of $10.6 billion in funding review, nearly $7 billion was potentially wasted. Yet, the money continues to pour in and no one is held accountable for the waste or stupidity. No one accept the American people who will pass this debt on to our children.
Here is the actual debt numbers from the government: Treasury
Mr. Kauten,
Your passive-aggressive style and condescending tone are certainly a departure from the civil discourse BFM has displayed. Maybe its purpose is to obscure the fallacy of your twisted logic. I really enjoyed this one:
“There’s never been a free market, nor has there ever been free enterprise. Government regulation has always maintained economic transactions. The non-existent free market can’t handle anything.”
If there has never been a free market or free enterprise; if government has always regulated economic transaction, then how can you conclude free markets can’t handle anything? If according to you, it’s never been tried, then the only thing you can logically conclude is you have no proof free markets won’t work.
Now, I will admit there were many things I didn’t learn in high school and your method of reasoning might simply be one of them.
Bob – an ad hominem attack is a personal attack on someone, not changing the subject or adding to the dialogue.
Paul,
I was going by your rules for accusations of ad hominem attacks. No proof necessary.
It takes very little effort to rewrite history by cherry-picking tiny details. Especially if you don’t cite a source. That’s how conspiracy theories work.
I believe the subject was whether FDR’s New Deal worked. Not whether he started wars. Don’t move the goal posts. In those forever-gone days, Presidents didn’t declare war, Congress did. Yell at them. They’re all dead, so they won’t mind.
One of the primary purposes for government is to coerce the population into working on (or financing) projects that are deemed necessary for the common good. If you don’t agree on the projects, that’s what voting and representation are for. Whining about doing your civic duty is ineffective. You don’t get to choose where your taxes go, unless the taxes are on the ballot. I believe you should have learned this in high school, at the very latest. Taxes are not optional, or multiple-choice. Why do we need to explain that to you?
There’s never been a free market, nor has there ever been free enterprise. Government regulation has always maintained economic transactions. The non-existent free market can’t handle anything.
Bob – FDR’s actions put Japan in a position where they either had to lose face or declare war. He was sending the Flying Tigers to China to fight the Japanese. He already had destroyers following German submarines and reporting their positions to British ships. When Hitler was asked about what to do about the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, his generals advised him to declare war since they were already at war with the United States anyway. it would just be out in the open.
“Finally, in response to your second question. I think my view does support the inalienable right of everyone – in part because one inalienable right is the right to join together to form a government that can take effective action.”
BFM,
If, as you say, we have this right to form a government for “effective action” then what security do you have in your unalienable rights if “your form” ends up not being, “the form”? Elections have consequences but shouldn’t the minority be as secure in their rights as the majority? How is this to be achieved?
That is a very good question. Governments always pose a risk. This is why we should always be vigilant.
But it seems to me that the alternative is that there can be no legitimate government. That does not seem right to me.
If I have to face the risk of a world without the government or the risk of government going off track then I choose government. My choice is based, in part, on my confidence that my fellow citizens are rational and reasonable people and that together we can reach a consensus.
I don’t have any better answer than that. I believe there is an inalienable right for people to form a government.
Paul, if you could do that check only where you want the money to go would you then be unable to take advantage of the other items you did want your money to go to? (and if you said no to infrastructure should you be allowed to travel on the interstates as one example of something that is beneficial to all and needs taxpayer money to allow the country to work.)
leejcaroll – you ask an interesting question. In general I would say that if services are available you should be able to take advantage of them. Say, for example, you did not check off DOD, and we were invaded. Should the DOD protect you? I would say yes.
@Paul C. Schulte ” I do not want to pay higher taxes. I am fine with the free market handling the situation.”
it seems to me that the implication to your position is that government is not legitimate.
Yet I do not see how the free market could handle what I consider the important, necessary and desirable functions of government.
If you admit the legitimacy of government I don’t see how you avoid taxation. It seems to me that anything that approximates government has to have a way to raise revenue to perform its tasks.
It you acknowledge the legitimacy of government and taxation then I do not see how you distinguish one tax rate from another on the basis of principle. Certainly one tax rate may be more reasonable or appropriate, or practical, or appropriate than another. But once you accept the legitimacy of tax I don’t see how you then proceed to the judgement that one tax or tax rate violates a fundamental principle of core value.
bfm – I think we have differing ideas on what the legitimate function or necessary function of the federal government is. I have stated on many occasions that I think the income tax should come with a check box form that would allow you to direct where your money went. For example, mine might go to defense. Yours might go to education. You could check as many or as few boxes as you wanted.
I do not think education is a task for the federal government, I think it is a task left to the states. I do feel interstate transportation is a federal job. I think raising taxes for stimulus spending is wrong. I not only believe in defense spending but the best defense money can buy.
Thanks. I do believe is is worthwhile to sort out the differences in our assumptions.
BTW, for the record, it is perfectly OK with me if you, your children, and you grand children attend my schools.
And I especially want my CDC to treat you if you come down with a communicable disease.
Actually, you have touched on a very vague idea I had for a story about virtual nations – years ago. Every one, regardless of where they lived, could choose to associate with a virtual nation that would define their responsibilities and benefits as a citizen.
If there were a problem, LE officers would quickly look up the ID of the person and determine which is any laws applied to that person. It would be a little more work and record keeping, but people would be much more likely to abide by the law if they could choose the body of law that applied to them.
BFM,
I’m sorry but I read your last post and I cannot believe you have a care in the world what your government is supposed to be doing. Statements like, “Therefore we do not have to cut the social safety net.”; “We could raise taxes back to reasonable levels.”; “We could stimulate the economy and as the economy picks up we could raise taxes back to reasonable levels.”; “Using government funds to put those resource back to work would not crowd out any thing – the resources are sitting idle.”; “A stimulus would put people back to work, increase business activity and provide additional tax revenue that could be used to pay down the debt. It is literally a win/win/win situation. What is not to like? And doesn’t it make much more sense than cutting social safety net programs?”
Using the word “We” is an illusion unless you are making policy on your own dime. Where does the constitution provide for the creation of a social safety net? Was government designed to spend the people’s money for economic stimulus or was it designed to secure an environment for a free-market economy; one where the people spend their own money as they see fit, without government interference beyond that which secures the people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Call me old-fashioned but I consider everything from an unalienable right perspective. To that end, government policy cannot be acceptable if it violates this most fundamental purpose.
John Oliver – I am offended when people want to spend “my money” as though it was theirs. I do not want to pay higher taxes. I am fine with the free market handling the situation.
@John Oliver ” I cannot believe you have a care in the world what your government is supposed to be doing… Where does the constitution provide for the creation of a social safety net? ”
I think you have hit on a key point here. And many agree with you.
But I think the issues you bring up are very different from a discussion of the debt. As I see it, the issues you raise have to do things like the source of power of the government, proper role of the government and the legitimacy of taxation and really a whole knot of questions about government.
But when people like me consider questions regarding the debt, many of us have already reached conclusions regarding the legitimacy of government and the role of taxation. I don’t see how one can discuss solutions to questions like debt without fist starting from a position that the government has a legitimate role to play in that solution.
To be clear, yes I believe it is perfectly legitimate for the government to raise taxes and carry out tasks and projects decided on in a democratic fashion. I am OK with progressive taxation where those who have more contribute more. And I do not believe that is the same as communism or socialism.
I also am perfectly OK with fiat money. Sure fiat money has some risks associated with it. But commodity money has problems as well. And fiat money provides some tools the government can use to stabilize the economy and do thinks like manage bank failure and stabilize financial markets.
I realize it must be frustrating for some who try to argue that taxation is theft and have people like me seem to breeze right by that and claim the debt is not a problem now and likely not for decades.
But the fact is when we start the discussion of the debt, some of us have already made very different assumptions regarding the role of government and the range of legitimate solutions.
I think it is very useful to identify those differences. But I also have no illusions that we will reach agreement. If someone believes taxation is theft then I doubt I can convince them a stimulus or a tax increase is a good solution.
Finally, in response to your second question. I think my view does support the inalienable right of everyone – in part because one inalienable right is the right to join together to form a government that can take effective action. Even our constitution provides for taxation. I don’t think I have strayed from that line.
Having said all that, let me again express my appreciation of the discussion from every one. These are important issues worthy of serious consideration.
Bob wrote: The rich ain’t gonna give you their money.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kentucky-state-president-cut-90000-off-his-own-salary-2014-8
A University President Took A $90,000 Pay Cut So He Could Pay Employees More
Paul,
Watch those ad hominem attacks.
Yes, the Eisenhower (that Socialist guy) years, had very high tax rates for the rich, accompanied by very high prosperity, and lots of rich people. But one does not assume causality. That’s for low-attention spans.
About one-half of our national debt is owed by some U.S. folks (largely the government) to other U.S. folks.
No, it won’t be forgiven, that’s not what I said, is it?
By the way, the New Deal didn’t fail.
That’s not what happened, is it? You could look it up.
Greedy folks trying to drive the country back to pre-New Deal feudalism, does not New Deal failure make.
Now, if you’d really like to pay down the debt, then stop expensive imperialistic wars, drastically cut the “defense” (from what?) budget, and make people pay their taxes. Fix the infrastructure, and reverse the dumbing-down of our population.
Don’t get me started. Oops, too late.
BFM, be careful. You are one of the few adults in the room.
Bob – would you like to point out the ad hominem attack I made? BTW, there were as many unemployed in 1939 as there were in 1933. What do you mean the New Deal did not fail? Where did it succeed? The WPA built infrastructure that local governments had to pay to maintain. The CCC only hired boys for 6 months at a time. In the meantime FDR got us into two wars we really did not need to be part of.
Well said – pointed out – Nick, of BFM, Oliver
now
WTF? – Hey Paul, you’re on a roll down the P. U. highway this morning.
Students go to school – TO LEARNnnnnnnn.
Yes, I concur, some stymie their intellectual growth by bias and/or desire to stay at a certain level of discussion (hint, hint, hint)…..
But – for the most part – we Always – Learn;
and students more so.
Knowledge (of true facts) is power
———————————–
btw – you’d “get” that if you would turn off Rush….
Laser – many students go to school to make drug or gang connections, not to learn. They are required to go there until they are 16 or graduate from H.S. whichever comes first.
BFM,
Disagreement is natural and having a forum to express those viewpoints is essential to a free society. One can have the view that government debt is insignificant and another can hold that debt is crippling our economy. How do you resolve what are polar opposite economic theories? By answering those two questions; because they remove the subjectivity and provide a path for good governance.
John Oliver and BFM have shown the reason diversity and respect is so important. They get it. Too many don’t. Kudos, gents.
@John Oliver
Thanks for your response. You may have noticed, I do not agree with many on this blog. I value it because of the many different views expressed and for the thoughtful selection of topics presented.
BFM,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I’ve been following this thread all day and it has exhibited the same line of demarcation found in every other thread. Whenever this occurs (and it always does) then I am left asking the same two questions:
1. What is the purpose for government? (This is not what you want but what it was chartered to be)
2. Does your view better secure the unalienable rights of ALL citizens?
If there is no agreement on #1 then EVERY opinion is worthy. If the answer to #2 is NO, then there is no justification for it; no matter which side of the fence you stand.
“Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.”
-attributed to Terry Pratchett
As folks on this blog keep saying, and you can look it up,
We owe most of the money to ourselves.
We owe most of the money to ourselves.
Try to calm down, and say it until you understand it.
Do you think we’re going to foreclose on ourselves, if we don’t pay up on time?
That would be…stupid…wouldn’t it?
Stupid like busting poor people to avoid taxing the rich.
Stupid like letting the country fall apart because you don’t wanna pay your taxes.
Stupid like using phony debt threats to achieve a nasty social agenda.
Not to insult four-year-olds, but they’ve been known to say, “NO! It’s mine! I don’t wanna share!” They have an excuse. You do not.
Libertarians and others consider themselves “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-Steinbeck
Gotta keep taxes down on the rich, because you’ll be rich someday?
No, you won’t be rich, someday.
The rich ain’t gonna give you their money.
You could liquidate all the holdings of the so-called rich, and it still wouldn’t make much of a dent in the debt, or the deficit for that matter.
We don’t have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Bob – that owing it to ourselves is something FDR liked to use as he was ramping up his failed New Deal. Owing it to ourselves means we could forgive the debt, it were really true.
“debt is something that we can keep kicking down the road”
I am not claiming we should keep kicking debt down the road.
I am pointing out there is no imminent threat. There is no emergency. Therefore we do not have to cut the social safety net. We have time, at the very least years and likely decades. We also have the resources.
We can and we should take the time to develop good solutions. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded in bad choices that we do not have to make. We especially should not allow people to trick us into bad choices with claims that we can easily prove are false. We know there is no debt emergency. We know we have time. We know we can find better solutions than to cut social safety net programs.
We could stimulate the economy. Sure that would cost money at first. But it would also increase economic activity. That means people would go back to work, businesses would generate more revenue and profits, and that would increase tax revenues. Those additional tax revenues could be used to pay down the debt – if we had the political will to take that common sense approach.
We could raise taxes back to reasonable levels.
We could stimulate the economy and as the economy picks up we could raise taxes back to reasonable levels.
We have excellent data that shows stimulus under current economic conditions will work. Stimulus worked in 2007-2008. Some people pose the question ‘if the stimulus worked how come we still have problems. The stimulus was not large enough then to solve the largest problem since the depression.
Some claim that stimulus will have negative effects. Probably the best know of these is ‘crowding out’ the tendency for government expenditures to replace business spending and investment. Crowding out is a real threat when the economy is booming. There is little threat of that under current economic conditions. The economy is down, maybe 10% below what it could produce. Those economic resources are not being used in any case. Using government funds to put those resource back to work would not crowd out any thing – the resources are sitting idle.
A stimulus would put people back to work, increase business activity and provide additional tax revenue that could be used to pay down the debt. It is literally a win/win/win situation. What is not to like? And doesn’t it make much more sense than cutting social safety net programs?
I’m apparently the dumbest guy in this thread because I’ve read BFM’s previous post a dozen times and cannot find an ounce of sanity in it. So instead of beating my head against my keyboard, I’ll just add to the lunacy.
I say we forget the constitution because when it comes to policy, no one is using it anyway. We then tie Congressional voting records to their constituent federal income tax rates. If they are on record of voting for deficit spending then their constituents will be taxed at a completely arbitrary rate of 80%. All other districts will be taxed at 20%.
“I’m apparently the dumbest guy in this thread because I’ve read BFM’s previous post a dozen times and cannot find an ounce of sanity in it. So instead of beating my head against my keyboard, I’ll just add to the lunacy.”
I have written several statements here today and they cover a number of topics related to the debt.
If I had some indication which one of those statements troubles you I might try to respond. No guarantees, because I am not very disciplined. I usually write about what grabs my attention and on subjects where I have at least read something.
I really doubt you are dumb. You don’t write like your are dumb. But I do think it is less than useful to announce you don’t understand when I will bet you actually mean that you disagree.
That is less than useful because you could actually pose questions and make counter arguments which might lead to greater understanding. Even if we continue to disagree on the issues we would have a greater understanding of each position and the arguments that support and refute those positions. Right now it is anybody’s guess what you disagree with or what you do not understand.
I also think it is less than useful to propose a course of action that seems little more than ‘lets punish those with whom I disagree’ – tax rates dependent on whether you agree with the past votes of their representative. But in fairness you did announce that your proposal would add to the lunacy.
We get it. You disagree with some of the remarks in this thread.
You just have not given us enough to know which ones. We don’t know why you think they are wrong. We don’t know you counter arguments. And aside from you proposal that we punish those who elected representatives that voted in ways that you disagree we don’t have a clue about what policies you do support.
It is really difficult to have a dialog with someone who requires telepathy to know their position. But I am working on it.
The more we tax, the more we spend. We could literally confiscate every penny of the poor and not pay off the debt.
We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem.
BFM:
“If we give children the care and nurture they need now we might be able to greatly reduce the number of adults who start families that need our care in the future.”
Although I do agree that children need to be taken care of if their parents can’t or won’t do it, it is not true that giving children benefits prevents them from needing them in the future when they become parents. On the contrary, children of young unwed single mothers have a very high risk of becoming unwed single mothers themselves. The children pay the freight for their parents’ mistakes, and sometimes the consequences affect their entire future. I support any program that has been proven effective in breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. That is one reason why I support work requirements, because it drastically reduces the welfare rolls when it is applied, getting people out of that dead end cycle.
That said, there have been some programs that are very effective in having meaningful improvements in kids’ lives, including the Harlem Children’s Zone. But I wish programs were analyzed for their effectiveness in meeting basic needs, as well as helping people actually improve their circumstances. For example, community gardens and classes that teach city dwellers how to garden. Zoning changes that allow keeping 2 or 3 hens. Anything that helps bring fresh, healthy, non-processed food to the poor.
” it is not true that giving children benefits prevents them from needing them in the future when they become parents.”
I think what the rest of your comment indicates is what I believe – that it depends entirely how the aid is implemented. That does not mean that any program can be 100% effective. But if you believe that adults can influence children then you have to believe that social services programs can make a difference in the kind citizens we have in 20 years.
We owe it to the children, and to our selves to make that effort.
This is one case where duty and self interest lead to the same conclusion. We own it to ourselves and to children to assure that children have what they need to grow to be responsible citizens.
Ah, yes, leveraged debt. I recall during the housing boom when irresponsible financial advisors declared homeowners should leverage their assets with HELOCs and neg-am ARMs. A lot of people lost their houses following that “sage” advice.
It’s like Aesop’s ant and the grasshopper. We as a country will either act responsibly, or we won’t. Medicare and Social Security are predicted to run out of money in a number of years. So the debt might not matter to us right now, but it sure will in just a few decades.
bc, I suggest you read back some posts to see the examples of how debt will be crippling. Darren and Gary T go into detail on the subject.