Debt increase to 9 trill

No reason to hit the panic button. National debt is a hypothetical number and it's mostly useless by itself.
 
True, although at one point the amount dished out to pay off interest alone will become quite alarming.

Eventually it'll come back, but for our generation, I don't think there's anything to worry about.
 
Agreed. And the fact that cure national debt is absurdly complex. Many people don't realize that many other countries around the world are in debt to us. Did you know that Japan's national debt is over 7 trillion? The Japanese government also spends 65% of their annual revenue on trying to remedy their debt...and it is still growing.
 
You're right. Although even though at this rate we don't have to worry, I still find it a more pressing issue than space exploration programs, for example, where we would completely waste 100G (or so). Military spending in U.S is a non-issue, I guess, so I won't use it as an example.
 
they could incraset their debt by giving me a million dollars...thats not much money considering theyve spend like a thousand times more than that on teh war.....them giving me a million is the same as them giving me a dollar if they had a thousand...actually it would be more than a thousand. im gonna write a letter
 
what???? it would only take 9/13ths of the year if we spent it purely on the matter of national debt....however that could never happen due to the vast amount of other things the national income is used for
 
Our current GDP is close to thirteen trillion dollars or so (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html)

JApan is around 4 Trillion

The Current UD household usually has a mortage, usually around 100,000 dollars, or 3 times what they make in a year, while we are still within one years income. It ain a massive deal. Oh nad Euro debt is so fucked since they merged as country, I can't seem to find statistics that seem accurate for comparison purposes(Germany to France debt in the EU means an net debt of 0 which is kinda dumb)
 
too bad bill gates is already giving shitloads of whatever is in his wallet to help deal with problems in africa and around the world.
 
wrong. Under clinton the US was richer than ever, and now were in more debt than ever. It's not Bush's fault or anythin...
 
Actualy, you are wrong. The Clinton administration surplus that you hear about is actually in regard to the spending of the American public, not the national debt. Here are some numbers:

Debt Held by the Public:

1997 - 3,789,667,546,849.60

1998 - 3,733,864,472,163.53

1999 - 3,636,104,594,501.81

2000 - 3,405,303,490,221.20

See the it decrease? Government spending is quite another story. Here are those numbers:

Debt Held by Gov.

1997 - 1,623,478,464,547.74

1998 - 1,792,328,536,734.09

1999 - 2,020,166,307,131.62

2000 - 2,268,874,719,665.66

Note the increase. Clinton himself actually did very little to help the national debt. Here are the totals for those years.

National Debt:

1997 - 5,674,178,209,886.86

1998 - 5,656,270,901,633.43

1999 - 5,526,193,008,897.62

2000 - 5,413,146,011,397.34
 
Well we are in a state of war as of now so it's logical that the debt would increase instead of decrease during peace time.
 
Actually, that really doesn't have much to do with it. The Clinton years where the only surplus the public has had...ever. It wasn't because of war or who was in office. It was because of the internet boom and the dot com bubble.
 
Like I've stated in many threads. Clinton caught a break. President's aren't the cause of the economy. The economy is a drive of it's own. We drive the economy with our spending habits and financial capabilities.
 
So you think that during war time the income produced by the military and their by-products in research and developement (which has shown to be a really large part of our economy) isn't affected at all? Or how about the money invested into rebuilding Iraq, do you think that doesn't impact us at all in relation to the national debt?
 
Oh it contributes some, but not much. Military spending is a smaller fraction of government spending than people think. The US government, for example, spends more on social services.
 
ok, in my earlier post i was not thinking, i defiantly meant trillion but typed billion, sorry for the mix up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top