USA Could Spend Up To $800 Billion Annually On Debt Interest Within Decade!

[Economy 53,076]

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/03/the-legacy-of-debt-interest-costs-poised-to-surpass-defense-and-nondefense-discretionary-spending/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/26/cbo-interest-on-federal-debt-will-triple-over-coming-decade/

 

The US currently spends approximately $200 Billion annually on interest payments from the $18 Trillion debt. That is in the era of low interest rates from a still weak economy.

 

10 Year bond yields currently are about 2.4% (up since below 2% last year). The normal interest however usually hovers between 4% and 6%. Low interest rates from Central Banks to stimulate economy, and investors around the world seeking safe Government debt as an investment during uncertain times are helping to keep rates low for now

 

As the debt grows in size, and interest rates inevitably will rise (US Federal Reserve plans first rate hike as early as September), wihin 10 years or less, interest payments could eat up a wooping $800 Billion from US Budget. That will make it a bigger expense than military spending.

[Economy 53,076]

seriously cut down the military budget before its too late

[DIVA 666]

seriously cut down the military budget before its too late

I don't understand why they don't. We spend way too much on the military in the U.S. while things like healthcare and public education take the backseat. Well, at least in one party. 

[Economy 53,076]

I don't understand why they don't. We spend way too much on the military in the U.S. while things like healthcare and public education take the backseat. Well, at least in one party. 

1 party? both parties are pretty bad

 

The Republicans wanted cuts on general defense (although they supported an increase to an overseas portion of the program)... but even so, their cuts they proposed were not significant. Both parties are pretty bad

 

Also some people have the misconception that Democrats wanna spend less on military than Republicans. Republicans actually usually dont wanna spend much period cause they dont wanna tax. That includes military. Although over-all they still spend way too much

 

That misconception probably began because 9/11 which made the US paranoid and spend a lot more on military happened when Republicans were ruling probably

 

Eitherway. Cuts to military are needed... and that may not be enough, even entitlement spending may need some tweeking

[Computer 10,980]

 

Let's print money.

[Economy 53,076]

 

Let's print money.

yaz bring that hyper inflation

 

 

[DIVA 666]

1 party? both parties are pretty bad

 

The Republicans wanted cuts on general defense (although they supported an increase to an overseas portion of the program)... but even so, their cuts they proposed were not significant. Both parties are pretty bad

 

Also some people have the misconception that Democrats wanna spend less on military than Republicans. Republicans actually usually dont wanna spend much period cause they dont wanna tax. That includes military. Although over-all they still spend way too much

 

That misconception probably began because 9/11 which made the US paranoid and spend a lot more on military happened when Republicans were ruling probably

 

Eitherway. Cuts to military are needed... and that may not be enough, even entitlement spending may need some tweeking

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/us/politics/increased-military-spending-wins-out-after-dueling-budget-votes-in-house.html?_r=0

Another example of the typical conservative move to slash important programs for U.S. citizens in order to pour more money into the military. 

 

[Luc 4,776]

1 party? both parties are pretty bad

 

The Republicans wanted cuts on general defense (although they supported an increase to an overseas portion of the program)... but even so, their cuts they proposed were not significant. Both parties are pretty bad

 

Also some people have the misconception that Democrats wanna spend less on military than Republicans. Republicans actually usually dont wanna spend much period cause they dont wanna tax. That includes military. Although over-all they still spend way too much

 

That misconception probably began because 9/11 which made the US paranoid and spend a lot more on military happened when Republicans were ruling probably

 

Eitherway. Cuts to military are needed... and that may not be enough, even entitlement spending may need some tweeking

Right-wing always puts emphasis on increased defense, security, better police, bigger punishments, etc. because they won't get votes outside multinational CEOs without it, because right-wing are worse when it comes to economy than left-wing (put simply - eventhough media and Republicans portray it as if the opposite is true).

Increase spending when the economy is doing bad, lower it when it's doing good. It's time for Obama to cut, but Republicans only want to cut for the sake of cutting, preferably where it will not actually help the economy.

The US needs a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat president. Then they can give environmental taxes, scrap church funding, half the military spending, a progressive income and dividend tax and perhaps a multinational tax. Also a limit for the amount of money a government official can earn, and invest in railways, green energy and electric cars.

[Economy 53,076]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/us/politics/increased-military-spending-wins-out-after-dueling-budget-votes-in-house.html?_r=0

Another example of the typical conservative move to slash important programs for U.S. citizens in order to pour more money into the military. 

 

this site just says "error" 

[Economy 53,076]

Right-wing always puts emphasis on increased defense, security, better police, bigger punishments, etc. because they won't get votes outside multinational CEOs without it, because right-wing are worse when it comes to economy than left-wing (put simply - eventhough media and Republicans portray it as if the opposite is true).

Increase spending when the economy is doing bad, lower it when it's doing good. It's time for Obama to cut, but Republicans only want to cut for the sake of cutting, preferably where it will not actually help the economy.

The US needs a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Democrat president. Then they can give environmental taxes, scrap church funding, half the military spending, a progressive income and dividend tax and perhaps a multinational tax. Also a limit for the amount of money a government official can earn, and invest in railways, green energy and electric cars.

I dont agree with half of what ur saying. First of all Right winged dont always favor more military spending. Here in Canada they trimed it $3 billion this year and the Liberals were the ones complaining about it

 

And in the US with sequester, it was Republicans demanding some cuts to military that democrats didnt wanna do.

 

republicans emphasise cuts on entitlements more than cuts on military (which i disagree with)... But in total spending figures democrats are worse for it. Follow it more closely if u dont believe me.

 

and they dont wanna cut for the sake of cutting... US debt is over 100% of GDP already and because of rising medicare and social security costs from aging population, therr are serious concerns about the deficit of the US in the future

 

democrats like to spend money they dont have. Then rightwinged governments always take the bad name for their cuts.

[Luc 4,776]

I dont agree with half of what ur saying. First of all Right winged dont always favor more military spending. Here in Canada they trimed it $3 billion this year and the Liberals were the ones complaining about it

 

And in the US with sequester, it was Republicans demanding some cuts to military that democrats didnt wanna do.

 

republicans emphasise cuts on entitlements more than cuts on military (which i disagree with)... But in total spending figures democrats are worse for it. Follow it more closely if u dont believe me.

 

and they dont wanna cut for the sake of cutting... US debt is over 100% of GDP already and because of rising medicare and social security costs from aging population, therr are serious concerns about the deficit of the US in the future

 

democrats like to spend money they dont have. Then rightwinged governments always take the bad name for their cuts.

Not true 

Bush let the deficit become really big, because he wanted another 4 years. When Republicans are actually in government, they dont even cut that much.

Look at the UK, with a centre right government for the past 6 years or so. A deficit of 5.3%, compared to 4% for the French socialists. 

And finally, crises are all about prevention. Regulating the financial sector, housing market and keeping the debt (private AND public) sustainable are incredibly important. Republicans don't want to do the former 2. Also, reducing income inequality will make the economy grow and investing during a recession helps better than cutting (ultimate example: Greece).

[Economy 53,076]

Not true 

Bush let the deficit become really big, because he wanted another 4 years. When Republicans are actually in government, they dont even cut that much.

Look at the UK, with a centre right government for the past 6 years or so. A deficit of 5.3%, compared to 4% for the French socialists. 

And finally, crises are all about prevention. Regulating the financial sector, housing market and keeping the debt (private AND public) sustainable are incredibly important. Republicans don't want to do the former 2. Also, reducing income inequality will make the economy grow and investing during a recession helps better than cutting (ultimate example: Greece).

i do support some regulation of financial sector. However the cause of crisis wasnt "lack of regulation". The US didnt have much regulation since ever. This was first time there was a major crisis in over 80 years since depression.

 

the housing bubble didnt inflate till government got invovled with fanie mae and fredie mac pushing bad loans. The private sector alone didnt create the crisis

 

i do agree income inequality needs to be lowered. But socialism does nit help income inequality. All u can do is tax rich and directly transfer to workers but it wont raise wages... For that u need business investment to lower unemployment and create labor market competition  

[Luc 4,776]

i do support some regulation of financial sector. However the cause of crisis wasnt "lack of regulation". The US didnt have much regulation since ever. This was first time there was a major crisis in over 80 years since depression.

 

the housing bubble didnt inflate till government got invovled with fanie mae and fredie mac pushing bad loans. The private sector alone didnt create the crisis

 

i do agree income inequality needs to be lowered. But socialism does nit help income inequality. All u can do is tax rich and directly transfer to workers but it wont raise wages... For that u need business investment to lower unemployment and create labor market competition  

Labour market competition doesn't exist in the globalised world we live in. When there's competition, you will simply get a few thoisamd workers from Poland/Mexico/Bangladesh/Philippines. Happens in every country.

Socialism DOES help income inequality... that's commonly accepted. The only argument Republicans have for them to want a low tax on high incomes, is that the high tax would 'lower innovation', which is not true. 

Bringing money directly from the rich to the poor helps. Poor people consume a way bigger part of all money they get than rich people, which is why income redistribution helps the economy. Next to that, poor people are more likely to send their children to school when they get more money.

Income inequality has to be lowered, and wealth inequality too. Both are big problems. I don't understand why you're entitled to the wealth your parents have, and think that working for your own money is extremely important. Sadly when you do get a 100% inheritance tax, people will simply move to Switzerland. Same with wealth tax.

A small wealth tax, though, is actually extremely good for the economy. It helps people invest more riskily, because they want to have a positive dividend. It also brings money to the government wihout causing lower consumption.

The housing bubble was created by right-wing politics. The interest from the fed was too low for too long causing people to massively buy mortgages.

[Economy 53,076]

Labour market competition doesn't exist in the globalised world we live in. When there's competition, you will simply get a few thoisamd workers from Poland/Mexico/Bangladesh/Philippines. Happens in every country.

Socialism DOES help income inequality... that's commonly accepted. The only argument Republicans have for them to want a low tax on high incomes, is that the high tax would 'lower innovation', which is not true. 

Bringing money directly from the rich to the poor helps. Poor people consume a way bigger part of all money they get than rich people, which is why income redistribution helps the economy. Next to that, poor people are more likely to send their children to school when they get more money.

Income inequality has to be lowered, and wealth inequality too. Both are big problems. I don't understand why you're entitled to the wealth your parents have, and think that working for your own money is extremely important. Sadly when you do get a 100% inheritance tax, people will simply move to Switzerland. Same with wealth tax.

A small wealth tax, though, is actually extremely good for the economy. It helps people invest more riskily, because they want to have a positive dividend. It also brings money to the government wihout causing lower consumption.

The housing bubble was created by right-wing politics. The interest from the fed was too low for too long causing people to massively buy mortgages.

thats not true. If your competitive you can keep your jobs. Switzerland which has some of the highest wages in the world manages to maintain low unemployment

 

taxing rich too much will simply cause businesses to move, ppl are left unemployed then ur forced to tax the rich a lot to help poor because they cant make income themselves

 

Thats happening in the US. The efforts to raise corporate taxes last several years (now at wopping 35% plus whatever states add) raising top income brackets, introducing obamacare etc...

 

has that worked at all? Income inequality in the US is the highest its ever been. Their gradual move away from Capitalism to a more socialist society doesnt seem to be working

 

and i agree. The republicans helped cause it with fanie mae and fredie mac (which btw Democrats were not against it), but that was unusually socialist of them. Using tax payer money to ensure mortages of people of modest means isnt rightwinged politics at all, im still surprised they did that cause thats something the democrats were more likely to do cause that was government meddling using tax money it wasnt a free market

 

and they cannot he blamed for the interest rates part of it cause that was not within republicans control

[Luc 4,776]

thats not true. If your competitive you can keep your jobs. Switzerland which has some of the highest wages in the world manages to maintain low unemployment

 

taxing rich too much will simply cause businesses to move, ppl are left unemployed then ur forced to tax the rich a lot to help poor because they cant make income themselves

 

Thats happening in the US. The efforts to raise corporate taxes last several years (now at wopping 35% plus whatever states add) raising top income brackets, introducing obamacare etc...

 

has that worked at all? Income inequality in the US is the highest its ever been. Their gradual move away from Capitalism to a more socialist society doesnt seem to be working

 

and i agree. The republicans helped cause it with fanie mae and fredie mac (which btw Democrats were not against it), but that was unusually socialist of them. Using tax payer money to ensure mortages of people of modest means isnt rightwinged politics at all, im still surprised they did that cause thats something the democrats were more likely to do cause that was government meddling using tax money it wasnt a free market

 

and they cannot he blamed for the interest rates part of it cause that was not within republicans control

Obamacare prevented the deaths of tens of thousands of people and therefore is a success. It indeed makes the US a little bit less libertarian, but that's okay.

Taxing businesses too much will cause them to move their headquarters. But we have to think: do we want a competitive corporate tax? It should be that way, that you pay tax for the country you earn your money.

Raising top income brackets doesn't have a bad effect on businesses. Maybe a few people would move to Switzerland, but overall the income inequality would decrease by a lot and the government income would increase by a little bit. 

Obama is a socialist (I think almost as much as Bernie Sanders) but sadly Democrats in general are right-wing and the Senate has a very small minority for the left-wing of the Democrat party. Republicans are extreme-right, Democrats are somewhere between middle and right.

Raising corporate tax only has an effect on multinationals, by the way. You can also have a progressive corporate tax to create more small and middle-small businesses, which wouldn't hurt the economy while keeping the power of big bussinesses smaller.