USA Live Debt Clock Surging

[Luc 4,776]

1 hour ago, SEANGT said:

so....am I right in thinking the federal debt of the US doesn't matter? In so far as cutting programs and not expanding social services because it would increase our debt...like it doesn't really matter right? I always see republicans talking about how the debt is so huge and I'm like....okay but it's not like the US is paying off a credit card. Economics of a country are different. But idk how exactly. 

Federal debt does matter and lowering it should be a long-term goal, but you're right in thinking that it's much less simple than "we should not spend more than we get!" - all I know is that it's so complex that it's difficult to know what's the best thing to do. 

But it's important to remember that Republicans mostly want to make the government smaller, not necessarily make the debt smaller. Debt is an excuse for budget cuts. There's many ways to bring down a budget deficit, and the least harmful for the economy would be increasing government efficiency/decreasing waste and raising taxes on those who don't spend much (read: the rich and wealthy).

 

But a quick overview:

Fiscal conservatives believe you need to reduce debt at all times to bring down overall debt, even when harmful for the economy (this is what they did in Greece: biggest economic collapse in modern history, worse than the Great Recession of the '30s). This is often the most popular politically, as 'less spending' sounds great during a crisis (though it actually prolongs the crisis!)

Keynesian economists believe you need to reduce debt when the economy is doing well, and increase spending (stimulus) when the economy is doing badly. I think Obama's in this camp (stimulus), same with Bill Clinton (budget surplus). With this policy (New Deal) they fixed the Great Recession.

On the other hand you've got people saying that you should never have a budget surplus. They argue that a budget surplus equals less money for the people if net foreign investment doesn't increase, which could lead to private debt rising or the economy declining, both undesirable.

 

this is probably oversimplified but I think those are the three most popular things.

[kvnrp 48,353]

The world clock is even nicer

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Germanys is pretty much the only one going down, UK and Russia too but their GDP is shrinking pretty fast imo.

[Economy 53,076]

3 minutes ago, kvnrp said:

The world clock is even nicer

http://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Germanys is pretty much the only one going down, UK too but their GDP is shrinking pretty fast imo.

Lol i saw that clock too

 

And when looking at world numbers take with a grain of salt because fluctuations in currency will play a role on it too. It doesnt mean every country whose GDP is dropping (In US Dollars) that the economy is actually contracting too

[Petie Estie 5,736]

15 hours ago, Luc said:

Federal debt does matter and lowering it should be a long-term goal, but you're right in thinking that it's much less simple than "we should not spend more than we get!" - all I know is that it's so complex that it's difficult to know what's the best thing to do. 

But it's important to remember that Republicans mostly want to make the government smaller, not necessarily make the debt smaller. Debt is an excuse for budget cuts. There's many ways to bring down a budget deficit, and the least harmful for the economy would be increasing government efficiency/decreasing waste and raising taxes on those who don't spend much (read: the rich and wealthy).

 

But a quick overview:

Fiscal conservatives believe you need to reduce debt at all times to bring down overall debt, even when harmful for the economy (this is what they did in Greece: biggest economic collapse in modern history, worse than the Great Recession of the '30s). This is often the most popular politically, as 'less spending' sounds great during a crisis (though it actually prolongs the crisis!)

Keynesian economists believe you need to reduce debt when the economy is doing well, and increase spending (stimulus) when the economy is doing badly. I think Obama's in this camp (stimulus), same with Bill Clinton (budget surplus). With this policy (New Deal) they fixed the Great Recession.

On the other hand you've got people saying that you should never have a budget surplus. They argue that a budget surplus equals less money for the people if net foreign investment doesn't increase, which could lead to private debt rising or the economy declining, both undesirable.

 

this is probably oversimplified but I think those are the three most popular things.

ah right. I feel like budget and national debt are conflated a lot. This was really clarifying! Thanks