Source: CBPP


Today’s chart comes from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It shows how much debt projections have changed during the past four years.

Continues here


Category: Economy, Politics, Taxes and Policy

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “Tune Out Politicians Still Obsessing Over Government Debt”

  1. dsawy says:

    That’s not so much reassuring as it is a reason to be highly dubious of the predictive skill of CBPP’s economic models.

    • DeDude says:

      Do you know of any other model that has not shown similar changes between its predictions in 2010 and in 2014?

  2. Frilton Miedman says:

    I believe the household debt to income ratio is far more important.

    Government debt to GDP ratio is easily unwound in economic booms (as during the Clinton administration), from there, consumption plays the biggest role in economic growth, which reduces government spending/increases revenues,

    The problem, wages are flat while household debt has grown to placate stagnant wages, in turn household debt has sky-rocketed to induce consumption.

    Though household debt has come down since 2007, it’s still far too high to revert back to credit in place of wages to induce consumption, the Fed has bought us time by reducing household costs to service that debt (cheap mortgages, mainly)

    All told, government debt to GDP hinges on household income growth.

    • frilton,

      really? with: “ during the Clinton administration..”

      did you /forget/ about NAFTA: China MFN(??)

      exactly? How many ‘Industrial Base(s)’ does a Country have to ‘Sell Off’??

      • Frilton Miedman says:

        No argument whatsoever that NAFTA inevitably was a massive mistake.

        The two are not equivalent, the effects of NAFTA are an economic drag, but that has nothing to do with the fact of reduction of deficits in an economic upturn – as most recently proven under Clinton.

        Heck, I could cite Clinton as partially causal for the crash of 2008 for signing off on removing Glass-Steagall and creating the CFMA that allowed it to happen via derivatives & futures deregulation, but it still doesn’t detract the empirical fact that our deficit was gone and the debt had begun reversing during the boom years of Clinton.

  3. baldski says:

    Obsession with debt by the Reich-wing is a ploy first posited by Jude Wisinski way back in Reagan’s Time. You have the Republicans spending like drunken sailors when they are in power and then screaming with their hair on fire about debt! debt! Debt! when the Democrats come into office. It is called “The Two Santa Claus tactic”.

  4. chartist says:

    What bothers me is what Rick Santelli said: the S&P is up 5x since 1985 but so is government debt.

    • Frilton Miedman says:

      As is household debt, both are in lock-step with economic growth, which begs the question – why?

      Hint, the “vulture chart”, a very small minority of beneficiaries are reaping the benefits at the expense of both government & household debt, all starting in the Reagan years.

  5. A Farmer says:

    I thought there would be surpluses as far as the eye can see.

  6. bigsteve says:

    I use to be a zero debt kind of guy. But I am better informed now. National Debt is what under girths our money. Which is really a call on future labour. I have read that after Clinton left office there was worry that if we stayed on course all of the nation debt would be paid off in a decade. This would upset the international money system. Because no more treasury bonds would be issued. This NPR piece explains the possible trouble.