National Debt

[iff2mastamatt]

Has anyone realized that our Congressmen have spent over two trillion dollars in less than two months? That's twice the amount of money our nation has EVER spent from 1779-2008! What do you think this means for us and our taxes? Can we realistically afford these bailouts?

[secret-steve-crumbles]

As much as I would love to make a few comments in this thread, I just don't believe mr. one post is legit yet.

[iff2mastamatt]

What? Newbies don't deserve an opinion?

[phatlip]

What? Newbies don't deserve an opinion?

He was implying you were a spam bot. Your post looked a little fishy.

[masherscf]

Has anyone realized that our Congressmen have spent over two trillion dollars in less than two months? That's twice the amount of money our nation has EVER spent from 1779-2008! What do you think this means for us and our taxes? Can we realistically afford these bailouts?

I think this is bogus.

That national debt is

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif


Granted, $2 trillion is a shit-load of money. This website quotes the 2008 federal budget alone as $2.8 trillion.

I just don't see how your facts can be correct?

[iff2mastamatt]

@ masherscf

Thanks for the correction, I meant 20 trillion instead of 2 trillion.

[tokenuser]

@ masherscf

Thanks for the correction, I meant 20 trillion instead of 2 trillion.Whether its $2T or $20T, I still suspect your numbers are bogus.

Linkage please?

I have seen two references to $20T.

First - this is the cost of the current financial meltdown ... ie lost jobs, market drop, etc .... but has nothing to do with Government spending.

Second - this is the projected cost of the enhanced Medicare/Medicaid over the upcoming decades with Baby Boomers retiring, and quite a few Gen Xers getting to that age as well (the number of decades was not specified ... but since it was plural, we can assume 2 as a minimum).

[masherscf]

Suffice it to say, If the U.S. government has spent 20 Trillion dollars. I suspect a few of those checks would start to bounce 'cause honestly, I don't think they have it. $20 trillion is like one-third of the money supply of the entire planet.

[phatlip]

Suffice it to say, If the U.S. government has spent 20 Trillion dollars. I suspect a few of those checks would start to bounce 'cause honestly, I don't think they have it. $20 trillion is like one-third of the money supply of the entire planet.

I believe that's the problem though isn't it? That this money is theoretically created by the sale of bonds and such? We're just printing money out of thin air thus defacing the value of the dollar.

*I'm speaking in very general terms. This is a very complex subject*

[masherscf]

I believe that's the problem though isn't it? That this money is theoretically created by the sale of bonds and such? We're just printing money out of thin air thus defacing the value of the dollar.

*I'm speaking in very general terms. This is a very complex subject*

We didn't print that much money. Even now the total amount of US currency is only a small fraction of the money supply in the U.S. alone.

This topic is not that complex. We can't conjure money out of thin air. If we're going to go into debt, we have to find someone to lend us the money.

Theoretically created with bonds? So, we just sold enough bonds to cover an expense equal to one-third of the money supply in the entire world. Who the heck bought that many bonds. $20T is a colossal number.

And, if we did just spend $20T. Why did the national debt clock not increase any faster, did we have it in the bank? The income of the US. government last year was only $2.66 T. Assuming it was just sitting in the bank somewhere that leaves more than $17 T still uncovered. I think someone would notice if the National debt jumped more that $17 trillion.

And, just what did they spend it on? Last years budget was less that $3T Even with the odd trillion spend on a bailout here and there it doesn't add up to 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

[phatlip]

We didn't print that much money. Even now the total amount of US currency is only a small fraction of the money supply in the U.S. alone.

This topic is not that complex. We can't conjure money out of thin air. If we're going to go into debt, we have to find someone to lend us the money.

Theoretically created with bonds? So, we just sold enough bonds to cover an expense equal to one-third of the money supply in the entire world. Who the heck bought that many bonds. $20T is a colossal number.

And, if we did just spend $20T. Why did the national debt clock not increase any faster, did we have it in the bank? The income of the US. government last year was only $2.66 T. Assuming it was just sitting in the bank somewhere that leaves more than $17 T still uncovered. I think someone would notice if the National debt jumped more that $17 trillion.

And, just what did they spend it on? Last years budget was less that $3T Even with the odd trillion spend on a bailout here and there it doesn't add up to 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Again, this is a fairly complex subject and I'm not looking to debate every single word of a very broad statement I made. I was speaking of the issue of printing money and the national debt in general. I'm not debating the numbers being discussed.

Just that we can't and shouldn't continue to print money out of thin air. To generalize things even more than before. :P

[dirtyhat]

Again, this is a fairly complex subject and I'm not looking to debate every single word of a very broad statement I made. I was speaking of the issue of printing money and the national debt in general. I'm not debating the numbers being discussed.

Just that we can't and shouldn't continue to print money out of thin air. To generalize things even more than before. :P

I know what your saying, and agree with you. But you were VERY General :P

Theoretically created with bonds? So, we just sold enough bonds to cover an expense equal to one-third of the money supply in the entire world. Who the heck bought that many bonds. $20T is a colossal number.

You know China alone "owns" ~$680 Billion of Treasury Bonds right?... and thats just China... The whole world "owns" a part of the US (Debt included)... I'm being very general here, on a very complex subject, as well. But, you get the point (hopefully)

[masherscf]

I know what your saying, and agree with you. But you were VERY General :P

You know China alone "owns" ~$680 Billion of Treasury Bonds right?... and thats just China... The whole world "owns" a part of the US (Debt included)... I'm being very general here, on a very complex subject, as well. But, you get the point (hopefully)

This issue is dead simple. It's not about China owning 680 Billion of a $10T debt. It's not about how the U.S. finances it's debt. The U.S. treasury could be selling lemonade for all I care, it's irrelevant. It's about order of magnitude. There's just not that much money around to spend. The money supply of the entire work is only about $60 T.

Reference:http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2009/0112.html



Claiming that the U.S. government spent $20 T in the last two months is preposterous. If you assume that the U.S. could have financed it through treasury bonds, the U.S. treasury would have had to sell bonds equal to one-third of the money supply of the entire world. That means one out of three dollars (or local currency) in every pocket, bank account and liquid asset would have to be tied up in U.S. Treasury bonds during the last two months.

$680 Billion is shit-load of money and it's alarming. $20 T is almost 30-times that and it stretches the bounds of believability. I simply want some documentation.

[dirtyhat]

$680 Billion is shit-load of money and it's alarming. $20 T is almost 30-times that and it stretches the bounds of believability. I simply want some documentation.

Again, Phatlip and myself are not debating the numbers being discussed. I don't believe they are correct anyways.

You asked, "theoretically created with bonds?" So I answered with an example of how much bonds one country can own, proving its not as theoretical as some might think. (because most people don't know that A lot of the money printed is actually "loaned" from other countries, backed by the stability of the dollar.)

some people would consider ~$680billion stretching the bounds of believability.
Also, the GDP, technically grows when money is printed. So you are not taking 20t from 60t... your adding 20t. and (depending on sources) the worlds GDP is anywhere between $60-78 trillion.

anyways... I believe all these number are wrong and I've already tried to explain a complex situation in a general. But ended up giving a more complicated answer (which I didnt want to do) So I think I'm done and will stick to generalities =)

[phatlip]

Again, Phatlip and myself are not debating the numbers being discussed. I don't believe they are correct anyways.

You asked, "theoretically created with bonds?" So I answered with an example of how much bonds one country can own, proving its not as theoretical as some might think. (because most people don't know that A lot of the money printed is actually "loaned" from other countries, backed by the stability of the dollar.)

some people would consider ~$680billion stretching the bounds of believability.
Also, the GDP, technically grows when money is printed. So you are not taking 20t from 60t... your adding 20t. and (depending on sources) the worlds GDP is anywhere between $60-78 trillion.

anyways... I believe all these number are wrong and I've already tried to explain a complex situation in a general. But ended up giving a more complicated answer (which I didnt want to do) So I think I'm done and will stick to generalities =)

Exactly, you said it better than I could have. I agree with Masher in saying these numbers more than likely aren't correct.

[masherscf]

Again, Phatlip and myself are not debating the numbers being discussed. I don't believe they are correct anyways.

Oy, my argument is only about the numbers else. I don't think the OP understands the order of magnitude of his claims. The rest of what you're talking about is irrelevant. It's not that the numbers of unbelievable. I think they're impossible. Printing currency, bonds, taxes or lemonade, I don't think the U.S. government can raise that kind of cash.

I provided links for my numbers. If you think they're wrong, you provide some linkage. But, I think the reasoning is still sound.

"Theoretically create bonds?" That was rhetorical. The government can't pay for services with bonds. They need cash. Unloading $20 T in bonds in two months would crash the bond market.

[dirtyhat]

Okay, I linked to sources for my numbers. You link to sources for yours.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/DvsVirtue/cia.png

[dirtyhat]

BTW I often do, but only as a last resort, cite Wikipedia as a source (being user submitted)

[masherscf]

You can't spend GDP. Find a reference of World Money Supply. That was the number I was using as my justification.

[dirtyhat]

You can't spend GDP. Find a reference of World Money Supply. That was the number I was using as my justification.

GDP = C + G + I + (X -IM)

Anyways, general answers for complex questions... believe what you want.... who am I to tell you different.

[masherscf]

GDP = C + G + I + (X -IM)

Anyways, general answers for complex questions... believe what you want.... who am I to tell you different.

Believe what? That the U.S. Government spend $20 T in the last two months? Do you believe that?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

The Money supply is not the GDP.

[dirtyhat]

Believe what? That the U.S. Government spend $20 T in the last two months? Do you believe that?

Believe whatever you want, I don't know how to say it different lol

I've said three times already I don't believe those numbers are accurate AND thats NOT what I was debating.

GDP = C + G + I + (X -IM) is the formula for finding GDP which *IS* spending

The Money supply is not the GDP.

so because you have $20 in your pocket means you have spent $20 that year???

I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be, on any of these subjects so this will be my last post in this thread because I felt I have repeated myself with no sign of progression.

[masherscf]

Believe whatever you want, I don't know how to say it different lol

I've said three times already I don't believe those numbers are accurate AND thats NOT what I was debating.

GDP = C + G + I + (X -IM) is the formula for finding GDP which *IS* spending

I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be, on any of these subjects so this will be my last post in this thread because I felt I have repeated myself with no sign of progression.

GDP does not measure the amount of money but only how much money is changing hands.

You've repeated yourself, but didn't answer the question. Do you believe the OP's BS claim?

You don't believe "Those numbers." What is the basis of your belief? Hopefully not your GDP numbers, that's not that same thing. A quick google search produces the same figure I quoted for World Money Supply?

For example, The US GDP for Feb was about $14T (annually adjusted) but the US money supply is only about $10T.

[dirtyhat]

"Theoretically create bonds?" That was rhetorical. The government can't pay for services with bonds. They need cash. Unloading $20 T in bonds in two months would crash the bond market.

OK really last one, i missed this the first time through just wanted to correct something...

They create the bonds and sell them to foreign countries, which in turn gives them cash. They dont pay for services with the bonds directly, they sell them to pay for services...

[masherscf]

OK really last one, i missed this the first time through just wanted to correct something...

They create the bonds and sell them to foreign countries, which in turn gives them cash. They dont pay for services with the bonds directly, they sell them to pay for services...

I know, that's my whole point. Who's gonna buy $20 T in bonds. By your numbers, that's more than 25% of the WDP.

They need cash. Unloading $20 T in bonds in two months would crash the bond market.

[dirtyhat]

I know, that's my whole point. Who's gonna buy $20 T in bonds. By your numbers, that's more than 25% of the WDP.

it's hopeless....


UNSUBSCRIBING

[masherscf]

it's hopeless....


UNSUBSCRIBING

Hopeless? You're right! That WDP is an annual figure. And, two months is only about 17% of the year. Lets assume the WDP you quoted of $70T is correct. Than means the WDP share of the first two months was only about $12T, if we divide it evenly. Hmm, that means that $20T of purchased bonds represents 167% of that WDP share over those two months. Yep, seems pretty hopeless to me.

[phatlip]

I know, that's my whole point. Who's gonna buy $20 T in bonds. By your numbers, that's more than 25% of the WDP.

Masher, buddy, are you reading what the man is saying? He agrees with you. He also doesn't believe the numbers stated by the OP are correct.

[masherscf]

Masher, buddy, are you reading what the man is saying? He agrees with you. He also doesn't believe the numbers stated by the OP are correct.

I'm sure that he doesn't.

[phatlip]

I'm sure that he doesn't.

*cough*

Again, Phatlip and myself are not debating the numbers being discussed. I don't believe they are correct anyways.

[masherscf]

*cough*

[quote=Dirtyhat]
Again, Phatlip and myself are not debating the numbers being discussed. I don't believe they are correct anyways.[\QUOTE]

He was referring to my numbers there. He was very dismissive in his responses.

[dirtyhat]

[quote=Phatlip;498732]*cough*



He was referring to my numbers there. He was very dismissive in his responses.

actually I wasn't referring to your numbers (i was referring to the OP's), but thanks for assuming... 1 of 2 posters, got what I was saying, and that ain't bad. lol jk

[masherscf]

Believe whatever you want, I don't know how to say it different lol

And, what was this about?

[dirtyhat]

And, what was this about?

That was suggesting (for the third time) believe whatever you want... you kept insisting I debate points that I never made... re-read the posts hopefully you'll understand...

[secret-steve-crumbles]

you kept insisting I debate points that I never made..lol, that happens a lot here.

[masherscf]

That was suggesting (for the third time) believe whatever you want... you kept insisting I debate points that I never made... re-read the posts hopefully you'll understand...

You reread my post first. You jumped into a conversation with irrelevancies. I was trying to steer you back.

Anyhow, It doesn't matter. This is a forum. No one gets the last word.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

This is a forum. No one gets the last word.I just did.

[tokenuser]

No you didn't.