Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: A (mathamatical) question about Americas national debt ?

  1. #1 A (mathamatical) question about Americas national debt ? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    The following was taken from wiki. "History of the United States public debt" , from the (Historical debt levels) section. (source: CBO in Washington.) I was inspired to post this, after hearing a TV add about how close our next presidential ellection is.

    NOTE: I WAS FORCED TO TYPE THE FIRST FEW LINES OF THE FOLLOWING GRAPH MYSELF, (this website (thescienceforum) would not allow me to post that infomation.)

    NOTE: NOT ALL INFOMATION IS LISTED BY ME IN THESE FIRST FEW LINES, IT MAY BE EASYER TO GOTO WIKI AND SEARCH "HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEPT" WERE ONE COULD SEE THE INTIRE GRAPH WITH ALL INFOMATION LISTED.




























    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------increase----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------debt----increase----------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------------------------------start-------end-----billions--dept/gdp----------------------------------------------
    --*U.S. president* ----------------party---years-----dept/gdp-dept/gdp---of $------in %------house control----senate control---
    Roosevelt D 1941–1945 50.4% 117.5% +203 +67.1% D D
    Roosevelt/Truman D 1945–1949 117.5% 93.1% -8 -24.4% 79th D, 80th R 79th D, 80th R
    Truman Harry Truman D 1949–1953 93.1% 71.4% +13 -21.7% D D
    Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 1953–1957 71.4% 60.4% +6 -11.0% 83rd R, 84th D 83rd R, 84th D
    Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 1957–1961 60.4% 55.2% +20 -5.2% D D
    Kennedy/Johnson D 1961–1965 55.2% 46.9% +30 -8.3% D D
    Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 1965–1969 46.9% 38.6% +43 -8.3% D D
    Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 1969–1973 38.6% 35.6% +101 -3.0% D D
    Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 1973–1977 35.6% 35.8% +177 +0.2% D D
    Carter Jimmy Carter D 1977–1981 35.8% 32.5% +288 -3.3% D D
    Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 1981–1985 32.5% 43.8% +823 +11.3% D R
    Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 1985–1989 43.8% 53.1% +1,050 +9.3% D 99th R, 100th D
    Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 1989–1993 53.1% 66.1% +1,483 +13.0% D D
    Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7% 103rd D, 104th R 103rd D, 104th R
    Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0% R R
    Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1% R 107th Split, 108 R
    Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +4,521 +20.7% 109th R, 110th D 109th R, 110th D
    Obama1 Barack Obama D 2009–2011 84.2% 99.6% +4,334 +15.4% 111th D, 112th R D




















    (Source: CBO Historical Budget Page and Whitehouse FY 2012 Budget - Table 7.1 Federal Debt at the End of Year PDF, Excel, Senate.gov)


    Let me say the following before I ask my questions, so I may show were it is I am coming from.


    The following source: (Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues, by Justin Fox. Dec. 06, 2007 from Time magazine) states that, Every republican economist that worked in G W Bush's White House has publicly stated that tax cuts do not increase government revenues.



    And R. Reagan and GW Bush cut taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans.

    And Bill Clinton raised taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans.



    On the above chart, look at the (increase debt billions of $) figures. After World War II these figures stabilized, and in each 4 years these numbers went up a bit each time (but with some what steady and consistant increases.)


    But during the time that R. Reagan cut taxes these numbers jump in a (huge), and new way.

    And then when B. Clinton raised taxes on corporations and the very wealthy, these numbers fell in a huge way.

    Then GW Bush cut taxes on corporations and the wealth Americans and these numbers jumped even higher.
    (note: maybe 1? trillion of these rising dollars during GW Bush's time was used in America's wars, and not the result of tax cuts.)

    My question is this,

    If America's new president is a (republican tax cutter, like R. Reagan and GW Bush) and gets a new round of tax cuts, how far do you think our "End dept/GDP" and "Increase dept ( Billions of $)" will rise ?????

    And what will its effects be on American life ???


    Last edited by chad; August 16th, 2012 at 01:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    My guess is we are already well to the left side of the Laffer curve and raising taxes probably won't slow things down at all. They are about the lowest they've been in fifty years.

    Of course the other side is spending less. There's not a lot of room on that side without fundamentally changing entitlement programs and going much further than the recent health care bill.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    To be honest, I do not even know what the Laffer curve even is. But I have heard a lot of non-corporate economists talk, and in my simple way, I have their way of thinking.


    The above data shows that when you cut taxes, money added to the debt increases in a (major) way.

    And the above data also shows when you raise taxes, money added to the national debt decreases in a (major) way.


    I am sure there are (many) other things, that caused changes in these numbers, but the above data is clear.


    And if you look at the last numbers in the (increase dept $) section, you will see that since Obama, these numbers are starting to fall once again. And if Bushs tax cuts (and his wars) were stopped, as the democrats want to do, these numbers will fall in a major, major way.

    To answer my own question,

    If a (tax cutter) republican president, and (tax cutter) congress get control of our countrys government, and do ((another)) round of tax cuts, these numbers are going to jump up, (even higher) than our last increases with GW Bushs tax cuts. Then we are going to be adding $5 trillion dollars to our national debt in that next 4 years.

    And If we get a president and congress like Clinton, all those numbers will fall in a (major) way.

    Remembering that most of Obamas deficits are the remains of GW Bushs actions. The above chart, clearly shows that GW Bush added $5 trillion dollars to our national debt in 8 years.

    Thats 5 trillion dollars,

    These entitlement programs, and these health care bills that you speak of, what would there cost be for 8 years?


    I read some of your global warming posts, and your a 1000x smarter than me, but maybe try to answer the above question.


    I think you (may) be focusing on the wrong things. The above chart clearly shows that GW Bush added $5 trillion dollars to our national debt in 8 years, and you dont even seem to care.

    5 trillion dollars is enough money to cover the programs you speak of for the next 20 - 80 years.

    With all respects,
    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; December 16th, 2011 at 06:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    You probably should look up Laffer curve. It basically says that there's an optimum tax rate to get the most income. On the lest side if tax rates are too low no matter how gangbusters the economy is, the government won't take in lots of revenue, on the right side the economy stalls than that reduces revenue no matter how high the tax rate. I think we're on the left side. A

    5 trillion dollars is enough money to cover the programs you speak of for the next 20 - 80 years.
    I think the governments role should be pretty modest...such as help fund basic research and education about the issue. Most of the governments role should be establishing regulation in some areas, such as requiring energy effecient good, and clearing away road blocks such as acceleration the permit process to build things like a modern connected grid.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I tend to agree with your view chad. You might be interested in reading about or watching interviews with economist Michael Hudson his observations are sometimes different from the usual mainstream media pundits.


    This being said, looking at figures and charts along typical assumptions imo misses several elephants in the room, such as the Debt based world monetary system (gigantic ponzi scheme), the particular situation of the US (empire using covert operations & military might and petro-dollar hegemony), disconnect between financial economy(with its speculation) versus "real"(production) economy, to name a few.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    We have a third entity that's doing something very similar to a tax. OPEC. I took Econ 201 (the first tier) from a professor who's background was actually in the energy industry. He simply stated that, due to its near-monopoly status, OPEC makes its pricing decisions for oil on the basis of how much they can charge without breaking the economy. (Because if they break the economy then they lose their customers.) It's just like the government. The government also makes its taxation decisions on the basis of how much tax burden people can bear before it starts to erode the economy.

    The thing is, if the government takes our money first, then there's nothing left for OPEC to plunder. And at least the government will spend it in ways that benefit us, while OPEC will just pocket the money. It's kind of like the two entities are playing chicken, and if the government flinches first then taxes go down and OPEC gets all of our money. But, if OPEC flinches first, then gas prices go down and the government gets all our money. There's no third option where we the people simply get to keep our money. OPEC has the means to force us against our will to pay out anything that's left over after taxes.

    As in any game of chicken, there's a chance nobody will flinch. Then gas prices would remain high, taxes would remain high, the economy would crumble and both OPEC and the US government are strapped for cash.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. National debt and GDP
    By Stanley514 in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 12th, 2012, 01:42 AM
  2. Debt Consultation Costs & Benefits
    By jimelton23 in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 25th, 2010, 10:00 AM
  3. Bringing Americas Transportation Into the 21st century
    By npts2020 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 6th, 2008, 11:58 AM
  4. The U.S. Debt
    By MsSparkie in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 5th, 2008, 08:04 PM
  5. Debt or internal spending
    By Shaderwolf in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 5th, 2008, 03:55 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •