CBO Report: National debt will be 140% of GDP by 2040s

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Large budget deficits over the next 30 years are projected to drive federal debt held by the public to unprecedented levels—from 78 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019 to 144 percent by 2049.
For example, if the growth of total factor productivity in the nonfarm business sector was one-half of one percentage point lower each year than CBO projects, all else being equal, debt in 2049 would be 185 percent of GDP; if such growth was one-half of one percentage point higher, debt that year would be 106 percent of GDP. If interest rates were one percentage point higher each year than CBO projects, debt in 2049 would be 199 percent of GDP; if they were one percentage point lower, debt that year would be 107 percent of GDP.
If lawmakers changed current laws to maintain certain major policies now in place—most significantly, if they prevented a cut in discretionary spending in 2020 and an increase in individual income taxes in 2026—then debt held by the public would increase even more, reaching 219 percent of GDP by 2049.
138281

 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So, things are improving, because last year:

If the federal government continues its current spending habits, the national debt is projected to reach 152 percent of the annual gross domestic product by 2048, according to the latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
So, things are improving, because last year:
Just to point out the stunningly obvious...or what, by now SHOULD BE stunningly obvious....it really helps to read the report. The following is from page 35:

The revised projections of debt and deficits resulted
primarily from a reduction in projected outlays, specif-
ically in discretionary spending and in net spending for
interest, which was partially offset by a small reduction in
projected revenues. This year’s projections of discretionary
spending are lower than last year’s projections because
appropriations for relief and recovery efforts related to
hurricanes and wildfires were smaller in 2019 than they
were in 2018.
(Projections for future years are based on
the 2019 appropriations.) This year’s projections of net
spending for interest are lower because less debt is pro-
jected to be accumulated and because CBO has revised
downward its projections of the average interest rate on
that debt. Revenues are projected to be slightly lower than
they were in last year’s projections because of new admin-
istrative and tax data.
So the reason why the debt is lower is because the disaster relief bill hadn't been passed when this projection was created....and that wasn't passed because our inept president doesn't think Puerto Rico is the responsibility of the US govt.

The other reason is that interest rates are lower today than they were a year ago (which is not good news overall given that we are in an expansionary economy). When interest return to their historical norms, the projected debt will rise again.

Note that revenue is projected to be lower---another dagger to the heart of the Gilliganeasque bullshit that tax cuts pay for themselves.

So...once again...it really helps if you read the actual data BEFORE you spout off.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Just to point out the stunningly obvious...or what, by now SHOULD BE stunningly obvious....it really helps to read the report. The following is from page 35:



So the reason why the debt is lower is because the disaster relief bill hadn't been passed when this projection was created....and that wasn't passed because our inept president doesn't think Puerto Rico is the responsibility of the US govt.

The other reason is that interest rates are lower today than they were a year ago (which is not good news overall given that we are in an expansionary economy). When interest return to their historical norms, the projected debt will rise again.

Note that revenue is projected to be lower---another dagger to the heart of the Gilliganeasque bullshit that tax cuts pay for themselves.

So...once again...it really helps if you read the actual data BEFORE you spout off.
So, what you're saying is, there are many, many factors that could change over the course of the several years, and even tiny differences will make large changes the further out we look.

Got it, thanks for reiterating my point!
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
What will it become, do you think, if any of our current Democratic candidates get in, with Medicare for all, free college, reparations for African Americans, reparations for LGBTQ, student loan forgiveness, free child care, universal basic income, guaranteed jobs and housing - and the Green New Deal?

When we are already hurtling towards a cliff, the Dems COULD get my vote if they weren't CONSTANTLY determined to ramp it up to warp speed.
What Democrat EVER ran on the promise of cutting the debt or cutting spending (other than defense)?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Great list.
All of it expensive, and all of it adding to the debt.
The debt these same people are crying about.
Buying votes by promising to raise taxes on the rich and considering $75,000 dollars a year as rich.

That's right folks . $75,000 dollars may not be the exact figure,but you can bet your azz that the middle class will pay for everything the Democrat Candidates are promising.
When it comes to taxing the really rich.There aint enough of them to supply the demand.
When they say they are willing to pay more, that is BS.


They can do that right now and stop hiring their expensive lawyers and tax people to get them out of it.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
What Democrat EVER ran on the promise of cutting the debt or cutting spending (other than defense)?
If new-age Democrats get their way, that's trillions of dollars in govt. spending over the years.

To answer your question, Clinton.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Part of the problem far too many people have - is they don't get how things SCALE.
You think - well - certainly the government can forgive MY student loan, right? It's a couple 10 or 20k.
No biggie. Should be able to do that for everyone, right? Not a lot.
Total student loan debt is around 1.6 TRILLION, or roughly a fourth of what the whole government spends in a year.
Yeah - a lot.

It's kind of like when 10 people go out to lunch - 9 of them have 50 bucks, and one guy has 500.
So the nine all order 60 dollar meals, figuring the rich guy will cover it.
Well, he can't - because their own bill breaks it. Even if he gives half his money,
they're still coughing up most of their own.

You'll hear someone kvetch about a CEO making so many million. Why, he could have just
GIVEN all that money to his workers. Yep. Divided up over 5000 employees, that 10 million
he got will net them about 100 bucks extra a month, after taxes. Whoopee.

How about all those people who want to come in to America? There's millions out there living
in poverty. Yep. At least 10 for every ONE American live on 2-3 bucks a day. And every year, the
world ADDS about 40-50 million people below the poverty line. We CANNOT take in every one
who wants to come any more than you can take in every homeless person in town. You can't.

Once you finally gain a perspective on numbers, some things start to make sense - and others
really don't.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
If new-age Democrats get their way, that's trillions of dollars in govt. spending over the years.
Oh well NOW I feel better. What's the price tag on the big ones? 30 trillion?
So - only doubling what we pay, per year?

To answer your question, Clinton.
I don't remember him CAMPAIGNING on cutting spending. That was Perot. Twice.
And people thought he was crazy. He DID say, the end of big government as we know it.
He did seriously slash defense. Sadly, we found ourselves seriously weaker when we
needed it.

The '95 government shutdown was precipitated over ONE THING - Clinton refusing to promise
to balance the budget in seven years. Depending on who you ask - because - since the debt
NEVER went down, it really wasn't balanced in those "surplus" years - the debt came close to
balanced because Republicans forced the issue.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If new-age Democrats get their way, that's trillions of dollars in govt. spending over the years.

To answer your question, Clinton.
I remember him promising to cut the debt/deficit (and, thanks to Newt Gingrich and some creative accounting practices, he eventually succeeded), but I remember that being done by cutting middle-class taxes, raising corporate and "wealthy" people's taxes, and cutting defense spending while increasing "investing" (to the tune of $50B taxpayer) to "put America back to work". Do you recall which spending he promised to cut that was not defense?

Source:
Our National Economic Strategy puts people first by investing more than $50 billion annually over the next four years to put America back to work -- the most dramatic economic growth program since World War II. To pay for these investments and reduce our national deficit, we will save nearly $300 billion by cutting spending, closing corporate tax loopholes, and requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Depending on who you ask - because - since the debt NEVER went down, it really wasn't balanced in those "surplus" years - the debt came close to balanced because Republicans forced the issue.

Democrats play accounting 'games' to give the appearance of a Clinton Balanced Budget
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Oh well NOW I feel better. What's the price tag on the big ones? 30 trillion?
So - only doubling what we pay, per year?

I don't remember him CAMPAIGNING on cutting spending.
About $30 trillion over 10 years just for the big proposals. The Dems don't care about spending.
$2.2 trillion over 10 years for Sanders' plan to erase all student debt and make college free.
$25 trillion over 10 years for Medicare for All.

Here's Clinton's 1992 campaign brochure (as linked in TP's post):
To pay for these investments and reduce our national deficit, we will save nearly $300 billion by cutting spending, closing corporate tax loopholes, and requiring the very wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
I guess the question is, what's worse? A candidate who promises to cut the deficit (or get rid of it in 8 years) and does the opposite, or a candidate who says they'll spend more but reduces it while in office?

I remember him promising to cut the debt/deficit
Cool, so my answer was correct then.



I don't know why, but I guess I have to post a disclaimer because there seems to be some incorrect reading between the lines going on here. I don't agree with Clinton's economic decisions, but I also can recognize that he was the last President to seemingly care about the debt and it's hard not to recognize the success he had while in office (he was certainly helped by the dot-com bubble, among other things).
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Ehhhh. So what? We really don't produce much of anything any more anyway. Which is one reason debt is increasing relative to domestic product. Besides, it's fiat currency anyways. Printed/created out of thin air. Hocus pocus magic. Somewhere down the line we will just repudiate the debt as odious. Since, We The People, never agreed to it in the first place. "A nation's debt is considered odious debt when government leaders use borrowed funds in ways that do not benefit its citizens, and to the contrary, often oppress them." It is a big, humongous, game of musical chairs.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Cool, so my answer was correct then.
I suppose - I WAS going by memory, so there's that.
Somehow claiming to reduce the deficit by TAXING more wasn't reassuring.
I still don't recall getting the middle class tax cut I was promised - there was the capital gains cut (which didn't apply to me),
the increase in child credit (same) and so forth - but it never appeared.

But - it's still true that Dems promise endless programs which always end up meaning, spend more.
Then when asked to pay for it, it's the same - tax the rich, close "loopholes" etc.
Basically - tax and spend.

Admittedly, I'm never thrilled about the GOP WANTING to decrease spending, but not achieving it.
But it's still preferable to someone who promises no such thing and PROMISES to spend and tax more,
which is what we typically get from the Democrats, and this year's crop is no exception.

Let me ask something else, then. Is there anyone among the Democratic crowd that wants to lower
spending or decrease the debt?
 
Top