huge-O-chavez wrote:Toyman01 wrote: How about we throw total debt in the mix.What is Total Debt? Does it include personal debt or privately held companies debt? I'm just curious, and If so... How do they get the numbers? There is no definition..
I answered my own question..
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10403-total-debt-to-gdp.html#axzz1HI3x9Nfh
McKinsey to the rescue.
In reply to huge-O-chavez:
Total. Private and public interesting bearing debit. It isn't just the Feds that are spending too much money. Shame on me I can't find the link I got it from. I'll keep looking.
Salanis wrote: I hate when graphs don't zero at zero. That's a very way of misrepresenting data.
not really. It's hard to misrepresent facts, especially when a graph has measured hashmarks of equal value. It is, however, easy to misinterpret a graph.
Also, it is hard to start a graph of total debt as a percentage of GDP at 0. I don't believe that has ever been zero.
While not a cure all, I made the mistake once of suggesting a way state by state of increasing revenue with the public shouldering the burden, all the while increasing recycling and allowing for retail store to be the middle man for a %.
Currently the State of Michigan (as well as many other states) has a bottle deposit return program. With every beer or carbonated beverage sold you pay a tax of $.10 per unit that you get back 100% of when you return the can or bottle. Basically a can or glass bottle core charge. I suggested to a very prominent local politician the following:
Expand the bottle deposit return program to include ALMOST ALL aluminum, glass, paper or plastic packaged containers (Beer, Carbonated, Non Carbonated, Water, Milk, Oil and so on). Collect $.10 per unit for each one sold. When returned to the recycling center (store) the customer gets $.05 returned per piece. The recycling center keeps $.02 and the government keeps $.03 of the return. When someone does not return a can then balancing the "lost dime" would continue just as it does now with the gubmint keeping the dime.
The stores make a tidy profit to convince them to allow for more space for recycling, the state collects exponentially more in taxes to balance their budget with little to no need to expand coverage beyond the current recycling oversight. New states will expand their income and the consumer foots the bill without being put out by large taxes.
The politician thought I was an idiot for suggesting it.
Maroon92 wrote: Also, it is hard to start a graph of total debt as a percentage of GDP at 0. I don't believe that has ever been zero.
Probably never was... At no point would the debt load of any nation be less that 0%... And to be fair a debt load of less than 100% is suspect, as you wonder what more could the country/company be doing if it actually put those assets to good use. Understanding how cash flow works and using it to your advantage is key.
Debt is a very powerful tool when utilized effectively. Those who are concerned with living debt free should also be concerned with their constant underachieving.
huge-O-chavez wrote:Maroon92 wrote: Also, it is hard to start a graph of total debt as a percentage of GDP at 0. I don't believe that has ever been zero.Probably never was... At no point would the debt load of any nation be less that 0%... And to be fair a debt load of less than 100% is suspect, as you wonder what more could the country/company be doing if it actually put those assets to good use. Understanding how cash flow works and using it to your advantage is key. Debt is a very powerful tool when utilized effectively. Those who are concerned with living debt free should also be concerned with their constant underachieving.
Unfortunately it isn't being used as a tool. It's being used, in a lot scenarios, as a have it now way of doing business. Why actually save for a flat screen when you can charge it an pay an extra 20% for it. Why run a business with cash when you can borrow someone elses and just file bankruptcy when you can't make the payments. Why tell your constituents that the government can't afford something or taxes will go up to pay for it when you can borrow it from China and leave the mess for someone else to clean up. The only people that win with a constant debit load are the ones doing the lending. There is a lot of truth to the saying, "The borrower is slave to the lender." Especially where consumer credit is concerned.
John Brown wrote: While not a cure all, I made the mistake once of suggesting a way state by state of increasing revenue with the public shouldering the burden, all the while increasing recycling and allowing for retail store to be the middle man for a %. Currently the State of Michigan (as well as many other states) has a bottle deposit return program. With every beer or carbonated beverage sold you pay a tax of $.10 per unit that you get back 100% of when you return the can or bottle. Basically a can or glass bottle core charge. I suggested to a very prominent local politician the following: Expand the bottle deposit return program to include ALMOST ALL aluminum, glass, paper or plastic packaged containers (Beer, Carbonated, Non Carbonated, Water, Milk, Oil and so on). Collect $.10 per unit for each one sold. When returned to the recycling center (store) the customer gets $.05 returned per piece. The recycling center keeps $.02 and the government keeps $.03 of the return. When someone does not return a can then balancing the "lost dime" would continue just as it does now with the gubmint keeping the dime. The stores make a tidy profit to convince them to allow for more space for recycling, the state collects exponentially more in taxes to balance their budget with little to no need to expand coverage beyond the current recycling oversight. New states will expand their income and the consumer foots the bill without being put out by large taxes. The politician thought I was an idiot for suggesting it.
I don't know what the potential impact would be, but I like the idea. Americans tend to have far too many disposable things where recycling or reusable items could really help. Landfills aren't something anyone wants in their backyard. The money it brings in is another big plus.
But then again I am not a politician. I only represent myself and my own ideas.
I can see it now, the politicians will have it spent in a week and the deposit goes up to $.20, with the buyer keeping just $.04 and the retailer being taxed for 50% of their $.03.
A month later the fund is overdrawn so now.....
Until we stop them spending every penny X2 no additional funding will help.
Steps
Make it illegal for politicians to spend more than they have available.
Make less available.
huge-O-chavez wrote: Debt is a very powerful tool when utilized effectively. Those who are concerned with living debt free should also be concerned with their constant underachieving.
That's purely a value judgement. Those who personally choose to live debt-free aren't underachievers; they choose to be beholden to no one (within their personal powers). In other words, they live within their means.
Governmental debt can be effective to gain advantage as long as the debt works in the best interests of both the lender and the lendee. At some point the lender will say "NO" and the lendee is left with some very painful decisions. How far away is that point?
In reply to oldsaw:
Nobody knows, but probably still pretty far away. Though I'd hate to find out the hard way.
Right now 3.1% of the unreturned funds go to the state and retailers (75/25). http://www.bottlebill.org/legislation/usa/michigan.htm
huge-O-chavez wrote: You linked the Cato Insitute.. Hahahahaha That's like linking a story that rachel maddow wrote from the other side... Nice try man.
Ohhhh, but it's OK to link to leftist sites? Because they are unbiased?
huge-O-chavez wrote: Debt is a very powerful tool when utilized effectively. Those who are concerned with living debt free should also be concerned with their constant underachieving.
You know, sometimes you sound an awful lot like the idiots on E46fanatics.com about 5 years ago, who were loudly proclaiming that people who didn't have interest-only ARMs were losers who were missing out on a good thing.
End the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan
Legalize marijuana and tax it at an alarming rate
Give me $500k as a consultant fee for figuring this out. 
huge-O-chavez wrote: Debt is a very powerful tool when utilized effectively. Those who are concerned with living debt free should also be concerned with their constant underachieving.
The problem is it is utilized effectively almost 0% of the time.
gamby wrote: End the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan Legalize marijuana and tax it at an alarming rate Give me $500k as a consultant fee for figuring this out.
B. Pick me as your dictator, and it's done, as well as pardons across the board for non-violent drug criminals, regardless of what drug we're talking about, and "Infrastructure jobs" for those locked up, collecting unemplyment, or welfare (i.e. you work to pay your debt to society in the case of the imprisoned, and you work for your check in the case of entitlement programs/unemployment.)
People still don't agree that we spend too much money at all levels.
Not just at local level, or federal level. Not just on union agreements or infrastructure projects. ALL spending is too high.
People still try to dress up their own issues as not being on the too-high list whenever it comes around. The truth is that entitlement spending crushes all other departments, but all other departments need cut too.
So long as people are still under the delusion the only reason we're in trouble is rich people aren't paying more taxes, we're still screwed.
I keep misreading the title of this thread as "Balancing the Feral Budget", and it seems somehow appropriate.
aircooled wrote: I would say that is a "Premature Flounder Alert". Don't worry it happens to everyone (at least that is what we tell everyone it happens to). It started as a government funding topic, and that hasn't changed. No one has starting accusing any sides or calling names... pretty reasonable so far....
You kicked my dog, you jerk!
Sorry. Actually we are down to one dog. She tried to kill the other one the other day. Sad sad sad. I cried for the second time since my first son was born (and that wasn't a happy cry, he almost died during delivery)
Anyway.
That first deficit graph was not in summation. It's the deficit on a year to year basis. Out federal debt is actually very high and is increasing at an alarming rate. I believe that the country can use debt as a tool (it is provided for in the constitution) but not to absolutely rape our following generations, like is happening now. Debt ceilings are comical since they are never turned down, ever, by congress. I would propose a very modest limit, say 10% of GDP or some small number as a target not to exceed. Until you bring the debt below that threshold you can't take on any more debt at all, for any reason.
I never would have voted for him and despise nearly all of his policies, but Clinton managed to balance the federal budget for a few years. The first president to do so for decades, and likely the last for decades following. A great first step. Next would be to get to a surplus and start paying the debt down.
I never would have voted for him and despise nearly all of his policies, but Clinton managed to balance the federal budget for a few years. The first president to do so for decades, and likely the last for decades following. A great first step. Next would be to get to a surplus and start paying the debt down.
That is how most economists would have had it. And that would have been W's job as the following president. Some how, as a conservative republican even, he found a way to far overspend during a great economy. Worst. President. Ever. Maybe not. But pretty bad. He combined the worst of both political parties.
Otto Maddox wrote: I never would have voted for him and despise nearly all of his policies, but Clinton managed to balance the federal budget for a few years. The first president to do so for decades, and likely the last for decades following. A great first step. Next would be to get to a surplus and start paying the debt down. That is how most economists would have had it. And that would have been W's job as the following president. Some how, as a conservative republican even, he found a few to far overspend during a great economy. Worst. President. Ever. Maybe not. But pretty bad. He combined the worst of both political parties.
He was bad. Not as bad as you say, in my opinion, but bad nonetheless. One thing I hope we can agree upon is that he was absolutely not a conservative republican.
tuna55 wrote: I never would have voted for him and despise nearly all of his policies, but Clinton managed to balance the federal budget for a few years. The first president to do so for decades, and likely the last for decades following. A great first step. Next would be to get to a surplus and start paying the debt down.
But presidents don't balance budgets. They sign them.
The House of Representatives writes the budget.
And I'm pretty sure it was a GOP House that wrote those budgets under Clinton.
I'd be curious to see how the budget looked under Bush as compared to Clinton. I suspect a lot of unbudgeted military expenses under Bush were not helpful.
well is Bush didn't like the budget then he shouldn't have signed it! Clinton also required that it be balanced, if I remember correctly. That means something in today's 'executive branch has tons of power' world.
Otto Maddox wrote: I'd be curious to see how the budget looked under Bush as compared to Clinton. I suspect a lot of unbudgeted military expenses under Bush were not helpful.
Those expenses were not helpful, but Congress approved them anyway. That happened when either the Republicans or the Democrats held complete control of both the Senate and the House.
Bush43 and the country would have fared much better if he had weilded the veto-pen, had avoided boondoggle programs like MMA and NCLB and hadn't been blocked from reforming Fannie and Freddie.
Those who want to solely blame him, knock yourselves out. In reality, he had lots of unindicted accomplices.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
