

Slow Growth and Debt: The Coming Government Debt Crisis? - cwan
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4630910-0b7a-11df-8232-00144feabdc0.html

======
Vivtek
Astounding. Where was this alarmism while the Republicans were spending money
in the Middle East like drunken sailors and we were in the last recession?

Oh - sorry. Military spending is always OK. My bad.

~~~
cwan
Two wrongs don't make a right here, but if there's going to be a coming
crisis, it's going to be a bipartisan crisis that both parties are very much
responsible for. I think you'd find that most Americans - Democrats,
Independents and Republicans are unhappy with how much was spent under Bush,
but by the same token, I don't think it's unreasonable to note that the
deficit under the Obama administration _last year alone_ was $1.074 trillion
dollars while the Bush administrations had an average annual budget deficit of
about $104 billion per year.

Let me repeat and rephrase given how stunning it is - the Obama
administration's deficit last year alone was greater than all the deficits
combined under the Bush Administration including all the war spending. I think
it's fair to argue that last year was unusual but deficits are also projected
to remain high for the forseeable future and the Obama administration has
additional significant spending programs in the years beyond his current
proposed modest spending freeze.

EDIT - I erred - I used an average of 104 billion under the Bush
administration when it was an average of 104 billion under the 12 years of the
Republican controlled budgets which extends into Clinton's last
administration. However the data including, I believe, war expenditures can be
found here (excel file):
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables20...](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables2010Jan_forweb.XLS)

~~~
jsz0
I don't understand your numbers in relation to what Wikipedia has to say on
the issue. How does your number relate to these? If at all?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt>

2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%

2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%

2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%

2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%

2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%

2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%

2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%

2008 $1017.0 billion (proj.) 7.4%

I think it's a shame we let Pay As You Go expire in 2002. It seemed to be
working pretty well to keep spending under control.

~~~
cwan
I made a mistake. It's an average of 12 years - where Republicans controlled
the budget when they controlled the House - data from CBO here:
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables20...](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Historicaltables2010Jan_forweb.XLS)

That said, the numbers are still gargantuan in terms of the increase. If I'm
not mistaken though, the CBO numbers include the war numbers.

I think a better compromise would have been to allow for a line item veto
which would have also also helped to greatly keep spending under control.

For a more explicit graphic have a look here: <http://instapundit.com/79840/>
\- a comparative of deficits under the Bush administration and what's being
currently projected by the CBO/White House.

~~~
jsz0
I agree on the line item veto. Deficit spending is so institutionalized at
this point that we need real legislative checks & balances on spending. For
the last ~30 years both parties have done it. The only point of contention is
which party does it more. As long as it remains a political issue I don't see
a good solution. For Pay As You Go I like the idea that you simply cannot
spend this money. You can go back to your home district and tell the people
you didn't vote for X, Y, Z because it was illegal to overspend. The system we
have now makes spending too much of a political tool. We can't trust them to
use it wisely.

------
patrickgzill
The unfunded future liabilities of the US government are staggering, some $50
Trillion if you assume that Social Security etc. remain the same.

This means either SS will be reduced, or that SS taxes on earnings will be
increased, or that the currency will be debased (or some combination of the
3).

~~~
antpicnic
Medicare, not Social Security, is the primary problem. Social Security's
problems can be resolved using a similar adjustment like that done in the
80's. Push out the retirement age and there is no problem.

Medicare and healthcare costs are an enormous problem. Expect a combination of
tax increases, benefit cuts, and means testing. If Congress finally acts to
eliminate waste, the growth in healthcare costs can be slowed.

~~~
anamax
> If Congress finally acts to eliminate waste, the growth in healthcare costs
> can be slowed.

What waste is that? Medicare already pays less per procedure than anyone else.

Are you suggesting that Medicare should cut services?

Be careful when citing studies. The goal isn't to minimize the cost per death,
it's to minimize the cost of lives saved. The two are different.

------
mmphosis
The overwhelming majority of us did not agree to borrow this money with
compounded interest payments, therefore I see no reason to pay the money back.

~~~
patrickgzill
You raise an interesting concept - can one generation of Americans vote or
permit, via debt financing, to obligate a future generation to pay back the
debt incurred? Lysander Spooner, amongst others, wrote about this.

------
sown
PBS Frontline did a very fascinating documentary on this

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/>

And terrifying, too.

In the long run, not only are we all dead anyways, but I think that the
government will come alive and fix this somehow ... they did in the 90s. Sort
of.

------
joe_the_user
Why have a "coming crisis" when you can have one right now?

I mean, I doubt the present "recovery" is going to last more than a couple of
years. The problem, actually, isn't the government spending money like crazy
to get us out of the crisis. The problem is that government is spending the
money on ... _the same perps who got us into this mess to begin with_

Plus I wouldn't trust Ken Rogoff's research papers any further than I could
throw them - I've followed him for a short while:

Two interviews: [http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/11/wheres-the-
economy...](http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/11/wheres-the-economy-
headed/) [http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-rogoff-the-
wors...](http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-rogoff-the-worst-is-
over-are-you-kidding-2009-3)

In the first, 2007, he touts the US economy to the sky against some skeptic.
In the second, he angry denounces all the people who didn't see the mess
coming - which includes he himself in the first interview! I kind of agree
with Rogoff(II) - the liars should be held up to some sort of standard. Why's
he still around?

