Almost broke again

HA! What am I saying, we already are,but it's that time to the US is almost out of money yet again and time to fight over raising the debt limit YET ONCE AGAIN. sigh.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/101012284

and in that writers opinion,"There is very little chance, in our view, that Congress will agree to another package of spending cuts similar to agreement that was attached to the 2011 debt limit increase, so there is a very low risk of meaningful cuts over the next year beyond what is already built into current law." Well, no meaningful cuts whatsoever..


I still find it hard to believe we actually owe more than than the entire GDP. Are we still the largest economy in the world or has China taken that over yet?

When will it ever slow down?and I don't even wanna hear that BS"with obamas current plan, in ten years the us will decrease X amount". That doesn't mean squat. After two years it won't mean squat, even less in ten. Something really needs to be done NOW. Not after breakfast, not after lunch, I want it done now!

Should be interesting watching the children go at it later on this month. I'm certain it will be lots of finger pointing and blame to go around.

J

Just checked, US is still ahead of China, almost double actually, I though they were closing in much more than that. US is second to the EU tho, by about a trillion.

Still hard to swallow to be that far in debt and to just keep spending.

Do like FedX did, take the gov payroll to Vegas and shoot craps.

I just don't understand why the great Obama administration does not consult with forkush and Chilcoot about this problem, after all, they do seem to have an answer for everything.

You can demand the government pursue austerity or that it pursues growth. You cant have it effectively do both. And thats the whole problem with many people in and out of government right now. They demand we grow GDP and put people to work while simultaneously demanding we cut millions of jobs from the public sector and public spending.

You cant have it both ways. Pick which one is more important to you and weigh in accordingly.

"So let it be written, . . . so let it be done."
__Pharaoh Rameses II in The Ten Commandments

DonDiego doubts pjstroh's pronouncement has been written in stone, . . . yet. There are historical instances of significant economic growth under significantly smaller government than that extant now.

obama said that when the austerity ptrogrm kicked in the economy would suffer. It continues to stagger along on the same 1.5 - 2% growth

Enlighten me.

Give me one noteable example in the last 100 years of US history where an ongoing reduction in government spending was coupled with an ongoing expanding economy.

Reagan raised it 17 times without a fight. But I think we had a lot fewer drama queens back in the 1980's.

It is quite difficult to find an example of an actual reduction in government spending in the last 100 years.

If one includes the termination of spending on World War II, then the economic boom of the 1950s would qualify, . . . but that is really a special case.

In the 1990s, following President G.H.W. Bush's reductions in defense expenditures, the 1994 Republican House restraints on domestic spending, and a fortuitous drop in interest rates Government Spending as a Percent of GNP dropped, . . . and the economy did quite well.

In the academic world recent research suggests: " in rich countries . . . a significant negative correlation [between growth in Government Spending and GNP]: An increase in government size by 10 percentage points is associated with a 0.5 to 1 percent lower annual growth rate.
[Specifically] i. direct taxes on income are worse than indirect taxes, and ii. social transfers are worse than public expenditure on investment . . .".
Ref: Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence by Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson