Graph of national debt as % of GDP http://wasatchecon.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-national-debt-as-percentage-of-gdp.html
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/165539.php As I pointed out yesterday, the debt / GNP ratio was lowest (in modern era) under Carter. Was the economy strongest during the Carter years? http://zfacts.com/p/318.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? > > > > > > 1) Total federal (public) debt > > > 2) Foreign holding of federal debt > > > > > > And what % of federal debt per capita is OK? > > > > > > > > The national debt is now about 13 trillion dollars, which is too much > > to bear for any country. > > Really? -- what about a country with a GDP of 500 trillion? Or a > country with a billion people? > > > > There should be a goal to at least reduce > > the debt by half in about 25 years. > > Based on yur inner world guide to a sound economy? > > > Once that's reached, there > > should be another initiative to reduce the debt burden to another > > half. By doing so, the US economy can remain robust and vibrant. > > So in follows that the economy will be strongest if there is no > national debt? pay for all bridges, highways, schools, buildings, in > cash. Pay as you go? That would produce a stronger economy, everything > else being equal than one with some debt? > > > Without doing so, the US economy and the dollar will surely collapse. > > > You get big Palin points for skirting the question: > What level of debt (%)to GDP do you feel is appropriate? > 1) Total federal (public) debt > 2) Foreign holding of federal debt > > Which is fine. Your points will go over big with hockey moms and > Nascar dads everywhere. But you seem to be indicating that various > debt levels as a % of GDP are all equally bad. It might be instructive > to think about the questions and ponderif some levels of debt, at an > "appropriate" level of GDP, might yield a more productive and robust > economy, with higher income and wages than an economy with no federal > debt. > > Do you favor no personal debt. Buy a house in all cash? And if > building an apartment building to rent out homes for others -- this > should be done in all upfront cash? > > Another question (which of course you don't need to answer -- but > might be instructive if you try): is going into (more) debt ok or > better than reducing debt, during a recession? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > To All: > > > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone that the presidential candidates today > > and > > > > the presidents of the past have failed to eliminate the USA > > national > > > > debt. Both of the GOP and Democratic candidates conveniently > > forget > > > > to address this question. Why? Because it's a growing cancer > > that > > > > cannot be cured by campaign promises of lowering taxes. > > > > > > > > President Clinton came close to solving the debt issue when his > > > > administration actually realized a budget surplus which helped > > reduce > > > > the national debt--but not by much. > > > > > > > > In his quest to be elected, President Bush promised more tax cuts > > > > which resulted in more deficit spending and eventual increase to > > the > > > > national debt. > > > > > > > > Someone has to deliver the message to the American people that > > the > > > > party is over. We have to face this problem now in order to > > > > eliminate the problem within this generation or the next. > > > > > > > > But who is brave enough to speak such words to the people? > > > > > > > > > >
