More cheer from the New York Times:
With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government's tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means.
But wait, don't forget the entitlements obligations tsunami about to overtake us starting in this next decade. If you haven't seen former US comptroller David Walker's presentation, take a look here. Among its startling pieces of data:
GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as•Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or
•Raising federal taxes to two times today's level
Keep in mind that Walker gave that presentation in early 2008, before the Late Unpleasantness. The situation is now unquestionably much worse than his presentation indicated. It's hard to imagine what the next 20 to 40 years are going to bring economically and, in turn, socially, and what kind of prospects our children face trying to start their own families in such a chaotic situation. Patrick Deneen has read the Times report today, and has a few words of his own to add, including:
Brutal honesty requires us to acknowledge that only three options realistically confront us: 1. less government for more money; 2. inflation; and/or 3. default. Any of these will leave us poorer and more miserable. Which poison will we be forced to "choose"? What will be the public response? The populace has grown so accustomed to having it all - demanding low taxes and cradle-to-grave nannying, electing Republican tax-cutters while insisting on the continuation of every program. Let us stipulate that they will be ill-disposed to hearing the bad tidings. If "tea parties" are the order of the day when we still manage to keep this creaky and leaking boat afloat, what will be the reaction when we begin to sink? When it's discovered that, once again, there are too few lifeboats?
I think very few of us -- and I include myself in that number -- have really come to grips with what this country is going to face in the years to come. OK, Sharon Astyk has. I'll give you that. We're all going to end up on her farm, begging for goat squeezins, before it's all over.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I think very few of us -- and I include myself in that number -- have really come to grips with what this country is going to face in the years to come.
Heh - I moved to small town rural East Texas four years ago.
I'll be working on the perimeter fence some more tomorrow.
The Stupid Chris writes:
Nobody paid that 90% on the top rates as a practical matter
This claim amounts to a statement that as a matter of fact nobody had taxable income above the top marginal threshold.
That's correct. There have always been various ways around paying the top marginal rates. Do you really think that the Kennedy clan paid 90% tax rates on their income, for example? Given enough tax-free bonds, income can get pretty good and still be totally nontaxable, just for a start.
As a practical matter I'd like to see the research that supports that, as I personally have handed tax returns to my father's clients whose taxable income was well above the top margin, this back when the top margin was 70%. They paid taxes on their income above that threshold at that tax rate, and most did so without complaint.
I'd have to see the evidence to believe it. Maybe some wildcatters paid that tax rate and were glad of it. Certainly the Rockefellers didn't, nor did other extremely wealthy people that I've read of. If the top rate is raised to 90% again, we'll see the same behavior.
Your experience may vary, but where and when I grew up the responsibilities of citizenship were taken as seriously as its benefits. And people didn't cry about how the sky was falling when required to do their fair share. As the most conservative WWII Vets of those clients told me, the real heroes of America were buried on the battlefield, the least he could do was to pay for what they died for.
Thanks for waving the flag and questioning my patriotism because you disagree with my opinion. Are there any other strawmen you'd care to demolish?
Of course this was all pre-Reagan, pre-tax cut fever, and that generation had seen more real hardship than nearly anyone left alive today.
Stick around, that latter claim may change. The generation you are so proud of also was willing to saddle their children, grandchildren and great granchildren with Ponzi schemes that will bankrupt the nation.
Silarys Jenkins, you appear to be having trouble following simple reasoning.
First, in the course of this thread, a claim or premise if you prefer was offerered that Federal debt was being paid down in the late 1990's. I challenged this. Evidence was provided in support of it. I acknowledged that.
You seem more interested in one-up-manship, or attempts at dominance, than discussing a serious topic in a serious manner. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.
AntiDhimmi, you seem to think that this is a game of intellectual one-upmanship. It isn't. Please get a grip. I was simply pointing out that words have meaning, and that you don't make a point effectively by playing a Mad Libs game where any words that sounds good can be plugged into an argument. First we were discussing facts, data, proof. Then, you introduced logic. I pointed out that logic has a precise meaning; it is not a synonym for common sense, truth, or good idea. Now, without providing any evidence that you grasp the meaning of "logic," you come back talking about reason. Data, proof, logic, and reason each have their place. They each mean something different. They can even be applied in combination with each other, if you know what each of them is. You started to make a good show when you said, ah, here is the evidence, I was wrong on a question of fact. No, show the same grace about the meaning of words, and we could all get along.
By the way, what is a "Dhimmi," and what does it mean? I don't know whether I am for or against.
Heritage Hills, the proper application of Thatcherism to the current condition of the United States would be:
"The problem with George W. Bush is that sooner or later you run out of the Bank of China's money."
For that matter,
"The problem with Reaganism is that sooner or later you run out credit to borrow more money-- whoever you are borrowing it from -- and then the taxpayers you promised cuts to have to pay it all back, with interest. (If you're lucky, it happens on the watch of a Democratic president, and then the Republicans can all start screaming about balancing the budget).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.