Clearly, we have a spending problem. It's our most acute national security issue. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/b...-101/spending/
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes
Still, folks, pay attention to the graph in the OP, while the US has the largest percentage of world debt (size), it is moderate in term of debt to GDP ratio (color).
Keep also in mind that the graph represents government debt.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Cotton1 (11-16-2019)
The US debt to GDP ratio is over 100% i.e. 104.3%. That still means that it is spending more than it earns.
"A study by the World Bank found that if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 77% for an extended period of time, it slows economic growth. Every percentage point of debt above this level costs the country 1.7% in economic growth.
It's even worse for emerging markets. There, each additional percentage point of debt above 64% will slow growth by 2% each year.
~ snip
As the global economy continues to improve, investors will be comfortable with higher risk because they want higher returns. Yields on U.S. debt will rise as demand falls. When yields are high, look out. That means investors don't want the debt. The country must pay more interest to get them to buy its bonds.
That creates a downward spiral. High-interest rates make it more expensive for the country to borrow. This increases fiscal spending, which creates a larger budget deficit, which creates more debt. A good example is the Greece debt crisis.
That's why the debt-to-GDP ratio, for all its faults, is still widely used. It's a good rule of thumb that indicates how strong a country's economy is, and how likely it is to use good faith to pay off its debt." https://www.thebalance.com/debt-to-g...use-it-3305832
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, but in comparison it is moderate.
Listen, I'm the last one to justify big government spending...but you are, all your solutions to every governmental, social and even personal problem is a government solution, so how can you, an advocate of government spending, criticize government spending.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
As I noted, perhaps it's not where the money is being spent, but the efficiency of the spending. How much duplication of services is there, overlapping departments, wasteful administration? If the government is working like old MS operating systems, they just add new departments without eliminating the obsolescence along the way. That kind of thing just sucks money in useless overhead.
Another factor has to be the level of poverty in America:
"The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600, less than half of the federal poverty line." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...Public_housing
America has the highest poverty rate among all OECD countries:
https://sustainabilitymath.org/2018/...ecd-countries/
Welfare programs address the symptoms of poverty but do nothing to address the underlying causes. Meanwhile the cost of all of these programs continues to grow while the percentage of people who are impoverished remains static.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi