# Paying off the National Debt - Why won't this work? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 1, 2010, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758 "2010-08-01T02:08:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/41 "2010-08-09T15:10:10Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > So money to help the deficit from SS and Medicare reform is already spoken for, so to speak.Even most squishy lefties would agree you cannot tax yourself to prosperity. For Christ’s sake, what the hell does SS have to do with anything about the deficit? Give it up. And who thinks that we should “tax ourselves to prosperity”? Our tax rates are low both by historical standards and world standards. They certainly need to be raised in the short term to pay off the enormous debt that anti-tax conservatives have created. I’ll tell you what you also can’t do, cut taxes to create prosperity. If you could, then after 8 years we’d see a good economy rather than the crap your policies have created. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/42 "2010-08-09T16:50:44Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > So money to help the deficit from SS and Medicare reform is already spoken for, so to speak.Even most squishy lefties would agree you cannot tax yourself to prosperity. > > For Christ’s sake, what the hell does SS have to do with anything about the deficit? Give it up. And who thinks that we should “tax ourselves to prosperity”? Our tax rates are low both by historical standards and world standards. They certainly need to be raised in the short term to pay off the enormous debt that anti-tax conservatives have created. I’ll tell you what you also can’t do, cut taxes to create prosperity. If you could, then after 8 years we’d see a good economy rather than the crap your policies have created. Not sure what ‘my policies’ have created - which policies do you mean, exactly? also, if I’m not mistaken, ‘your guys’ have controlled Congress since 2006. Congress has at least as much to do with our fiscal situation as the current and previous administration. Do you place \*\*\*any \*\*\*blame for our deficit and bleak debt outlook on ‘your guys’, to use your paradigm? Finally, allow me to use this as a coachable moment: > [@](#): > > For Christ’s sake, what the hell does SS have to do with anything about the deficit? In fact, Social Security has been taking in more than they pay out for a very long time now. This excess has funded, in something of an underhanded way, the rest of the federal government (making our deficit look smaller than it really is). Alas, that’s not the [case](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html) anymore. Now begins the long slow drain on other government expenses. One more thought - your post seems to blame 100% of the debt on the ‘anti-tax conservatives’… do you blame _any_ of the debt on the ‘pro-spending liberals’, as you might call them? Or is it always the conservatives’ fault, as per your emotional, logic-free reply? ---
**Author:** ![Gregg64](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9f8e36/32.png) [@Gregg64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregg64)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/43 "2010-08-09T20:46:55Z")
Freeze government spending (don’t cut a dime, just freeze it, in dollar terms) for 10 years. You’d be amazed how much that would change everything. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/44 "2010-08-09T21:04:23Z")
> [@Gregg64](#): > > Freeze government spending (don’t cut a dime, just freeze it, in dollar terms) for 10 years. You’d be amazed how much that would change everything. I’ll go you one better: freeze the baseline, but adjust it for both inflation and population growth. You’re right, we’d be out of trouble before too long. But Congress doesn’t work that way. They like to give away stuff so they can stay elected (both sides do this, just to different groups). As I’ve argued here before, some on the left (but not all) also like to maintain a [cycle of dependency](http://article.nationalreview.com/332168/cycle-of-dependency/thomas-sowell) among their electorate, so as to guarantee a steady supply of voters to their side. These are among the more evil politicians IMHO, and what the right likes to call the elitist, ruling class. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/45 "2010-08-09T22:03:14Z")
Do the ‘spending freezers’ realize the enormity of the debt? It will remain unless we raise taxes or have substantial economic growth. Do you have some kind of model for economic growth that doesn’t entail increased government spending? We don’t have new land to sell, and the ‘spending freezers’ are substantially aligned with the anti-immigration crowd, so exactly where is this growth supposed to come from? Or are you are arguing for tax increases indirectly? I realize that I’ve stated a false dilemna, but I haven’t seen a strong argument that freezing spending under current conditions has any economic benefit. I understand that morally, increased debt passes the burden of repayment on to our children. But that is the due wasteful spending, like wars that our children will pay for economically, and likely in worse ways because of our failures. Had the borrowed money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan been spent on energy independence and infrastructure, our children could benefit greatly. Even if a spending freeze occurs, we are likely to see more of the revenue (our taxes) diverted to our representatives paymasters. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/46 "2010-08-09T23:05:40Z")
Economic growth can come from gains in comparative advantage and free trade. I know that some people don’t like that model, particularly in this economy, but what I’m talking about is the opposite of closed borders and tariff heavy economies. Our governments should be working to open free trade and strengthening our comparative advantage and leveraging our natural resources. The government can then tax economic activity. Coupled with freezes in spending (or cuts in entitlements), debt should be more controlled. The US still has plenty of room to fool around with in terms of debt to GDP ratio, but I agree I am biased against deficit spending (though I mostly agree with it under the current circumstances). ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/47 "2010-08-10T02:57:41Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > One more thought - your post seems to blame 100% of the debt on the ‘anti-tax conservatives’… do you blame _any_ of the debt on the ‘pro-spending liberals’, as you might call them? Or is it always the conservatives’ fault, as per your emotional, logic-free reply? The ‘pro-spending liberal’ tag is just a silly meme. The budget was balanced under Clinton, and Bush pushed us back into a deficit with his reckless tax cuts and unfunded, unnecessary war. I know it’s hard to face the truth about conservatives, but their policies have just been a disaster. It’s the exact opposite of what a rational person would do: pay down the deficit during good times and give you self some leeway for deficit spending when it dives. Going back into deficit spending during good times placed us in the situation we are now; there is absolutely no way to stimulate the economy without making the deficit worse. > [@](#): > > In fact, Social Security has been taking in more than they pay out for a very long time now. This excess has funded, in something of an underhanded way, the rest of the federal government (making our deficit look smaller than it really is). Alas, that’s not the case anymore. Now begins the long slow drain on other government expenses. What does this mean? You think that somehow Social Security is going to start pulling money from the general fund? It’s simply not true. I know that conservatives think that anything that agrees with their narrow world view must be true, but there really are objective facts. Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Nothing. If you got rid of Social Security tomorrow it would have absolutely no effect on the deficit. It’s just one more absurd mis-truth that conservatives like to peddle to the gullible. I ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/48 "2010-08-10T03:06:21Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > But Congress doesn’t work that way. They like to give away stuff so they can stay elected (both sides do this, just to different groups). As I’ve argued here before, some on the left (but not all) also like to maintain a [cycle of dependency](http://article.nationalreview.com/332168/cycle-of-dependency/thomas-sowell) among their electorate, so as to guarantee a steady supply of voters to their side. These are among the more evil politicians IMHO, and what the right likes to call the elitist, ruling class. The problem is not an elite ruling class, it’s morons who want to be lied to. I know it’s really appealing to have someone tell you we can all pay lower taxes and it will make things better. Cutting taxes does not raise revenue. It just doesn’t, and it didn’t. As long as people want to be lied to then we will have problems. We have had politicians that told the truth, but they were not elected (or re-elected). The teapartiers are just anther bunch of idiots that want to be lied to: cutting taxes will improve the economy, we can just cut waste and fraud and reduce govt spending, homos are going to force your kids to be gay, the government is going to have death panels. All lies. It’s not like it’s hard to know the facts, you just have to be willing to put aside ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/49 "2010-08-10T04:38:37Z")
**Dan** , in all honesty, you should probably do some [reading](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2001/03/The-Real-Reagan-Economic-Record)before you embarass yourself any further. So when you say > [@](#): > > Cutting taxes does not raise revenue. It just doesn’t, and it didn’t. you may want to try to get a bit smarter about this issue. As the article says, > [@](#): > > Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990: > > Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue. > > As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4 > > Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase. Most reasonable people understand that lowering tax rates does in fact increase revenues, oftentimes. It’s not without limits of course; you cannot lower them to zero, for example. But increasing tax rates stifle economic growth and reduce federal intake, decreasing them usually does the opposite. No reasonable mind disagrees with this premise. As for the wars (which Hillary and Kerry voted for… just sayin’… ) you should probably turn your emotion towards another target. According to that right wing rag the [Congressional Rearch Service](http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf), both wars together, since the 9/11 attacks, have cost about $944 billion. This year’s deficit alone is about [1.42 trillion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget). Even an Obamabot like yourself must realize that it’s not just the war that’s causing this problem. I know that this is a hard thing to digest, I’ll give you a moment. OK. With me now? Good. As for your second misguided notion > [@](#): > > What does this mean? You think that somehow Social Security is going to start pulling money from the general fund? It’s simply not true. I’m begging you, get yourself [smarter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)) on the issue > [@](#): > > Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller[citation needed]. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/50 "2010-08-10T05:58:18Z")
I’ll trade [links](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/) on the effect of tax cuts; particularly Bush’s, which are the ones currently scheduled to expire and which conservatives are bound and determined to extend. Conservatives have used the Social Security surplus to \*hide \* the true size of the deficit, but it has no effect on the _actual_ deficit. If Social Security were to disappear tomorrow there would be no effect on the deficit. Here is a [summary](http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html)of how Social Security has been treated in the budget: > [@](#): > > So, to sum up: 1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968; 2- On-budget from 1969-1985; 3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit; 4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990. Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/51 "2010-08-10T06:17:10Z")
And here is [more](http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html)on the effect of the Reagan tax cuts > [@](#): > > The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan’s two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It’s also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40’s, 134.5% during the 50’s, 108.5% during the 60’s, and 168.2% during the 70’s. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn. > > Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up only 91.3 percent during the 80’s. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which is directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. Hence, the claim that the doubling of TOTAL revenues proves the effectiveness of tax cuts is including revenues which resulted from a tax hike to prove the effectiveness of a tax cut. This seems like the height of hypocrisy. Govt revenue always goes up over time as the economy grows. The question is what were the effects of the tax cuts on revenue. The growth rate, in real terms, was lower under Reagan than in the decades previous and later. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758/52 "2010-08-10T12:47:35Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I’ll trade [links](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/) on the effect of tax cuts; particularly Bush’s, which are the ones currently scheduled to expire and which conservatives are bound and determined to extend. > > Conservatives have used the Social Security surplus to \*hide \* the true size of the deficit, but it has no effect on the _actual_ deficit. If Social Security were to disappear tomorrow there would be no effect on the deficit. > > Here is a [summary](http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html)of how Social Security has been treated in the budget: > > > [@](#): > > > > So, to sum up: 1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968; 2- On-budget from 1969-1985; 3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit; 4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990. Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed. It appears that Krugman’s argument is that there’s so many other variables going on that it’s impossible to judge. Kind of like, did the Stimulus ‘create’ those millions of jobs (obviously not) or save them (maybe… but how do you count that?). Since it’s impossible to draw conclusions as per Krugman (A guy I respect BTW, even though he’s so far left that he makes Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan), further discussion is probably useless on that point. As for next link about how revenues have gone up in every decade since WWII… I think a little context is in order. Not sure how young you are, but do you remember the economic situation we were in right before those tax cuts? I do. We had 70% marginal tax rates, a very complex code, 13% mortgages, 20% interest rates, and hard core stagflation. America was in a huge nosedive, economically. Many people credit those tax cuts with stimulating the economy and pulling us out. As for social security, I don’t know what else to tell you. Your statements are wrong. You clearly won’t believe me or wiki. How about the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003291.html), which is a pretty left-leaning publication? > [@](#): > > the trust fund’s annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year – nearly a decade ahead of schedule – and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation’s books. snip > [@](#): > > The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paying-off-the-national-debt-why-wont-this-work/548758.md?page=2)