ProgressiveUSA

The total interest last year paid on the $7.4 trillion national debt was $321.566 Billion. The reason is was so low is that interest rates are at a 46 year low. The OMB projection has the national debt at 9.994 trillion by 2008 and 11.114 trillion by 2010 . The historic interest rate paid on the national debt by the treasury is 5.1%. We could see the annual interest that American taxpayers will be shelling out by 2010 as high as $500 Billion or more. People do not seem to understand that the interest we must pay is on the cumulative debt. That interest does not pay for a single thing. Not one prescription drug, one salary for our military. Not one cent to educate our children. It pays for two decades of spending more than we were willing to tax year after year! Bush has added to this debt at a faster rate than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT in history and his plan NEVER reaches a balanced budget much less to begin repaying the debt to lower the interest requirement. We have paid $6.5 Trillion in interest on the debt since 1980!

The total interest last year paid on the $7.4 trillion national debt was $321.566 Billion.

I stand corrected. I was lazy & didn't look it up. I relied on the 17 percent borrowed money (which I knew to be $420 & 7 percent interest paid figures (which I estimated) in the 1040 booklet.

Hey, since when is a ticking bomb a crisis for the borrow & spend GOP?

Daiwa

First, 40% goes out of the united states. Much of the interest held by Americans is paid to high income Americans and does not return to the demand side. Poor people and middle income Americans do not hold a lot of the debt. The interest on the debt comes off the top and will take the general fund money needed for Social Security, Medicare, education and defense. It is not a doomsday scenario it is not a sound fiscal policy. The Fed Chairman is continually warning of the debt as did former Sec O'Neil. No person, company or nation can continually go into debt. The interest is a nonproductive component of the budget and does does not pay for any needed services. It is in essence paying for years of spedingt more then we taxed. There is no sound reason, given the fact that we are in a recovery, to be experiencing annual deficits of almost a half trillion dollars. What we are doing is mortgaging the future to pay for the past simply because we do not have a fiscal discipline to pay for what we want. To put ourselves in a position where the interest each year is equal to or greater than the amount we spend on national defense or on all other non-defense non entitlement programs is totally irresponsible.

Draginol

If you are opposed to programs such as Social Security and consider them redistribution of wealth you hold a position that is out of the mainstream thinking. The disparity between the have's and the have nots is not a condition that makes us stronger. Wealth results from the average person working and spending their money so the companies controlled by the wealthy prosper.

Social Security and Medicare are the most popular programs if ever enacted by Congress. If you and other conservatives believe that we're going to balance the budget by reducing or eliminating elements such as these, you will find very stark reality of the American voter will not tolerate such action is by its elected officials. The fiscal crisis being created by continually spending more than we tax could result is very large tax increases on the wealthy when it becomes clear we have gone ntoo far into debt. We should act before that happens for the best interest on the country.

The graph I posted i think makes the case pretty succinctly.

The graph you posted stops in 2001 with Clinton's record surpluses & does not reflect today.

Gene -

I think you're missing Drag's point - you've put words in his mouth. All he's pointed out is "what" is really pushing up the deficit - good or bad is a different debate.

ProgressiveUSA -

70-year projections being what they are, total crapshoots, I'd suggest not investing too much in them. Take a look at the same projection graph from 1999.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ProgressiveUSA -

Thanks to you, too. I probably don't need to say it explicitly, but my point was that virtually "no" such predictions have ever been correct, except by chance. If you look at such long-range projections from any administration at almost any time since WWII, it is quite evident. I'm not advocating not making projections or ignoring them, since they can be useful to an extent (mostly for hypothetical arguments in places like this ), but any projection past 3-5 years qualifies as a wild-ass guess in my book. Even the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Even the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong.

Due to your beloved Bush.

I will hammer back home the numbers because they bear repeating. When our federal government is spending $8500 a year per man woman and child in the US for the ANNUAL BUDGET, there's definitely too much pork! (Those numbers don't even TOUCH what state budgets account for)

en the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong. Due to your beloved Bush.

This is BS!!! Bush didn't get into office till 2001.

This is BS!!! Bush didn't get into office till 2001. You saying Bush's tax cuts did not change the financial situation of the government? Are you stupid, or just on drugs?

*Your* the stupid one not me! How could Bushs tax cuts affect the bottom line of the year 1999 when he didn't get into office until 2001! Get real and do your math homework.

Even the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong. Due to your beloved Bush.

Did you forget that Bush was in office in 2001 and NOT Clinton?

No, I didn't. But you apparently forgot that the FY 2001 budget passed under Clinton -- not GWB.