$22 Trillion and accelerating . . . .

[dmlfarmer]

I guess I was raised with the idea that debt was a bad thing and public debt was the worst. Stealing from your children and grand children for your lifestyle today.

The Liberal's first Trudeau really got Canada's debt ramped up. Mulroney wasn't able to pull it down much but he got the GST in which Chretien and Martin used to cut running up more debt. Harper came next and he tried to keep a lid on debt. Next came the second Trudeau and he is fast and loose with public spending just like the first Trudeau.

Canada's debt isn't really a party thing. Its a TRUDEAU thing and they just happen to be in the Liberal Party Of Canada.

Unfortunately, facts don't support your conclusion. (Unless you think Mulroney and Harper were secretly Liberals or Trudeaus???)
Yes PET increased the national debt by roughly 300 Billion. But then Mulroney added another roughly 300 Billion. The Liberal governments of Chretien and Martin held the debt relatively constant. But then Harper added about another 300 billion to the debt. Now Trudeau is again adding debt. Here is a great graph up to JT period which shows clearly which leader/party added debt and Conservatives are definitely not better money managers.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMWtxLLUEAAHqOn.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMWtxLLUEAAHqOn.png

[macdon02]

https://twitter.com/HayekAndKeynes/status/998602512772059136?s=20

National debt is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social security, and pensions dwarf this amount by a factor of 10

[sawfly1]

Can we finally put to bed the myth
That liberals or ndp are the big
Spenders .
Pretty obvious that conservatives
Spend at least as much if not more
And if you were to consider all the assets they sell off in the
Meantime.
They are probably the winners

I know it is a favorite talking
Point for conservatives.
But Good intentions mean $hat
You actually have to deliver.
So until that happens .
We do not need to hear it.

They are all guilty.
Move on

[errolanderson]

https://twitter.com/HayekAndKeynes/status/998602512772059136?s=20

National debt is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities such as Medicare, Social security, and pensions dwarf this amount by a factor of 10

Only Portugal, Italy, Greece and Japan have a worst debt load than the U.S. Japan’s massive debt has been characterized as the lost generation.

U.S, debt now totals about 80 percent of GDP. There is no way the U.S. can grow their way out of this financial mess. And this is called the good times stateside. What wil happen to unfunded liabilities, asset values and standard of living when the economy turns down?

A massive debt bomb (IMO) . . . .

[chuckChuck]

The OECD projection says the USA's % of public debt to GDP will be 109.9% in 2019 rising to 113.3% in 2020.

Trump cut taxes for the rich, but the overspending continues.

The US overspends by a wide margin on its military. The military spending is spread around the country making the jobs and economic activity that goes with it hard to cut.

While many fiscal conservatives want a much smaller government and reduced spending, there is reality that many jobs will be lost and the economy will shrink.

Errol how does the US get out of this conundrum?

The Liberals under Chretien and Martin cut a relatively much larger deficit starting in 1993.

https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/of-the-last-three-federal-governments-which-had-the-best-fiscal-record/

[errolanderson]

The OECD projection says the USA's % of public debt to GDP will be 109.9% in 2019 rising to 113.3% in 2020.

Trump cut taxes for the rich, but the overspending continues.

The US overspends by a wide margin on its military. The military spending is spread around the country making the jobs and economic activity that goes with it hard to cut.

While many fiscal conservatives want a much smaller government and reduced spending, there is reality that many jobs will be lost and the economy will shrink.

Errol how does the US get out of this conundrum?

The Liberals under Chretien and Martin cut a relatively much larger deficit starting in 1993.

https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/of-the-last-three-federal-governments-which-had-the-best-fiscal-record/

chuckChuck . . . there is no way out. The U.S. economy may follow an economic path similar to Japan over the past 20 years. Some economists suggest stagflation and ongoing lost wealth and global power.

U.S. retail sales released this morning were dreadful. December retail off 1.2% and the worst in a decade. Also, Trump is extending his March 1st tariff increase deadline to China because there is no deal. Commodities are now reflecting the truth of global trade and the prospects of 'Lets Make a Deal'.

[LWeber]

Also, Trump is extending his March 1st tariff increase deadline to China because there is no deal.

What wire service is quoting that?

[SASKFARMER3]

I can’t find that anywhere.

It’s booming and Americans spent more on this Christmas than any Obama years before. Americans are working.

Canada is in the shy hole thank a liberal every day it’s no longer harpers fault it’s Trudeau’s.

[dmlfarmer]

I can’t find that anywhere.

It’s booming and Americans spent more on this Christmas than any Obama years before. Americans are working.

Canada is in the shy hole thank a liberal every day it’s no longer harpers fault it’s Trudeau’s.

Trading Economics is more credibe than Saskfarmer3's opinion!
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/retail-sales https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/retail-sales

[dmlfarmer]

What wire service is quoting that?

Have not heard extension has happened but Bloomberg and Reuters both reported overnight that he is considering doing so.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-deadline/trump-considers-60-day-extension-for-china-tariffs-deadline-bloomberg-idUSKCN1Q30DE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-deadline/trump-considers-60-day-extension-for-china-tariffs-deadline-bloomberg-idUSKCN1Q30DE

[westernvicki]

Taxes go to government, interest on debt goes where?

It just redirection of public money.

Go figure.

[dmlfarmer]

Taxes go to government, interest on debt goes where?

It just redirection of public money.

Go figure.

That all depends on who owns the debt. Your right if debt is government held. But if debt is held by foreign interests, the money flows out of the country. If debt is held by private parties through treasury bills/bonds, then public paid interest is flowing to private investors. Interest charges could simply be adding onto unfunded liability in pension plans if not actually paid. Or it may simply be adding to the deficiet/debt if the budget is not balanced.

[farming101]

That all depends on who owns the debt. Your right if debt is government held. But if debt is held by foreign interests, the money flows out of the country. If debt is held by private parties through treasury bills/bonds, then public paid interest is flowing to private investors. Interest charges could simply be adding onto unfunded liability in pension plans if not actually paid. Or it may simply be adding to the deficiet/debt if the budget is not balanced.

So, is the present amount of debt and interest payments too high? How is it decided when is no longer affordable?
Should government backed pension plans be fully funded? What would that mean to the national economy?

[dmlfarmer]

So, is the present amount of debt and interest payments too high? How is it decided when is no longer affordable?
Should government backed pension plans be fully funded? What would that mean to the national economy?

Great questions and I wish I had an answer. But in reality, economics is more an art than a science. There is no natural law that prevails, but outcomes are largely dependent on human emotion no matter if you follow Keynesian or Austrian theory. Growth and recession can occur under both economic theories

I can only answer with my personal opinion. For the US to add two trillion dollars in debt over last two years when economy is good and employment is low is a huge mistake. Debt was needed in 2008-09 to spur the economy. I agree with Errol that by borrowing more, the US will never be able to grow its economy enough to get out of debt or in my opinion, the deficit. Nor can underfunded social nets ever be fully funded now. So tomorrow's generation will be stuck with todays bills that are continuing to be rung up.

And I don't think economists, politicians, or the public will know when debt and interest is too high until **** happens. Human nature refuses to accept risks that are not quantifiable. So until we are actually in another global recession, or a deflationary spiral like Japan has endured for years, or hyper inflation, or currency default, or even a replacement of the US dollar as the global reserve currency politicians will continue to buy votes and not face the music. And IMHO, if we don't see a major economic correction soon in one form or another as outlined, the most probable outcome is another world war as the instrument to reset the global economy.

[farming101]

Why is it desirable to have a government treasury accumulating it's own money and "getting out of debt"?
To be sure there is no excuse for wasting money and in most instances no good reason for increasing govt spending just to try and spur the economy without a plan.
Why did the debt and deficit increase? What does the balance sheet say?
What would trigger a currency default or loss of reserve currency status? I cannot envision what that would be.