It’s not the 13 trillion debt that’s the problem, it’s the 13
trillion debt in relation to the GDP we hve that causes problems.

Let’s say the we could wave a magic wand and eliminate all federal regulatory policies: Eliminate all oil drilling prohibitions–drill where you can; no more agricultural subsidies for farmers keeping barren fields (grow what you want and however much you can); mine all the coal you can, etc.

I guarantee you that the U.S. economy would instantly respond. The problem wouldn’t be unemployment, we suddenly wouldn’t have enough workers for the available jobs. We would be producing so much oil that the price of gasoline would drop, transportation would be come cheaper than before and cause the prices of many goods to reduce.

Travel would become cheaper, too. People would be making and spending substantially more money than under regulation, and govt tax revenues would go through the roof. There would be so many goods and services produced, and therefore so much taxable money on the move that a 13 trillion dollar debt would look like a teenager’s allowance. No one would care because federal income would easily be able to make payments on the outstanding interest and principal of the federal debt.

But govt doesn’t do that. It restricts the economy, spends against future income and then whines that higher taxes are necessary because there’s not enough federal income (no matter that it’s because congress’ spending would make a drunken sailor on shore leave look like Ebenezer Scrooge).

Finally, my apologies for being so off-topic.–This blog began as a discussion of why Sarah Palin drives the left nuts.

Well, actually the best that can happen is that the Tea Party wins every seat in congress, they impeach and remove both Obama and Biden, and finally put their speaker as president. That means that everything is 100% smaller govt.

That’s about as likely as what you say is “best case”. That is – it isn’t going to happen. There are just not enough competitive seat in the senate to do so and marginally enough in the house. That is even assuming most competitive seats go to republicans (let alone if the republicans are conservative or another set of RINO’s).

If they were going to all go to republicans they wouldn’t be competitive – they would be lost. It isn’t a totally leftist conglomerate calling them “competitive” or “in play” either – they are really that. If you win over 60% of those seats then there is a HUGE swing in thought – 60% is so rare it makes record books.

It would take well over that to win what you call best case scenario – it isn’t a best case anymore than me expecting my pickup truck to win first place in an NHRA Top Fuel Class – yep it is *possible* that all the cars will crash or have failures it hasn’t happened yet and betting everything I own on it isn’t a good idea. However that it is possible doesn’t mean it is best case and should be what we go for.

Indeed, taking the house is only moderately likely – that means do not count on it. Taking the senate is so unlikely that I would rather bet on winning at a track race. I’m not much into that. Yes, you have to take some risks but to cunt an that is crazy. As such truly expect to have neither house in the next election, but hope for one of them.

The chances of the dems loosing the senate are so remote that you would be better off spending the money on a lottery ticket. Someone has to win sometime, but I wouldn’t stake much on it. The chances of winning the house are OK, good enough to plan on what to do if it occurs but not so much to expect it.

The Presidency? Not so much – an ugly cantankerous mule could have beaten Bush in the second election yet they ran Kerry who was clearly worse (for much the same reason you espouse – not remotely looking at what was *probable* and hoping that things would be ignored or go their way when it was a close call – close calls do not go much outside of 50% your way otherwise they wouldn’t be close).

So, no, I do not agree with you. But I’ll (sadly) be correct for a number of years to come. Sadly too many leave when they find the dream will not hold up, no it will not but giving up leaves us were we are now. So I’m not trying to discourage – indeed I’m trying to set high but realistic expectations and have us work towards them. But it is a loosing cause and most leave when they can’t have all their cookies and eat them too.

“The Federal Debt.” I like that distinction. I’d like to use that from now on.

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to illustrate; perhaps i wasn’t clear enough (apologies for the length of this post).

The GDP is like the nation’s gross income, the Federal Governments income (gross IS net for the Feds since they pay no income tax) is federal income tax and excise tax revenue. When you raise the GDP, the national debt becomes a smaller part of the whole as in my example above.

The GDP represents money on the move (goods and services provided in the nation), and when money moves, it is taxed. Thus, by increasing the GDP (The “nation’s income”) you increase the fed’s tax revenue. Even if you don’t increase tax rates the govt taxes a larger pie and thus has more income than previously.

Thus, one way to help control the federal debt (in addition to paying down the debt and also not borrowing against future tax revenues) is to increase business activity to increase money on the move and thus increase the size of the taxable pie (GDP) therefore govt income. This is why the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts contributed to an expansive economy, they encouraged business expansion, created more goods, products and jobs, and provided a larger base of money on the move on which to levy tax; a 15% tax on 1000 workers making $50,000 creates more govt income than a 25% tax on 500 workers making $50,000.

Obama administration policies consistently threaten to interfere with business and therefore stunt the growth of the GDP. They want to increase federal income by raising taxes (both directly by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and indirectly though charges such as the Obamacare penalty/tax) and they have created an environment of uncertainty which discourages business growth which slows the growth of the GDP (or reduces it).

Higher tax rates on a smaller taxable pie discourages GDP growth reducing the size of the GDP. As the taxable pie shrinks, more and more tax rate increases (or new taxes like the VAT) are necessary just to keep federal revenue stable–forget growing it. Rising tax rates beget a shrinking GDP which requires even higher tax rates which begets an even smaller GDP and on and on. This eventually creates a death spiral

Obama policies are creating a massive deficit (which adds to the natl debt) by spending money the govt doesn’t have while simultaneously causing the national debt to assume greater importance because now the GDP is smaller than before (or at least not growing as rapidly as the debt).

To return to my example above, if you gross$50,000/yr and have consumer debt of $50,000 you are in trouble. If you can raise your income to $150,000 you are in substantially less trouble. If, however, you have $50,000 in debt and your income falls to $25,000 you are in a world of hurt (you now must double your income just to get to where you were). It is this last example that is typical of what the Obama administration is crafting.

Perhaps because the feds take from the citizens, then in multitudes of ways disburse a chunk of this money back to the states?

Not saying it’s right, but that’s my impression….

We have the federal constitution, the federal government, federal judges, federal statutes, federal cases, federal taxes, federal marshals, et al.

Why is it calleed the national debt rather than the federal debt?

@ T: As an example, consider a family with a gross income of $50,00 that is $50,000 in debt (100% of income). The next year that family increases it’s income to $150,000, now it’s debt is only 30% of income. Likewise, one way to manage the national debt is to increase GDP (the equivalent of the country’s gross income). The debt then becomes a more manageable portion of goods and services.

You call it the national debt (as most people do): but it’s not the national debt, it’s the federal debt. And, though GDP may be the “equivalent” of the country’s gross income, it sure isn’t the federal government’s gross income, as much as the feds would dearly like it to be so.

Admittedly, I haven’t done a whole lot of analysis on your remarks, but it seems to me that you’re thinking as if what’s ours (that is, the people’s) is really the federal government’s. And I think it’s that kind of thinking that’s largely responsible for the $13T federal debt.* Which we have no chance whatever of discharging without the feds spending less than they take in, which will require drastic cutbacks in the size and scope of every branch, twig, and leaf of the federal government.

* Important trivia: did you know that, since 2000, the federal government has spent $3.7T just paying the interest on the federal debt?

1a. Mike Huckabee is given a prominent place on the Miller Web site. That’s not a plus afaic, but I continue to respect Miller’s strong credentials.

2. In multiple comments on this post, I have explained why I am no longer support Palin for national office.

http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-defends-sarah-palin-and-tea-party-candidates