» Bereans VLOG: National Debt

Engaging today's political economy
with truth and reason

sponsored by Cedarville University

About
Subscribe

Bereans VLOG: National Debt

13 Apr 2018

Mark Caleb Smith

The Bereans discuss the implications of the growing national debt in light of the Congressional Budget Office’s new, and negative, numbers.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Posted in:

Featured
VLOG

Comments on this post

Theophilus says:

April 13, 2018 at 9:36 am

Interesting. I like the focused, shorter video, at least when there’s only the one topic on the table. One thing I’ve noticed is that the Q&A format seems to work really well for everyone except for Dr. Smith. Perhaps this is by design, but Dr. Smith seems to mostly ask everyone else their opinion instead of offering his own. As someone who likes his thoughts, that seems like a bit of a loss, but it’s not new to the new format.

On the subject, is there something about US spending and debt that’s radically different than other countries? It seems to me that most developed nations run deficits to cover social welfare programs, and they don’t all seem to be on the verge of crisis. Is there something we’re doing that makes it worse for us? Are we just spending to a degree that other countries don’t?
- Carter Miedema says:
  
  April 13, 2018 at 9:47 am
  
  We’re on the higher end of debt to GDP, but that is not the only factor to consider. As mentioned, it also matters how much the economy is growing. A growing economy can support a higher debt load as it expands, but eventually the bill will come due. If you want to take a look at some quick figures, this website has a helpful analysis of the debt to GDP for most nations; however, no aggregate measure is a perfect way to use to universally measure prosperity.
  
  https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp
  - Theophilus says:
    
    April 13, 2018 at 9:55 am
    
    Right. I am more wondering what the Bereans think is problematic about what the US is doing specifically, since we’re not really unique on the question of massive spending on social welfare.
  - Matthew Beal says:
    
    April 17, 2018 at 6:15 pm
    
    It’s essentially what Carter said: the bill comes due eventually. Just because everyone else is running deficits to cover social welfare doesn’t mean we should too. A bad idea practiced by everyone is still a bad idea. Running a deficit with no capital investment is just a massive current consumption that is going to lead to future scarcity of resources. At some point, the social welfare will have to be cut. That’s the problem. One of three things has to happen: raise FICA taxes, cut some benefits, or raise the bar for social welfare. We’re battling the basic law of economics here, not just some subjective prejudice against social welfare.
  - Theophilus says:
    
    April 17, 2018 at 10:11 pm
    
    I don’t understand how that answers my question. We aren’t unique in having welfare programs, and we aren’t exceptionally generous with ours compared to everyone else. Welfare, in principle, doesn’t appear to be the problem. It may be debatable whether welfare programs are good or bad, but they aren’t crushing everyone else who uses them; we are apparently unique in this.
    
    Perhaps they will pitch in with their assessment at some point (I suspect, though, that I’ve been missed in end-of-the-year business, which is understandable).
  - Matthew Beal says:
    
    April 18, 2018 at 8:16 am
    
    I’m sorry, I just don’t understand your view that welfare isn’t the problem. It’s over 50% of our budget and has over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Can you clarify what you’re asking? I don’t think we’re as unique as you think we are on this problem. Just at a quick glance, I found Britain, Germany, France, and Sweden are all having welfare state problems (more from an unemployment side, though).
  - Theophilus says:
    
    April 18, 2018 at 8:53 am
    
    That’s fine. Not sure how I can make my question more clear though. Maybe one of the Bereans will weigh in and it might be more obvious what I’m asking.
Jeff Adams says:

April 13, 2018 at 12:27 pm

What makes this country unique in that its leaders are particularly talented at convincing gullible voters that they can build the greatest military of all time!, plus have great insurance for everybody!, plus the greatest schools in the world!, plus social programs cradle to grave, all while cutting taxes.

Our problems are not that severe. Increasing taxes moderately (especially on unearned income and on upper levels of earned income) while cutting expenses moderately (across the board) would go a long way, but voters could not handle that truth. As a nation we have a long history of self-delusion, starting with the notion, established under slavery, that all men are created equal, and going from there.

Then again, I am not a member of any political party, nor am I running for public office, so I have no reason NOT to be honest.

We do not have excess levels of social spending, at least when our levels are compared with other modern industrial nations.
Nathan D. says:

April 13, 2018 at 7:29 pm

“Increasing taxes moderately…”

On who? Businesses (large, small, or both?)? Middle class? You can’t assume that those you tax will continue producing the same level of taxable income. Increasing taxes does not necessarily equal a revenue increase. Too much tax can repress productivity to the point where higher taxes actually hurt revenue. I am curious, what tax rates do you prefer, or think appropriate, for each category, that you believe would be the most effective at bringing in revenue without an undue negative impact on productivity?

“…(especially on unearned income…”

Sigh. We all know you mean inheritance tax again… and again, the statistics do not support you on that. Revenue from those taxes is an infinitesimally small component of federal revenue even though the US currently already has one of the highest inheritance/death tax rates in the world. Hiking it more (even if we went to your previously stated desire of 100%) would do little to change the overall picture of things.

…and on upper levels of earned income)…

Maybe, but the first thing I said can also apply here.

…while cutting expenses moderately (across the board) would go a long way…

Hey, what do you know. We agree on one small thing. Even on the military I dare say. There is much of waste there and I think we can still maintain the “greatest military of all time” and keep it modern and updated on much less spending that we currently use on it.

…but voters could not handle that truth.”

Which voters? I think there are probably many more than you think who could handle it. Many of them may not like it, but I think they could handle it, and in fact, I think way more of them than you think would actually appreciate, and vote for, a leader who was willing to tell them the hard truth.

“Then again, I am not a member of any political party, nor am I running for public office, so I have no reason NOT to be honest.”

Perhaps not, but usually what you say is what I typically hear from Democrats. On the vast majority of issues, you are, in fact, on their side and your dislike (to put it mildly) for conservatives and Republicans is quite clear. Nothing wrong with that.. just sayin’… it’s okay for independents to just admit whether they prefer Democrats to Republicans. Most independents I think do actually have a preference even if they do not want to officially tie themselves to a party (or to actually vote for their preferred party’s nominee).

Regardless, you are indeed quite honest about your opinions, though you could be a bit more tactful when you express them (and I could too for that matter, not holding myself blameless there).

Videos

Loading video list...

Recommended Reading

Loading reading list...

Authors

Bert Wheeler Articles
Jeff Haymond Articles
Marc Clauson Articles
Mark Caleb Smith Articles
Tom Mach Articles

Bereans at the Gate

Home
About
Subscribe

Copyright © 2018 by Bereans at the Gate.
All rights reserved.
Suggested readings powered by NewsAPI.org.

sponsored by Cedarville University