CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
9
True False
Debate Score:19
Arguments:26
Total Votes:21
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (9)
 
 False (8)

Debate Creator

Akulakhan(2985) pic



A high national debt is a good thing.

I'd like to clear a few things up for some of the users on here. The national debt is representative of growth, and it should be expected that as a country prospers, their debt increases. The deficit, on the other hand, should be low. The deficit is the difference between the debt and income. As you might have already guessed, a country strives to have as low of a deficit as possible, even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus).

True

Side Score: 10
VS.

False

Side Score: 9
1 point

I don't know how people aren't aware of this when they discuss government spending.

Side: True

If one would treat the USA as a business, then a high national debt isn't a bad thing. All businesses attempt to spend their way out of debt, whether they wish to say so or not. Car companies do not retool to make model changes because cars are selling. Instead they borrow and invest heavily into design and retooling in hopes their investment will be returned. Businesses advertises more in bad times, because they are trying to get more customers. This also takes money.

One cannot hoard money and expect growth. This is a Republican philosophy that George Bush Sr. called this Voodoo economics, because it doesn't work.

http://zfacts.com/p/voodoo.html

All those people that think Ronald Reagan was conservative in regard to government spending are sadly mistaken.

In 1981 Reagan passed the Emergency Recovery Tax Act that lowered taxes but increased spending, especially on the military. This basically created an enormous debt. under the Reagan administration the debt grew from 930 billion in 1980 to 2.6 trillion dollars in 1988. This means the debt grew 300% in eight years after only growing about 150% from 1950 to 1979.

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/ecospendinganddebt.htm

Side: True

Ask Somalia and Ethiopia and they would say Yes know why?because their neighbors would pay the money thinking of their plight or even America.

Side: True

It is true that the debt should always be compared to income to be relevant. But, if it is "even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus)", then eventually there would be no debt.

High debt is certainly not the only factor to consider - the stability of the economy (relative to other countries), interest rates, inflation, unemployment, etc. etc.

See my somewhat similar debate on whether current deficits are too low here - so far noone has posted a single response - so it's all yours... ;)

Side: False
Akulakhan(2985) Clarified
1 point

then eventually there would be no debt.

A debt is incurred at any transaction. Debts aren't just what you have remaining.

High debt is certainly not the only factor to consider - the stability of the economy (relative to other countries), interest rates, inflation, unemployment, etc. etc.

I agree, there are a number of other factors. yet, debt is not an inherently bad thing, especially in a country such as the US in which it is most certainly favorable.

See my somewhat similar debate on whether current deficits are too low here - so far noone has posted a single response - so it's all yours... ;)

Maybe if I get on in the next three hundred years, as is my average hiatus, I will definitely spend my efforts there.

Side: True
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

Yea - after I posted to Daver, I thought you might have been using debt this way, but didn't go back and say anything. Spending is the same thing as incurring debt, etc. When people see deficit next to debt, we apparently focus on one meaning of debt and forget its others.

Maybe we'll be better in a few hundred years - see ya then :)

Side: True
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

A debt is incurred at any transaction. Debts aren't just what you have remaining.

We are talking about the current national debt. Today’s Federal Debt is about $18,190,683,287,000. This level of debt has occurred only one other time in our history,during WWII. Which was a sharp spike, that declined rapidly when the war ended. Our current debt stands at just over 100% of GDP, with no realistic projections of falling in the future. This is the key difference with today's debt, which is not expected to decline, but rather is expected to increase due to SS and Medicare. This expectation is dampening growth, because investors don't see a good future. That is why we have a serious debt problem, which we ignore at our own peril.

Side: True
1 point

The national debt is representative of growth, and it should be expected that as a country prospers, their debt increases. The deficit, on the other hand, should be low. The deficit is the difference between the debt and income. As you might have already guessed, a country strives to have as low of a deficit as possible, even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus).

Daaaaaaa Gee thanks fer clear'in that up for us.

Debt is representative of growth ......... as a country prospers, their debt increases. Hmmmmm. Yeah, I get it now, sure the more we spent beyond or means the more prosperous we are. But wait ---- right now our debt is over 18,000,000,000,000 so we should be enjoying unparalleled prosperity right.

Sorry, I'd like to go on but I'm laughing so hard, I cant see the keyboard.

Side: False
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
2 points

In this debate:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ The USNeedsALeader#arg601771

You defend Eisenhower and yet I'm puzzled, because he was one of the USA's biggest spenders in history. The highway system was his. Talk about a president spending money behind their means.

"The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars[4]) and took 35 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterstateHighway_System

Side: True
GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

And you said I was the one with a chip on his shoulder...

Side: True
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Don't care who you are this is funny stuff. 😉

Side: True
Akulakhan(2985) Disputed
1 point

"Yeah, I get it now, sure the more we spent beyond or means the more prosperous we are."

Not in every situation, but as a rule for a growing nation, absolutely.

But wait ---- right now our debt is over 18,000,000,000,000 so we should be enjoying unparalleled prosperity right.

And we are, just not proportionately

Side: True
1 point

OK - Sorry I'm better now -- where was I ?

Oh yeah the prosperous economy we should be experiencing because of or record debt. Let's see --- record levels of welfare , no that can't be it. Record levels of people on food stamps, no that doesn't fit. Ahhhh more people in poverty than when the debt was 6 Trillion. Hmmm I must be missing something.

The deficit is the difference between the debt and income.

So our debt is 18 Trillion minus our income (projected by Obama himself) bout 3.5 Trillion for fiscal 2015, leaves us with a deficit for the coming year of 14.5 Trillion. Now add that to what we already owe and we are in the hole 32.5 Trillion. No I musta missed something again.

As you might have already guessed, a country strives to have as low of a deficit as possible, even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus). But wait, Somehow you claim that high debt is good, but now low deficit is good.

Soooo deficits being low cause debt to be high.

OK I got it this time.

Sorry can't see the keyboard again -- have to stop 😜

Side: False
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

with a deficit for the coming year of 14.5 Trillion.

Um, wow - yea, you "musta missed something again" indeed... The deficit for 2014 was less than half of 1 trillion and deficit for 2015 is expected to be roughly the same (and even lower for 2016).

That you could even possibly think the deficit for 2015 would be 14.5 Trillion is stunning.

Side: True
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Actually what is stunning is your own ignorance.

The deficit is the difference between the debt and income.

I am mocking the above OP statement, by actually using it in a calculation.

Daaaaaa

Aculakan has the terms debt and deficit confused. Daaaaa

So I used the real numbers the way they were explained in the OP.

See below Daaaaaa

So our debt is 18 Trillion minus our income (projected by Obama himself) bout 3.5 Trillion for fiscal 2015, leaves us with a deficit for the coming year of 14.5 Trillion. Now add that to what we already owe and we are in the hole 32.5 Trillion

In case your still not with it, this is the correct definition of deficit.

The deficit is the difference between spending and income

Daaaaaaa

Side: True
1 point

Not for HIPC's.

Side: False
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

What's that?

Side: True
Cartman(18192) Clarified
1 point

Heavily indebted poor countries.

Side: True
1 point

The national debt is representative of growth, and it should be expected that as a country prospers, their debt increases.

Your argument shows that a national debt is not a bad thing, not that a high debt is a good thing.

The deficit, on the other hand, should be low. The deficit is the difference between the debt and income. As you might have already guessed, a country strives to have as low of a deficit as possible, even better if the value is negative (represents a surplus).

If the deficit is not low in a given year it becomes debt. That means that a high national debt is a result of failing to keep the deficit low. The higher the debt means more is spent on interest which means keeping the deficit low is more difficult. The national debt should not grow out of proportion. If the national debt is 10% of GDP then it will always grow and it won't be a problem. When the debt surpasses the GDP it doesn't mean we are in good shape.

Side: False
1 point

There ya go. Good clarity.

Side: False
1 point

No. Let me put it this way:

Obesity is not a good thing, but it is a sign that we aren't starving, which is worse.

Side: False
1 point

Honestly I do not understand why this is a topic. I think we can all agree the trillions America owes to China is NOT good.

Side: False
1 point

Just to let you know, we only owe China 1.3 trillion. Not as much as people often think.

Side: True