Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What of it, and no they aren't.

check it out since the first Bush administration the US has borrowed more since then than the rest of its history you even shut down public services in January because your fiscal policy is up the proverbial creek as is the UK.

Originally posted by redbarons
check it out since the first Bush administration the US has borrowed more since then than the rest of its history you even shut down public services in January because your fiscal policy is up the proverbial creek as is the UK.

I am quite well aware of the development of the national debts of the US and UK and neither of them are anywhere near "bankrupt."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am quite well aware of the development of the national debts of the US and UK and neither of them are anywhere near "bankrupt."

just have to agree to disagree

Originally posted by redbarons
just have to agree to disagree

The US and UK governments have no problems whatsoever acquiring funds from global financial markets, and with shrinking deficits for both governments it is extremely unlikely either of them will default on debt repayments on the short- to mid-term.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The US and UK governments have no problems whatsoever acquiring funds from global financial markets, and with shrinking deficits for both governments it is extremely unlikely either of them will default on debt repayments on the short- to mid-term.

Shrinking deficits?

A shrinking deficit means you are lowering your debt. As long as you continue to spend more than you take in you are not shrinking your deficit, you are increasing it.

Just because I'm only putting 2k a month on my credit card instead of 5k doesn't mean I'm not going bankrupt.

Originally posted by Eladar
Shrinking deficits?

A shrinking deficit means you are lowering your debt. As long as you continue to spend more than you take in you are not shrinking your deficit, you are increasing it.

Just because I'm only putting 2k a month on my credit card instead of 5k doesn't mean I'm not going bankrupt.

the conservative party at the last election promised to cut public spending and reduce our borrowing they have done the opposite.

Originally posted by Eladar
Shrinking deficits?

A shrinking deficit means you are lowering your debt. As long as you continue to spend more than you take in you are not shrinking your deficit, you are increasing it.

Just because I'm only putting 2k a month on my credit card instead of 5k doesn't mean I'm not going bankrupt.

No, a shrinking deficit means you are lowering the deficit. Hence "shrinking deficit" and not "shrinking debt."

It is by the way perfectly possible to lower debt as a percentage of GDP while running a (small) deficit.

Originally posted by redbarons
the conservative party at the last election promised to cut public spending and reduce our borrowing they have done the opposite.

In the US we don't have a conservative party, just Democrats and Republicans.

Originally posted by Eladar
In the US we don't have a conservative party, just Democrats and Republicans.

for Conservative read in Republican and our Lib/Dems = Democrats then we have slightly to the left of centre the Labour party.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, a shrinking deficit means you are lowering the deficit. Hence "shrinking deficit" and not "shrinking debt."

It is by the way perfectly possible to lower debt as a percentage of GDP while running a (small) deficit.

Yes, it is always possible to grow your way to a lower deficit as a percentage of gdp, but you can't depend on paying off your debt today because you think you will get a better job in the future. That is just irresponsible.

Originally posted by Eladar
Shrinking deficits?

A shrinking deficit means you are lowering your debt. As long as you continue to spend more than you take in you are not shrinking your deficit, you are increasing it.

Just because I'm only putting 2k a month on my credit card instead of 5k doesn't mean I'm not going bankrupt.

You are confusing debt and deficit. A deficit is a budgetary term, and can shrink while you still go deeper into debt. So a shrinking deficit doesn't mean you are lowering your debt. It just means you aren't increasing your debt as fast as you were.

Debt and deficit are not synonymous. Debt accumulates year on year, and only an applied surplus reduces debt. Deficits are shortages for a budget year. Whether they increase or decrease if there is any deficit at all the debt increases.

"A shrinking deficit means you are lowering your debt."
No it means you aren't adding to your debt as much. Only a surplus reduces debt, and only if the surplus is applied to debt.

"Just because I'm only putting 2k a month on my credit card instead of 5k doesn't mean I'm not going bankrupt."
Your deficit increases and decreases, but your debt is always increasing in that scenario.

Deficit is a term applied to a specific budgetary period, a week, a month, a quarter, or a fiscal year. It is not cumulative, but only refers to the period. Debt on the other hand is cumulative, and is only reduced when there is a surplus, not when the deficit is lower.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not necessarily, at least not when it comes to ethnic minorities.

Okay, then add "almost always" and change to "almost meaningless."

Originally posted by normbenign
You are confusing debt and deficit. A deficit is a budgetary term, and can shrink while you still go deeper into debt. So a shrinking deficit doesn't mean you are lowering your debt. It just means you aren't increasing your debt as fast as you were.

Debt and deficit are not synonymous. Debt accumulates year on year, and only an applied surplus re ...[text shortened]... hand is cumulative, and is only reduced when there is a surplus, not when the deficit is lower.

Well then I think my point still stands. Babbling about shrinking deficits while running a debt is just stupid.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am quite well aware of the development of the national debts of the US and UK and neither of them are anywhere near "bankrupt."

Bankrupt simply means that the entity can't meet the demands for repayment made by creditors. Usually this means suspension of credit, and with the money faucet turned off, operations have to be curtailed, and revenues as well as payments grind to a halt.

Often creditors are stuck in zugzwang, where they know the creditor may be not credit worthy, but suspending new credit only means loss of any payments whatsoever, and probably loss of the original principal. The creditor has to weigh the likelihood of the borrower reversing his situation, against the chances the situation is irreversible, where he must cut his losses.

I don't know what the national debt of the UK is, but it is over $17 trillion in the US. What do you think the chances are that can be ever repaid? I don't think either party has the testicular fortitude to eliminate deficit spending. |This is more than a US problem. Perhaps the good thing is a lot of that debt is owed to ourselves. The promises made by Social Security by the latter part of the century will exceed all projected revenues. At that point, we would be unable to pay our seniors, and of course other debts would be over and above that.

This situation has evolved in the years since about 1960. It has grown due to Democratic social programs and Republican militarism, and under GW Bush and BH Obama, both have soared.

No, it is not irrevocable, but bankruptcy is defined by the lenders not the borrowers. The US stands much stronger than the UK, because in the end, it is probably more capable of autarky than is the UK. Other smaller European socialist States may appear for the present to be on sound footing, but many of them have little or no national defense budget, which means for them to survive, we must conclude that humankind has altered its nature.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes, it is always possible to grow your way to a lower deficit as a percentage of gdp, but you can't depend on paying off your debt today because you think you will get a better job in the future. That is just irresponsible.

I guess you think borrowing money for education is irresponsible.