Arguments and Counter-arguments

It is absurd to think that we can just float along waiting for economic growth to generate tax revenue enough to pay it all off. The interest that will paid out on this debt will leave the principal balance lingering for years.

Some rough calculations.

The GDP of the US in 1997: $8 trillion.
Debt of the US in 1997: $ 5 trillion (about 65% of GDP)

Current US GDP:$14 trillion
Current debt: $9 trillion (about 65% of GDP)

Economic growth - which has been going nicely for the last decade - makes a difference. Our debt is the same relative to GDP, and so it doesn't concern me in the slightest.

We will be much better placed to deal with the obligations that the boomers voted themselves in 2040 if our GDP is $60 trillion (which is doable) than if it is $20 trillion (which would be catastrophic).

Am I right?

Further, I am seriously concerned for the future growth of our economy. We all are aware that jobs continue to bleed out of the country. We seem to be losing our technological superiority, an industry that has driven much of our economic growth and superiority over the last few decades. In biotech I don't see us leading the pack; in stem cell research, a phenomenon with huge potential, we have essentially decided not to be a part of the game. Economic growth that depends so significantly on consumer spending seems particularly susceptible to downturns and decreasing or even stagnant earnings.

There is so much wrong with those statements I don't know where to begin.

Jobs bleeding out of the country.

Why is our unemployment rate holding steady (at 4.5%)?

The typical answer is that what you meant to say is that we are being left with Wal-Mart jobs while good jobs are going overseas.

But where is the plummeting US household income data that one would expect is to see if that were true?

If you look at US household income in constant dollars, you see nothing of the sort. Percentage changes are minimal, and in the last decade they have not fallen in real terms.

You'll hear pundits say things like that all the time, but when you actually analyze the data, it vanishes in a puff of smoke.

losing technological superiority...

Another unanalyzed statement. What are you basing this on? The US dominates in biotech (where I work), our silly stands on stem cells notwithstanding. We dominate in patents, published research, university science prestige, science Nobel Prizes, venture capital for new technology-based businesses, new technology business start-ups....

Other countries are copying our lead. That's all you need to know.

The fallacy that increasing taxes leads to economic stagnation is the common cry of conservatives.

Oh really? Why not raise taxes to a confiscatory 100% then?

I'm sure you'd admit that that policy would destroy economic growth. Do you seriously believe that the economy would hum along just as nicely if tax rates were 70%?

There question is not whether high taxes hurt economic growth. They certainly do (as Mr. Reich would agree). They questions is how high can raise taxes and still have a rate of economic growth that we would consider acceptable.

There is much evidence in history that refutes this absurdity.

I'm sure there is. I would love to see it.