$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

So in response to the bolded Obama is going to run up trillions of deficits himself??

If Republican deficit spending is bad then how is Democrat deficit spending any different?

He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

What he is doing is hastening the financial demise of the US. Bush hastened it too, but Obama is setting a break neck pace.

Do some research in to the long term solvency of the US government, and the ACTUAL national debt(using full accounting methods, not just cash accounting). The US will see something far greater than the great depression if we continue to pass the buck to future generations. There will come a point where no on will buy our debt, and we are already creating trillions out of thin air. Its just a matter of time before the US economy totally collapses.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

So in response to the bolded Obama is going to run up trillions of deficits himself??

If Republican deficit spending is bad then how is Democrat deficit spending any different?

He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

We'll still be broke either way. And regarding the GOP deficits, that's why I don't vote for them anymore. Reckless spending by either party will not win my vote.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

So in response to the bolded Obama is going to run up trillions of deficits himself??

If Republican deficit spending is bad then how is Democrat deficit spending any different?

He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

What he is doing is hastening the financial demise of the US.

That is possible. What is your alternative plan? No Republican has brought forward anything that has a chance of success.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
Look, the economy under Clinton wasn't a real economy, it was a bubble economy. A bubble economy that was bursting as Bush came into office. But instead of letting the recession happen, what did Bush do? Cut taxes and increased spending, ran record deficits, in an attempt to just re-inflate the bubble. So the dot com bubble and our housing bubble is basically the same bubble. We needed that recession under Bush, but we didn't get it, they didn't allow it to happen. And what is Obama doing? Cutting taxes and increasing spending, running record deficits. Once again, they don't want to let the recession happen. They are just trying to re-inflate. All Bush was doing was selling out our long term economic health for silly short term gains. And Obama is doing the exact same thing. But the problem is, the more they try to do this, the worse things are going to be economically in the long term. Eventually, they won't be able to re-inflate the bubble, and when that happens, we will be in a world of hurt. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. And our economy is based on the bonehead view that we can do just that.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

And yet, isn't it funny that the Bush apologists and the Obama/Clinton apologists beat each other to death over who did what, who said what, what mess whoever left whoever else? And it's the same damned failed economic and monetary policies across both parties. But you can't come in here and tell the truth. You have to either support and apologize for the turd sandwich or the giant douche, otherwise no one wants to listen.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

So in response to the bolded Obama is going to run up trillions of deficits himself??

If Republican deficit spending is bad then how is Democrat deficit spending any different?

He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

What he is doing is hastening the financial demise of the US.

That is possible. What is your alternative plan? No Republican has brought forward anything that has a chance of success.

Either we let the problems run their course now, and move on from there. Or in 20-30 years face total economic destruction.

Bush tried to delay the inevitable, Obama is trying to delay the inevitable. The more we spend our way out of these "recessions", the faster we are hastening the demise of the United States. We will increasinly have more and more recessions until there is a total collapse. No one in DC is trying to avoid it. All they give a shit about is short term issues so they can get re-elected. They need to stop being reactionary and start being pro-active.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

So in response to the bolded Obama is going to run up trillions of deficits himself??

If Republican deficit spending is bad then how is Democrat deficit spending any different?

He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

That is such a BS argument.

Spending on the Iraq war is about $150 billion a year. That is less than 3% of our overall spending.

More money probably goes to waste and fraud than goes to Iraq war spending. (BTW a large amount of that war spending stays in the US as well.)

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Harvey, you need help.

Better than being beyond help like that lying Bushwhacko sycophant you see in the mirror.

Bush is gone.

That's the best news in his entire eight years in office, and it was only eight years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars too late to be of any use or value.

Only a SMALL portion of Obama's projected $1 trillion per year will go to 'cleaning up' Bush's mess.

The majority of this spending is going to Obama's new programs and his expansion of the government.

That's a crock of shit. You mean I didn't include all of the regular, routine investments a sane government would have been making, and could have afforded, throughout their tenure? You know... little items like maintaining and upgrading infratructure, including roads, bridges, buildings, air traffic control and more?

... or like educating future generations so they didn't make the same kinds dumb ass moves as your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang?

... or REAL security measures to protect our transportation system, our public buildings, our energy generation and fuel distribution systems?

... or REAL disaster preparedness so, for example, the levees in New Orleans would have been inspected and the known defects upgraded BEFORE Katrina?

George W. Bush and his gang started their war of LIES in Iraq. It has cost us TRILLIONS of dollars and far too many lives. George W. Bush and his gang abandoned all oversight of their criminal Wall Street robber barons. That has cost us more TRILLIONS of dollars and the financial security of far too many of our citizens.

I welcome "Obama's new programs and his expansion of the government." What those programs will now cost us was already wasted by your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang. They're what we should have been doing for the last eight years, and they would have cost much less and been much easier to implement if we'd had responsible, intelligent adults running our government instead of irresponsible, murderous criminals.

You're like the guy who farts up a storm in a space capsule and then pisses and moans about the cost of installing an adequate air cleaning system. :roll:

 

[SAWYER]

I'm surprised you haven't stroked out yet, especially while Bush was in office lol

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: marincounty
He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

Got news for you. We are still in Iraq, we will be in Iraq for a long time, and many who get to leave Iraq will be shipped off to Afghanistan to, gasp, "bring freedom to people half-way around the world." Change you can believe in.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: marincounty
He is actually spending money on America, rather than trying to bring freedom to people half-way around the world? Change you can believe in.

Got news for you. We are still in Iraq, we will be in Iraq for a long time, and many who get to leave Iraq will be shipped off to Afghanistan to, gasp, "bring freedom to people half-way around the world." Change you can believe in.

Got more news for you, Obama did not start a war with Iraq.
When he starts another war based on false pretenses, let me know.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
Look, the economy under Clinton wasn't a real economy, it was a bubble economy. A bubble economy that was bursting as Bush came into office. But instead of letting the recession happen, what did Bush do? Cut taxes and increased spending, ran record deficits, in an attempt to just re-inflate the bubble. So the dot com bubble and our housing bubble is basically the same bubble. We needed that recession under Bush, but we didn't get it, they didn't allow it to happen. And what is Obama doing? Cutting taxes and increasing spending, running record deficits. Once again, they don't want to let the recession happen. They are just trying to re-inflate. All Bush was doing was selling out our long term economic health for silly short term gains. And Obama is doing the exact same thing. But the problem is, the more they try to do this, the worse things are going to be economically in the long term. Eventually, they won't be able to re-inflate the bubble, and when that happens, we will be in a world of hurt. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. And our economy is based on the bonehead view that we can do just that.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

And yet, isn't it funny that the Bush apologists and the Obama/Clinton apologists beat each other to death over who did what, who said what, what mess whoever left whoever else? And it's the same damned failed economic and monetary policies across both parties. But you can't come in here and tell the truth. You have to either support and apologize for the turd sandwich or the giant douche, otherwise no one wants to listen.

No one wants to listen because you and your ilk are the well known resident loonies, somewhere between Illuminati nuts and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is actually interesting we(coworkers and I) were talking about this this morning. And how the projections for Obama's budget were most likely bunk due to deteriorating economic conditions. It would most likely be closer to 2 trillion out of the gate. Then these stories pop up.

Really does make you wonder will it will end. Guns and Butter will be in hot demand. Smith and Wesson stock up 500% I heard.

Yep and these are bunk too because no one can predict what the economy will do. If it rebounds quicker than expected, these projections will be way too high.

Tax receipts are in the toilet and will continue to be until things turn around. Ultimately, none of these numbers matter because we won't know what we've got until we get there.

But hey, at least we're counting Iraq and Afghanistan now and not using Weimer Republic accounting.

Iraq and Afghanistan were always counted. It was in separate budget rather than being shoved in the general defense bill. One could argue that doing it seperatly is far more transparent than shoving it all in the defense bill.

The costs of the two wars have never, ever been included in the deficit projections, since the costs were almost exclusively funded by emergency spending supplementals, when people talk Bush's XXX billion $ deficit, that's only the real, normal, spending that's outlined in the budget and doesn't include the war costs.

It never has until now.

THe CBO has always included those projected costs, So this is nothing new.

 

[SAWYER]

Really? How so? Are you saying he does not have a valid point?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I feel the numbers you mention are more accurate than Obama's. The deficits Bush rang up were egregious and deserving of condemnation, and I did as did many others, but these new ones are a totally new beast.

His budgets were at least under historical norms. That spending was bad, this is much worse.

You haven't even looked at the budget, have you?

Apparently you have never looked at any historical budget data. While bush had some budgets that were historically large in real dollars, they were not so historic or record breaking when adjusted to inflation or GDP or both.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: marincounty
You wingnuts need to stop your whining, because it was Republicans who invented the phrase "deficits don't matter".

The trillions of debt mostly occurred with Republicans in charge. Trying to blame Obama for this crash is not working. Time to come up with an actual plan to fix things.

Democrats always have to come in and clean up the messes left by Republicans.
I can't wait for the screaming when Obama raises taxes to pay for some of this spending.

Zero's own projections assume this 'crash' will end this year. Never mind the remaining 9 years of trillion dollar deficits thanks to his massive programs.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
The costs of the two wars have never, ever been included in the deficit projections, since the costs were almost exclusively funded by emergency spending supplementals, when people talk Bush's XXX billion $ deficit, that's only the real, normal, spending that's outlined in the budget and doesn't include the war costs.

It never has until now.

Again that false argument is used.

If you look at the deficits from the Bush years they INCLUDE ALL WAR SPENDING!!!!!!!!

During his 8 years Bush rang up about $2 trillion in deficits (2008 numbers weren't final on my source)

Obama is on track to add $1 trillion PER year!!!!! By the end of his first term Obama will add $5 trillion to the deficit, more than double the amount Bush added during his entire 8 year term. Even if we write off 2009 due to the recession Obama will still add more to the debt during his first term than Bush did during his two terms.

Are you confusing deficit and debt? Bush added I think around 4T to the debt, nearly doubling it. Can Obama do the same? At this rate, "yes we can".

No confusion.

My numbers came from the 2009 FY budget. I added up the projected deficits for Bush's 8 years in office and came up with $2 trillion.

For some reason the amount added to the debt does not equal the yearly deficit. But that is sorta irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about deficit numbers.

That probably has to do with intergovernmental debt(SS and such). That is counted differently.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

That is such a BS argument.

Spending on the Iraq war is about $150 billion a year. That is less than 3% of our overall spending.

More money probably goes to waste and fraud than goes to Iraq war spending. (BTW a large amount of that war spending stays in the US as well.)

Hello, Pot. This is Kettle. We are tired of your propaganda, obfuscation and BS.

Spending on the Iraq war is about $150 billion a year. That is less than 3% of our overall spending.

That is nearly 15% of overall discretionary spending. The current DoD budget represents 53% of all discretionary funding, including your '15%'.

BTW, Johnnie. Your circular fallacies are now complete. You have now argued against yourself on every side of annual deficit / annual debt discussions.

Of course you will not acknowledge that a $1 trillion deficit was handed to Obama on January 20th, 2009. It's not how you roll with your obfuscation, misdirection, propaganda and revisionist history.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I feel the numbers you mention are more accurate than Obama's. The deficits Bush rang up were egregious and deserving of condemnation, and I did as did many others, but these new ones are a totally new beast.

His budgets were at least under historical norms. That spending was bad, this is much worse.

You haven't even looked at the budget, have you?

Apparently you have never looked at any historical budget data. While bush had some budgets that were historically large in real dollars, they were not so historic or record breaking when adjusted to inflation or GDP or both.

I have complete data from 1981 when I turned 25 years old (with a graduate degree in Public Administration) and began speaking before community groups regarding the Federal Budget. Any questions?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

And your 'spin' regarding the Bush budget years is so noted (and laughed at).

 

[Fern]

The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.

The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.

I've been hearing people (e.g., Chris Matthews) say they suspect this whole "AIG bonuses" hoopala was manufactured by the Obama admin to take attention off the budget news above. They wanna ram through their budget agenda before anybody notices.

Fern

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I feel the numbers you mention are more accurate than Obama's. The deficits Bush rang up were egregious and deserving of condemnation, and I did as did many others, but these new ones are a totally new beast.

His budgets were at least under historical norms. That spending was bad, this is much worse.

You haven't even looked at the budget, have you?

Apparently you have never looked at any historical budget data. While bush had some budgets that were historically large in real dollars, they were not so historic or record breaking when adjusted to inflation or GDP or both.

I have complete data from 1981 when I turned 25 years old (with a graduate degree in Public Administration) and began speaking before community groups regarding the Federal Budget. Any questions?

I notice you didn't answer my question.

And your 'spin' regarding the Bush budget years is so noted (and laughed at).

So since you have the data back to 1981, please note which of bush budgets broke any records when adjusted for inflation or GDP. Since I have looked at the Data, I already know the answer.

I will await your response.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
No one wants to listen because you and your ilk are the well known resident loonies, somewhere between Illuminati nuts and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

When you are done trolling, please show where I have ever supported any kind of "Illuminati" or 9/11 CT. Oh that's right, even IF you could stop trolling, you still couldn't do it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
No one wants to listen because you and your ilk are the well known resident loonies, somewhere between Illuminati nuts and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

When you are done trolling, please show where I have ever supported any kind of "Illuminati" or 9/11 CT. Oh that's right, even IF you could stop trolling, you still couldn't do it.

I never said you supported either. I basically said you're taken about as seriously as they are.

You can't blame me for pointing it out, you are after all as guilty as the Bush/Obama bots of blind ideology. Explains why you literally parrot the same lines about failed monetary policy without any details, direction or debate whatsoever, then act like you've figured it all out and are above it all. So expect to continue to be called out on it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: charrison

So since you have the data back to 1981, please note which of bush budgets broke any records when adjusted for inflation or GDP. Since I have looked at the Data, I already know the answer.

I will await your response.

Didn't have to wait long, did you?


% Increase in Nominal GDP - Presidential Term
GDP (in billions of dollars)

1993 - - - $6,657.4
1994 - - - $7,072.2
1995 - - - $7,397.7
1996 - - - $7,816.9
1997 - - - $8,304.3
1998 - - - $8,747.0
1999 - - - $9,268.4
2000 - - - $9,817.0

2001 - - - $10,128.0
2002 - - - $10,469.6
2003 - - - $10,960.8
2004 - - - $11,685.9
2005 - - - $12,433.9
2006 - - - $13,194.7
2007 - - - $13,807.5
2008 - - - $14,280.7

47,47% Increase - Clinton
41% Increase - Bush


Total Federal Debt Per Year - Bill Clinton

2000 . . . . . $5,674,178,209,886.86
1999 . . . . . $5,656,270,901,633.43
1998 . . . . . $5,526,193,008,897.62
1997 . . . . . $5,413,146,011,397.34
1996 . . . . . $5,224,810,939,135.73
1995 . . . . . $4,973,982,900,709.39
1994 . . . . . $4,692,749,910,013.32
1993 . . . . . $4,411,488,883,139.38

Federal debt increased $1.263 trillion (or 23.63%)

Total Federal Debt Per Year - George Bush

January 21, 2009 . . . . . $10,625,053,544,309.79

2008 . . . . . $10,124,225,067,127.69
2007 . . . . . $9,062,552,400,356.63
2006 . . . . . $8,506,973,899,215.23
2005 . . . . . $7,932,709,661,723.50
2004 . . . . . $7,379,052,696,330.32
2003 . . . . . $6,783,231,062,743.62
2002 . . . . . $6,228,235,965,597.16
2001 . . . . . $5,807,463,412,200.06

Federal debt increased $4.818 trillion (or 82.97%)

I believe that answers your question.


(and why won't you answer my question?)

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: bamacre
Look, the economy under Clinton wasn't a real economy, it was a bubble economy. A bubble economy that was bursting as Bush came into office. But instead of letting the recession happen, what did Bush do? Cut taxes and increased spending, ran record deficits, in an attempt to just re-inflate the bubble. So the dot com bubble and our housing bubble is basically the same bubble. We needed that recession under Bush, but we didn't get it, they didn't allow it to happen. And what is Obama doing? Cutting taxes and increasing spending, running record deficits. Once again, they don't want to let the recession happen. They are just trying to re-inflate. All Bush was doing was selling out our long term economic health for silly short term gains. And Obama is doing the exact same thing. But the problem is, the more they try to do this, the worse things are going to be economically in the long term. Eventually, they won't be able to re-inflate the bubble, and when that happens, we will be in a world of hurt. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. And our economy is based on the bonehead view that we can do just that.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

C'mon people. Th dot.com bubble burst on March 2000, not '01.

We arguably had a recession from 2000-2003. Some quibble about the manner you use to define recession, but those dates are as good as any and you won't find any source saying we did not have a recession somewhere along those dates.

Otherwise I generally agree with your description of current efforts. Some are saying the recent 1.7 trillion (IIRC) infusion of money by the Fed (buying up T-Bonds) is the last ditch, and an unprecidented, effort to jump start this economy. If it doesn't work the predictions are very dire (possibly something along the lines of Argentina - high inflation coupled with a depression).

I've also heard the AOG bonus thingy was designed to let this recent Fed action go mostly unnoticed (It doesn't appear to have slipped by professional investors though, gold and commodity prices responded strongly from what I hear)

Fern

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is disappointing. Cue the apologists in here to say the following.

1. It is needed
2. Bush's fault
3. What would you do?!?!?!?
4. At least this is spent on good things

No... but. It hasn't happened - any speculation is just speculation.

Obama has comitted to balance it, in spite of what yahoo news says. =)

IF he doesnt, commence bitching. Until then, you are just clapping with one hand.

and... It is Bush's fault