$1 trillion deficits seen for next 10 years

[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.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Bush had a growing economy under his reign.
Obama, a falling one.

Now, please cut the cr*p.

That's why GDP was falling in Q3 2000!

FAIL.
He began in 2001, AFAIK.

Are you slow or something? That translates into Bush inheriting a faultering economy.

His was much better, though. It wasn't a complete clusterfvck like Obama has inherited.

Yeah, that's basically true.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[StageLeft]

We've all got a little Madoff in us, really, since we're happy to fleece future generations.

Agreed.

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.

Guns are doing well and a barterable item, but SWHC is just under 6 after falling below 2 in november.

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

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.

At the end of the year the actual deficit will contain that spending.

 

[heyheybooboo]

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.

If you drop by the White House web site and download the 2010 budget summary it's a pretty serious read - and surprisingly honest.

It's only 22 pages long - and it has taken more days than that to grasp a partial magnitude of it all. This is in no way meant to sound partisan but they have (apparently) done their best to lay out what the country faces in the next decade. Of course, the numbers may change, but it looks like they have exposed all the **wounds** and are trying to 'account' for it all - whether it's loans, bailouts, TARPs, GSEs, Wars or whatever.

It look like $1.5 trillion or so covers the direct loan accounts, TARP equity purchases, financial stabilization efforts and purchases of GSE preferred stock.

It's too bad we can't have a reasonable discussion about it as 'some folks' always want to appeal to the lowest common denominators in their troll posts ...

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JS80
Bring it on, take on UHC, US defaults, have a revolution, everything resets to zero.

Text

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

What a surprise. You request 9% increases in budgets when the economy is shrinking by 5%, and what do you end up with?

I guess we're expecting an alien invasion of $250k income taxpayers.

Why are you suprised? You may not want to remember that it was your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gan who squandered the trillions of dollars in current and future debt, instead of pissing and moaning about the fact that we finally have an administration that is actually acting to repair the damage they did to our nation and the world.

I've been posting about it since for years, and for those same years, you and other Bushwhacko sycophants have been bitching about the truth in my "macros," although it's now clear to everyone... except for those same pathetic lingering Bushwhackos trying to shift the blame away from their criminally epic failure of an adminstration. To remind you of what I said, here is a version of that "macro" with the same facts as of today:

As of 3/20/09, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,259 American troops and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in their war of LIES in Iraq.

They have squandered trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

I haven't been posting as long about their failure to regulate and oversee their wealthy Wall Street robber barons who cost us yet more trillions by raping our economic system, but only because that crisis didn't come to a head sooner. :|

What makes you think cleaning up the Bushwhacko criminals' mess was going to cost less than the trillions they squandered and pocketed?

 

[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:

 

[heyheybooboo]

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.

More of your lies, Johnnie.

Dub's annual budget deficits did not include war funding. All of his *war* funding was done through supplemental bills.

Save your faux outrage and lies for your Limpball circle-jerks.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

What a surprise. You request 9% increases in budgets when the economy is shrinking by 5%, and what do you end up with?

I guess we're expecting an alien invasion of $250k income taxpayers.

Why are you suprised? You may not want to remember that it was your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gan who squandered the trillions of dollars in current and future debt, instead of pissing and moaning about the fact that we finally have an administration that is actually acting to repair the damage they did to our nation and the world.

I've been posting about it since for years, and for those same years, you and other Bushwhacko sycophants have been bitching about the truth in my "macros," although it's now clear to everyone... except for those same pathetic lingering Bushwhackos trying to shift the blame away from their criminally epic failure of an adminstration. To remind you of what I said, here is a version of that "macro" with the same facts as of today:

As of 3/20/09, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,259 American troops and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in their war of LIES in Iraq.

They have squandered trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

I haven't been posting as long about their failure to regulate and oversee their wealthy Wall Street robber barons who cost us yet more trillions by raping our economic system, but only because that crisis didn't come to a head sooner. :|

What makes you think cleaning up the Bushwhacko criminals' mess was going to cost less than the trillions they squandered and pocketed?

Yawn. Apologist #1 behind this door!

By the way, champ, Bush will be 12 years out of office when that 2019 deficit of $650 billion hits. Thank your hero for this one.

 

[StageLeft]

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".

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

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.

More of your lies, Johnnie.

Dub's annual budget deficits did not include war funding. All of his *war* funding was done through supplemental bills.

Save your faux outrage and lies for your Limpball circle-jerks.

Yes his war funding was done though supplemental bills.

But that spending is still included in year end budget deals.

You guys are so dense about this. The $700 billion stimulus bill is a 'supplemental bill' as well, but it is included in year end deficit numbers too. ALL government spending is included in deficit numbers.

You guys are arguing semantics. Whether the war spending is included in the regular budget or a supplement is irrelevant. All that matters is the year end deficit number, which includes ALL spending. How the money is spent doesn't really matter.

 

[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.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: winnar111

What a surprise. You request 9% increases in budgets when the economy is shrinking by 5%, and what do you end up with?

I guess we're expecting an alien invasion of $250k income taxpayers.

Why are you suprised? You may not want to remember that it was your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gan who squandered the trillions of dollars in current and future debt, instead of pissing and moaning about the fact that we finally have an administration that is actually acting to repair the damage they did to our nation and the world.

I've been posting about it since for years, and for those same years, you and other Bushwhacko sycophants have been bitching about the truth in my "macros," although it's now clear to everyone... except for those same pathetic lingering Bushwhackos trying to shift the blame away from their criminally epic failure of an adminstration. To remind you of what I said, here is a version of that "macro" with the same facts as of today:

As of 3/20/09, your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal have murdered 4,259 American troops and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in their war of LIES in Iraq.

They have squandered trillions of dollars in current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

I haven't been posting as long about their failure to regulate and oversee their wealthy Wall Street robber barons who cost us yet more trillions by raping our economic system, but only because that crisis didn't come to a head sooner. :|

What makes you think cleaning up the Bushwhacko criminals' mess was going to cost less than the trillions they squandered and pocketed?

Yawn. Apologist #1 behind this door!

Yeah... Right! Your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang squandered the money (and the lives

) in Iraq and allowed their wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors to cause our financial collapse well before the last election, and you're bitching about the cost of dealing with the reality they left us.

You can whine about the specific methods the Obama administration has chosen, but ANY adminstration would have to deal with the same losses and the same resulting problems. Until you address the causes of our debt, trying to shift the blame to the Obama administration for the way they're handling it just shows how out of touch with reality you are.

By the way, champ, Bush will be 12 years out of office when that 2019 deficit of $650 billion hits. Thank your hero for this one.

By the way, CHUMP, you still haven't accepted the fact that the Bushwhackos were the CAUSE of our financial ruin. If there's any justice in this world, YOUR hero and his criminal gang will still be enjoying their lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton and their free daily passes for the exciting waterboard ride.

Waterboarding isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and I'm sure you'll agree that we can believe what they said. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Harvey, you need help.

Bush is gone.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[Wreckem]

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.

Bush almost doubled the national debt, Obama is on path to more than double the national debt.

 

[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.