Largest federal monthly deficit in history

[Darwin333]

Yeah. Bush really fucked us. He should of raised taxes to pay for his war(s) instead he lowered them and added to the problems in ways we are just starting to feel. There was a bit of boom time there and the republicans squandered it.

How are we "feeling" the costs of the wars? Due to historical low costs of the Feds borrowing money and the fact that we have structured it like an interest only 4 year ARM we are actually paying less to service the debt now then we did under Bush.

Sorry bud, it was the banksters that royally fucked us and Obama is blowing them just as much as GW ever did.

 

[Darwin333]

Volumes you say? The Stimulus was insufficient to properly stimulate. So now you have a more precarious Recovery.

The stimulas, nor TARP, did a damned thing to fix the problems in our economy. Spending twice the money on shit that isn't going to fix anything over the long term wouldn't have helped except in the very short term. Blowing up a bigger bubble is great right up until it pops.

 

[davmat787]

Mandatory spending took damn near every dollar the Feds brought in last year. The .mil isn't apart of mandatory spending, would you like to guess what it is composed of? It is a rather small list too...

Sure, if you really don't mind. FYI tho, I am all for a healthy defense budget.

 

[sandorski]

The stimulas, nor TARP, did a damned thing to fix the problems in our economy. Spending twice the money on shit that isn't going to fix anything over the long term wouldn't have helped except in the very short term. Blowing up a bigger bubble is great right up until it pops.

Incorrect.

 

[Budmantom]

1) the Recession is over
2) the Economy hasn't recovered all its' Losses yet
3) Obama has suggested Cuts
4) Taxes must be raised
5) $100 billion in Cuts doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but could harm the Economy causing it to Stall at this point. Thus making things even worse.

We must freeze current spending so our debt doesn't spiral out of control.

 

[Jhhnn]

The GOP forced an extension that "cost" the government $70 billion over ten years; the Democrats were behind an extension that "cost" the government $630 billion over ten years.

Note that neither of those two numbers makes a hill of beans difference in our problem, which is spending.

Pulling numbers out of your ass, I see. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% is estimated to cut revenues by $690B over 10 years, not $70B.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

 

[Darwin333]

Incorrect.

Elaborate.

 

[Darwin333]

Pulling numbers out of your ass, I see. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% is estimated to cut revenues by $690B over 10 years, not $70B.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

Correct me if I am wrong but extending the Bush tax cuts for the other 98% will cost us $300B/yr or $3T over 10 years?

 

[Jhhnn]

Correct me if I am wrong but extending the Bush tax cuts for the other 98% will cost us $300B/yr or $3T over 10 years?

I believe that's correct, but that doesn't mean a 2 year extension is permanent. Despite all the obfuscational raving from the Right, federal expenditures simply cannot and will not approach balance on the basis of cuts alone. That's just a sop for their base, and a desperate attempt to hold taxes as low as possible as long as possible for the true Bush Constituency.

Increasing taxes is necessarily part of reaching fiscal responsibility, and in order for that to be politically palatable, it has to start at the top, and continue to increase at the top as taxes are raised for less affluent groups as well.

Politically, we'd be better off if the economy had collapsed, because the electorate would have clear reason and the will to tell the financial elite what was told to them in the 1930's- you made this mess, and if we're screwed, you're screwed too. As it is, the obfuscations and hand waving exercises work well enough to allow the looting to continue.

 

[sandorski]

Elaborate.

Your assessment is wrong.

 

[soundforbjt]

The tax cuts should've never been extended. We ALL need to sacrifice to get out of this mess. Most of the Bankers & Wall Street should be in jail and their profits and wealth sold to help pay.

 

[JSt0rm]

The tax cuts should've never been extended. We ALL need to sacrifice to get out of this mess. Most of the Bankers & Wall Street should be in jail and their profits and wealth sold to help pay.

Well you know thats how the fiscally responsible republicans roll.

 

[Siddhartha]

Our federal government posted in February the largest monthly deficit in history - $223 billion. In one month.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/7/government-posts-biggest-monthly-deficit-ever/

Just to put that into perspective, the yearly deficit in 2007 was about $161 billion.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/10/05/deficit-for-fiscal-2007-slides/

Remember, the recession is over!

Contrast that level of deficit with the Republican plan that says reduce spending by $100 billion a year and we're okay. Then contrast it with Obama's plan to spend even more but tax more heavily, so that after he's out of office a miracle will happen and the deficit will go down. And add in a rapidly aging population demanding more bennies from the federal government.

Then tell me which of these plans avoids a collapse of Great Depression proportions.

The cost of Bush's wars has been over $1 trillion and is climbing and I have no idea what the cost of the US sphere of influence has been for the last 50 years.
It is time to pull the troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, and Japan. Does the US really a military large enough to fight WWII? Put in some form of GI bill or whatever it takes to ensure the returning military personnel are re-integrated into society as smoothly as possible.

Cut the Defense budget by half but do it in a way that allows the economy to adjust to the changes so it does not go into depression. Doing this would fulfill so many of the small government fantasies I have read on this forum that the US should achieve nirvana.

 

[alkemyst]

The tax cuts should've never been extended. We ALL need to sacrifice to get out of this mess. Most of the Bankers & Wall Street should be in jail and their profits and wealth sold to help pay.

The tax cuts should come. The problem is there is no getting our government to back down their spending.

Things have grown out of control and whereever money sits it's open to discretionary spending (a la Social Security and soon ObamaCare). During the housing boom the government went haywire like everyone else, yet they refuse to reel themselves in.

Add this to more and more each day our commissioners and congressmen are being found guilty of outright fraud and accepting inappropriate gifts. Heck in Palm Beach County and S. Florida I think we are batting about 30-40% of our 'civil servants' becoming criminals.

Some of the main problems have to do with every new project 'requires' some $200k/yr overseer and a staff of $100k+/yr administrators...they run up tens of thousands of dollars in tests/reports/etc to justify their positions meanwhile nothing really gets down because when the project ends so does their jobs.

 

[werepossum]

Pulling numbers out of your ass, I see. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% is estimated to cut revenues by $690B over 10 years, not $70B.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html

Looks like we both are. http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

I stand corrected. Democrats want to cost the federal government (Lord, I hate that terminology!) an estimated $3,000,000,000,000 over ten years. Republicans want to cost the federal government an estimated $3,700,000,000,000 over ten years. Your position is that one of these positions is fiscally responsible and one is not. My position is that neither of these positions is fiscally responsible. However, before taxes are raised, we need to see demonstrated that Congress and the White House can actually cut spending, because while we are running deficits that big in a year or two, restoring all tax rates to Clinton-era rates will do nothing to solve our problem, which is runaway spending. On that matter, the Republicans have shown willingness to make small cuts, whereas Obama and the Democrats have so far agreed only to spend even more while calling it less because it's less than they'd like to spend.

Call me an incurable romantic, but if I must be screwed, I'd prefer to be screwed slowly.

 

[chucky2]

Looks like we both are. http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/economy/bush_tax_cuts_faqs/index.htm

I stand corrected. Democrats want to cost the federal government (Lord, I hate that terminology!) an estimated $3,000,000,000,000 over ten years. Republicans want to cost the federal government an estimated $3,700,000,000,000 over ten years. Your position is that one of these positions is fiscally responsible and one is not. My position is that neither of these positions is fiscally responsible. However, before taxes are raised, we need to see demonstrated that Congress and the White House can actually cut spending, because while we are running deficits that big in a year or two, restoring all tax rates to Clinton-era rates will do nothing to solve our problem, which is runaway spending. On that matter, the Republicans have shown willingness to make small cuts, whereas Obama and the Democrats have so far agreed only to spend even more while calling it less because it's less than they'd like to spend.

Call me an incurable romantic, but if I must be screwed, I'd prefer to be screwed slowly.

:thumbsup: