The "deficit crisis" is mostly solved.

[nehalem256]

Big difference is projecting a deficit for 2013 has about the same odds of happening as saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

So since according to you we cannot make any projections about the budget 10 years from now shouldn't we stop worrying about it? 😕

 

[nehalem256]

On second thought I would think that the Republicans should be jumping on this...

It sounds like it is time for more tax cuts 😀

 

[Jaskalas]

It's nice when a winner of the Nobel Prize for economics agrees with me.

The guy who said we needed a WW2 style stimulus, aka 3-4 trillion.

Krugmen is a partisan tax and spender.

 

[Matt1970]

lulz

Yep, this projection and the projection the sun will come up tomorrow are clearly on the same level.

 

[Matt1970]

Is there even a budget to have a deficit on? Last I'd paid attention, good 'Ol Harry wouldn't even let it come to the floor of the Senate. Hard to have a budget deficit when there's no budget.

Damn! That's genius!

Pass a Fed law that no household is to have a budget. Bam! Along with my idea above, DoubleXP economy!!! I knew people living within their means were doing it wrong, damn!

It's actually quite brilliant. It allows you to spend at 2009 Emergency levels with simple stop gap measures and resolutions.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Krugman has certainly been right more than he's been wrong in the last decade with his economic predictions. The bottom line is he has FAR more credibility than any of the right wing shills on this forum or elsewhere.

Republican economics have been a complete and utter catastrophe. They have never been proven to actually work in practice. Anyone who voted for GWB twice should kindly STFU in this thread and go home. You have no credibility.

 

[nehalem256]

Republican economics have been a complete and utter catastrophe. They have never been proven to actually work in practice. Anyone who voted for GWB twice should kindly STFU in this thread and go home. You have no credibility.

You would have a point except for the fact that all of the trends that Democrats blame on Reaganomics begain in the early 1970s.

Reagan wasn't president in the 1970s.

 

[Matt1970]

Anyone who voted for GWB twice should kindly STFU in this thread and go home. You have no credibility.

Wow, I didn't know we were in a recession from 2001 till 2007.

Republican economics have been a complete and utter catastrophe. They have never been proven to actually work in practice.

Correction, I didn't know we have been in a recession since 1980.

 

[Fern]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Based upon the 3rd quarter Dollar GDP it was around $15,811.0 billion (about 15.8T) using the growth estimates for the 4th quarter, our GDP should top about 21T. So basic math

Debt/GDP -->> 16T/21T = 76%.

GDP at $21 trillion by year's end?

Your math is way off. It appears you believe the $15.8 T number is for only 3 quarters. That's wrong, it's an annualized number.

We'll be lucky if GDP is at $15.9 T by the year's end.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Debt is already over 100% of GDP. Where the hell do they get 72% from?

I haven't checked their numbers, but I would guess that their debt number excludes intergovernmental debt, such as the Treasury's borrowing from the Social Security fund. Thus, their debt number would be lower than that advertised.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Debt-to-GDP-Ratio.htm

Fern

 

[Fern]

The "deficit crisis" is mostly solved.

Ever heard that one shouldn't 'count their chickens before the eggs hatch'?

The article itself confesses to using 'projections' of good economic growth. We'll see, but let's not start patting ourselves on back just yet.

I'm highly skeptical. And it would be nice if they disclosed the projected rate of interest we'll be paying on our debt in the future, or if they're using the current historically low rate.

BTW: The people releasing the chart are from a left-leaning think tank, not some nonpartisan governmental agency like the CBO.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Is there even a budget to have a deficit on? Last I'd paid attention, good 'Ol Harry wouldn't even let it come to the floor of the Senate. Hard to have a budget deficit when there's no budget.

Damn! That's genius!

Pass a Fed law that no household is to have a budget. Bam! Along with my idea above, DoubleXP economy!!! I knew people living within their means were doing it wrong, damn!

From previous threads you already know that the budget the senate hasn't passed is not what determines the yearly deficit.

Also, comparing the federal government to a household is foolish, as has also been covered before.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When has any number forecasted by the government kept its rift luster.

Real numbers are never ad good as desired.
Income, expenses, growth, employment, etc.

Numbers are found that support the theory and used.

If one wanted to disprove the theory, other valid numbers could be found.

Under Obama, looked at the deficit, employment and GDP. His team provided glossy numbers that have turned out quite flawed.

This is the same group that is putting out the current crop. 🙁

 

[Matt1970]

I haven't checked their numbers, but I would guess that their debt number excludes intergovernmental debt, such as the Treasury's borrowing from the Social Security fund. Thus, their debt number would be lower than that advertised.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/Debt-to-GDP-Ratio.htm

Fern

Like your article says, that money does get paid back.

 

[Tom]

For sure. But really it's more like, my debt level keeps increasing forever, I never pay the amount down, and I project my income will be higher in 7 years to the point where I'll stop running a yearly deficit.

There you go...now it's accurate.

Wouldn't it be nice to make $100k a year and blow $150k a year, every year, and never have to reconcile that? Heck, the Fed wants to stimulate the economy, they should just pass some kind of law (based of course on regulating interstate commerce and public welfare) where everyone can do just that. Bam! Instant roaring economy!

Heck, if I never have to worry about paying my debts, and can run massively in the red like the Fed does each year, I'll be generous with my red money and commit to blowing $200k a year. <AustinPowers>Doing my part baby, yeah!</AustinPowers>

Chuck

If the USA is a going concern there's no reason to have no debt. We shouldn't waste money, but we shouldn't choke ourselves to death either.

 

[chucky2]

From previous threads you already know that the budget the senate hasn't passed is not what determines the yearly deficit.

Which deficit? The spending vs. income deficit or the budget deficit? How can an organization as large as the Fed not have an operating budget they weigh expenditures against?

Also, comparing the federal government to a household is foolish, as has also been covered before.

You know, I understand the reasons the Fed can't operate like a simple household. Know what? The Fed has reached the point where they no longer have that luxury in my eyes. When they can get their shit straight (not projected straight, but, actual straight), then they can use that excuse. Because at this time, that's exactly what that is: An excuse to blow whatever they want on whatever they want and when questioned say, "Oh, well you know, uh, we can't run ourselves like a simple household...". Yeah...we know. That's why you're $16T+ in debt and can't live within your means.

If the USA is a going concern there's no reason to have no debt. We shouldn't waste money, but we shouldn't choke ourselves to death either.

I didn't say 'no' debt, I said debt. $16T+ isn't a small amount of debt. $1T+ yearly deficits isn't choking. Unless you mean it's the Pols shooting happy jizz down the US Taxpayers throat as they blow monopoly money and then gleefully tell them, 'Hey! Don't question our Fed machine! We can't run this shit like a normal household! Burp! Throw me another $B Bob, I'm still hungy!'

Chuck

 

[cubby1223]

Your comment completely disregarded something simply due to the use of the word projection, so there is no difference there.

Now, you are adding nuance by examining the assumptions and data that go into said projection. If you had done that with the OP, I wouldn't have responded.

He didn't need to elaborate on his comment because it was not necessary. Predicting the economic state of the country with any accuracy five to ten years out is ludicrous at best.

If that were possible then we would not have had the economic problems in 2007.

Krugman is more cheerleading Obama's fiscal cliff trouncing of Republicans more than anything else.


Hell, the article even explicitely states a mighty big assumption:

As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.

The entire argument boils down to *if* the economy recovers, then we are good. I don't need a fucking Nobel Prize in economics to predict that.

The question is, *will* the economy recover with the taxes, spending, current debt and deficit as they are, as Krugman predicts? That is what matters. Basically, the article is crap.

 

[cubby1223]

I mean, from the article:

CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level.

So, is the assumption being made by Krugman that taxes can be raised and spending be reduced, and this has no effect on the recovery of the economy?

It's like, was it a Family Guy episode that had this joke? It's a board-room meeting and the presenter is showing a grim chart of profits falling - but if we turn the chart around to _this_ angle, profits are increasing!


I thought the whole notion of austerity to a progressive ruins economies? What was this whole "Fiscal Cliff" fiasco all about? We can all of a sudden say we knocked $1.4 trillion off the debt, and it affects nothing else other than the economy freakin' kicks ass!??

 

[Jaskalas]

I believe they want to fill the gap with taxes.

 

[LegendKiller]

You would have a point except for the fact that all of the trends that Democrats blame on Reaganomics begain in the early 1970s.

Reagan wasn't president in the 1970s.

It really just chaps my ass when some lackwit says something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

I mean, really, are you that fucking blind that you think that any modern day "Republican" after Ike is anything but a big spender?

Reaganomics is a goddamn failure. It was a failure from the beginning and the same bullshit lies you guys perpetuate by saying "it was going on before Reagan" is why this bullshit keeps going. Republicans have to be the most anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-data bunch of loonies in modern history.

Where do you really get off thinking or saying stuff like this? Does Rush feed you this trash?

 

[LegendKiller]

Wow, I didn't know we were in a recession from 2001 till 2007.



Correction, I didn't know we have been in a recession since 1980.

The Reps papered over 2001 with debt and imaginary Reaganomics BS at the cost of middle class jobs, debt, and the debt crisis.

Then you turn around and blame it on Obama when things went to shit when they were shit to begin with because GWB and the neocons.

 

[Matt1970]

It really just chaps my ass when some lackwit says something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

I mean, really, are you that fucking blind that you think that any modern day "Republican" after Ike is anything but a big spender?

Reaganomics is a goddamn failure. It was a failure from the beginning and the same bullshit lies you guys perpetuate by saying "it was going on before Reagan" is why this bullshit keeps going. Republicans have to be the most anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-data bunch of loonies in modern history.

Where do you really get off thinking or saying stuff like this? Does Rush feed you this trash?

Facts are facts pal, reguardless of what BS you have been fed. Shit was going downhill before Reagan.

I know it's hard to swallow but maybe if you chewed it a little longer.

And seeing as how Congress gets the last say on spending, maybe you need to see this.

 

[LegendKiller]

Facts are facts pal, reguardless of what BS you have been fed. Shit was going downhill before Reagan.

I know it's hard to swallow but maybe if you chewed it a little longer.

And seeing as how Congress gets the last say on spending, maybe you need to see this.

So the first chart tells me that the best years were from 60 to 68 (Kennedy and Johnson), going from 100 to 140. Under Reagan and Bush Sr we went from ~140 to ~150 (7% increase). Under Clinton we went from ~150 to ~170 (13%) and we stayed stagnant under GWB. In all of that you can still see the real income is raising (although concentrated at the top according to other studies), continually and mostly due to Democrats. This has proven out in other measurements.

As far as your chart, the whole "austere" Republican image of the 1990s was told to be a lie according to Greenspan who has come out and said that the Republicans wanted to spend the surplus on more military and other boondoggles.

As far as Obama - you cannot sign the country up for massive deficits under Bush and then expect Obama to reverse them. The biggest contributors to that deficit (GWB tax cuts, Iraq and Afghanistan, larger military, DHS) are all things that the Republicans keep pushing as being "soft on terror" if Obama changes. So yeah, you're a fucking failure.

 

[Matt1970]

So the first chart tells me that the best years were from 60 to 68 (Kennedy and Johnson), going from 100 to 140. Under Reagan and Bush Sr we went from ~140 to ~150 (7% increase). Under Clinton we went from ~150 to ~170 (13%) and we stayed stagnant under GWB. In all of that you can still see the real income is raising (although concentrated at the top according to other studies), continually and mostly due to Democrats. This has proven out in other measurements.

As far as your chart, the whole "austere" Republican image of the 1990s was told to be a lie according to Greenspan who has come out and said that the Republicans wanted to spend the surplus on more military and other boondoggles.

As far as Obama - you cannot sign the country up for massive deficits under Bush and then expect Obama to reverse them. The biggest contributors to that deficit (GWB tax cuts, Iraq and Afghanistan, larger military, DHS) are all things that the Republicans keep pushing as being "soft on terror" if Obama changes. So yeah, you're a fucking failure.

Don't try and change the subject as to who had better growth. It was proven to you that shit started going bad in the 70's. And despite what you think the tax rates during the Clinton Era are still Reagaonomics.

 

[LegendKiller]

Don't try and change the subject as to who had better growth. It was proven to you that shit started going bad in the 70's. And despite what you think the tax rates during the Clinton Era are still Reagaonomics.

There is no "shit" starting back in the 70s. The general trend is still upward (despite the R's best efforts).