U.S. will cut deficit by 50% by 2013

[SlowSpyder]

Annual adopted Budget 'Deficits' do not equal increases in 'Annual Debt'. Federal debt under W increased $500b+ each year --- they had this nasty habit of funding expensive items (like War) by supplementals. So that chart, at best, is highly misleading.

Perfesser Johnnie tried the same crap as the chart when suggesting that Bush was "...balancing the budget! ..." when in fact the supplementals outside the budget process were adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal debt each year.


--

They address that in the link I posted.

"UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added."

 

[Acanthus]

The deficit in January 2001 was 5.6 trillion. (BOOSH takes WH)
The deficit in January 2007 was 8.6 trillion. (+3 trillion over 6 years) (Dems take control of congress)
The deficit in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion (+2 trillion over 2 years) (Obama takes WH)
The deficit in June 2010 is 13 trillion (+2.4 trillion over 1.5 years)

bush tax cuts...

 

[Acanthus]

It will choke a government run economy. Good riddance, slay the beast and be done with it. No more bubbles of fake wealth.

Err the largest portion of our economy is consumer spending.

The bubbles are generated by credit and other types of speculation, not government.

 

[Patranus]

Err the largest portion of our economy is consumer spending.

The bubbles are generated by credit and other types of speculation, not government.

And what insured credit and forced banks to lend money in the housing market?

(Hint: starts with a "g" and ends with "nment")

 

[Zargon]

Err the largest portion of our economy is consumer spending.

The bubbles are generated by credit and other types of speculation, not government.

seriously

I happily supply the economy with my dollars already and actually get something in return

way better than letting congress and obama spend them for me, for which I will never EVER see a return

the government not only sucks at spending money in the first place, they suck at doing it at any reasonable pace

 

[Acanthus]

And what insured credit and forced banks to lend money in the housing market?

(Hint: starts with a "g" and ends with "nment")

I don't agree with fannie and freddie, but no one forced them to lend unrealistic sums of money to buyers who couldn't pay it.

They were scamming people to earn fees and repo the ever-appreciating house. When the scam broke down they turned to the govt for bailouts and got them.

Piss poor regulation and lobbying brought about that part of the recession. That PART.

 

[Munky]

The school of thought here (that is very well backed, unlike austerity) is that spending heavily during a recession eases the impact while using austerity measures during booms eases the booms.

The whole idea is to reduce the volitility of all of the markets and help bring more order to things.

The problem is we haven't been saving during the booms we have been cutting taxes...

Austerity measures now will certainly put the world economy in a bad direction, that is an absolute certainty.

The problem I see with Keynesian principles you advocate is it does not take human nature into account. When the economy is booming, people don't think "austerity", they think "more risk, more profit." Similarly, when faced with a recession we don't think "I'm gonna spend my way out of it", instead we think "hoard all the money you can in case the going gets tough."

So despite what looks like a good theory on paper, it's doomed to fail in the real world. It didn't work for Japan last decade, and it's not going to work this time either.

 

[heyheybooboo]

They address that in the link I posted.

"UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added."

The only problem is .... it's not.

The Federal debt nearly doubled, from $5.5 trillion to $10.6+ trillion.

Do these 'deficits' look like they add up to $5+ trillion in new Federal debt?

It also ignores the simple fact that the Federal debt increased $1.44 trillion the last year Bush was in office.

I wonder if they "" ... stand behind that number 100% .. ""





--

 

[Patranus]

The only problem is .... it's not.

The Federal debt nearly doubled, from $5.5 trillion to $10.6+ trillion.

Do these 'deficits' look like they add up to $5+ trillion in new Federal debt?

It also ignores the simple fact that the Federal debt increased $1.44 trillion the last year Bush was in office.

I wonder if they "" ... stand behind that number 100% .. ""

The deficit in January 2001 was 5.6 trillion. (BOOSH takes WH)
The deficit in January 2007 was 8.6 trillion. (+3 trillion over 6 years) (Dems take control of congress)
The deficit in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion (+2 trillion over 2 years) (Obama takes WH)
The deficit in June 2010 is 13 trillion (+2.4 trillion over 1.5 years)

 

[First]

The deficit in January 2001 was 5.6 trillion. (BOOSH takes WH)
The deficit in January 2007 was 8.6 trillion. (+3 trillion over 6 years) (Dems take control of congress)
The deficit in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion (+2 trillion over 2 years) (Obama takes WH)
The deficit in June 2010 is 13 trillion (+2.4 trillion over 1.5 years)

Oh I get it now, you just don't know the difference between nominal and % increases. rofl, now that's fucking funny.

 

[Acanthus]

The deficit in January 2001 was 5.6 trillion. (BOOSH takes WH)
The deficit in January 2007 was 8.6 trillion. (+3 trillion over 6 years) (Dems take control of congress)
The deficit in January 2009 was 10.6 trillion (+2 trillion over 2 years) (Obama takes WH)
The deficit in June 2010 is 13 trillion (+2.4 trillion over 1.5 years)

I don't get it, are you trying to drive something home here?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say.

 

[Acanthus]

The problem I see with Keynesian principles you advocate is it does not take human nature into account. When the economy is booming, people don't think "austerity", they think "more risk, more profit." Similarly, when faced with a recession we don't think "I'm gonna spend my way out of it", instead we think "hoard all the money you can in case the going gets tough."

So despite what looks like a good theory on paper, it's doomed to fail in the real world. It didn't work for Japan last decade, and it's not going to work this time either.

It can be controlled by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Fed. Govt.

A rainy day fund with mathematical thresholds for putting money in (raising taxes and diverting money) and taking money out (reducing taxes to normal levels and taking money out).

Conceptually it isnt all that complicated if you understand the fundamentals of economics.

 

[bamacre]

don't listen to the nobel-prize-winning economist.

your bible will fix the economy

Is it kinda like listening to the nobel-peace-winning president?

 

[bfdd]

I hope it's shens, otherwise, Great Depression 2.0 here we come.

... we're already knocking on the door of Great Depression 2.0 actual unemployment numbers are far closer to 20% than 10%.

 

[Zebo]

LOL anyone who believes this is a fool with baby boomers coming on line combined our tax base continually eroding. 2/3 of our people already rely in a govt check to eat mortgaging our childrens future for deadbeats now. Meanwhile we bitch about Germany who's virtues of fiscal discipline and exports will have them balanced. What a joke we have become from largest creditor to largest debtor in 30 short years and it won't last. One day our bond rating will tank and interest rates both for government and private will go sky high freezing the US economy. You think GD was bad? Will seem like a boon when we can't borrow and are taxed at 80% to pay bond holders with zero services.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Everyone go find an article called "The Greenback Effect" and read it. A pun of The Butterfly Effect of course. Warren Buffett wrote this little op ed.

Listen, The issue is debt relative to GDP. Print more money and GDP goes up while debt is unchanged. We are going to have inflation and alot of it. You better not be hoarding cash or you are going to be piss poor. The thing is, it is not raising taxes or cutting spending which are both bad ideas politically. Printing money does not require any votes, but it is still like a tax on the consumer.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

ZEbo, good ideas but you are wrong on 80% tax rates .... inflation fixes things.

 

[Narmer]

THe way the president keeps talking about economic stimulus is sickening. It seems like Europe and Japan have gotten the message but Washington hasn't.

 

[Zebo]

Everyone go find an article called "The Greenback Effect" and read it. A pun of The Butterfly Effect of course. Warren Buffett wrote this little op ed.

Listen, The issue is debt relative to GDP. Print more money and GDP goes up while debt is unchanged. We are going to have inflation and alot of it. You better not be hoarding cash or you are going to be piss poor. The thing is, it is not raising taxes or cutting spending which are both bad ideas politically. Printing money does not require any votes, but it is still like a tax on the consumer.

GDP is irrelevant. Make it 100 trillion all that matters are how are people doing. How is employment doing. How is Education doing. What's the crime like. GINI distribution. etc

Inflation hurts poor the most because they are invariably on fixed income which will not keep pace. Asset holders are that much more richer since assets keep pace with inflation. So really the "solutions" are identical.

Print more money and you wipe out poor by inflating their check away.
Balance Budget and you wipe out poor by cutting them off.


We have to get back to basics. About 1960s would be good. When we made what we consumed, taxed people appropriately to pay for what we wanted govt to do and didn't inflate peoples savings away, as much.

And yeah cash is never good to have IMO. Doesn't do anything unlike assets.

 

[Munky]

It can be controlled by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Fed. Govt.

A rainy day fund with mathematical thresholds for putting money in (raising taxes and diverting money) and taking money out (reducing taxes to normal levels and taking money out).

Conceptually it isnt all that complicated if you understand the fundamentals of economics.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, starting with the simple fact that the govt has not ran a balanced budget in decades... and continuing with the assumption that the govt can magically support the economy when the consumer spending isn't there... and further compounded by the problem that despite being up to our necks in debt, our so-called experts advise to stimulate the economy again with more deficit spending, despite the first attempts clearly not working.

 

[sandorski]

That's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, starting with the simple fact that the govt has not ran a balanced budget in decades... and continuing with the assumption that the govt can magically support the economy when the consumer spending isn't there... and further compounded by the problem that despite being up to our necks in debt, our so-called experts advise to stimulate the economy again with more deficit spending, despite the first attempts clearly not working.

So much wrong.

1) That is *not* the thinking that caused this mess
2) The First Stimulus *is* working.

Won't bother with the middle.

 

[StageLeft]

That isn't enough, that's an alcoholic promising to only get pretty drunk each night. The US needs to get it down to zero in the reasonable future and pay off some of the debt--a real amount not just a couple hundred B here or there.

 

[Acanthus]

That's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, starting with the simple fact that the govt has not ran a balanced budget in decades... and continuing with the assumption that the govt can magically support the economy when the consumer spending isn't there... and further compounded by the problem that despite being up to our necks in debt, our so-called experts advise to stimulate the economy again with more deficit spending, despite the first attempts clearly not working.

Err you can change policy 1st of all.

2nd of all it is mathematically proven to work, and ARRA actually is working now.

 

[Bateluer]

bush tax cuts...

Do people seriously hate it that much when the government lets them keep their money? Didn't you work for that money, earn it? You have no problems letting the government spend several times as much as they took from you on idiotic things, wars, pork stimulus packages, etc?

 

[Acanthus]

Do people seriously hate it that much when the government lets them keep their money? Didn't you work for that money, earn it? You have no problems letting the government spend several times as much as they took from you on idiotic things, wars, pork stimulus packages, etc?

I don't like taxes and i don't like deficits and i don't like recessions. Herp Derp. Srsly.

"I like Ferraris and I don't like paying for them."