US budget deficit is record high

[TheBDB]

CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

I agree.


The good news it was 80 billion less than expected.

 

[Syringer]

"That broke the previous record of more than $290 billion posted in fiscal year 1992."

Which of course led to the major depression of the 90's

 

[wirelessenabled]

Bush is going for all the records

Next year the White House Budget Office is forecasting a deficit over $500 bil.:Q:Q:Q

Bush will hold record deficits #1 & #2. If he keeps going he might be able to get #3 with his lame duck budget:beer::beer:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Bush is going for all the records

Next year the White House Budget Office is forecasting a deficit over $500 bil.:Q:Q:Q

Bush will hold record deficits #1 & #2. If he keeps going he might be able to get #3 with his lame duck budget:beer::beer:

He does not even hold #1.

the defecit in 1983 was 6.5% of GDP. This years is about 3.5%.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

I can think of $87bil that I'd cut right off the top of my head... No one probably wants to hear about that however...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TheBDB
CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

I can think of $87bil that I'd cut right off the top of my head... No one probably wants to hear about that however...

Actually that'd be $87bil number you are thinking of would be part of the 2004 budget

But actually I think there is quite a bit of the budget that could/should be cut.

CkG

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TheBDB
CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

I can think of $87bil that I'd cut right off the top of my head... No one probably wants to hear about that however...

Actually that'd be $87bil number you are thinking of would be part of the 2004 budget

But actually I think there is quite a bit of the budget that could/should be cut.

CkG

The cost of the war in Iraq was not included in this year's budget deficit.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

the defecit in 1983 was 6.5% of GDP. This years is about 3.5%.

Let's hear it for Bush and the GOP Congress being better than Reagan and the Democratic Congress. According the White House they expect to cut the deficit in half by 2008 . . . of course, they haven't clarified whether that's half in dollar terms or half as a percentage of GDP . . . big difference.

 

[SuperTool]

Why do we need to look at it in terms of GDP instead of constant dollars?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why do we need to look at it in terms of GDP instead of constant dollars?

If you look at it in constant dollars it is still not the largest.

I assume you mean inflation adjusted as constant?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

We look at it in terms of GDP b/c it sounds better . . . plus good debt (hospitals, schools, roads, dams, bridges, high speed rail) are beneficial long term investments in a sustainable society . . . it's shame we are throwing it away on WMD.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nowareman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TheBDB
CNN link

I can't believe there wasn't 374 billion dollars of worthless spending that could have been cut so the budget would have been balanced.

I can think of $87bil that I'd cut right off the top of my head... No one probably wants to hear about that however...

Actually that'd be $87bil number you are thinking of would be part of the 2004 budget

But actually I think there is quite a bit of the budget that could/should be cut.

CkG

The cost of the war in Iraq was not included in this year's budget deficit.

I repeat - the $87bil figure you(he) was thinking of would be part of the 2004 budget.

And I believe the $75billion passed back in April was a 2003 Supplemental IIRC. There was talk of pushing it on the 2004 budget but I think it passed as a 2003 expenditure. I'm looking for verification ATM.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why do we need to look at it in terms of GDP instead of constant dollars?

If you look at it in constant dollars it is still not the largest.

I assume you mean inflation adjusted as constant?

Yes. I just don't think comparing it as percent of GDP is a good measure. GDP goes up and down, and I believe early 80's were recession years, so constant dollars are more informative measure of the deficit.

 

[Wolfdog]

They should start with the congressional payraise they gave themselves. I sure wish I could charge that in credit. Oh wait, no I don't. The interest payments would kill me. ;P

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why do we need to look at it in terms of GDP instead of constant dollars?

If you look at it in constant dollars it is still not the largest.

I assume you mean inflation adjusted as constant?

Yes. I just don't think comparing it as percent of GDP is a good measure. GDP goes up and down, and I believe early 80's were recession years, so constant dollars are more informative measure of the deficit.

Then in constant dollars this is not even a large budget problem.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why do we need to look at it in terms of GDP instead of constant dollars?

If you look at it in constant dollars it is still not the largest.

I assume you mean inflation adjusted as constant?

Yes. I just don't think comparing it as percent of GDP is a good measure. GDP goes up and down, and I believe early 80's were recession years, so constant dollars are more informative measure of the deficit.

Then in constant dollars this is not even a large budget problem.

Yeah, that was what Japan was saying in the early 1990s. "We need to spend our way out of this little recession we're having here". Now Japan still has a stagnant economy and has massive public debt. Not a lot of choices left. Japan did it by wasting money on huge infrastructure projects which contributed nothing to the long term economic activity. We are doing it by throwing money. How are we going to rein in the deficit when interest rates move up adding billions of dollars of expenditure that can't be rescinded?

 

[smashp]

How are we going to rein in the deficit when interest rates move up adding billions of dollars of expenditure that can't be rescinded?

The debt is impossible to pay down EVER. There isnt enough money in circulation to pay down any of it.


Of Course we are heading in the same direction as JAPAN. Who do you think advised their fiscal policy in the 80's and 90's ( the fed of course).

Japan was an experiment to test policies for the intended result of colapsing our monatary system.

Many hardcore conservatives see the only way to end the remnents of the new deal, are to colapse the finacial systems that support our nation.

This is why are founding fathers were against (most of them atleast) a centralized bank and dictated that once americans give control of their money supply to bankers, They give their freedom away.

 

[railer]

If you look at the deficit in terms of absolute $$$ vs a percent of GDP, you're not accounting for inflation for one thing.
You're also not accounting for what you can AFFORD to spend. Not sure what what NK spends on their military, but it is a huge % of their GDP, leaving virtually no $ for anything else. The US can spend far, far more on it's military, but as a % of GDP the amount is far, far less.

 

[rjain]

Japan's economy is finally recovering for the first time in decades, caused by deficit spending.

If the government has a deficit, someone has to have a credit.

GDP indicates our tax base. The deficit is paid down by taxes. Therefore, that's all that determines when we need to print more money.

Banks are the only thing that allow you to have mortgates and car loans and credit cards. A deposit in the bank is not only your own money, but 90% someone else's. The bank has increased the wealth of the nation by 90% of your wealth.

Edit: GDP is the "income" of our country. If a lawyer makes $100,000 a year and has $10,000 in debt, isn't he less in debt than a burger-flipper who makes $20,000 a year and has $10,000 in debt? There's no way the burger-flipper is going to be able to reduce his expenses to pay off his debt faster than the lawyer could if he needed to. Also, he'd be a great candidate for taking on more debt and doing something with that extra money.

 

[naddicott]

GDP does a poor job of indicating our tax base for relative comparisons of deficits in different years because it doesn't reflect significant differences in tax rates. You don't compare your personal debts to the money earned by the company you work at, you compare your personal debt to your gross annual income (i.e. your share of the company's earnings).

The only "weighted" number I would give any credence to is deficit over tax revenue (my preference would be a several year average of tax revenue). By that metric we're not doing so hot.

Another number to watch out for is what % of the government's budget is dedicated to servicing the national debt - interest payments. That slice of the pie is disturbingly large, and doesn't look like it will be getting better soon. Nice to know more and more of my tax dollars are going to cover the fiscal irresponsibilities of previous years, instead of covering potentially useful current government programs (or not being collected at all if you're anti-government).

If we're willing to raise our tax rates to 1960s levels (~70% top rate), then maybe the current deficit isn't so bad. I don't see such rates appearing again any time in the near future, however.

 

[rjain]

I agree that taxes are at ridiculously high levels. But since when could this administration figure out that tax cuts alone don't fix an economy that they keep beating down with both legislation and lack of legislation? The government can choose how much of GDP to collect for its own purposes. Naddicott, if your analogy is accurate, maybe I should tell my boss that he is giving me 20% of the company's revenues? I don't think that'll go over too well.