US Budget Deficit to hit 368 Billion this year

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Genx87
higher unemployment rate == higher tax revenues.

lol...cuz you know those out of work people really contribute to the economy...😛

 

[Genx87]

The fact is that it is happening and if the trend continues it will be a serious long term problem. And who said anything about EU economy doing better? You seem so spiteful of the EU that everything has to come down to some pissing match with EU. The main reason is that foreign banks have more confidence in the euro than the dollar.

I agree it could have long term consequences however we dont know exactly what they are.
My reasoning behind the spite against the EU is the fascination people have with it. Whenever they want to bash the US economy they bring up the EU. Well the EU hasnt outpaced our growth in a long time and it wont anytime soon. We are in a war and we are growing faster than the EU. The EU has a higher rate of unemployment than the United States and it wont get better anytime soon.

The reasoning behind the valuation of the EU vs the US dollar could be because of the reasons I stated above. There is nothing from the numbers that paints the EU in a better light than the United States except deficit to gdp %.

At 422 billion the US is looking at an estimated 3.6% of deficit to GDP %. EU has been estimated at 2.7% for the entire region. That is a % higher for the United States but not sure if that is enough to really hedge your bets.

The main reason why we are able to go into so much debt and not suffer too much consequence is because of foreign central banks- mainly China and Japan- financing our debt by duying our currency/treasuries/bonds. If that slows down or declines it can be potentially disasterous.

Japan does this to keep from destroying their imports into the United States. If the value of the dollar falls enough their products cost more.

The total costs over a 10-year plan have been estimated to be $3.9 trillion:

Interesting and I need to research this a bit more. It appears there is a wide range of estimates on the costs. Anywhere from 1.25 Trillion over 10 years to 3.9 trillion.

And how does higher unemployment = higher tax revenues? Are we taxing the heck out of unemployment benefits? What about those people whose benefits have run out? They're just giving the gov't money out of their empty pockets?

It was a typo, meant to say higher employment == higher tax revenues. Come on you know what I meant 😉

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The total costs over a 10-year plan have been estimated to be $3.9 trillion:

Interesting and I need to research this a bit more. It appears there is a wide range of estimates on the costs. Anywhere from 1.25 Trillion over 10 years to 3.9 trillion.

Well, the cuts themselves were like 1.325 trillion but the added debt, interest, etc. will compound.

And how does higher unemployment = higher tax revenues? Are we taxing the heck out of unemployment benefits? What about those people whose benefits have run out? They're just giving the gov't money out of their empty pockets?

It was a typo, meant to say higher employment == higher tax revenues. Come on you know what I meant 😉

Gotta give ya grief, eh? 🙂

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The fact is that it is happening and if the trend continues it will be a serious long term problem. And who said anything about EU economy doing better? You seem so spiteful of the EU that everything has to come down to some pissing match with EU. The main reason is that foreign banks have more confidence in the euro than the dollar.

I agree it could have long term consequences however we dont know exactly what they are.
My reasoning behind the spite against the EU is the fascination people have with it. Whenever they want to bash the US economy they bring up the EU. Well the EU hasnt outpaced our growth in a long time and it wont anytime soon. We are in a war and we are growing faster than the EU. The EU has a higher rate of unemployment than the United States and it wont get better anytime soon.

The reasoning behind the valuation of the EU vs the US dollar could be because of the reasons I stated above. There is nothing from the numbers that paints the EU in a better light than the United States except deficit to gdp %.

At 422 billion the US is looking at an estimated 3.6% of deficit to GDP %. EU has been estimated at 2.7% for the entire region. That is a % higher for the United States but not sure if that is enough to really hedge your bets.

Growth wise yes the US is doing better than EU...and will continue due to the US's aggressive immigration policy...This should not come as a surprise...bring more ppl into a country, gdp goes up as you have to feed, clothe and house all these ppl. EU intends to keep population relatively steady.

Also 1% of gdp is huge. looks like the US deficit is growing in addition to this.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What?!...tax cuts were 1 trillion dollars.

The economy cannot make use of this tax break effectively as the government is not bringing in enough money to sustain itself.

Eh? Maybe over 10 years. I havent seen once article or factual piece that has said they cut tax revenues by nearly 50% from his tax cuts. Everything is over a span of 10 years.

Uhh...no...it's called tax cuts. The CBO reported that tax revenues dropped to the lowest level of GDP in over 40 years.

Uh how many people lost their jobs in 2001-2002? How much total for each year were the tax cuts?

Considering that Bush's record in job creation is about break even right now, doesn't matter, unless all of those jobs are much lower paying jobs resulting in much lower tax revenue, eh? Last year (2004) was listed as one of the lowest revenue to GDP tax years in over 40.

The Republican controlled group has spent us into a sh!thole (and fvcked us into an Iraqhole)!!! :|

The Bush apologists come out of the woodwork to say that they aren't fvcking American...blah...blah. The deficit is outrageous. PERIOD!!! :|

 

[Genx87]

Considering that Bush's record in job creation is about break even right now, doesn't matter, unless all of those jobs are much lower paying jobs resulting in much lower tax revenue, eh? Last year (2004) was listed as one of the lowest revenue to GDP tax years in over 40.

Did you think the unemployment rates of the late 1990s coupled with high interest rates would last forever?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Considering that Bush's record in job creation is about break even right now, doesn't matter, unless all of those jobs are much lower paying jobs resulting in much lower tax revenue, eh? Last year (2004) was listed as one of the lowest revenue to GDP tax years in over 40.

Did you think the unemployment rates of the late 1990s coupled with high interest rates would last forever?

No, but I didn't think that we could swing the budget over 650 billion per year either, especially in a few short years. Bush hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like or sign! Congress hasn't met a spending anything that they didn't pass. The whole fvcking government spenging issue is out of hand! PERIOD!!!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Considering that Bush's record in job creation is about break even right now, doesn't matter, unless all of those jobs are much lower paying jobs resulting in much lower tax revenue, eh? Last year (2004) was listed as one of the lowest revenue to GDP tax years in over 40.

Did you think the unemployment rates of the late 1990s coupled with high interest rates would last forever?

Interest rates weren't that high. They're incredibly low now as a way to spur the economy on. Why do you think so many people were buying homes? Interest rates as low as 4% on 30-year fixed loans?

 

[Genx87]

No, but I didn't think that we could swing the budget over 650 billion per year either, especially in a few short years. Bush hasn't met a spending bill he doesn't like or sign! Congress hasn't met a spending anything that they didn't pass. The whole fvcking government spenging issue is out of hand! PERIOD!!!

I can agree with you there

Interest rates weren't that high. They're incredibly low now as a way to spur the economy on. Why do you think so many people were buying homes? Interest rates as low as 4% on 30-year fixed loans?

I believe they were over 6% in and around 1999-2000. Right now they are the lowest they have been in 46 years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Interest rates weren't that high. They're incredibly low now as a way to spur the economy on. Why do you think so many people were buying homes? Interest rates as low as 4% on 30-year fixed loans?

I believe they were over 6% in and around 1999-2000. Right now they are the lowest they have been in 46 years.

And you think 6% is high??

 

[imported_Biscuit]

Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

 

[Dissipate]

What is going to be funny is when they open the social security vaults and discover that all that is there is a bunch of government IOUs.

 

[Genx87]

And you think 6% is high??

Compared to the what, 2% we are at now, yes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

And you think 6% is high??

Compared to the what, 2% we are at now, yes.

I was talking average mortgage rates. Something that actually affects the average American.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What is going to be funny is when they open the social security vaults and discover that all that is there is a bunch of government IOUs.

Don't you mean when they open your wallet and all they leave you with SS might maybe somewhat payout 50 years from now.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

The goverment borrowed it from them selves. Your going to have a hard time convenicing anyone that future generations should pay the tax to run the ferdral goverment 3o years ago.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

The goverment borrowed it from them selves. Your going to have a hard time convenicing anyone that future generations should pay the tax to run the ferdral goverment 3o years ago.

True, but where I come from Borrowed money is to be repaid, whether you like it or not. Just seemed odd that the guy dismissed the idea out of hand so casually.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

They dont even have to use any such fineprint, if it exists. All that they have to do to avoid repaying those is this: tomorrow, every member of Congress commits political suicide and passes a bill to end Social Security payments, and Bush signs it. Poof, there goes the repayment obligation. The USSC has ruled that you have no right to SS benefits, so Congress could in fact do this, if it werent for the fact that they want to be re-elected.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

The goverment borrowed it from them selves. Your going to have a hard time convenicing anyone that future generations should pay the tax to run the ferdral goverment 3o years ago.

True, but where I come from Borrowed money is to be repaid, whether you like it or not. Just seemed odd that the guy dismissed the idea out of hand so casually.

However when you borrow money from yourself, do you really have to pay it back?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

The goverment borrowed it from them selves. Your going to have a hard time convenicing anyone that future generations should pay the tax to run the ferdral goverment 3o years ago.

True, but where I come from Borrowed money is to be repaid, whether you like it or not. Just seemed odd that the guy dismissed the idea out of hand so casually.

However when you borrow money from yourself, do you really have to pay it back?

Technically, no, but one(me) would think that Borrowing is Borrowing. SS should be more Arms Length, but I can see how it may not be, considering that those Borrowing and overlooking SS are the same people. Reform seems to be a good solution to this, Reform of how Government functions, not necessarily of SS.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course deficits are out of control, Republicans are running the show. It's just phase 1 of their starve the beast scenario, the looting phase. Cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy, increase corporate/farm subsidies, engage in very expensive wars of adventure, and just borrow the money to accomplish it all...

It's their answer for every problem- just borrow more money.

They're ideologically opposed to a federal govt that can effectively regulate business, or prevent wealth transfer to the financial elite, and they're ideologically opposed to anything wth a socialist tinge, SS in particular. Always have been, and now's their big chance to sell it, make the govt and the electorate into their willing b!tch... with false prosperity based on debt, and false alarms about the true cause of our impending financial catastrophe.

SS is nothing compared to the cost of the taxcuts and the so-called "senior drug benefit", which is mostly a big pharma benefit-

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

 

[Engineer]

Fvcking disgusting! :|White House projects $427 Billion Deficit for 2005! Conservatives my ass!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Biscuit
Bushes taxcut for the rich would have made Social Security solvent for another 45 years....... imagine that.

I'm no fan of Bush, but... HUH???

Social Security wouldn't be in any trouble if Congress didn't keep "borrowing" from the trust fund. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are their own form of stupidity, especially considering the deficits he's run up with his similarly stupid, elective war, but I don't understand what you mean when you say they "would have made Social Security solvent..." :roll:

I was watching (Dave?) Mathews(or some show on CNN or CNBC) and a panel were discussing SS. This one panelist(either Republican strategist or (more likely) Conservative Thinktanker) addressed the whole SS--->Government lending as "..the money is Spent"... 😕 . When pressed further he just repeated the samething, as if the Government has no obligation to payback the borrowed money, because they Spent it. Odd to say the least, but it got me to wondering: Could there be some fineprint somewhere that releases the Government from paying back money "borrowed" from SS?

The goverment borrowed it from them selves. Your going to have a hard time convenicing anyone that future generations should pay the tax to run the ferdral goverment 3o years ago.

True, but where I come from Borrowed money is to be repaid, whether you like it or not. Just seemed odd that the guy dismissed the idea out of hand so casually.

However when you borrow money from yourself, do you really have to pay it back?

Technically, no, but one(me) would think that Borrowing is Borrowing. SS should be more Arms Length, but I can see how it may not be, considering that those Borrowing and overlooking SS are the same people. Reform seems to be a good solution to this, Reform of how Government functions, not necessarily of SS.

You see now why many think social security needs reform.