US national debt limit raised to $10.6 Trillion

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.
Actually it's already been calculated that McCain's tax plan will stack an additional $1+ trillion to our national debt over the length of his term versus Obama's tax plan.

So one sticks 3 trillion (Obama) while McCain sticks 4 trillion (McCain). Not much better either way. If the economy doesn't upshift soon, it could be far worse. I guess that's why the gooberment is spending hundereds of billions of borrowed dollars to prop up the economy.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.
Actually it's already been calculated that McCain's tax plan will stack an additional $1+ trillion to our national debt over the length of his term versus Obama's tax plan.

So one sticks 3 trillion (Obama) while McCain sticks 4 trillion (McCain). Not much better either way. If the economy doesn't upshift soon, it could be far worse. I guess that's why the gooberment is spending hundereds of billions of borrowed dollars to prop up the economy.

The failed theory that govt can drive economies will continue to be tried within of course govt. Just tack the latest example of stimulus checks onto the pile of fail. And the drones will be right there defending it to the end. Why we have two candidates proposing we spend trillions beyond our means within their first term is ridiculous.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Engineer
So one sticks 3 trillion (Obama) while McCain sticks 4 trillion (McCain). Not much better either way.
True, it's only $1 trillion. That's peanuts to an armchair economist.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
The failed theory that govt can drive economies will continue to be tried within of course govt. Just tack the latest example of stimulus checks onto the pile of fail. And the drones will be right there defending it to the end. Why we have two candidates proposing we spend trillions beyond our means within their first term is ridiculous.

Wait until Thursday's GDP report for the 2nd quarter. It's now estimated to be 2+%. Nowhere near recession, but of course, without the stimulus checks, it most likely would have been negative or very near zero. Consumer spending counts for 2/3 economic growth (GDP where P = products so spending = product = me go :confused: ).

heh.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Engineer
So one sticks 3 trillion (Obama) while McCain sticks 4 trillion (McCain). Not much better either way.
True, it's only $1 trillion. That's peanuts to an armchair economist.

I didn't say it's peanuts, but 3 or 4 trillion on top of what we already have isn't inspiring, especially when you start thinking of the estimated borrowing for SS/Medicare starting around 2017 range (when the surplus funds of SS each year are not enough to cover the payouts).
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.
Actually it's already been calculated that McCain's tax plan will stack an additional $1+ trillion to our national debt over the length of his term versus Obama's tax plan.

I'm not voting for McCain either. ;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.

Maybe so but at least have to see. Staying the Republican course is just dumb.

Staying the two-party course is what is dumb.

America can write my name in elect me.

Won't happen but they have that option.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Engineer
So one sticks 3 trillion (Obama) while McCain sticks 4 trillion (McCain). Not much better either way.
True, it's only $1 trillion. That's peanuts to an armchair economist.

I didn't say it's peanuts, but 3 or 4 trillion on top of what we already have isn't inspiring, especially when you start thinking of the estimated borrowing for SS/Medicare starting around 2017 range (when the surplus funds of SS each year are not enough to cover the payouts).
Well you have to start *somewhere*. A trillion here, a trillion there, ending an unnecessary war in 16 months, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.

Maybe so but at least have to see. Staying the Republican course is just dumb.

Staying the two-party course is what is dumb.

America can write my name in elect me.

Won't happen but they have that option.

Yeah, I'm sure the voters are taking you into consideration.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,718
877
126
Master plan:

1. Borrow tons of money
2. Run country and grow for 100 years
3. let inflation loose and payback with cheap dollar
4. ???
5. Profit
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton

Well you have to start *somewhere*. A trillion here, a trillion there, ending an unnecessary war in 16 months, and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

That I can agree on. If 3 trillion is over 4 years (2009-2013), then it's pretty bad. If it's projected over 8 years, it's not as bad as what we currently have. We can only hope for better....but hope hasn't done much for us in the last 8 though.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Eight years of Bush, and we've nearly doubled our national debt.

McCain only looks to build on that glorious legacy.

I don't foresee Obama doing a whole lot better.

Maybe so but at least have to see. Staying the Republican course is just dumb.

Staying the two-party course is what is dumb.

America can write my name in elect me.

Won't happen but they have that option.

Yeah, I'm sure the voters are taking you into consideration.

More importantly, the electoral college ;)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Interesting things I didnt know about the 2009 budget:

** In total, the Budget proposes to terminate or reduce 151 discretionary programs, reducing 2009 spending by $18 billion. These include 103 terminations saving $7 billion and 48 reductions saving $11 billion. The Budget also proposes mandatory spending reforms that will achieve an additional $16 billion in net savings in 2009, and result in $208 billion in savings through 2013. Mandatory savings proposals highlighted in this volume total $19 billion in 2009 and $233 billion through 2013, and exclude reforms that are cost-neutral or result in cost increases.

** Creates AFRICOM. $389 million to establish a new command to strengthen ties with African governments, institutions, and organizations (about time we start to address issues there IMO)

** 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel, bringing the total basic pay increases since 2001 to about 37 percent.

**DoD discretionary budget has decreased 70% since 1991.

**For 2007, the deficit was $162 billion, lower than the deficits in each of the previous four years.

**The 2007 deficit was 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average of 2.4 percent of GDP.

**The growth in tax receipts in recent years has been particularly impressive. 2007 was the third year in a row in which receipts grew faster than GDP. The strong showing in 2007?with tax receipts of $2.568 trillion, 6.7 percent greater than in 2006?follows two years of double-digit growth in receipts in 2005 and 2006, with 2005 witnessing a 14.5 percent increase and 2006 witnessing an 11.8 percent increase. At 18.8 percent of GDP, receipts for 2007 were above the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent.





Anyway. Not entirely bad news. Source is the budget itself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Interesting things I didnt know about the 2009 budget:

** In total, the Budget proposes to terminate or reduce 151 discretionary programs, reducing 2009 spending by $18 billion. These include 103 terminations saving $7 billion and 48 reductions saving $11 billion. The Budget also proposes mandatory spending reforms that will achieve an additional $16 billion in net savings in 2009, and result in $208 billion in savings through 2013. Mandatory savings proposals highlighted in this volume total $19 billion in 2009 and $233 billion through 2013, and exclude reforms that are cost-neutral or result in cost increases.

** Creates AFRICOM. $389 million to establish a new command to strengthen ties with African governments, institutions, and organizations (about time we start to address issues there IMO)

** 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel, bringing the total basic pay increases since 2001 to about 37 percent.

**DoD discretionary budget has decreased 70% since 1991.

**For 2007, the deficit was $162 billion, lower than the deficits in each of the previous four years.

**The 2007 deficit was 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average of 2.4 percent of GDP.

**The growth in tax receipts in recent years has been particularly impressive. 2007 was the third year in a row in which receipts grew faster than GDP. The strong showing in 2007?with tax receipts of $2.568 trillion, 6.7 percent greater than in 2006?follows two years of double-digit growth in receipts in 2005 and 2006, with 2005 witnessing a 14.5 percent increase and 2006 witnessing an 11.8 percent increase. At 18.8 percent of GDP, receipts for 2007 were above the 40-year historical average of 18.3 percent.





Anyway. Not entirely bad news. Source is the budget itself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/


They were going in the right direction, then bam....backwards even faster than they went forward. That's the real problem right now.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Genx87
The failed theory that govt can drive economies will continue to be tried within of course govt. Just tack the latest example of stimulus checks onto the pile of fail. And the drones will be right there defending it to the end. Why we have two candidates proposing we spend trillions beyond our means within their first term is ridiculous.

Wait until Thursday's GDP report for the 2nd quarter. It's now estimated to be 2+%. Nowhere near recession, but of course, without the stimulus checks, it most likely would have been negative or very near zero. Consumer spending counts for 2/3 economic growth (GDP where P = products so spending = product = me go :confused: ).

heh.

To be able to say that if it weren't for the stimulus checks you'd need to figure out how much the average growth is between Q1 and Q2, adjust for it seasonally, then determine how much growth that was, compared to the rebate check input (assuming a savings rate and feedback throughout the economy).

Personally, I think the numbers will show a further surge in manufacturing, bolstered by marginal consumer spending, but a large increase in ag. While payrolls have shrunk, productivity has continued to climb.

It's going to be pretty interesting to see how the currency fluctuations will affect GDP.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: blackangst1
** Creates AFRICOM. $389 million to establish a new command to strengthen ties with African governments, institutions, and organizations (about time we start to address issues there IMO)

Oh, wonderful, more interventionism. Have we not pissed off enough people?

Can one honestly believe we'll be "spreading democracy" in Africa?

We'll be over there for one thing, oil. And we'll support any dictator willing to sell it to us.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis116.html

** 3.4 percent pay raise for military personnel, bringing the total basic pay increases since 2001 to about 37 percent.

Now, if only we would take care of them when they get home from war overseas. Or better yet, stop sending them to war overseas.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Deficits don't mattter, so go ahead and have another war. It'll make you feel all good and patriotic again :)
 

Firebot

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2005
1,476
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Democrats have been in control of congress for a year and a half now and the budget and deficit still grows??

I thought they were going to stop all that?

BTW the only way to view the deficit/debt is in terms of its size vs. GDP. The dollar figures are meaningless since inflation will cause it to rise nearly every year.

Canada has been running a budget surplus for well over a decade. Clinton also ran a surplus at the end of his tenure. Even if he cooked the books a little and got the surplus mainly off one time sales, it was still a surplus. There's no excuses, especially when Iraq war funds are off the books anyways (the real deficit is actually much higher then it looks).

Only the financially lazy and inept make excuses for running record deficits. Ironic that you would immediatly shift the blame on the Democrats who have recently taken hold of Congress, while in the earlier terms Republicans were in power, and Bush, a Republican, is STILL the head of the state. The only thing I'd agree with you is that the Democrats are not doing a very efficient job of stopping the gravy train run by the Republicans.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Its time for Americans to suffer and live within our means.


Stop the war and quickly phase out SS, welfare and all the other benefits people are collecting. I?m ok with loosing the SS and everything that I have been paying into it for the last 17 years, future generations should not have to be burdened by our mistakes. The old will be forced to move in with their kids, and if their kids don?t want them screw them they should have not raised a bunch of selfish pricks. Perhaps it would turn out better doing away with the nuclear family model and go back to families helping each other instead of the government.

I know I'm just ranting because our out of control government pisses me off and I am sure there are a ton of flaws to the above. I wish I had a better outlook for our country it just looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: rpanic
Its time for Americans to suffer and live within our means.


Stop the war and quickly phase out SS, welfare and all the other benefits people are collecting. I?m ok with loosing the SS and everything that I have been paying into it for 17 years, future generations should not have to be burdened by our mistakes. The old will be forced to move in with their kids, and if there kids don?t want them screw them they should have not raised a bunch of selfish pricks. Perhaps it would turn out better doing away with the nuclear family model and go back to families helping each other instead of the government.

I know I'm just ranting because our out of control government pisses me off and I am sure there are a ton of flaws to the above. I wish I had a better outlook for our country it just looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.

I like your rant :D