Deficits nearly a trillion a yesr for the next decade

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_economy

Quote

In a chilling forecast, the White House is predicting a 10-year federal deficit of $9 trillion — more than the sum of all previous deficits since America's founding. And it says by the next decade's end the national debt will equal three-quarters of the entire U.S. economy.

Quote

The White House Office of Management and Budget indicated that the president will have to struggle to meet his vow of cutting the deficit in half in 2013 — a promise that earlier budget projections suggested he could accomplish with ease.

"This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter," said Obama economic adviser Christina Romer.

White House budget office and by the Congressional Budget Office both agree that the national debt will double over the next decade.

Smart economics, there, pilgrim.

Hopefully, these projections will prove as accurate as climate projections - way on the high side. Still, government spending tends to grow ever higher.

Get a Republican Congress. Keep Obama for another 4 years. I believe only that will restore any degree of fiscal integrity or sanity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

Get a Republican Congress. Keep Obama for another 4 years. I believe only that will restore any degree of fiscal integrity or sanity.

Sort of a federal constipation?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Sort of a federal constipation?

That would be a step up from our present fiscal diarrhea.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Get a Republican Congress. Keep Obama for another 4 years. I believe only that will restore any degree of fiscal integrity or sanity.

Sort of a federal constipation?

Don

Yep. Congress has no checks. The President hasn't checks (except Palin).

The same party running Congress and the Presidency is a recipe for fiscal disaster. A GOP POTUS and Dem Congress - we saw what good that did.

Clinton with a Dem Congress was a joke. Clinton with a GOP congress? Right on. Nearly balanced budgets. Tax cuts. Government shutdowns. It was awesome.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

What do you expect when you cut taxes without first cutting spending? What happened to the boom we were promised in 2001?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

What happened to the boom we were promised in 2001?

You mean the promise people bought with credit cards? Oh yeah, the statement just showed up in the mail box and now they have sticker shock.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Clinton with a Dem Congress was a joke. Clinton with a GOP congress? Right on. Nearly balanced budgets. Tax cuts. Government shutdowns. It was awesome.

Tax cuts? Did you miss the tax increases, the ones that contributed to the 'nearly balanced budgets?'

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

What happened to the boom we were promised in 2001?

You mean the promise people bought with credit cards? Oh yeah, the statement just showed up in the mail box and now they have sticker shock.

Well, if you reduce your revenues without reducing your expenses, you have to live on credit. (Thank you, China).

Fact is, Voodoo economics hasn't worked.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Clinton with a Dem Congress was a joke. Clinton with a GOP congress? Right on. Nearly balanced budgets. Tax cuts. Government shutdowns. It was awesome.

Tax cuts? Did you miss the tax increases, the ones that contributed to the 'nearly balanced budgets?'

The capital gains taxes that were lowered. This caused a surge in investment and associated revenues from increased employment, etc. Revenues can increase with a drop in the tax rates.

I agree with kallend, though. Spending cuts must be the top priority.

note - the big ball busters are Social Security and medicare. Page 18 is a doozy. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08446cg.pdf

Total major fiscal exposure of the US Government is $52.7 trillion. (of this, about $35 trillion is Medicare, and another $6 trillion for Social Security.) And total US household net worth in the US is $58.6 trillion.

In that same report (Page 27) the GAO said a balanced budget in 2040 would require doubling federal taxes and cutting spending by 60%. And it'd still take 30 years to balance it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

In that same report (Page 27) the GAO said a balanced budget in 2040 would require doubling federal taxes and cutting spending by 60%. And it'd still take 30 years to balance it.

Why am I not surprised, given that we have been practising Voodoo Economics for most of the last 3 decades.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Voodoo Economics, as you put and I understand it, does not involve spend spend spend - except on military stuff.

Unlike Laffer, these deficits and this debt has Keynes all over it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

My Economics professor considers Keynes to have been a fool, or that the one who would follow his ideas to this extent to be fools.

Investment in a society is one thing, but burying itself in the highest amount of debt that has ever been imagined by any country is another thing entirely.

It is as if Obamacles lost his nest egg and is willing to go down to the casino to win it back.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

In that same report (Page 27) the GAO said a balanced budget in 2040 would require doubling federal taxes and cutting spending by 60%. And it'd still take 30 years to balance it.

Why am I not surprised, given that we have been practising Voodoo Economics for most of the last 3 decades.

Quote

John, this statement from you made me chuckle. You make this comment that sounds sarcastic and mocks the last 4 presidents for their spending. You are very educated and still support a president that will at least douple the national debt in less than half the time. shouldn't you mock the currant president and congress for being 2-3 times worse than the ones you are mocking?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In that same report (Page 27) the GAO said a balanced budget in 2040 would require doubling federal taxes and cutting spending by 60%. And it'd still take 30 years to balance it.

Why am I not surprised, given that we have been practising Voodoo Economics for most of the last 3 decades.

Quote

John, this statement from you made me chuckle. You make this comment that sounds sarcastic and mocks the last 4 presidents for their spending. You are very educated and still support a president that will at least douple the national debt in less than half the time. shouldn't you mock the currant president and congress for being 2-3 times worse than the ones you are mocking?

Most of the spending is systemic and has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and his policies. The roots of the future deficits are deep and the seeds were planted decades ago. G.H.W. Bush was absolutely right when he called it "Voodoo Economics".

As a nation we have been living beyond our means for decades. And as a reminder, Reagan nearly TRIPLED the debt in only 8 years.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In that same report (Page 27) the GAO said a balanced budget in 2040 would require doubling federal taxes and cutting spending by 60%. And it'd still take 30 years to balance it.

Why am I not surprised, given that we have been practising Voodoo Economics for most of the last 3 decades.

Quote

John, this statement from you made me chuckle. You make this comment that sounds sarcastic and mocks the last 4 presidents for their spending. You are very educated and still support a president that will at least douple the national debt in less than half the time. shouldn't you mock the currant president and congress for being 2-3 times worse than the ones you are mocking?

Most of the spending is systemic and has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and his policies. The roots of the future deficits are deep and the seeds were planted decades ago. G.H.W. Bush was absolutely right when he called it "Voodoo Economics".

As a nation we have been living beyond our means for decades. And as a reminder, Reagan nearly TRIPLED the debt in only 8 years.

Quote

so you think Obama signing bills that will lead to a 9 trillion $ deficit is ok?

[dks13827 3]

they dont care what the deficit is.. things are the way they want it to be... ( I know it makes no sense ). to me it's immoral.

a taxpayer.

[kallend 2,027]

How does it feel to be throwing stones from a glass house?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

How does it feel to be throwing stones from a glass house?

Quote

don't understand, I didn't like any of the bills, tarp, stimulus, porkulus, or budget. were is my glass house? but you didn't answer the question. so what is your answer?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

so what is your answer?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

so what is your answer?

Stop pretending that decreasing taxes works. The evidence of the past 30 years shows that it doesn't.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

so what is your answer?

Stop pretending that decreasing taxes works. The evidence of the past 30 years shows that it doesn't.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

And beside it has been proven that lower taxes increased jobs and industry thus causing an increase of revenue.

[/reply

True, IF and ONLY IF population growth and inflation are IGNORED.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

And beside it has been proven that lower taxes increased jobs and industry thus causing an increase of revenue.

[/reply

True, IF and ONLY IF population growth and inflation are IGNORED.

No. It actually works if and only if unemployment is high enough to create more jobs with the money not being used. Interestingly, not only do revenues increase, but outlays would decrease. But since things don't remain the same (we've got more money - LET'S SPEND IT!) the spending increases. And increases.

Kallend - did you know that in 2000, the federal budget was $1.8 trillion? The 2010 federal budget is $3.6 trillion.

Tell me how doubling spending in ten years is responsible for less than tax cuts.

The CBO estimates that federal revenes will be $2.4 trillion - and increase of 9% over last year. Spending will be increased by $500 billion over 2009 - about a 22% increase.

Yep. Lowering taxes is what caused this. Yessir.

[kallend 2,027]

In 2000 the fedaral revenue was $2.03T
In 2008 the federal revenue was $2.52T
An increase of 24.1%

The CPI went from 515.8 (2000) to 644.4 (2008), a 24.8% increase

The population went from 281.4M (2000) to 303.5M (2008), a 7.8% increase.

In order just to keep up with inflation and population growth from 2000 to 2008 the federal revenues needed to be $2.57T in 2008. So the shortfall in revenues as adjusted was $50Billion.

As I said previously, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, federal revenues have actually declined since 2000.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Most of the spending is systemic and has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama and his policies. The roots of the future deficits are deep and the seeds were planted decades ago.

Priceless. The further we get into his Presidency, the further back the blame goes.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.