Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

Hairytic · Dec 11, 2012

j-mac said:
Obama is on track in his 8 years to have spent us into an increased 10 to 12 Trillion of added debt, doubling the the debt of every President before him combined, and you want to play semantics?

Obama called Bush 'unpatriotic' for in his words....

Now you tell me how, or why we shouldn't apply his own words here to what he is doing?

First of all, a lot of the spending done in Obama's first administration was due to the two wars Bush got us into. Obama has ended one of those wars and is drawing the other one to an end. That will reduce the amount of money we spend. Second, some of the spending Obama did during the first two years was in bail outs that are being paid back, so that spending will not continue either. The projection is that spending will decrease, no increase. NOw, if congress will get a jobs bill enacted and people can get back to work the debt will get paid back much quicker. Reagan taxed and spent us out of a recession and it worked. If Obama has a chance to finish what he has been trying to get done, we might end this recession once and for all and be back on the right track.

Grant · Dec 11, 2012

Hairytic said:
First of all, a lot of the spending done in Obama's first administration was due to the two wars Bush got us into

.

If you'll recall Barrack Obama was in favor of the war in Afghanistan, from which has already announced his retreat, and he has left Iraq as ripe pickings for the Muslim Brotherhood, or something similar.

Obama has ended one of those wars and is drawing the other one to an end.

Drawing it to an end? Why? Just leave now so that more Americans and their Allies aren't killed. If a retreat from a war is announced then bloody well retreat now. What's the point of remaining?

That will reduce the amount of money we spend.

It will reduce the money spent in that particular area, for now, but there is no indication that that money won't just be frittered away elsewhere else, just as has been done with the other trillions of dollars..

Second, some of the spending Obama did during the first two years was in bail outs that are being paid back, so that spending will not continue either.

And bailouts that aren't being paid back. Where does a guy who has no business experience whatsoever get to decide which private companies get public money? You don't see any opportunity for conflict of interest here?

The projection is that spending will decrease, no increase.

Who's 'projection' is that? Wasn't it Obama's projection that he would half the debt and balance the budget during his first term? He didn't dare promise that in his second run because he knew the idea was just too far-fetched and comical. Of course he still has the party faithful..

NOw, if congress will get a jobs bill enacted and people can get back to work the debt will get paid back much quicker.

"A jobs bill"? What can that possibly do? Order people back to work? Instruct them to find a job?

Reagan taxed and spent us out of a recession and it worked.

Barrack Obama is no Ronald Reagan and BHO has already done one huge stimulus spending spree. He spent $16 trill and what did you get? Another year older and deeper in debt.

If Obama has a chance to finish what he has been trying to get done, we might end this recession once and for all and be back on the right track.

That might happen if you had a person with substance at the helm rather than a naive and inexperienced ideologue. As it is now? No chance.

Dittohead not! · Dec 11, 2012

H. Lee White said:
:lol:

So... did you fail US Government, or have you just not made it that far in school?
The SENATE, not CONGRESS, voted 98-0.

So, again, when Congress unanimously votes to continue military spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined - please let me know.

:lol:

How often does Congress unanimously vote for anything?

Hairytic · Dec 11, 2012

Grant said:
.

If you'll recall Barrack Obama was in favor of the war in Afghanistan, from which has already announced his retreat, and he has left Iraq as ripe pickings for the Muslim Brotherhood, or something similar.

Drawing it to an end? Why? Just leave now so that more Americans and their Allies aren't killed. If a retreat from a war is announced then bloody well retreat now. What's the point of remaining?

It will reduce the money spent in that particular area, for now, but there is no indication that that money won't just be frittered away elsewhere else, just as has been done with the other trillions of dollars..

And bailouts that aren't being paid back. Where does a guy who has no business experience whatsoever get to decide which private companies get public money? You don't see any opportunity for conflict of interest here?

Who's 'projection' is that? Wasn't it Obama's projection that he would half the debt and balance the budget during his first term? He didn't dare promise that in his second run because he knew the idea was just too far-fetched and comical. Of course he still has the party faithful..

"A jobs bill"? What can that possibly do? Order people back to work? Instruct them to find a job?

Barrack Obama is no Ronald Reagan and BHO has already done one huge stimulus spending spree. He spent $16 trill and what did you get? Another year older and deeper in debt.

That might happen if you had a person with substance at the helm rather than a naive and inexperienced ideologue. As it is now? No chance.

Obama saw the war in Afghanistan as being more valid than the war in Iraq. As for Iraq, it isn't our business how other people run their country. We should have never gone into Iraq to begin with. It was only right to get out when we did. If they people of Iraq want the Muslim Brotherhood to rule their country, so be it. It takes time to withdraw from a war. We have to coordinate movement of our equipment and troops as well as wrap up any training projects we have going on. That is taking place now.
As for the bailouts, the president doesn't have to have business experience to act on the powers cranted to him by the constitution and the laws congress has enacted. TARP was signed into law by GW Bush, which is the program in which bail-outs started.
The projection for a reduction in spending is being hashed out now. Obama hasn't had much cooperation from congress on this, which he must have in order to develop a budget. Spending cuts are being negotiated, but the Republicans want to cut medicare and SS as a part of the deal and Obama will not do it. Cutting SS and Medicare will not effect the budget and debt. It is a program funded directly by working Americans.
The jobs bills Obama has put before congress involved rebuilding the infrastructure which will create jobs. He also wants to stop corporate welfare for corporations that ship jobs over seas. There is a lot our government can do to effect job growth.

Catawba · Dec 11, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
How often does Congress unanimously vote for anything?

Exactly! It was a real shocker to see not a single Republican or Democrat in the Senate oppose spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military!

Wasn't much difference in the GOP vote in the House when it passed, but at least a lot of the Democrats there voted against that much spending.

"The Republican-dominated House voted 326-90 to approve the annual defense appropriations bill"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/usa-defense-budget-idUSL2E8IK00H20120720

This shows me that Congress, and the GOP especially, have zero credibility when they say they are concerned about deficit spending.

Fisher · Dec 11, 2012

Hairytic said:
First of all, a lot of the spending done in Obama's first administration was due to the two wars Bush got us into. Obama has ended one of those wars and is drawing the other one to an end. That will reduce the amount of money we spend. Second, some of the spending Obama did during the first two years was in bail outs that are being paid back, so that spending will not continue either. The projection is that spending will decrease, no increase. NOw, if congress will get a jobs bill enacted and people can get back to work the debt will get paid back much quicker. Reagan taxed and spent us out of a recession and it worked. If Obama has a chance to finish what he has been trying to get done, we might end this recession once and for all and be back on the right track.

Not really since he intends to spend that money on different things.....

FACT CHECK: Obama and the phantom peace dividend - News - Boston.com

OBAMA: ‘‘I'll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work — rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.’’

THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially ‘‘pay down our debt,’’ as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the extra ‘‘nation-building’’ he envisions.

Catawba · Dec 11, 2012

Fisher said:
Not really since he intends to spend that money on different things.....

That's why we voted for him! We have problems here at home we need to address.

Hairytic · Dec 11, 2012

Fisher said:
Not really since he intends to spend that money on different things.....

FACT CHECK: Obama and the phantom peace dividend - News - Boston.com

OBAMA: ‘‘I'll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work — rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.’’

THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially ‘‘pay down our debt,’’ as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the extra ‘‘nation-building’’ he envisions.

Rebuilding our infrastructure would create jobs, which would generate more tax money. That new tax revenue will go in to pay down the debt. It's real simple economics. You spend money in a way that will give you a return on your investment, and then you take that return to pay on debt. If we don't spend money that creates jobs, then all we have is a little less debt with no new revenue.
I see it as wise to invest in American workers. History shows us that this path is one that works well and creates a boom in the economy. It also generates more tax money for state and local governments. It's a win win really.

H. Lee White · Dec 11, 2012

Catawba said:
Exactly! It was a real shocker to see not a single Republican or Democrat in the Senate oppose spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined on military!

I see you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong when you stated that Congress voted unanimously to pass the defense appropriations bill.
Speaks volumes.

H. Lee White · Dec 11, 2012

Dittohead not! said:
How often does Congress unanimously vote for anything?

You'll have to ask Catawaba - its his claim.

Catawba · Dec 12, 2012

H. Lee White said:
I see you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong when you stated that Congress voted unanimously to pass the defense appropriations bill.
Speaks volumes.

Show me the vote count of Congressional Republicans that voted against the $600 billion dollar spending bill.

Moot · Dec 12, 2012

Bronson said:
Again Bill Clinton used money from SOCIAL SECURITY TO PAY DOWN THE PUBLIC DEBT. NOT THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Well, according to Factcheck.org Clinton would've had a budget surplus without counting social security, it just would have been smaller....

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The PUBLIC DEBT IS THE NATIONAL DEBT.....

national debtn
(Economics) the total outstanding borrowings of a nation's central government Also called (esp US) public debt
national debt - definition of national debt by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

national debt: the total financial obligations of the central government of a nation usu. in the form of interest-bearing government bonds —called also public debt
National debt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

HE HAD DEFICITS EVERY YEAR HE WAS IN OFFICE
THE GOVERNMENT BORROWED MONEY FROM ITSELF TO PAY DOWN PUBLIC DEBT

Sorry, but you're wrong. The DEFICIT is not the same thing as the PUBLIC DEBT.

Go ahead. Check for yourself. Look at intergovernmental holdings for every single year Clinton was office. It went up every year because he was borrowing money from the Government to pay down PUBLIC DEBT which is not the same thing as NATIONAL DEBT
Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund

See the definition of national debt above. I don't think anyone here is saying Clinton didn't have a debt, only that he lowered it and had a budget surplus when he left office.

Have a nice day :2wave:

Okie dokey

eace

Moot · Dec 12, 2012

H. Lee White said:
This is true for 2 years, totalled under $90B, and was not when he left office.

FY Revenue Outlay Deficit/surplus
1992 1,091.2 1,381.5 -340.4
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 -300.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 -258.8
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7 -226.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.0
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 -103.2
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 -29.9
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 1.9
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 86.4
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 -32.4

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...DTsY2NUB_nqnbDZzONmag&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.aWc

I'm finding a discrepency in the chart you posted above. I can see in the link that it might come from the CBO but my internet explorer says it's a risk to open the link so I can't be sure without undue risk to my computer. But this chart below also says it comes from the CBO and as you can see the 2001 budget had a surplus not a deficit......

From everything I've read I'm getting a consensus that Clinton did have a surplus for his last three budget years. If you disagree then I'd love to see what else you have up your sleeve.

Moot · Dec 12, 2012

H. Lee White said:
:lol:

So... did you fail US Government, or have you just not made it that far in school?
The SENATE, not CONGRESS, voted 98-0.

So, again, when Congress unanimously votes to continue military spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined - please let me know.

:lol:

I don't mean to be nit picky but technically both the senate and the house of representatives are the congress. It's just easier in layman terms to distinguish the two by calling the lower house the congress and the upper house the senate.

"The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate, its upper house, and the House of Representatives, its lower house. Congress meets in the Capitol in Washington, D.C....."
United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

iguanaman · Dec 12, 2012

Fisher said:
Not really since he intends to spend that money on different things.....

FACT CHECK: Obama and the phantom peace dividend - News - Boston.com

OBAMA: ‘‘I'll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work — rebuilding roads and bridges, schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.’’

THE FACTS: The idea of taking war savings to pay for other programs is budgetary sleight of hand, given that the wars were paid for with increased debt. Obama can essentially ‘‘pay down our debt,’’ as he said, by borrowing less now that war is ending. But he still must borrow to do the extra ‘‘nation-building’’ he envisions.

The odd and disturbing thing is that people like you didn't bat an eye when we borrowed billions rebuilding Iraq after we borrowed billions destroying it. But when it comes to spending 50 or 100 billion on rebuilding our bridges and schools here in America we suddenly can't afford it Even when it would help employ 10's of thousands of construction workers idle because of the Bush Housing bubble and collapse.
Don't you at least have a tiny bit of pride left in your country that you would want to keep it strong? It seems you have lost you way.
Maybe you can find a home in the Bagdad Embassy complex. It's got plenty of room, it's as big as the Vatican. It cost over $750 Million and it sits nearly empty. It costs $3.5 billion annually for the 16,000 "contractors" needed to secure and staff it. Surely you would be more comfortable there.

Fisher · Dec 12, 2012

iguanaman said:
The odd and disturbing thing is that people like you didn't bat an eye when we borrowed billions rebuilding Iraq after we borrowed billions destroying it. But when it comes to spending 50 or 100 billion on rebuilding our bridges and schools here in America we suddenly can't afford it Even when it would help employ 10's of thousands of construction workers idle because of the Bush Housing bubble and collapse.
Don't you at least have a tiny bit of pride left in your country that you would want to keep it strong? It seems you have lost you way.
Maybe you can find a home in the Bagdad Embassy complex. It's got plenty of room, it's as big as the Vatican. It cost over $750 Million and it sits nearly empty. It costs $3.5 billion annually for the 16,000 "contractors" needed to secure and staff it. Surely you would be more comfortable there.

Interesting that you know so much about what "people like" me think, particularly when I did not support the War in Iraq even though most Americans, including binders full of democrats, were for the war before they were against the war.

Fisher · Dec 12, 2012

Catawba said:
That's why we voted for him! We have problems here at home we need to address.

Then do not support claims he isn't spending the money and therefore is saving it. Proudly wave the Bank of China Visa Card logo if that is your thing.

Muddy Creek · Dec 12, 2012

zimmer said:
Spending is the problem.

The Marx School of PONZI Schemes is the problem.

Parasite Nation is the problem.

Denying reality is the problem.

Ignorance is the problem.

Hail to Parasite Nation... Hail!

No, creating two wars and a pharmaceutical giveaway which costs taxpayers billions and NOT funding these is what has us in debt.

Fisher · Dec 12, 2012

Hairytic said:
Rebuilding our infrastructure would create jobs, which would generate more tax money. That new tax revenue will go in to pay down the debt. It's real simple economics. You spend money in a way that will give you a return on your investment, and then you take that return to pay on debt. If we don't spend money that creates jobs, then all we have is a little less debt with no new revenue.
I see it as wise to invest in American workers. History shows us that this path is one that works well and creates a boom in the economy. It also generates more tax money for state and local governments. It's a win win really.

Actually recent history seems to show that every dollar of debt we take on only creates about 25 cents in growth, so it is hardly a boom; and paving roads really does not create a huge amount of economic activity as it is something we already have. A lot of things need to be done, but don't believe that it is somehow saving us money or generating piles of cash. Those simple economics, however, is why we will be going onto $20T debt and the national debt interest only payments will exceed what we spend on our big old bloated military in fairly short order, so it is more like the economics of Christmas shopping at a rent to own store to some people.

Muddy Creek · Dec 12, 2012

Fisher said:
Actually recent history seems to show that every dollar of debt we take on only creates about 25 cents in growth, so it is hardly a boom; and paving roads really does not create a huge amount of economic activity as it is something we already have. A lot of things need to be done, but don't believe that it is somehow saving us money or generating piles of cash. Those simple economics, however, is why we will be going onto $20T debt and the national debt interest only payments will exceed what we spend on our big old bloated military in fairly short order, so it is more like the economics of Christmas shopping at a rent to own store to some people.

JOBS create a boon in the economy, as it means more people are spending. You need government jobs at good wages to make an impact on this local economy. More good jobs, more things people buy and they eat out and the need for more employees increases in those areas to meet the demands.

Hairytic · Dec 12, 2012

Fisher said:
Actually recent history seems to show that every dollar of debt we take on only creates about 25 cents in growth, so it is hardly a boom; and paving roads really does not create a huge amount of economic activity as it is something we already have. A lot of things need to be done, but don't believe that it is somehow saving us money or generating piles of cash. Those simple economics, however, is why we will be going onto $20T debt and the national debt interest only payments will exceed what we spend on our big old bloated military in fairly short order, so it is more like the economics of Christmas shopping at a rent to own store to some people.

We haven't been able to get legislation passed to rebuild out infrastructure. If and when that happens, it will create a boom by creating jobs. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, so it's not like we will just be repaving roads that don't need to be repaved. Spending money in a way that will create a lot of jobs will cause more tax money to come into the coffers from a wide range of taxes. It's one of those things that will pay for it self. Once the jobs are created, thats when we should tackle the debt and we will have plenty of revenue to do that. Keeping the unemployment high will only force us to have to barrow more money with no hope of increasing revenue.

In a personal budget, you wouldn't cut your spending on gas money for the car so you can pay down your credit card because you wouldn't be able to get to work to bring in an income. It's the same principle. We all have to spend some money to make money. It's really not rocket science. It's basic economics 101

Fisher · Dec 12, 2012

Hairytic said:
We haven't been able to get legislation passed to rebuild out infrastructure. If and when that happens, it will create a boom by creating jobs. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, so it's not like we will just be repaving roads that don't need to be repaved. Spending money in a way that will create a lot of jobs will cause more tax money to come into the coffers from a wide range of taxes. It's one of those things that will pay for it self. Once the jobs are created, thats when we should tackle the debt and we will have plenty of revenue to do that. Keeping the unemployment high will only force us to have to barrow more money with no hope of increasing revenue.

In a personal budget, you wouldn't cut your spending on gas money for the car so you can pay down your credit card because you wouldn't be able to get to work to bring in an income. It's the same principle. We all have to spend some money to make money. It's really not rocket science. It's basic economics 101

It really doesn't create that many jobs. It just maintains jobs we have. Most infrastructure projects are construction type jobs where a crew comes in, does the work, and leaves. It has always been a poor way of creating jobs, it just creates a bump in the numbers trying to spur "confidence". Doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in infrastructure--but if you are doing it with the delusion that it will create tons of jobs, I would ask you to provide me a non-partisan study to show that if you really wanted me to believe that.

H. Lee White · Dec 12, 2012

Catawba said:
Show me the vote count of Congressional Republicans that voted against the $600 billion dollar spending bill.

It is YOUR claim that congress voted unanimously to pass the bill
This is a false claim, as no such thing happened; you know this to be true, and yet you stand by the claim.
-That- means you are lying.
:dunno:

H. Lee White · Dec 12, 2012

Moot said:
I don't mean to be nit picky but technically both the senate and the house of representatives are the congress. It's just easier in layman terms to distinguish the two by calling the lower house the congress and the upper house the senate.

You'll need to tell Catawba, as he seems to not understand that the the Senate is not the whole of Congress.

Hairytic · Dec 12, 2012

Fisher said:
It really doesn't create that many jobs. It just maintains jobs we have. Most infrastructure projects are construction type jobs where a crew comes in, does the work, and leaves. It has always been a poor way of creating jobs, it just creates a bump in the numbers trying to spur "confidence". Doesn't mean we shouldn't invest in infrastructure--but if you are doing it with the delusion that it will create tons of jobs, I would ask you to provide me a non-partisan study to show that if you really wanted me to believe that.

That's not true. Many projects will take years. Also, it's not just construction jobs that would be created. Companies that make material for constriction and stores that sale that material will create jobs. Companies that build machinery will get business also. Then there is the money that gets spend locally. It is a proven method for mass job creation. This is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government invested in build new infrastructure. There were a wide range of projects like getting electrical poles and wiring to rual areas, building parks, Building roads and highways and so on. Study the Great Depression and you will see how long term job growth was stimulated by these government projects. If you have ever taken an economics course in college, you learn how government projects spur job growth in many areas.

Govt. borrows 46 cents of every dollar it spends

Hairytic

Grant

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Hairytic

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Fisher

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Hairytic

H. Lee White

H. Lee White

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Moot

Moot

Moot

iguanaman

Fisher

Fisher

Muddy Creek

Fisher

Muddy Creek

Hairytic

Fisher

H. Lee White

H. Lee White

Hairytic