"the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion"

[Jack Hays]

oh, I see, you're using the "debt by inauguration day" metric. You know that metric never existed before President Obama. Its seems before President Obama people just used the Treasury tables broken down by budget year. Intelligent people still do. Just so you know, I didn't have to invent a metric to post my factoids. did you like my factoids. mmmmm, maybe I posted too many and it overwhelmed you.

no President was handed a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit like President Obama.
No president was handed a worse recession in the last 70 years like President Obama.
No President has reduced the deficit as much as President Obama

and again, my factoids can withstand scrutiny. Yours needed a special metric.

Sorry, but the Inauguration Day metric is the one in use throughout US history, regardless of when the Fiscal Year began/ended. The Treasury tables have other uses because they run without reference to who is in the WH. It is the Dems who have tried to introduce them into the POTUS discussion as a way to shield BHO from the consequences of his profligate policies. We have one POTUS at a time and BHO is the greatest debtor-POTUS in US history.eace

 

[polgara]

1. The ACA is fiscally irresponsible - defunding it or severely damaging it is the fiscally responsible thing to do.

2. Of course the US will continue to hit the debt ceiling if it continues to budget well in excess of the revenue it generates and if drags on the economy, like the ACA, continue to hamper a robust economic recovery. Canada is on track to balance its budget in 2015 - what's Obama's plan for balancing the budget - what's the Democrat's plan? - for that matter, what's the Republican's plan to balance the budget? Failing any plan to balance the budget and lacking any real power to change the trend legislatively, the tea party types you distain are trying to slow the growth of debt and to reign in deficit spending.

You may discredit it and you may condemn it, but those individual soldiers in the tea party movement are doing EXACTLY what their constituents elected them to do and that is stop the madness that is threatening the economic and financial lives of their children and grandchildren and condemning them to a life of servitude to the US treasury. At least they have a plan and they're committed to it. Obama and the Democrat's plan is stagnant drift and let somebody else handle the mess after they're gone.

They're skating on thin ice, CJ, and hoping the thaw doesn't happen before they're ready to go home. The climate in DC is unique to that location...the rest of us live in the real everyday world where we live with budget constraints. Looking at a $20 trillion dollar debt in a few years is unimaginable to most sane people. The rest of the world is watching us, and shaking their heads at our folly. Everyone knows it can't continue on the current trajectory, but the thinking seems to be... "the younger people of this country will be the ones paying the piper when he presents his bill, so why worry now?" Sad...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

 

[jonny5]

Can someone explain why those numbers are worth pubs threatening to destroy the economy with default? remembering of course that President Obama maintained positive GDP which greatly helped with reducing the Bush Deficits.

It says why in the next paragraph.

For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline
projections total $6.3 trillion. With such deficits, federal
debt held by the public is projected to remain above
70 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average
seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the
end of 2007, federal debt equaled 36 percent of GDP.)
Under current law, the debt is projected to decline from
about 76 percent of GDP in 2014 to slightly below
71 percent in 2018 but then to start rising again; by
2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal
74 percent of GDP and continue to be on an upward
path (see Figure 2 on page 9).

Such high and rising debt later in the coming decade
would have serious negative consequences: When interest
rates return to higher (more typical) levels, federal spending
on interest payments would increase substantially.
Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national
saving, over time the capital stock would be smaller and
total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt
was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less
flexibility than they would have if debt levels were lower
to use tax and spending policy to respond to unexpected
challenges. Finally, a large debt increases the risk of a
fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much
confidence in the government’s ability to manage its
budget that the government would be unable to borrow
at affordable rates.

So the question then is why more debt and spending is worth Democrats ignoring this warning?

 

[CanadaJohn]

They're skating on thin ice, CJ, and hoping the thaw doesn't happen before they're ready to go home. The climate in DC is unique to that location...the rest of us live in the real everyday world where we live with budget constraints. Looking at a $20 trillion dollar debt in a few years is unimaginable to most sane people. The rest of the world is watching us, and shaking their heads at our folly. Everyone knows it can't continue on the current trajectory, but the thinking seems to be... "the younger people of this country will be the ones paying the piper when he presents his bill, so why worry now?" Sad...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Good morning Lady P, and well said.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It says why in the next paragraph.



So the question then is why more debt and spending is worth Democrats ignoring this warning?

Um, Johnny....defaulting will not solve the debt. It makes the debt worse. It makes deficits worse.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

They're skating on thin ice, CJ, and hoping the thaw doesn't happen before they're ready to go home. The climate in DC is unique to that location...the rest of us live in the real everyday world where we live with budget constraints. Looking at a $20 trillion dollar debt in a few years is unimaginable to most sane people. The rest of the world is watching us, and shaking their heads at our folly. Everyone knows it can't continue on the current trajectory, but the thinking seems to be... "the younger people of this country will be the ones paying the piper when he presents his bill, so why worry now?" Sad...

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

The rest of the THINKING world wonders why the country with the greatest economy has a small minority of right wing extremists that can threaten to completely shut down its governing body.

I wonder why it is that you constantly support these extremists and their ilk in this forum....while you give me a number of "likes"?

 

[Tettsuo]

The rest of the THINKING world wonders why the country with the greatest economy has a small minority of right wing extremists that can threaten to completely shut down its governing body.

I wonder why it is that you constantly support these extremists and their ilk in this forum....while you give me a number of "likes"?

Just to add, they support these extremist who claim to want to reduce the deficit, but only succeeded in increasing the deficit and making the cost of borrowing greater... which ultimately increases the deficit. They also support views on governance (Romney, Bush 1 and 2, Reagan) that has historically increased the deficit.

 

[jonny5]

Um, Johnny....defaulting will not solve the debt. It makes the debt worse. It makes deficits worse.

Then cut spending, raise taxes. Why were democrats determined to raise spending and borrow money to pay for it, in light of the 642bn deficit, 17 trillion in debt, and threats posed to the country outlined in the CBO report posted by the OP?

 

[jonny5]

Just to add, they support these extremist who claim to want to reduce the deficit, but only succeeded in increasing the deficit and making the cost of borrowing greater... which ultimately increases the deficit. They also support views on governance (Romney, Bush 1 and 2, Reagan) that has historically increased the deficit.

So why do you support those same views?

 

[WhyNotWhyNot]

It says why in the next paragraph.



So the question then is why more debt and spending is worth Democrats ignoring this warning?

I'll repost the conclusion of post #9

These conclusions should alarm liberals as well as conservatives. Consider that our mandatory spending priorities are 1) debt service, 2) Social Security, 3) Medicare, 4) veterans services and military pensions,…and finally discretionary governance spending which includes popular social service programs. The CBO says 1) will double. 2), 3) and 4) will all increase substantially. Hence the governance spending that we are so passionate about will be squeezed out.

The question is how do we get past this inter-party feud and get on with rationally negotiating and passing authorization bills and adjusting laws so that this scenario is mitigated.

 

[polgara]

The rest of the THINKING world wonders why the country with the greatest economy has a small minority of right wing extremists that can threaten to completely shut down its governing body.

I wonder why it is that you constantly support these extremists and their ilk in this forum....while you give me a number of "likes"?

1. I support anyone who wants to hold the line against increasing our debt limit, which meanss we have to borrow more money to pay for it. Don't you?

2. When I give anyone a "like," it's because I agree with their opinion as they state it, if it's a logical argument. You post logical arguments most of the time.

Greetings, Gimmesometruth. :2wave:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sorry, but the Inauguration Day metric is the one in use throughout US history, regardless of when the Fiscal Year began/ended.

Total nonsense.

The budgetary decisions of a previous president carry over AT LEAST 6 month into a new presidents term. Holding a new president "responsible" for economic performance from decisions that were not his is the sort of intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from you.

 

[jonny5]

I'll repost the conclusion of post #9

My answer would be, we don't. Because the goal of the parties is to win elections and maintain power, not to rationally solve differences in service to the people. So the next question then is how do you convince the voters to replace the people in office with new people who can somehow resolve the differences between two fundamentally competing ideologies?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

1. I support anyone who wants to hold the line against increasing our debt limit, which meanss we have to borrow more money to pay for it. Don't you?

No, I don't. If you had any sort of historical understanding, let alone any sort of economic understanding, you would be able to see that EVERY administration in the modern era has ended up with a higher gross debt. Debt during a major recession/depression is an economic fact of life......and we have historical (past and current) evidence that deficit/debt cutting during economic downturns WORSEN them.

2. When I give anyone a "like," it's because I agree with their opinion as they state it, if it's a logical argument. You post logical arguments most of the time.

By that standard, you should NOT be supporting arguments for deficit cuts during economic downturns.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Then cut spending, raise taxes.

Um, Johnny.....doing both during depressed economic periods makes that period worse.

Why were democrats determined to raise spending and borrow money to pay for it, in light of the 642bn deficit, 17 trillion in debt, and threats posed to the country outlined in the CBO report posted by the OP?

Um, Johnny, the budget has declined since the 2009 budget, additional spending has for the most part come in the form of SNAP and other stimulus measures. The debt has increased due to lowered revenue receipts.

 

[Vern]

So the question then is why more debt and spending is worth Democrats ignoring this warning?

now, using actual facts, not ideological delsuions, how are democrats ignorning that warning? I seem to recall this year's deficit is less than half of Bush's last budget deficit. I think somebody started a thread about it.

 

[jonny5]

Um, Johnny.....doing both during depressed economic periods makes that period worse.Um, Johnny, the budget has declined since the 2009 budget, additional spending has for the most part come in the form of SNAP and other stimulus measures. The debt has increased due to lowered revenue receipts.

Um, Gimme....Let see, cutting spending makes the economy worse. Raising taxes makes the economy worse. Not borrowing money makes the economy worse. Spending more makes the economy worse. shutting down the govt makes the economy worse. Defaulting makes the economy worse. That being the case, pick your poison.

Furthermore, spending has not decreased.


Year-Reciepts -Outlays
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079
2011 2,303,466 3,603,059
2012 2,450,164 3,537,127
2013 estimate 2,712,045 3,684,947

Moreover, revenue is higher than it was before the recession, but we still have a deficit and growing debt. Thus, the debt is growing due to SPENDING. Do your research.

 

[jonny5]

now, using actual facts, not ideological delsuions, how are democrats ignorning that warning? I seem to recall this year's deficit is less than half of Bush's last budget deficit. I think somebody started a thread about it.

For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline
projections total $6.3 trillion.

From YOUR link. Is that not a fact? Could you show me where democrats have addressed this? Did they address this in the debt deal yesterday when they voted for another trillion in spending in and debt?

 

[polgara]

No, I don't. If you had any sort of historical understanding, let alone any sort of economic understanding, you would be able to see that EVERY administration in the modern era has ended up with a higher gross debt. Debt during a major recession/depression is an economic fact of life......and we have historical (past and current) evidence that deficit/debt cutting during economic downturns WORSEN them.

By that standard, you should NOT be supporting arguments for deficit cuts during economic downturns.

Gimme, this recession is now in its fifth year! How much longer is this "downturn" going to continue? With more people than ever being added to the food stamp program just so they can feed their families, something seems badly out of whack. We should be looking at why that is. I admit that I'm not a financial genius, which is why I rely on my CPA and attorney for guidance, but I know that what I see happening is not good for this Country.

I would like to see spending cuts, which should help the debt problem. And don't tell me there is not waste that can be eliminated, because we both know better. Why shouldn't each division make their own decisions on where to cut, and why would anyone object to that, which in fact they did? That's the way business handles it. Of course business has to show a profit, or they will have to close their doors. The government hasn't had that to worry about, but I'll wager they will before long, because we won't be able to continue piling up debt indefinitely, and expect to emerge strong and healthy. We are being weakened, instead, IMO, every time we have to borrow from other countries to pay our bills. "The borrower is slave to the lender" is true!

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Gimme, this recession is now in its fifth year! How much longer is this "downturn" going to continue? With more people than ever being added to the food stamp program just so they can feed their families, something seems badly out of whack. We should be looking at why that is. I admit that I'm not a financial genius, which is why I rely on my CPA and attorney for guidance, but I know that what I see happening is not good for this Country.

I would like to see spending cuts, which should help the debt problem. And don't tell me there is not waste that can be eliminated, because we both know better. Why shouldn't each division make their own decisions on where to cut, and why would anyone object to that, which in fact they did? That's the way business handles it. Of course business has to show a profit, or they will have to close their doors. The government hasn't had that to worry about, but I'll wager they will before long, because we won't be able to continue piling up debt indefinitely, and expect to emerge strong and healthy. We are being weakened, instead, IMO, every time we have to borrow from other countries to pay our bills. "The borrower is slave to the lender" is true!

Good grief.....the PROBLEM is a lack of employment....this is the base issue. ANY cutting of the budget is going to result in MORE UNEMPLOYMENT....FULL STOP. Don't go any further with this discussion until you can accept this fact.

 

[clownboy]

Good grief.....the PROBLEM is a lack of employment....this is the base issue. ANY cutting of the budget is going to result in MORE UNEMPLOYMENT....FULL STOP. Don't go any further with this discussion until you can accept this fact.

No, the problem is lack of non-government subsidised full time PRIVATE sector employment. What you are suggesting is that we take up the slack with government employment - not a good answer.

 

[rjay]

1. I support anyone who wants to hold the line against increasing our debt limit, which meanss we have to borrow more money to pay for it. Don't you?
.
.
.

Wouldn't it make more sense to support anyone who wants to hold the line on spending? Why hold the line on paying the bills for expenditures that were voted for in the past. I know the Tea Party members like to say "That was a different congress that approved that spending. This congress shouldn't have to pay those bills" Most right thinking Americans feel that if you take on the debt then you should pay it back.

New budget talks will be getting underway. Now is the time for those that want to reduce expenditures to start fighting. My worry, and now the worry of the international community is this:
- A new budget is passed and the country starts making purchases based on the allocations of that budget
- The country gets close to the debt ceiling again, as they will until the budget actually generates a surplus
- Congress says 'Never mind that we agreed to make those expenditures - we don't want to pay for them now. Okay we will pay only if you do ____'.

Which is exactly what has been happening lately. This threatening to not pay bills has already cost the American people billions by lowering the American credit rating in 2011.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Um, Gimme....Let see, cutting spending makes the economy worse. Raising taxes makes the economy worse. Not borrowing money makes the economy worse.

so far so good as it pertains TO OUR CURRENT ECONOMY.

Spending more makes the economy worse.

FALSE....in the this CURRENT SITUATION cutting govt spending make the economy worse.

shutting down the govt makes the economy worse. Defaulting makes the economy worse.

N THIS SITUATION.

That being the case, pick your poison.

?????

Furthermore, spending has not decreased.

It certainly did from 09 to 10 in aggregate gross terms....but as everyone should understand, spending will increase as population and the economy grows, that is inescapable.

Year-Reciepts -Outlays
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677
2010 2,162,706 3,457,079
2011 2,303,466 3,603,059
2012 2,450,164 3,537,127
2013 estimate 2,712,045 3,684,947

Moreover, revenue is higher than it was before the recession, but we still have a deficit and growing debt. Thus, the debt is growing due to SPENDING. Do your research.

Revenues have just NOW regained to 2008 levels....which ignores the historical trend and potential of revenue....and ignores the shortfall we have just went through. You did not counter my argument, you augmented it.

 

[Kushinator]

Enjoy reading.

This was addressed a few years ago i believe. The paper by Alberto F. Alesina and Silvia Ardagna is not only selective of the range in their data set, but completely lacks any and all causality! From the paper (hope you read it!)

In this section we present some simple regressions on GDP growth as a function of changes of fiscal policy in the recent past. We should put up-front the fact that causality issues are all over the place here and we do not claim to have solved them. These regressions should be viewed as correlations, but we find them instructive and the message which they send is on the same line of that emerging from our descriptive analysis above.

I mean, really???

 

[rjay]

Good grief.....the PROBLEM is a lack of employment....this is the base issue. ANY cutting of the budget is going to result in MORE UNEMPLOYMENT....FULL STOP. Don't go any further with this discussion until you can accept this fact.

I can agree with your first sentence. Your second statement is a little off I am afraid. Are you saying that there couldn't possibly be any waste in government spending. Things in all Federal Departments just couldn't get any more efficient? Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever heard make such a claim. I bet most departments could cut 5% and not miss a beat. Defense could probably handle 10% with no noticeable impact.

The problem is that those who have to make the cuts try to find the most painful way to do it. Instead of deciding to use the color printer less often they decide to let people go so that they can collect unemployment and be added to the jobless figures. Instead of making bulk purchases to get cheaper rates they decide to close something beloved by the public.

The federal govt can operate as it is today without creating any undue hardship. The day is quickly coming when the cuts will be deeper and pain will be felt. The yearly deficit must continue on a path of reduction until a balanced budget is achieved. Then they will need to cut a little more. The gov't has to spend a number of years taking in more than they spend. The debt has to start going down. Interest rates will not be this low forever.

The less debt the Federal Govt has when the rates move up, the more money they have for programs vital to the countries economic and social stability.