US News
US deficit widens as White House insists it is saving jobs
May 12, 2009, 9:23 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Game of chicken as Obama, Republicans debate long-term deficits
- US Senate unable to pass tax cut extensions
- US Congress approves 18-billion-dollar jobs package
- US Senate approves 15-billion-dollar jobs package
- Confusion over Senate action to boost job growth
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
Well I guess it is coming now when even the main stream media is starting to give the masses a clue. I new it and this is just one small part of what is coming in the next 6-12months get ready if you can it will get rough in the usa thank your rich and political leaders for this. I am outside the usa right now and I suppose there is a little bit of money gone but...... it is nothing like what is going on there. Wake up people its your lives being scuandered good luck!!!!
After running the biggest single deficit spending bill in history, and virtually buying the domestic auto makers we are now supposed to believe it is actually helping the economy, in some obtuse way. All of this in the face of glaring unemployment and GDP shrinkage that has not been seen since Carter was in office.
Now run along and trll your kids about the extra 3.4 trilliopn dollars Uncle Tom Obama has put on their backs, for the rest of their lives. Hell This makes Bush's budget look like they were running a dress shop or something.
The Audacity of Hope...boy!...HE wasn't kidding, eh?
Phew! First 'nexus.' Now 'obtuse.' What next? 'The nemesis of History' or 'concatenations of circumstance?' Please, SP. Put the dictionary back under the wobbly table.
SPfricking idiot is back at it. He can't think and he can't spell.
'3.4 trilliopn'
trilliopn??????
'trll'
trll???????
Have another toke, SP.
Yes, put away the dictionary, you can't read, let alone understand all those big words. Put your head back under that wobbly table. That's all it's good for.
Yes, it's about time for people to wake up and smell the stench. We don't need no stinking govmint. We can take care of ourselves with out the govmint. Now it is time for everyone to do your patriotic duty and leave the MSM biassed, commie oriented US of Atheists. Join us in the Republic of Texass, and we can bring back the good old days when us white folks weren't treated like trailor trash.
..none of the folks above really disagree with me? Your trophy boy Obama has out(deficit)spent Bush, adopted all of his anti-terror methods i.e. rendition, outsourced interrogations, Gitmo - east in Afghanistan and none of the folks above are really willing to wade into any arguments on behalf of the boy king.
Perhaps it has something to do with you all being so proud of Bill gates doing your spelling for you? Maybe he'll even come out with a program to do your thinking for you as well? Heck...whatever works!
Wow, makes us beg to have Bush back. Wasn't this one of the things Obama ran on?
are at it once more. Disagree with you SP? Everybody with a brain that isn't screwed up by drug abuse disagrees with you and every piece of inanity you spew. There is no point in disputing sh*t. But is is fun phoning the DEA on you. Knock, knock, SP.
By the way sh*t-for-brains, my spelling ability comes from having a education. You couldn't even find Bill Gates' spellcheck with all 3 of your step mommies and seven step daddies helping you. At least they get welfare for having you in their home. How does it feel to be a throw away child? Is the family dog (your ONLY friend) still having its way with your leg? Are you still enjoying it?
As Federal revenues contract, the deficit will grow. Doesn't this idiot understand income and expenses?
Obama began with $1.3 trillion of debt inherited from Bush in 2008. Contrast that with Clinton, who left Dumbya a surplus. That $1.3 trillion is charged to Bush; because it came about in 2008. Likewise the war spending that Bush always tacked on as a supplemental is now on-budget - and expenses related to Afghanistan and Pakistan are rising.
The debt rose under Bush, and massively.
That means that outgo was more than income. The tax cut (which even Bush designed to end in 2010) was a huge financial hit; just at the point when defense and homeland expenditures rose.
The proof is always in the tally at the end. The cost of the TARP and Bush's own deficit would have increased the ending Debt figure. Had Bush included 2009 war costs in the budget, it would have been higher yet.
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush the Idiot 2001-2008 = 73% increase in 8 years = $4.2 trillion
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
Reagan 1981-1988 = 161% increase in 8 years = $1.6 trillion
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
Bush Sr. 1989-1992 = 42% increase in 4 years = $1.2 trillion
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
Clinton 1993-2000 = 28% increase in 8 years = $1.26 trillion
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
====================
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
Total 28-year increase = 9.026 trillion
subtract Clinton = 1.26 trillion
GOP debt hike = 7.77 trillion = 86 percent of total debt added (rounded)
SP4?
Is a dose of reality too much for you and you seek solice in your drug stash?
Obama is doing a fine job in many ways. Placing him as president at this time was one of the smartest moves of the American ruling elite for many reasons. It will help in playing down the fears of the local and global community about the increasing military aggression of the American aristocracy giving it time to plan even more military campaigns and open more fronts.
Also his position as commander in chief will help us to recruit more soldiers, and on that note:
Commander in chief brother OBAMA is doing his best to offer to the motherland.
You should do your part too, join the army, serve in the greatest mercenary army in the world, serve the motherland, do your part too and join the army young.
Brother Obama is proof that this nation is caring for its Black and Latino population, therefore all colored people should join the army now and fight and die gloriously, Florida homeless people seek no further, the army shall shelter you. Permanent residence guaranteed!
Puff Daddy also approves the above message.
Actually, your federal revenues have been fairly constant as a % of GDP for several decades. Obviously, if the economy contracts revenues will decrease too but the endogenous effect of this on your PSBR and therefore, National Debt is fairly limited. Even a shrinkage of 3% in nominal GDP would, on this basis, result in a reduction in revenues of certainly no more than about $90 billion. Not much compared to a deficit of $1.84 trillion. At 12.9% of a GDP of $14.264 trillion (IMF figure for 2008) this is up by 9.7% of GDP from the 2008 deficit figure: Which according to conventional thinking makes you an economic basket case. Your National Debt stood at around $11.3 trillion or about 79% of GDP at the end of '08; Far higher than almost any other developed economy. It now looks as though the new debt ceiling set in February will be consigned to history long before the end of the year.
Face it. This needs checking in the medium term or servicing the interest on this debt mountain will absorb an ever higher proportion of federal revenues, necessitating even more borrowing or draconian tax rises. A return to historic rates of growth will be insufficient to address the problem adequately.
Is big government Barack the man to take the difficult decisions needed? This guy's an instinctive spender, but so far without the honesty to spell out the tax implications. From here you go one of two ways: Eventual massively reduced real federal spending or a transition to a European style 'Social' Market economy with a large, economically intrusive public sector and a much higher tax burden. Statist governments usually prefer to up tax by the back door whenever they can, rather than just whack it on income taxes. Look out for hikes in VAT (purchase tax), discrete impositions like capital gains, capital transfer, and inheritance taxes, raised tax on investment income, and of course, big duties on things like booze, tobacco and gas, which a government always loves because it can claim they're prompted by concern about health or the environment. What does petrol cost in the US at the moment? In your currency it works out at around $6.30 a gallon over here.
Something to look forward to, eh?
Oh dear! SP's alter ego is back. I hope and pray that I am mistaken, but it may be that a clueless horror roams these pages. That in SP5 we are confronted with a terrible manifestation of the 'Undead.' Something was familiar about SP5's teeny offerings. The painful earnestness and monomaniacal adherence to the same line again and again and again, ad nauseam. The unfunny attempts at parody and satire, unshakeable adolescent self-righteousness, stilted and contrived literary style, occasional peculiar misspellings: The faintly unhinged and fanatical air of the entire oeuvre! Yet I couldn't quite place it before.
So back to the keyboard I turned, and with trembling fingers consulted the archives: And there, in an ancient, long forgotten post unread probably by any save myself since its article fell off the edge of topicality millennia ago in February lay the evidence.
It all fit! The sense of bored irritation produced by this antediluvian comment was the same as that induced by reading SP5's awful crap! Yet how could this be? The demon was exorcised an entire age of the world ago. I still hope that the omens are false. I have procured garlic, wild roses and crucifix. The stake is sharpened and ready. I hesitate to name the vampire lest a door to the otherworld be opened thereby, and it rise from its ghastly virtual tomb. Yet could it be true? Could these pages be blighted by the dull, hellish reanimated corpse of Lance?
Somebody who knows what they're talking about, here on M&C. Incredible.
Truebrit, you just went way over the heads of most posters. Sp4 just went to self-medicate himself, I bet, due to too much reality.
RE: Even a shrinkage of 3% in nominal GDP would, on this basis, result in a reduction in revenues of certainly no more than about $90 billion. Not much compared to a deficit of $1.84 trillion.
=============
That's like playing a single note on the piano. It does not make for a song.
Revenues also come from capital and short-term gains, and there are none right now. The corporate revenue sources derive from profits; not GDP per se. A company with large sales, and losses on currency and other factors, pays no taxes. They can accumulate carry-forwards, as well. They can keep revenues overseas untaxed, or re-patriate them. They can incorporate overseas and avoid taxes.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1Yev5V7WGko&refer=home
'Corporate tax receipts totaled $70.8 billion for the year to date versus $171.1 billion, a decrease of 58.6 percent, Treasury said. Individual income tax collections were down 24.2 percent so far this fiscal year to $566.4 billion compared with $747.6 billion in the year-earlier period.'
(In what way does that directly align with your GDP percentage prediction?)
Layouts for unemployment insurance and other 'social spending' rises - and in fact, unemployment benefit periods are being extended. This is not 'voluntary' or 'social' spending, but rather legal obligations.
The notion that what Obama is doing is some sneaky form of 'social' spending (health, education, environment) is more right-wing crap. Health care is a cost to society - and having a doctor visit is less burden on the economy than an emergency room visit. In a competitive world, our college students have to do better; and the school year is being cut in public education. Ironically, foreign-born students come to the U.S., get a great education, and are forced to return home ..... instead of staying here and starting a business. We need more Intels and Andy Groves (Hungarian) - and many tech firms were founded by people from the Far East.
blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/04/27/h-1b-j-1-immigrants-more-productive- than-americans-study-says/
' ... Hunt concludes, “Firms, universities and teaching hospitals are successful in attracting and selecting immigrants who remain in the United States to outperform natives, thereby likely increasing U.S. total factor productivity. ..... Besides earnings, Hunt primarily attributes the performance advantage to the immigrants’ higher education and tendency toward more lucrative fields of study.'
------
Environment is a longer-term problem; but we may actually be past the brink of reversing the global warming trend. In this area, some on the right are complete imbeciles. You can include Sarah Palin in that.
The worse problem is at the State and local revenue - they get revenue from everything from parking tickets to specific taxes such as tobacco. The interest cost on debt (assuming that they could issue any) is rising.
Due to potential crowding-out, the U.S. Treasury will need to raise interest rates. Interest on the debt is an unavoidable expense.
“In what way does that directly align with your GDP percentage prediction?”
It doesn’t, does it. I concede the point. I was simply extrapolating from the limited info I bothered to glance at concerning long term consistency of federal revenues as a proportion of GDP. Lazy of me. Of course, over extended periods of stable, moderate growth this would be likely in any case, assuming no dramatic fiscal policy changes. In a deep recession a far more than proportionate reduction in revenues, as you illustrate, could easily occur given the premise on which direct taxes are levied.
Even so, a reduction in revenues of even $250 billion must still be placed within the context of a deficit of $1.84 trillion, which is as yet only a forecast. Would you be surprised if the final figure was even closer to $2 trillion?
I note your point that “Layouts for unemployment insurance and other 'social spending' rises - and in fact, unemployment benefit periods are being extended.”
Yes, I’m aware that this is mandatory expenditure. It is rising anyway. Like us, you have an aging population, and of course increased, though hopefully relatively short term unemployment will add to it further. I did not imply any “sneaky form of 'social' spending”. I did not specify any area of spend. In fact I assume that much of the immediate shortfall is accounted for by the stimulus package referred to in the article.
Yet I deduce that you are as well aware as I (probably better aware) of the projections concerning the ever increasing proportion of federal revenue consumed by mandatory items, which include debt interest: And Health finance in particular is a bottomless pit, however provision is made. Via Medicare like you do it, or direct universal provision on the UK model
What I am saying is that if you wish to keep making social provision on the same, or an improved scale, taxes will have to rise, and your leaders, like all politicians, are ducking informing you of the choice you face. Obama is a big government man whose instinct is to involve the state in the economy. Like all politicians though, he would rather achieve his aims by stealth. I am as concerned about Health and the Environment as anyone. My point was merely that politicians frequently use these issues as excuses for tax hikes. The punitive duties themselves are largely ineffective in achieving the stated aims: But, boy, do they rake the moolah in!
You’re ducking the problem yourself, as your digression about immigrants and higher factor productivity implies. You are not going to grow your way out of this one. If you think a horde of entrepreneurial incomers are going to deliver you the levels of year on year economic growth required to avoid making some hard decisions in a decade or so, you’re in cloud-cuckoo land.
Your last point is well made, but only serves to underline what I’m saying. “Due to potential crowding-out, the U.S. Treasury will need to raise interest rates. Interest on the debt is an unavoidable expense.” Not a small one either, is it?
If rates do have to rise, and we both know they will in the foreseeable future, tell me how that will help investment. If we were already in a period of significant growth, OK, yes: An immediate spur to invest now. But We’re not in growth, yet your need to finance this deficit will still place a too early upward pressure on interest rates and do nothing to help liquidity and credit availability. Monetary policy has its limits. Fiscal measures mean mentioning the dreaded “T” word. My contention remains that if you opt for continued or enhanced social provision on a meaningful scale you will have to embrace inevitably, a European style social market system and pay more TAX!
Make your choice, but present the facts to people fairly.
RE: You are not going to grow your way out of this one.
======================
..... and we never could have. That was established by Bush from 2001 onwards, when the book-surplus disappeared, and an endless string of deficits appeared. One trigger was the miserably planned Iraq exercise, which in Haass' new book he says Dr. Rice said that Bush had already decided on Iraq in mid-2002.
www.newsweek.com/id/195667/
'I was about to follow up with other questions when Condi cut me off. 'You can save your breath, Richard. The president has already made up his mind on Iraq.' The way she said it made clear he had decided to go to war.
I was taken aback. Policy had gone much further than I had realized—and feared. But, for several reasons, I did not argue just then. As in previous conversations when I'd voiced my views on Iraq, Condi's response made it clear that any more conversation at that point would be a waste of time.'
-----------
That was the first of many bad decisions which will continue to cost the U.S. in terms of reconstruction projects, homeland defense, and future veterans' health care. Obama at least has identified a number of problem areas - some of which require investment to maintain U.S. competitiveness (i.e. education), or control of health care spending as well as putting a lid on entitlements (the classic third-rail of American politics) - and of course foreign policy.
The problem is that Congress (both parties) is torn by local and partisan interests. We are lucky that at least it's just a 2-party system. Imagine if it looked like Israel; where each party must concede to the others to get temporary unity.
In the meanwhile, the British Parliament seems strangled by their own expenditure scandal - and each week in PMQ David Cameron offers NOTHING but another castigation of PM Brown; in lieu of actual ideas. Last week each member of the Tories who stood did the same thing - an attempt to feed on the public's unhappiness to win an election. David Cameron is smarter than this; but behaves like the classic party hack, looking to bring back the economic miseries and lack of investment that ended in 1997 with Blair and Labour.
We'll need higher tax revenues (not the same as higher taxes), spending cuts (which get blocked by Congress to keep themselves electable by locals), and a sudden shift towards actually stabilizing the U.S. banking system. Obama is our best chance to get there - McCain is a fossil, and Limbaugh is in it for the glory and money. Palin has a book deal; and sales will be boosted by the GOP buying up the remainders and sending them to contributors in a mass mailing.
The GOP's problem is themselves; just as Cameron's diatribes cover over a lack of capability to do anything useful, aside from saying 'NO'. The MP's expense scandals just make the public more disgusted.
Democracy (actually, capitalism) is a noble experiment run by greedy idiots. Blame them; not the concept.
...in the three months since he took office, Obama has done more deficit spending than any other president. He ran on fiscal repsonsiblity. He will be the first president to propose a budget with 1 out of every two dollars as deficit spending...and all for what?
Change you can(not f--king)believe in.
The Audacity of Hope...boy, he wasn't kidding!
SP4 is a hopeless schmuck; and obviously a rectal delivery.
$1.3 trillion debt came from Bush's TARP and deficit.
Clinton left a surplus
86 percent of the National Debt was amassed under Reagan, Bush and Bush
Cheney is unable to understand the damage that he caused, and sees Limbaugh as a more appropriate spokesperson for the GOP than General Powell (or Secretary Powell). He will drive the GOP down to an angry and ignorant base of yahoos like SP4, who likely get paid to even type anything.
Bush decided to go into Iraq in 2002, because Cheney convinced him that it was a war he could WIN. Afghanistan is likely hopeless - the Taliban should have been soundly defeated the first time.
Pakistan was propped up for years; and now we pay their miltary and ISI to support US, instead of their native insurgents.
Katrina not rebuilt
The bubble economy in tatters in large part due to lack of regulation - both parties responsible ..... but BUSH was President (when Cheney let him be).
SP4 excuses failure
SP4 condones failure
SP4 refuses to understand WHO failed, and why.
Obama is the surgeon who tries to save your worthless life after 8 years of malpractice. His reward? The patient blames him for the prior 8 years.
=============
If SP4 can actually reply to any of that, instead of dumping one more load of Cheney-branded fertilizer into the forum, here's his chance.
Or he can just shut the hell up; and take Cheney with him.
a drug addicted skank, who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag on his best day. He has no brains and no credibility. He is merely a fun toy to b*tch-slap upside the head. He gets it at home from his 3 step mommies and 7 step daddies, and he seeks it here. He is one of those mentally disturbed people who likes to get hurt.
As for the postulated return of Lance - I hope not. Only one allegeded person supposedly rose from the crypt. We don't need another one. But yes, I too see similarities in style(or lack thereof)and complete lack of class.
Two words - armchair quarterbacking.
am concerned Cheney can stay out there spouting off his mouth. One draft dodger (Cheney) supporting another draft dodger (Limbaugh). It is nice ot know where the right wing stands---take sides with a draft dodger instead of a decorated war hero---good to know where they stand.
I cannot believe that the GOP'ers running for re-election are happy about all of the blather and notoriety coming from Cheney and Limbaugh. At least Palin has learned when to shut up.
Cheney is an egomaniac concerned about his legacy.
Limbaugh is an egomaniac looking for ratings.
Neither one is running for anything. Neither is reponsible for anything, except stirring up sentiment AGAINST the Adminstration.
Both are behaving like hoodlums undertaking an extortion to get their own way.
Cheney's imploed put-down of Powell demonstrates how little tolerance the Neocons have for dissent.
Obama is a surgeon? I guess so if your idea a a qualified surgeon is actually an unqualified fraud.
Obama is the worst thing that happened to America. And it shows just how gullible Americans are.
By the way, they cannot reverse a lobotomy. Apparently, you've had one.
Even Obama's health care plan only goes so far
SARAH PALIN?
JOE THE PLUMBER?
MICHAEL STEELE?
Not one functioning intellect in the collection. It's a joke, but no one is laughing. Bush's residue includes HIS! 1.3 trillion dollar deficit, nearly doubling the National Debt in 8 years.
Hell of a job, brown-ass .....
...Aborigonies who were given cannon and then just rolled them down the hills at each other.
First, there's the scared libnaizs who cannot manage a cogent argument, so they prattle on about drugs, then proceed to ramble on about everything from Limbagh to Cheney, or Palin, alien landings or whatever...
Then, we have the morons who declare Bush and Cheny responsible for everything including the crucifixion, prattling on about how they grew the debt, which it turns out to be nothing like the current presidents pace of indebtedness.
Most of all, I just love the folks who hold Bush responsible while letting the magic negro off the hook. Face it, this guy could never stand the scrutiny of his actions the way Bush had to.
He has a failing war in Afghanistan so bad he's replacing top leadership and the libnazi congress has NO demands for progress points.
He has spent at three times the rate of Bush but the libnazis have to ignore it in order not to have to contend with it.
The economy is in shambles and he has no plan.
In case after case he has adopted Bush antiterror policies that libnazis objected to when Bush did hthem and are now silent
His buddies are selling pat-to-play on federal pensions and it's so bad the SEC is coming out with rules now.
The beauty of all this is that when I'm dead, YOU will be paying for all of this!
Gotta go now, best of luck...and for god sakes, save your money..
The audacity of Hope...boy, he was not kidding!
Nat'l Debt increase in 100 days....anyone want to chart this vs. Bush, Reagan, etc., and get back to us? It's the worst in US history, one out of every two fed dollars spent is debt. Now I know where the term 'ni--a rich!' comes from.
Now Obama is looking for tax loopholes to close as fast as he can cook them up to cover the crappy revenues he's going to enjoy from all of his socialist tax changes.
Bush and Cheney??? This makes them look like they ran a tractor dealership!
All this trolglodyte can do is paste in from Newsmax or some other site devoted to the right-wing imbeciles. I raised specific points, and as usual, he's off spreading his own manure, hoping that will make the GOP grow, like mushrooms in the basement.
SP4 is a coward; unable to reply to facts. He'd rather say nothing; and a lot of it. Pass the blame - same as Cheney does.
If there are traitors to our system of government, THESE are them - standing in the way of progress, and bitching and moaning about the problems that THEY caused. It's Bush's 1.3 trillion, dumbass - you allot it, and you own it. McCain would have had the same 1.3 trillion to deal with (heaven help us).
Now comes their worst nightmare - a President with intelligence.
Here's the numbers one more time, you little putz - now RESPOND!
The debt rose under Bush, and massively.
That means that outgo was more than income. The tax cut (which even Bush designed to end in 2010) was a huge financial hit; just at the point when defense and homeland expenditures rose.
The proof is always in the tally at the end. The cost of the TARP and Bush's own deficit would have increased the ending Debt figure. Had Bush included 2009 war costs in the budget, it would have been higher yet.
www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Bush the Idiot 2001-2008 = 73% increase in 8 years = $4.2 trillion
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
Reagan 1981-1988 = 161% increase in 8 years = $1.6 trillion
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
Bush Sr. 1989-1992 = 42% increase in 4 years = $1.2 trillion
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
Clinton 1993-2000 = 28% increase in 8 years = $1.26 trillion
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
====================
09/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
Total 28-year increase = 9.026 trillion
subtract Clinton = 1.26 trillion
GOP debt hike = 7.77 trillion = 86 percent of total debt added (rounded)
RE the imbecilic:
He has a failing war in Afghanistan so bad he's replacing top leadership and the libnazi congress has NO demands for progress points.
==========
Obama not only inherited the 1.3 trillion expense; but also the now-displaced general who was busy fighting WWII instead of an insurgency.
--------
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7560212&page=1
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has replaced the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, saying there was a need for 'fresh thinking' and a set of 'fresh eyes' to match the Obama administration's new strategy for taking on the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g4Y2OIVhugHSGoXJPn_opoNf6tIw D985IVEG0
Gen. David McKiernan was named to his post less than a year ago by former President George W. Bush and spent much of his tenure pleading for reinforcements for a backsliding war. Gates announced McKiernan's ouster on Monday, saying he wanted new leadership and thinking to match the new commander-in-chief's battle plan.
www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Gen._David_McKiernan
In His Own Words
“What I find in Afghanistan,” McKiernan said in October 2008, “is a degree of complexity in the tribal system which is much greater than what I found in Iraq years ago. And I also find that of the over 400 major tribal networks inside of Afghanistan, they have been largely, as I said earlier, traumatized by over 30 years of war, so a lot of that traditional tribal structure has broken down.”
(i.e., much like SP4, he had no idea of what to do. Another lousy Bush appointment, and Gates found a good replacement.)
'NEOCRETIN'
CRETIN:
A Person that is: brainless, stupid, child-like, and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in abundance in every single populated internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible in a single session. In addition, they seemingly interbreed with other cretins, ensuring that their cretinous genes continue long after they end up dead meaning the Internet will never be rid of their kind. More's the pity.
A word associated to people whose lack of intelligence, manners/etiquette, appreciation, moral fibre and glaring social ineptitude, which in turn allows upstanding, educated, decent, moral, intelligent, socially respectful and hard working people to perceive them as 'degenerates' (owing to their inherent and blatantly obvious flaws).
don't confuse SP4 with facts.
EL RETARDO MENTAL
Look at the list of nicknames that our past demented President relied on:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_George_W._Bush
What was Shrub's mental age, anyway?
'3.4 Trillion Nat'l Debt increase in 100 days'
Where did he get those figures from, his ass? Most likely. That is the most intelligent part of his drug riddled body.
He is unable to comprehend that Bush left the 1.3 trillion of dog poop on the White House lawn.
He's referring to the increase in National Debt, not the deficit. Bush's 1.3 trillion needs to be added to the December 2008 number, actually the 9/30/08 value. Bush started with a surplus, and a debt of 5.6 trillion. The fiscal year ends on September 30, and 9/2008 showed a total debt of 10.7 trillion. Note that the TARP ended up in the 2009 Fiscal Year, which is why Obama has to deal with it; along with the annual deficit for 2009.
Interesting linked table showing debt as a percentage of GDP - with the U.S. in recession, and dropping GDP, the percentage increases with the same level of debt.
www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-P residental-Term.htm
Note that under Clinton the percentage fell from 68.1 to 57.7, due to GDP growth and a slowdown in running up deficits. Average change in debt level was 36 percent.
Under Bush, it rose from 58.7 to 78.1. In 2008 alone it jumped 12 points, to the highest level ever. Average change in debt level was 89 percent.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.81 billion per day since September 28, 2007
www.theobamadebt.com/
Upon Inauguration - 10,626,877,048,913
As of 2009-05-12 - $11,263,799,743,426
Increase likely due to Bush's final deficit carried forward
The National Debt Clock on the Web also shows 11.2 trillion
SP4 is full of crap (no news there) ......
America lost!
Talk about a paucity of ideas - now we can't even get an original post.
The GOP hangs itself out to dry every time we hear from their base.
-----------
Now Palin (Wasilla the Hun) has a book deal just in time for campaign cash - the publishing house Harper-Collins is owned by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp, an avid right-winger.
Title: 'The Audacity of Hype' ?????
Vivid Entertainment will probably end up with the film rights. (Vivid Entertainment Group is the world's largest adult video producer)
www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/behind_the_deal/rupert_murdoch_has_plans_ for_sarah_palin_116357.asp
Palin and her literary representative, Robert Barnett, may have found a neat solution, though, as it was reported earlier today by the Associated Press that she had sold a memoir to HarperCollins that would be released by two of the publishing congolomerate's divisions simultaneously: the main Harper imprint here in New York, and Michigan-based Christian house Zondervan.
'In 1989, Collins was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Joined together with the New York-based publisher Harper & Row in 1987, they now trade under the name HarperCollins.'
'Zondervan is an international Christian media and publishing company, one of the four businesses founded by Dutch-Americans that have made Grand Rapids, Michigan into the USA's 'Christian Publishing Capital,' alongside Eerdmans, Baker Books, and Kregel. Zondervan is a founding member of the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA).'
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Palin......the three stooges plus two!
and there's more waiting in the wings fo SP4 to adore. Stooges all.
Some thoughts on,
“The public disdains the facts” (May 13th, 2009 - 14:15:48)
Yes, the explosion in your levels of debt date largely from Dubya’s days. Yet, for several decades past US policy appears to have been to run significant budget deficits and maintain lowish tax levels, relying on growth and the sheer size of your enormous economy to compensate for the inevitable increase in your national debt. Clinton’s administration appears to be the sole and only partial exception, though in all fairness to the Gipper, he had to re-assert US world authority after the disastrous Carter years.
Iraq is an incubus and undoubtedly was badly handled. No cogent reconstruction or exit strategy ever seems to have been planned for the post “war–fighting” stage of the venture. Nor, I think, was the US really awake to its various allies inability or unwillingness to sustain large scale contributions over an extended period after the initial successful military campaign. The history of British involvement (or latterly, lack of it) is a case in point. For the lamentable failure to make this clear from the outset and ensure a workable timetable for early withdrawal, even before the operation began, Blair is as guilty as Bush.
My own preferred solution would have been to retain as much of Saddam’s state apparatus as safely possible and replace him with the strongest sane alternative available, as OUR dog. Then channel western cash to local power and money brokers to achieve physical reconstruction and vamoose! One should never let ones sense of morality prevent one from doing what is right.
You cite required (public) “investment to maintain U.S. competitiveness (i.e. education), or control of health care spending as well as putting a lid on entitlements.” Just a word of warning, here. Your presupposition is that the additional funds allocated will be wisely spent. Look to our example here as an object lesson in how not to do it! My own contention is that the state is invariably useless at making effective investment decisions and much of any allocation is absorbed ultimately by the vast army of useless bureaucrats such initiatives spawn; but a protracted debate is out of place here.
You seem to be extremely well informed about your own country’s politics, but less so about ours. You say “David Cameron offers NOTHING but another castigation of PM Brown; in lieu of actual ideas.” Of course! Like you, we have an adversarial system. The role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. Any opposition that formulates and expounds upon its own detailed policy proposals distracts attention from government failings, opens itself up to counterattack and thus lets the enemy off the hook. None ever have, not just this lamentable collection. Oh, and Cameron behaves like a hack because he is one!
As for bringing “back the economic miseries and lack of investment that ended in 1997 with Blair and Labour” the main result of all this investment has merely been to increase the state payroll by adding over two million extra unproductive jobsworths to it. LOOK at the practical, on the ground outcome of all our marvellous additional education and health spending and learn from us how not to do it before you replicate the disaster!
You continue “We'll need higher tax revenues (not the same as higher taxes).” Yes, and I want to live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. You’re not a Democrat politician yourself, are you? How, pray tell, in the present climate? Do I detect a “loophole closing” proposal in the offing? Best of luck!
“Obama is our best chance to get there” Possibly! At least he’s fresh and enjoys popular support: And certainly, “the GOP's problem is themselves.”
Nice finish! “Democracy (actually, capitalism) is a noble experiment run by greedy idiots. Blame them; not the concept.” All I’d add is that the same could be said of human society per se. May the Gods smile on us all!
RE: Yet, for several decades past US policy appears to have been to run significant budget deficits and maintain lowish tax levels, relying on growth and the sheer size of your enormous economy to compensate for the inevitable increase in your national debt. Clinton’s administration appears to be the sole and only partial exception, though in all fairness to the Gipper, he had to re-assert US world authority after the disastrous Carter years.
============
Reagan put the country on an idealistic path - and the sharp cuts in revenue from Jarvis-Gann led to California's current mess. The Conservative essential selfishness of 'give me my money back', in the face of higher continuing levels of spending post-9/11, is essentially lying to their base in order to get their votes. Like giving everyone chocolate cake - and never mind the diabetics, it tastes good.
Cameron's pitch is about of the same tenor - he proposes cutting essential spending; but cannot explain how the country functions without it. Governments spend out of altruism (at least, the Democrats; and Labour over there), and Conservatives simply try to make their friends wealthier, to get them to provide campaign funding to keep them in power. The easiest definition of 'rich' is having something not spent.
Cameron goes week after week in PMQ simply being a scold - and last week he had his lackey proxies doing the same - that was before the current expenses scandal that is a bi-partisan problem. I've never heard an actual idea from Cameron about resolving a problem - only complaints about what Brown is (allegedly) doing. Brown had some great moments at the G20, and while he lacks Blair's flair for the dramatic, he IS sometimes his own worst enemy.
The end result is that each Party pulls towards extremes to attract the most strident portion of their base (i.e. Limbaugh and Palin), and Arlen Spector ends up getting chased out after about 30 years of being quite a decent Conservative.
As to deficits - when Clinton booked a surplus, Greenspan was actually concerned that the National Debt would become too LOW - only an economist could understand this. Deregulation is a Conservative notion; and by and large the wealthy are the ones who made out due to the Bush tax cuts. They pay the most taxes; but the country has to function - including the military, homeland defense, and the rest. England has National Health - not perfect; but under Labour the waitlists HAVE dropped; and people ARE getting treatment. Prison places expanded sharply under Labour, as did education and unemployment coverage, and funds for retirees.
Spending in itself is not the problem - but rather the poor payoff from that investment. The problem is that the typical person does not invest all that well either, as we can see from this economy. They got suckered on mortgages, investments, and borrowing - all appeals to greed.
Now, we'll see people saving - and this lowers GDP likely by a point, for a number of years. That will overall reduce tax revenues, particularly business. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, and will probably level out a good year after the economy actually bottoms out. Lower GDP points to a lower level of employment - and productivity improvements further lower the need for direct labor.
Add to that the misery in the auto industry (in Britain as well), and the suppliers, and we're entering a long-term period where GDP growth will come in lower than we're used to.
Obama is not a magician - and Larry Summers probably has too much of his ear - but unlike Bush, who gets locked into his own 'gut', Obama has intellectual curiousity. He cannot even count on the Democrats in Congress to 'obey', and Pelosi seems sometimes to be running her own party.
Democracy does not work - but we're a Republic, not a Democracy. When people use the 'D' word they're talking about Capitalism - because without jobs, you get places like Afghanistan. We have representative government, rather than the direct-vote concept of a true Democracy.
I have a phone conference tomorrow with 4 executives of a client, plus the CEO. The only way this works is if their CEO sets the meeting rules, including start time and duration, and agenda. A 'democracy' would have everyone else vote for what they want ..... and the result is chaos, and nothing accomplished.
Neocons are idiots, to begin with, and egomaniacs - and they thrive on idiots like SP4 backing them. Sometimes I think that he gets paid to post; and other times I accept that he's just brainwashed.
RE: You continue “We'll need higher tax revenues (not the same as higher taxes).” Yes, and I want to live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. You’re not a Democrat politician yourself, are you? How, pray tell, in the present climate? Do I detect a “loophole closing” proposal in the offing? Best of luck!
==========
Entitlements are our political third rail, and no President has been willing to deal with it. The articles today indicate that lower revenues will bring the Social Security and Medicare problems to a head more quickly than was predicted.
One assist is to raise the retirement age more quickly - but this economy has made that not doable, at this point. The FICA caps can be raised, so that FICA is taken out on $150,000 of earnings, as one example. Raising FICA rates is punitive, as even low earners pay it. Makes more sense to raise the cap.
The solution imposed for Medicare has been to reduce provider payments - but this drives providers out of the market at the very time that baby-boomers will be entering retirement. Restricting payments for proceedures just makes things worse for hospitals, which then close emergency rooms that are often primary providers for the poor.
None of it is easy - but at least Obama raises the issue.
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/13/1930421.aspx
'Yesterday, Obama’s Organizing for America sent an email to its millions of members, asking them to support the president’s three goals for health care: reducing costs, guaranteeing choice, and providing health care for all.'
Spending less directly only increases total cost to society; because a pill and preventative care is far cheaper than a chronic condition to be cured by surgery. Universal care, impractical as it is, at least gives some care to all. We're so used to 'choice' in the U.S. that it would be a tough sell - and HMO really stands for 'Health may be optional'.
Bush's Medicare provider plan was far more cost-inefficient than conventional Medicare - the costs of running it are FAR below the costs of running a private insurance company. Those insurers have lost money on investments, making things worse.
I would propose a 'Medicare Part C' expressly for those 'sick of Cheney' - it only seems fitting. Anti-nausea meds included.
All I can say about your final comment is that if anyone is paying SP4 to inflict his baloney upon us, they've made a very poor investment decision. The rest of your post raises some interesting points, which I'll study.
For now, I'll only add that your apparent political partisanship sometimes detracts from the insightful sophistication of your economic perspectives. Your liberal 'altruistic' / conservative 'greedy' divide is a bit too clear cut a value judgement, and in any case, where would humanity have ever got to without the spur of a little self-centred acquisitiveness?
Both philosophies encapsulate important facets of human nature. I sometimes consider that my own views tend overly towards the libertarian, but would not therefore advocate untrammelled laissez faire as the solution to all our ills; and accept the practical necessity, even desirability of representative democratic systems, as ever evolving empirical forms of government. The purpose of governments, in my submission, is to strive to confer the greatest possible personal liberty and individual opportunity commensurate with the provision of, shall we say, an effective morally desirable safety-net.
We seem to be crossing posts here. Now I've got two cogent arguments to consider!
Hmmm, very interesting discussion, has anyone noticed that the people here are talking about who is to blame for the enormous debt of the world’s allegedly largest economy!
A decade ago when the Soviet Union fell, people over here would talk about how America with its ally Britain would rule the world, apparently now they lost count as to even how much they own to the rest of the world, hmmm.
Let us think, America the with world’s biggest GDP, about 13 trillion a year, 70% of it consumer spending, with borrowed money, who are borrowed and then re-borrowed and so forth, so how are we counting this GDP figure? How much of it is bogus?
External debt is at about 12 trillion? So the money borrowed within and then re-borrowed and then packaged to insure even bigger bogus capital in some very exotic notions of economic artifacts, all counted and recounted and accounted in the calculation of this GDP, are in fact not even of this economy?
Ok let’s not really get into this, what if the people just switch off their propaganda TV and mass media, get it into their heads that there are in fact no chosen people of god,all are equal, and hard working, peace, humility ,education are the ways to get out of this mess, no TRUEAMERICAN AND TRUEBRIT ideologies are going to get us out of this mess, and someone tell that moron in office that war is not the way and that having a clear throat and fast tongue, even good education and IQ is not enough, people must learn from their mistakes, there is the easy way, and the hard way of poverty, decline, anarchy and misery.
In any way, the only other option to save us from this mess would be to get all the unemployed people and sign them up in the army, now with our new fronts that we will soon open we will need more cannon fodder, so in that way we can brainwash the people about imaginary enemies and keep them at bay and controlled and employed, and if the wars go our way we will get our hands on the enormous resources of middle Asia and bail ourselves out of this mess.
AND REMEMBER, THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY, THE AMERICAN WAY!
LOL
ACTUALLY THE SOVIET UNION NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT FELL ABOUT TWO DECADES AGO..........LOL, WOW TIME FLIES.LOL HOW THE MIGHTY FALL WHEN THEIR HEADS ARE FULL OF HOT AIR!
Gods, that was a nasty surprise! The tomb has indeed opened. Yet upon closer examination, it could be worse. I was expecting something really fearsome but it turned out only to be Count Duckula!
RE: Your liberal 'altruistic' / conservative 'greedy' divide is a bit too clear cut a value judgement, and in any case, where would humanity have ever got to without the spur of a little self-centred acquisitiveness?
===================
The scope of the government's responsibility is at the core of it.
The 'Small' (C)onservative feels that the less government, the better. Were this 1809 instead of 2009, I'd line up with that more. The fundamentalists have in fact overwhelmed this argument with petty selfish concerns about the non-existent unborn, and the marriage of complete strangers to them. Amazing how they try to run everyone else's lives; instead of minding their own damned business.
In our old West, we got the railroads built via government and companies doing the work, and PAYING people to do it. Our Interstate Highway system was prompted by GOVERNMENT's perceived need to ferry troops around the country under Roosevelt.
So much for the idea that Government does not create jobs. How about the CCC? And the WPA?
National Defense (fielding armies) is a function of the Central government - but originally we had state militias. We had different currencies in different States - and Hamilton and others managed to get us a common currency, and pay off debts run up in the Revolutionary War. How about the Louisiana Purchase, and Seward's Folly? Luckily, no Palins in the mix. They FOUGHT about this stuff back then.
The Continental Congress spent many bitter months in miserable weather getting us to a Constitution that did not even gain the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) for another DECADE. Freeing the slaves, women's suffrage, and the rest came at the FEDERAL level with the passage of Amendments.
The 1930's depression suffered from the lack of a Federal Reserve.
Frankly, in 2009, the notion of LESS GOVERNMENT is beyond imbecilic. Obama has proposed getting derivatives controlled, and Congress is behind him. Obama is using the concerns of the moment to drive policy - very smart.
Who stands in the way? Boehner and the other hypocrites who have to explain themselves to the SP4-type of ignorami, in order to get re-elected. The best thing that the GOP could do is shut up Limbaugh and Cheney, rather than making them mascots.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR200905130378 9.html
'Today Cheney is the most visible -- and controversial -- critic of President Obama's national security policies and, to the alarm of many people in the Republican Party, the most forceful and uncompromising defender of the Bush administration's record. His running argument with the new administration has spawned a noisy side debate all its own: By leading the criticism, is Cheney doing more harm than good to the causes he has taken up and to the political well-being of his party?'
------------
Obama has more courage than the lot of them - because he ADMITTED that he could be a one-term President if people did not see forward movement by 2012.
Gingrich, who I respect, is behaving like another dogmatic egomaniac - because he smells 2012 approaching.
The Democrats need to get THEMSELVES under control - particularly Pelosi.
Dare I suggest a happy holiday in the one country with a minimalistic government for all those that seem to think that smaller governments means a better society;welcome to Somalia,your true paradise for two decades now :a true libertarian paradise.No more schools,no more health care,no more taxis,no more health care,only militia and guns.....
Tonny,
Now who's cartooning others ideas. Very good gag though, cheers!
In reply to: “I am results-oriented; not dogmatic, May 14th, 2009 - 13:13:26”
As you write, the keyword is “SCOPE.”
You then went on to say “Amazing how they try to run everyone else's lives; instead of minding their own damned business,” referring to the fundamentalist right; and a great light dawned upon me. Our points of view may be more similar than I had thought. On your side of the pond you associate unjustified state intrusions into personal choice with the Republican right.
Here, I associate it with the ostensibly liberal left. We have no “Christian” or “Moral” Neocons, preaching at us about Jesus weeping over the evils of abortion, sodomy, or the Gods know what, fortunately for us. We are, in any case an overwhelmingly secular society, and would laugh at them. Ironic, isn’t it, that we who still have a state religion as a relic of a 16th century royal divorce, should be far more relaxed about this than you whose constitution guarantees freedom of conscience: But then, as someone once quipped “The Queen is essential to the Church of England, God is merely an optional extra.” Even “God Botherers” doorstep proselytising is on the wane, and was always a very occasional nuisance anyway. I haven’t told a Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon to sod off for ages!
Yet we have any number of secular, leftist puritans intent upon interfering with our freedoms and setting us on the path of P.C. righteousness: And government is climbing on the bandwagon. For an Idea of what I mean have a look at my reply to Tonny the Belgian on p2 of one of the 'Obama’s 100 days' features.
To turn back to specifics: Of course our Motorway system was built by public funding. How else, in the modern age are enormous, socially and economically desirable capital projects, requiring vast outlays with limited prospects of short, or even medium term profits to be realised? A classic example of one-off projects of this kind is the Channel Tunnel. Ongoing government funding of nuclear generation and more lately, the drive for renewables are other good instances of pro-active state involvement to achieve desirable ends. Only an idiot would dispute the necessity of public involvement in such things.
National Defence has always been a function of government. It’s the state’s most basic duty. Thanks for the history lesson, though I am fairly well acquainted with the USA’s transcontinental expansion. They did fight over such things then. We nearly went to war over the Oregon territory. As I recall, the US hawks slogan was “fifty-four-forty-or-fight!” Thank goodness there were no Palins in the mix and we agreed an extension of the 49th parallel border.
As for “Frankly, in 2009, the notion of LESS GOVERNMENT is beyond imbecilic.” That depends on how much you already have. Your Government Revenues constitute what? About 15% of GDP. Ours amount to over 40%. I too am results-oriented. Where government intervention or regulation appears desirable I support it, and Derivative trading is one area that needs looking at. I am however, always wary of all politicians.
Nor are results always the moot factor. How they are achieved can be as important. If, for example, improvements in our NHS’s ability to supply preventative therapies resulted in less workplace absenteeism, reduced overall health costs, and a measurable increase in average life expectancy of say, six months, that would be a worthwhile result. Were the same outcomes to be achieved by the state just outlawing the consumption of Tobacco and Alcohol, that would merely be an unwarranted intrusion into the realm of individual choice!
In your country it appears that the Democrats, who see a greater role for government in the economic sphere are socially far more liberal than the Republicans. In Britain, it is Labour who, under the influence of politically correct fanatics and single issue lobbyists are now nosing ahead as the more socially intrusive of the two main parties.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story