US Now 12 Trillion in the hole...and its just starting

[Full of Win]

We are now 12 trillion in the hole guys 12,000,000,000,000.00 of intergenerational debt. That comes to about 40,000 for every man woman and child in the US.

In the title I said, its only the begfinning. This is not an opinion, this is based on CBO projections. Wait for Cap and Trade to go into effect, yep - guess how is pushing it? We are looking at a 20-25 trillion dollar intergenerational debt in the coming decade if Obama is re-elected.

http://theworkingfile.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/obama-debt.jpg

Just so you guys don't thinks I'm ranting and raving, here is a good story on what Cap and Trade will do from the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html


Notice the size of the bars, not a good trend gents.Is this the change we needed? Is it? Giving the next generation a mountain of debt is not my idea of 'change we need'. Actually, it can be repurposed to "change is all you have left" after 7 more years.

[awmazz]

What's your point? Are you saying he shouldn't have stimulated the economy and instead allowed the Second Great Depression to happen? Then you'd be posting "Unemployment now 35%... and it's just starting" threads instead.

Anyway according to your projections, Obama will reduce the deficit in just the first 12 months after the stimulus spending by as much as the entire deficit left by George Bush. So imagine what he could have done and how well your country would be heading into the future under Obama's guidance if Georgie hadn't left such a steaming sh*tpile for him to clean up first.

I have to ask again, what's the point you keep trying to make? That America would be better off if the Republicans had retained office, is that what you're trying to say? Because I'm not getting why you are even trying to say that, sorry.

[Full of Win]

What's your point? Are you saying he shouldn't have stimulated the economy and instead allowed the Second Great Depression to happen? Then you'd be posting "Unemployment now 35%... and it's just starting" threads instead.

Anyway according to your projections, Obama will reduce the deficit in just the first 12 months after the stimulus spending by as much as the entire deficit left by George Bush. So imagine what he could have done and how well your country would be heading into the future under Obama's guidance if Georgie hadn't left such a steaming sh*tpile for him to clean up first.

I have to ask again, what's the point you keep trying to make? That America would be better off if the Republicans had retained office, is that what you're trying to say? Because I'm not getting why you are even trying to say that, sorry.

Yeh, lets talk "stimulate the economy'. For example, Cash for Clunkers.... most of the sales were for autos made in South America, Canada, and Asia. Yeh, that was brilliant.

Stimulus worked so well that we are now making up congressional districts touting the job creation.

I think it would be better if Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency.

[awmazz]

I think it would be better if Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency.

How?

[Full of Win]

How?

Simple, we would not have the debt generating programs we have under this joker. Debt incurring healthcare program (with no tort reform:confused:), cap and trade, cash for clunkers, ineffectual stimulus programs ect...

Not saying it would be perfect. However, it would not be as bad as it is right now.

[IntheNet]

We are now 12 trillion in the hole guys 12,000,000,000,000.00 of intergenerational debt. That comes to about 40,000 for every man woman and child in the US.

Thank you for your post; very informative. I thought terrorists were dangerous to America now I see we face a worse threat from within. May God help us as we battle the assaults on our Constitution and the dark forces that threaten our existence and endanger our freedom and liberty. Our very fiscal existence is under attack and we must rally to save the Union.

[gibbz]

Simple, we would not have the debt generating programs we have under this joker. Debt incurring healthcare program (with no tort reform:confused:), cap and trade, cash for clunkers, ineffectual stimulus programs ect...

Not saying it would be perfect. However, it would not be as bad as it is right now.

Full of Win, I philosophically disagree with you on many topics you post, even some of your statements here, but I am glad to see that you posted a note about the lack of tort reform in the current health care plan.

My fiancee is almost done with schooling to be a doctor and we both want to see health care overhauled. However, we are disappointed that there is no substantive tort reform, as this is one of the biggest cost inflators in our current system. Unless you place limits to reduce defensive medicine and ludicrous malpractice lawsuits that ruin people's lives, the new system will be just as f'ed up.

Thank you for your post; very informative. I thought terrorists were dangerous to America now I see we face a worse threat from within. May God help us as we battle the assaults on our Constitution and the dark forces that threaten our existence and endanger our freedom and liberty. Our very fiscal existence is under attack and we must rally to save the Union.

The Constitution was assaulted quite a bit during the previous administration. Where was your fervor then?

Dark forces ... you mean like a black President? :rolleyes: (I kid)

[IntheNet]

While we have ventured into deficit spending before, by the current president, by the last president, and prior presidents, no president has pushed us quite so far into the hole as Obama - he's stealing our money. I call your attention to Treasury Direct:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

which lists current debt held by public... note those words "held by public".... Porkulus (stimulus), Taxpayer Cash for Klunkers, US budget, health care, cap & trade, etc.... all these steal our money....

-12,031,299,186,290.07...

That's a number identifying Obama Failure...

[bruinsrme]

Don't worry there's an app for that

[bruinsrme]

Simple, we would not have the debt generating programs we have under this joker. Debt incurring healthcare program (with no tort reform:confused:), cap and trade, cash for clunkers, ineffectual stimulus programs ect...

Not saying it would be perfect. However, it would not be as bad as it is right now.

here here.....

Wait until the banks start releasing all that money they were given.
The reason why they won't disclose where it is, is because it is all heavily invested and when the economy improves they will be lending at unheard of interest rates...imagine paying 15% interest on a mortgage?
On a$300k mortgage that is $3800 a month on a 30 year loan.
Remember the banks got that money for 1 to 2%

[awmazz]

Simple, we would not have the debt generating programs we have under this joker. Debt incurring healthcare program (with no tort reform:confused:), cap and trade, cash for clunkers, ineffectual stimulus programs ect...

Not saying it would be perfect. However, it would not be as bad as it is right now.

I ask again. How? You've replied with how not.

How would it be better if the Republicans retained office? How would they have made it better? How would they have avoided the Second Great Depression. How would they have avoided 30% unemployment? How would they have stimulated economic recovery? What policies would they have changed and/or enacted when facing economic oblivion?

If I recall, the massive debt-funded bailouts started while George and the Republicans were still in office. On Sept 29, 2008 the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" was defeated in the House of Representatives by the Republicans and $1.2 trillion was immediately erased from the market value of American stocks as frightened investors fled the markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had the largest one day decline since the index was first published in 1896.

After the failure in the House, the Senate acted, amending the bill and passing it by a 74 to 25 margin on Wednesday, October 1 2008. The bill was amended to include over $150 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. These additions were designed to help win the twelve additional votes needed to get the bailout plan through the House of Representatives.

On Friday, October 3rd 2008, the House of Representatives passed the amended version of the bill.

So to even get it through, the bill had to have $150 billion extra tacked onto it to win 12 Republican votes to save America from collapse.

We're looking at $850 billion of debt right there including $150 billion of Republican pork barreling, $1.2 trillion needlessly lost off the stock market, and Obama hasn't even been elected yet.

So as I asked, how would it be better if the Republicans had retained office? And how would they have made it better?

[awmazz]

We're looking at $850 billion of debt right there including $150 billion of Republican pork barreling, $1.2 trillion needlessly lost off the stock market, and Obama hasn't even been elected yet.

By the way, that's half of the first red column you have in your chart. Debt from before Obama was even elected.

Oh, and also, the projected deficit reduction in Obama's first year 09-10 in just his first full 12 months is *more* than George's entire deficit. One can only imagine what he could have achieved if he didn't have to waste it fixing the steaming s**tpile financial mess he inherited. You're actually making Obama look really good with that chart.

[CarlisleUnited]

The graph shows that the white house isn't planning to cut the deficit to zero, that seems silly to me. Surely in 10 years time the economin recovery should have ecovered enough to start repaying the debt...

[Sky Blue]

I think it would be better if Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency.

Luckily, the majority of the country disagrees with you.

[zioxide]

We are now 12 trillion in the hole guys 12,000,000,000,000.00 of intergenerational debt. That comes to about 40,000 for every man woman and child in the US.

Sweet! $40,000 a person and the majority of it is going to build new bridges and schools in Iraq while our own infrastructure is crumbling and more and more people are out of work.

Our government is so full of ****, and has been for quite a while now.

[Sky Blue]

May God help us

Maybe God can give us an interest free loan?

[IntheNet]

Maybe God can give us an interest free loan?

God only lends at prime rate!

:rolleyes:

What I meant was that prayers to the Almighty may be our only recourse to a Government out of control; spending the nation to the poorhouse.

[leekohler]

I ask again. How? You've replied with how not.

How would it be better if the Republicans retained office? How would they have made it better? How would they have avoided the Second Great Depression. How would they have avoided 30% unemployment? How would they have stimulated economic recovery? What policies would they have changed and/or enacted when facing economic oblivion?

If I recall, the massive debt-funded bailouts started while George and the Republicans were still in office. On Sept 29, 2008 the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" was defeated in the House of Representatives by the Republicans and $1.2 trillion was immediately erased from the market value of American stocks as frightened investors fled the markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had the largest one day decline since the index was first published in 1896.



On Friday, October 3rd 2008, the House of Representatives passed the amended version of the bill.

So to even get it through, the bill had to have $150 billion extra tacked onto it to win 12 Republican votes to save America from collapse.

We're looking at $850 billion of debt right there including $150 billion of Republican pork barreling, $1.2 trillion needlessly lost off the stock market, and Obama hasn't even been elected yet.

So as I asked, how would it be better if the Republicans had retained office? And how would they have made it better?

They wouldn't. And they don't know what to do. All they know how to do is point fingers after ten months. BTW- that chart is old news, we discussed it months ago, when we had sane conservative members. It was a pretty good discussion too. Too bad those conservatives no longer post and have been replaced with the current birthers and teabaggers.

[jb1280]

For those who want to demagogue the issue, how would you proceed? Increase revenue (ie taxes) or decrease spending? I imagine for the sky is falling crowd you would have to do both, very very drastically to eliminate as quickly as you might want.

The truth is, it's easy to bitch about it, and to some I give the benefit of the doubt for being single issue voters. It's entirely another to try to actually deal with the deficit - ironically something the President and Orszag are actually trying to do.

With the exception of Defense and Veterans, all Departments will be required to submit two budgets for 2011 - one with a spending freeze, one with a 5% reduction.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2RBEQAPpNMNour8nrK0y8IEYmeQD9BURIEO0

"As part of that fiscal 2011 budget, we will be putting forward proposals that will put us back on a fiscally sustainable path and that have lower deficits," Orszag said in a recent Associated Press interview. "I'm not going to get into the mix between spending and revenues. Obviously deficit reduction requires some combination of those two."

Clearly the administration is seriously attempting to handle the deficit. This could very well set the stage for a big fight between the Congress and White House, and potential vetos once healthcare gets through.

[nbs2]

In talking to Fox (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN188108620091118), Obama says that too much debt could lead to a secondary recession. So, how much is too much?

[callmemike20]

In talking to Fox (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN188108620091118), Obama says that too much debt could lead to a secondary recession. So, how much is too much?

Hopefully we will hear his answer in only a few more hours.

[leekohler]

Still waiting for substantial suggestions from conservatives. Breath not being held.

[bradl]

I think it would be better if Republicans controlled the congress and the presidency.

You had it for 6 years. Your lot blew the surplus handed to you within the first 2. 4 years after that, your lot sent us into recession, in which the stimulus your President and Congress failed (he meant for those checks to be spent by the people, not put into savings accounts by the people).

So 6 out of 8 years, your President and Congress failed on a lot of things. What makes you think that a Red-controlled POTUS and Congress would be better?

Fail.

BL.

[NT1440]

Still waiting for substantial suggestions from conservatives. Breath not being held.

Don't worry, I'm sure cutting taxes will get us out of this jam!

[jav6454]

Oh look, its this thread and Full of Win

[NT1440]

I was just wondering if anyone, now that we have to pointing fingers game done with, has any actual ideas?

The only thing I can see is reduce spending on foreign operations (as in get the hell out) and put the money that WOULD be going there to chipping away at the debt, combined with higher taxes (ITS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN) to if not eliminate the debt, curb its acceleration.

[jb1280]

I was just wondering if anyone, now that we have to pointing fingers game done with, has any actual ideas?

The only thing I can see is reduce spending on foreign operations (as in get the hell out) and put the money that WOULD be going there to chipping away at the debt, combined with higher taxes (ITS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN) to if not eliminate the debt, curb its acceleration.

It's refreshing that the administration during the AfPak negotiations are bringing up the question: "Can we afford another decade in Afghanistan?"

Despite the finger pointers, nothing so far leads us to believe that the administration thinks the spending is sustainable.

I imagine we will see:

1. Increase in taxes.
2. Reduction in foreign involvement over the next 5 years.
3. Orszag taking the red pen to submitted departmental budgets.
4. A modernization process of the bureaucracy to reduce redundant positions and unprofitable services (USPS discontinuing service on Saturdays for instance).
5. In 2011 a Presidential Veto on any legislation that is not deficit neutral.
6. Revisiting healthcare in a 2nd term to put in place better cost control.

[NT1440]

Unfortunately any increases in taxes will basically hand over the country to the GOP, where tax cuts will be promised for votes (not literally but thats the way it goes baiting such short sighted fish as the american people).

[nbs2]

I was just wondering if anyone, now that we have to pointing fingers game done with, has any actual ideas?

The only thing I can see is reduce spending on foreign operations (as in get the hell out) and put the money that WOULD be going there to chipping away at the debt, combined with higher taxes (ITS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN) to if not eliminate the debt, curb its acceleration.

First, cull DHS. Put the TSA under the FAA and SS and other legacies back where they came from.

Second, piss off conservative and liberal alike - cut defense spending and welfare spending by equivalent percentages. And cut as deep as you can without enciting riots from either side. Piss them off, but no riots.

Third, scale taxation to local costs. That means recognizing local realities and adjusing the federal income tax to MSAs. If you are in Nowhere, IA and make $75k, you may be middle or upper middle class, but in Beltway, MD you are lower middle to middle class. I don't know how this would affect revenues, but it would likely increase disposible income accross the board. Increases in costs would be minimal. Publish multipliers and instruct individuals to multiply based on work location (thus avoiding the folks that have "permanent residences" in MD but really live in IA).

These aren't the only options, nor are they intended to be. I don't have a staff to conduct research or economists to poll on cost/benefits.

[Blue Velvet]

A question for conservatives.

What did Dick Cheney mean when he said:



Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer


Please help us understand this.

[Tesselator]

Still waiting for substantial suggestions from conservatives. Breath not being held.

They already did. They said that the stupid and inoperable should be allowed to fail on they're own just like any other business.

The bail-out didn't stave off or even postpone any economic disaster. It just lined some banker's pockets and further monopolized the industry. And we all will have to pay for it with our freedoms and with our pocketbooks.

I guess the conservatives were right on this one. The story is still unraveling tho. Let's see what comes next. :p

[jav6454]

Still waiting for substantial suggestions from conservatives. Breath not being held.

Why even bother.

[Full of Win]

Luckily, the majority of the country disagrees with you.

I think a better way to say it is

Luckily, the majority of the country disagreed with you

Which is to say that in the last election, the majority picked the democrats over the Republicans.

However, the Rasmussian generic congressional ballot shows Republicans with an advantage of 6 points over the democrats. Moreover, the approvals of Obama are now much lower.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/november_2009/obama_approval_index_november_18_2009/265502-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_november_18_2009.jpg

[ucfgrad93]

Still waiting for substantial suggestions from conservatives. Breath not being held.

Stop spending. Actually cut spending on programs that we currently have. If individuals and families have to do it, why doesn't the government.

[Blue Velvet]

If individuals and families have to do it, why doesn't the government.


Because there was a catastrophic collapse in demand in the economy, not supply. Credit would have also come to a standstill, businesses need credit. What would have happened if people had made a run on the banks? Individuals and families are not like the government at all.

There was a reason why governments all over the world did much the same thing, and it didn't have anything to do with political ideology or comparisons with personal housekeeping.

[NT1440]

They already did. They said that the stupid and inoperable should be allowed to fail on they're own just like any other business.

The bail-out didn't stave off or even postpone any economic disaster. It just lined some banker's pockets and further monopolized the industry. And we all will have to pay for it with our freedoms and with our pocketbooks.

I guess the conservatives were right on this one. The story is still unraveling tho. Let's see what comes next. :p

Wanna explain how letting a company fail somehow repays the debt? Yes the debt would be less, but still pretty damn big given the spending we are doing.

Again, how would that REPAY the debt?:confused:

[ucfgrad93]

Because there was a catastrophic collapse in demand in the economy, not supply. Credit would have also come to a standstill, businesses need credit. What would have happened if people had made a run on the banks? Individuals and families are not like the government at all.

There was a reason why governments all over the world did much the same thing, and it didn't have anything to do with political ideology or comparisons with personal housekeeping.

I'm not saying that there weren't valid reasons for the government to spend some money. At some point, however, the government will have to stop simply printing money. And I fear this administration is going to run up the deficit much too high.

As for paying off the deficit, unfortunately, it will have to be a 2 pronged approach. Raise taxes and cut spending.

[Blue Velvet]

At some point, however, the government will have to stop simply printing money. And I fear this administration is going to run up the deficit much too high.

The deficit, as a percentage of GDP, was much higher following WWII. The two decades after led to the biggest economic expansion in the nation's history. Employment is more important than the deficit right now.

As for paying off the deficit, unfortunately, it will have to be a 2 pronged approach. Raise taxes and cut spending.

Yes, which is why the costs of both wars are now included in the budget, instead of being swept under the carpet by the previous administration. Afghanistan: $3.6billion a month. While people are fretting about Obama bowing, he's over there to make sure the bank of China and Japan don't close the purse-strings just yet.

[IntheNet]

However, the Rasmussian generic congressional ballot shows Republicans with an advantage of 6 points over the democrats. Moreover, the approvals of Obama are now much lower.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

Republican approval will continue to increase, as is witness NJ and VA Governor races! Just today, President Barack Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent for the first time in polling by Quinnipiac University as U.S. voter discontent grows...

Obama's Job Approval Rating Falls Below 50% in Quinnipiac Poll
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auhyY3ttpnA4

[Rodimus Prime]

What's your point? Are you saying he shouldn't have stimulated the economy and instead allowed the Second Great Depression to happen? Then you'd be posting "Unemployment now 35%... and it's just starting" threads instead.

Anyway according to your projections, Obama will reduce the deficit in just the first 12 months after the stimulus spending by as much as the entire deficit left by George Bush. So imagine what he could have done and how well your country would be heading into the future under Obama's guidance if Georgie hadn't left such a steaming sh*tpile for him to clean up first.

I have to ask again, what's the point you keep trying to make? That America would be better off if the Republicans had retained office, is that what you're trying to say? Because I'm not getting why you are even trying to say that, sorry.

talk about being short sited. Let throw out the massive debt from the first 2 years in office and not count it and write it off to the economy being crappy.

Ok now please explain to me why when the economy is supposed to be back at full employment and going fill tilt Obama debt spending is STILL making Bush look fiscal responsible.

The point I made above was brought up last time and no one even bother addressing it or they gave a crap excuse like you just did. I cut you slack for the first 2 years but after that it is not even remotely acceptable.

And please note before some one try the war argument again. Bush numbers are actual numbers (which means the war cost have been included in them)

[Tesselator]

Wanna explain how letting a company fail somehow repays the debt? Yes the debt would be less, but still pretty damn big given the spending we are doing.

Again, how would that REPAY the debt?:confused:

What are you talking about?

The debt is so huge right now because the federal government poked their noses in a private commercial interest in a way that is illegal according to US statutes. When we were faced with the decision the "conservatives" that lee is referring to did speak up. They said don't do it. They said don't bail out Global Motors (Used to be General Motors) and don't bail out the banks. The federal government has no right to do this. They have no right to force me to give Goldman $40k of my money. AFAIK, the American people spoke and demanded this not take place. Congresspeople are on record saying that our calls and letters were in the neighborhood of 1000:1 against the bill. Washington just did it anyway.

Now the only true option IMO is to imprison and impeach the culprits at the highest levels and recover those funds by repossession, confiscation, and etc.

The debt generated from other allocations is minor in comparison and has a been a problem long before this. Most of it is also due to the federal government overstepping their bounds but I assume we're not talking about that right now - just the bail-outs.

[Counterfit]

Republican approval will continue to increase, as is witness NJ and VA Governor races! Just today, President Barack Obama’s approval rating has fallen below 50 percent for the first time in polling by Quinnipiac University as U.S. voter discontent grows...

Obama's Job Approval Rating Falls Below 50% in Quinnipiac Poll
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auhyY3ttpnA4

Hmm, funny you mention the Quinnipiac poll and Republican approval ratings in the same post. In a poll from this past week (http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm), the numbers don't look good for Congressional Republicans: 31% approve, 58% disapprove. And that's better than some other recent polls, where as much as 70% disapprove.

[Iscariot]

What I meant was that prayers to the Almighty may be our only recourse

Doesn't seem to work for war vets or amputees. But I seem to recall nineteen guys got what they wanted from God in 2001, so maybe they're doing it wrong?

[Evangelion]

So it takes a lot of money to tackle the economic problems that started while Bush was the office. So what else is new?

Simple, we would not have the debt generating programs we have under this joker.

So, instead of that you would have a utterly failed economy. And I bet that if Obama hadn't done a thing (like you seem to advocate), you would be whining how "Obama allowed our economy to be ruined!".

Not saying it would be perfect. However, it would not be as bad as it is right now.

And how do you know that? Need I remind you that this crisis started when Bush was in the office?

[mactastic]

Deficits don't matter. Right?

[obeygiant]

A question for conservatives.

What did Dick Cheney mean when he said:

Deficits don't matter


Please help us understand this.

Since when does anyone here besides die-hard conservatives quote Dick Cheney as the voice of reason?

Those quotes are from a time which might as well be ancient history when deficits were at $155 billion. No one here sees a bit of a problem with 2 TRILLION? Really?

[mactastic]

Since when does anyone here besides die-hard conservatives quote Dick Cheney as the voice of reason?
Is there any other kind of conservative besides die-hard? Maybe that's a question you should ask Dede Scozzafava...

Those quotes are from a time which might as well be ancient history when deficits were at $155 billion. No one here sees a bit of a problem with 2 TRILLION? Really?
Of course we do. My position on deficit spending has always been the same -- you pull out the national credit card when times are tough, and you pay it back during the good times. Conservatives have only ever managed to get as far as "you pull out the national credit card..."

[Rodimus Prime]

So it takes a lot of money to tackle the economic problems that started while Bush was the office. So what else is new?
...

Please see my post below. I already posted it once in this thread and guess what it works out to work great here as well.

after 2 years his debt spending is excusable.

talk about being short sited. Let throw out the massive debt from the first 2 years in office and not count it and write it off to the economy being crappy.

Ok now please explain to me why when the economy is supposed to be back at full employment and going fill tilt Obama debt spending is STILL making Bush look fiscal responsible.

The point I made above was brought up last time and no one even bother addressing it or they gave a crap excuse like you just did. I cut you slack for the first 2 years but after that it is not even remotely acceptable.

And please note before some one try the war argument again. Bush numbers are actual numbers (which means the war cost have been included in them)

[Zombie Acorn]

The bottom line is that stimulus bills are not efficient, Bush tried them, Obama tried them. Both failed to get their moneys worth thus far.

We are inflating job numbers "saved" in order to make the stimulus even look halfway decent. Even with the inflation the money spent vs. jobs created is abysmal.

[mactastic]

The bottom line is that stimulus bills are not efficient, Bush tried them, Obama tried them. Both failed to get their moneys worth thus far.

We are inflating job numbers "saved" in order to make the stimulus even look halfway decent. Even with the inflation the money spent vs. jobs created is abysmal.
We've "failed to get their money's worth" because the Republics watered down the stimulative effect of the bill, then voted against it. Brilliant political move, horrible if your goal is to actually be a constructive partner, but such is the state of the modern GOP...

Oh yeah, and lest we forget, many of these GOP obstructionists who made sure to get some facetime on FOX slamming the stimulus have been more than willing to tout the benefits of the stimulus funding when they get home to their districts. LOL... No principles, those folks.

[Zombie Acorn]

We've "failed to get their money's worth" because the Republics watered down the stimulative effect of the bill, then voted against it. Brilliant political move, horrible if your goal is to actually be a constructive partner, but such is the state of the modern GOP...

Oh yeah, and lest we forget, many of these GOP obstructionists who made sure to get some facetime on FOX slamming the stimulus have been more than willing to tout the benefits of the stimulus funding when they get home to their districts. LOL... No principles, those folks.

The democrats hold strong-arm majority, they don't need the republicans at all..... oh wait, they can't get their own party on board because everyone is worried about their next election. Someone who puts their own self interest in front of the interest of the nation is exactly who I want running the country.

I wouldn't mind seeing all of congress wiped out (replaced with better candidates, don't bust my door down FBI), so any of those people who touted the benefits of the stimulus after chewing it down can go to hell as far as I am concerned.

[IntheNet]

We've "failed to get their money's worth" because the Republics watered down the stimulative effect of the bill...

Proof would be helpful? Have any?

When Obama discussed the stimulus he promised unemployment would not go above 8% - it is now 10.5%. Yu have any evidence that stimulus has done anything but indenture our youth to decades of servitude of debt?

Speaking about "getting your money's worth" let's look at Obama Fraud! Anybody know how to spend $18 million on a website? Company hired to fix it only spent $20k... where's the rest?

$18 Million to Redesign Recovery.gov
http://skepticians.com/2009/07/18-million-to-redesign-recoverygov/
"Onvia’s CEO Mike Pickett estimated in May his company spent approximately $20,000 to build Recovery.org’s tracking infrastructure, a far cry from the inflated contract awarded by Obama’s White House. By contrast, spending $18 million on redesigning an already-functioning website makes Ted Stevens’ $315 million “Bridge to Nowhere” project appear like a fiscally-sound endeavor."

[mactastic]

The democrats hold strong-arm majority, they don't need the republicans at all..... oh wait, they can't get their own party on board because everyone is worried about their next election. Someone who puts their own self interest in front of the interest of the nation is exactly who I want running the country.
That doesn't even make any sense. Because a party doesn't march in lockstep, they're bad? What the hell kind of argument is that anyway?

And please, name some names for us. Who among our political class DOESN'T put their own self-interest in front of that of the nation? Please, enlighten us as to whom the politicians are who are better than any of the Democrats when it comes to the issue of self interest. Whom, I ask, are these people?

[Zombie Acorn]

I kind of wondered how you spend 18 million on a website that doesn't even validate district data to make sure you don't make phantom districts, thats pretty awesome.

[Zombie Acorn]

That doesn't even make any sense. Because a party doesn't march in lockstep, they're bad? What the hell kind of argument is that anyway?

And please, name some names for us. Who among our political class DOESN'T put their own self-interest in front of that of the nation? Please, enlighten us as to whom the politicians are who are better than any of the Democrats when it comes to the issue of self interest. Whom, I ask, are these people?

Don't blame the dissenting party when you have dissenters in your own party and a strong-arm majority.

You are asking for the impossible here, id be more likely to find a needle in a haystack then find a politician that wasn't crooked. Theres something wrong with our system when we allow multi-billion dollar companies to have more say in policies than millions of people.

[mactastic]

Proof would be helpful? Have any?
Sure do. Do you?

When Obama discussed the stimulus he promised unemployment would not go above 8% - it is now 10.5%.
Proof please. Provide statement by Obama promising that if the stimulus package is approved, unemployment will absolutely not rise above 8%.

Yu have any evidence that stimulus has done anything but indenture our youth to decades of servitude of debt?
Actually, yes. I see signs all the time identifying public works projects that are being funded by stimulus dollars. Oftentimes, there is a picture of the Republic politician who opposed the stimulus package with a shovel and hardhat, grinning broadly for the camera as he explains how awesome it is that this money is bringing jobs to his district.

Speaking about "getting your money's worth" let's look at Obama Fraud! Anybody know how to spend $18 million on a website? Company hired to fix it only spent $20k... where's the rest?

$18 Million to Redesign Recovery.gov
http://skepticians.com/2009/07/18-million-to-redesign-recoverygov/
"Onvia’s CEO Mike Pickett estimated in May his company spent approximately $20,000 to build Recovery.org’s tracking infrastructure, a far cry from the inflated contract awarded by Obama’s White House. By contrast, spending $18 million on redesigning an already-functioning website makes Ted Stevens’ $315 million “Bridge to Nowhere” project appear like a fiscally-sound endeavor."
Hmmm... were you this upset when Bush couldn't explain where $9 BILLION disappeared to in the sands of Iraq? Funny that you should get so worked up over a comparatively paltry $18 million. Unless it was just for partisan gain, of course. But you'd never do that, would you? :D

[mactastic]

Don't blame the dissenting party when you have dissenters in your own party and a strong-arm majority.
Democrats certainly get their share of the blame for not supporting Democratic policies, and allowing the GOP to be as effective an opposition as they have. And let's not kid ourselves, there is a significant contingent of Blue Dogs in the HoR, and their compadres in the Senate who really need to just admit that they really are Republicans, and be done with it.

But that doesn't mean that the GOP (along with their Democratic lickspittles) isn't deserving of the lion's share of the blame for watering down the most stimulative portions of the stimulus package. The GOP played a shell game with the Democrats, demanding concessions in return for votes, then they double-crossed the Democrats by refusing to support the legislation after they had gotten nearly all their concessions met.

And yes, the Democrats deserve some blame for failing to anticipate this, and failing to play hardball. But that isn't an excuse for the GOPs actions.

You are asking for the impossible here, id be more likely to find a needle in a haystack then find a politician that wasn't crooked. Theres something wrong with our system when we allow multi-billion dollar companies to have more say in policies than millions of people.
So then why single out the Democrats as those unworthy to hold office due to putting their own self-interest before that of the nation? Pretty cheap shot, don't you think?

[Zombie Acorn]

So then why single out the Democrats as those unworthy to hold office due to putting their own self-interest before that of the nation? Pretty cheap shot, don't you think?

They have control of the ball now, thus the party I criticize. Republicans are making jackasses of themselves no doubt in my mind, but they aren't essential to passing law at this point. In fact, the democratic party would be much better served to just completely ignore them unless they happen to have a good idea.

[Rodimus Prime]

Hmmm... were you this upset when Bush couldn't explain where $9 BILLION disappeared to in the sands of Iraq? Funny that you should get so worked up over a comparatively paltry $18 million. Unless it was just for partisan gain, of course. But you'd never do that, would you? :D


This is a prime example of what is wrong with politics in american. All the other side does (no matter which side it is) when they get called on something just point a finger at the other and say LOOK LOOK they did it to. So it must be ok.

It is rather said that politics in the US has degraded to playground rules. It all about who screwing over the american people less. Yet both sides are really screwing over american people big time.

Saying you are screwing them over less than the other side is not saying much.

[mactastic]

They have control of the ball now, thus the party I criticize. Republicans are making jackasses of themselves no doubt in my mind, but they aren't essential to passing law at this point. In fact, the democratic party would be much better served to just completely ignore them unless they happen to have a good idea.
Republicans ARE essential to passing law at this point. Contrary to popular mythology, there are NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Since the GOP seems bent on breaking the fillibuster record, it requires at least two non-Democratic Senators to bring anything to a vote (and that despite years of the GOP going on and on about the sacred principle of the upperdownvote).

[mactastic]

This is a prime example of what is wrong with politics in american. All the other side does (no matter which side it is) when they get called on something just point a finger at the other and say LOOK LOOK they did it to. So it must be ok.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying it's ok for Obama to waste taxpayer dollars because Bush did it, I'm saying that unless you criticized Bush for it, your sudden interest in fiscal responsibility is just an excuse to deride a president that you have already made up your mind to despise.

[IntheNet]

Proof please. Provide statement by Obama promising that if the stimulus package is approved, unemployment will absolutely not rise above 8%.

In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package. Link for that is here (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf) (White House Economic Study: "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,") within which unemployment was claimed to be held below 8%.

Hmmm... were you this upset when Bush...

You libs seem to blame Bush for a lot...any chance Obama takes ownership for anything or does the imbecile get a free ride for all his screw-ups and blame the former administration for everything?

Hey what about that Obama theft of $18 million he claimed to redesign Recovery.gov? Any comment on that?

[Rodimus Prime]

You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying it's ok for Obama to waste taxpayer dollars because Bush did it, I'm saying that unless you criticized Bush for it, your sudden interest in fiscal responsibility is just an excuse to deride a president that you have already made up your mind to despise.

I will say guess what I did criticized Bush for running the printing presses but his spending looks like chump changed compared to Obama. Obama spending still looks bad if you cut him slack for the first 2 years.

[mactastic]

I will say guess what I did criticized Bush for running the printing presses but his spending looks like chump changed compared to Obama. Obama spending still looks bad if you cut him slack for the first 2 years.
Umm... Obama's only been in office for 10 months.

I know, I know... everyone criticized Bush. Pity that y'all were so quiet about it at the time...

In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package. Link for that is here (http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf) (White House Economic Study: "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,") within which unemployment was claimed to be held below 8%.
You do realize that this is the plan that the WH wanted, not the one they got after all the GOP meddling, right? Also, I've yet to find anywhere that states that an 8% peak unemployment was considered a "promise". More like a forecast, and we all know how accurate forecasts are. Not to mention that the plan you cite was developed well before the full scale of the economic devastation was know.

IOW, don't pull your groin with this extreme reach. Nowhere in here does Obama promise that the stimulus package that he signed into law will hold unemployment below 8%.

If that is your standard of judgement on these things, I'd like to hear your opinion of the Bush/Cheney administration's promises that the Iraq war would take "6 months at the longest", or that their Medicare Part D legislation would only cost a half-billion. I'm sure it would be scathing, right? Promises are, after all, promises...

You libs seem to blame Bush for a lot...any chance Obama takes ownership for anything or does the imbecile get a free ride for all his screw-ups and blame the former administration for everything?
You cons seem to try to avoid any blame for yourselves. Any chance any of you takes ownership for anything you nice folks ever do? Remember, this recession started back in 2007, long before Obama was elected.

Or are you suggesting that Obama was secretly sneaking into the Bush/Cheney White House, and forcing them to make ruinous economic decisions against their will?

Hey what about that Obama theft of $18 million he claimed to redesign Recovery.gov? Any comment on that?
Yeah. If it happened as you say it did, that is a Bad Thing. Let's get some transparency. Personally I'd be in favor or much more broad open-government regulations. Would you?

[Rodimus Prime]

Umm... Obama's only been in office for 10 months.

I know, I know... everyone criticized Bush. Pity that y'all were so quiet about it at the time...




So that is your counter..... People were not LOUD enough during Bush. Please go back and read my earily post about what is wrong with politics in the US because CLEARLY you did not understand it.

Also I was pointed out Obama own estimates for the future

[callmemike20]

You do realize that this is the plan that the WH wanted, not the one they got after all the GOP meddling, right? Also, I've yet to find anywhere that states that an 8% peak unemployment was considered a "promise". More like a forecast, and we all know how accurate forecasts are. Not to mention that the plan you cite was developed well before the full scale of the economic devastation was know.

IOW, don't pull your groin with this extreme reach. Nowhere in here does Obama promise that the stimulus package that he signed into law will hold unemployment below 8%.


What do you think about the forecasts that the health care bill will cost less than 900 billion dollars?

[mactastic]

What do you think about the forecasts that the health care bill will cost less than 900 billion dollars?
Probably, like most forecasts, it'll be less than accurate. Forecasts are also known as "our best guess at the time" not "an iron-clad promise" as some people seem to think.

Does your stockbroker guarantee that her forecast is 100% accurate? Do you accuse them of a lack of mental acuity, or of being a liar when they do not accurately forecast something?

[callmemike20]

Probably, like most forecasts, it'll be less than accurate. Forecasts are also known as "our best guess at the time" not "an iron-clad promise" as some people seem to think.

Does your stockbroker guarantee that her forecast is 100% accurate? Do you accuse them of a lack of mental acuity, or of being a liar when they do not accurately forecast something?

You view of forecasts are correct, but the example you gave is flawed. Stock brokers are in a game of risk. Sure, they give forecasts, and of course, they aren't always accurate. But its all part of the game. Personally, I don't think government is a game. In fact, they are probably more deceptive than stock brokers.

With stocks, you put money in, you start losing, that's it. You can only lose what you put in. Then, you stop using that broker if he has bad forecasts often.

With the government, they may have a forecast, such as healthcare, that is really low. It makes everyone happy and they all give in. "Deficit Neutral" they call it. Then, 2 years later, they need more money. Taxes are raised. 5 years later, the system is really inefficient and they raise taxes again. It never ends and the government can slowly take more and more from you. Because they don't have to worry as much about funding, they can cut their forecasts short just to pass bills.

We can find a new broker, but we can't find a new government. Well, we can vote, but they are all the same.

[awmazz]

This is a prime example of what is wrong with politics in american. All the other side does (no matter which side it is) when they get called on something just point a finger at the other and say LOOK LOOK they did it to. So it must be ok.

I'm not seeing how $9 billion equates anywhere near to $18 million, as in 'they did it too'. That's like equating Bernie Madoff to a shoplifting granny.

In reference to this discussion, anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 *after* he'd already lost the $9 billion has absolutely no credibility in arguing against Obama losing $18 million because the vote they cast is a clear indication that they don't really care about such issues so they're just trying to score cheap shots. That's the 'playground' part of what you mean, I think.

[mactastic]

You view of forecasts are correct, but the example you gave is flawed. Stock brokers are in a game of risk. Sure, they give forecasts, and of course, they aren't always accurate. But its all part of the game. Personally, I don't think government is a game. In fact, they are probably more deceptive than stock brokers.
I hate to break it to you, but all forecasts involve an element of risk. Sure, you can call it "a game" sometimes but not others if that makes you feel better, but the underlying premise is the same whether you are trying to forecast the fiscal impact of a government program, or next week's weather. You are trying to evaluate multiple changing variables, and even to account for the completely unexpected. Forecasts are simply a tool. They are not a method of clairvoyance.

With stocks, you put money in, you start losing, that's it. You can only lose what you put in. Then, you stop using that broker if he has bad forecasts often.

With the government, they may have a forecast, such as healthcare, that is really low. It makes everyone happy and they all give in. "Deficit Neutral" they call it. Then, 2 years later, they need more money. Taxes are raised. 5 years later, the system is really inefficient and they raise taxes again. It never ends and the government can slowly take more and more from you. Because they don't have to worry as much about funding, they can cut their forecasts short just to pass bills.
Of course there are problems with partisan forecasts. That's why the OMB is supposed to by non-partisan. But it would hardly surprise me if there was political influence. That would be par for the course.

And, of course, you realize that private corporations do this kind of thing too, right? It's not strictly the provenance of the government. Enron did it, Madoff did it, hell nearly every economist out there was predicting a rosy future back in early 2007. Goldman Sachs was even publicly predicting the housing boom would continue while privately shorting the market.

We can find a new broker, but we can't find a new government. Well, we can vote, but they are all the same.
Bingo! We damn well CAN find a new government if we don't like the one we've got. And, in fact, that's what happened one year ago.

But, of course, you're a political cynic who thinks "they are all the same". So what's the point in even complaining, right? Anyone else who gets in there will be just as bad, no?

[Rodimus Prime]

I'm not seeing how $9 billion equates anywhere near to $18 million, as in 'they did it too'. That's like equating Bernie Madoff to a shoplifting granny.

In reference to this discussion, anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 *after* he'd already lost the $9 billion has absolutely no credibility in arguing against Obama losing $18 million because the vote they cast is a clear indication that they don't really care about such issues so they're just trying to score cheap shots. That's the 'playground' part of what you mean, I think.

I just pointed to one example but I can keep going on. There is no accountability by any side any more. They cover up their screw up by saying we screwed the american people less.

So apparently you think it is ok to lose 18 mil. I do not. Nor do I think it was ok to loss 9 billion. Point is the covering up is done by look look we screwed you over less.

[awmazz]

I just pointed to one example but I can keep going on. There is no accountability by any side any more. They cover up their screw up by saying we screwed the american people less.

So apparently you think it is ok to lose 18 mil. I do not. Nor do I think it was ok to loss 9 billion. Point is the covering up is done by look look we screwed you over less.

When you have big budgets with tens of thousands of people assigned to disperse it, it's hard to keep track of it all. So you're always going to get some contractors trying to take advantage of that and rort the system. So yes, I do expect to lose some of it through theft or genuine error. Even banks lose track of money or don't put the decimal point in the right place occasionally.

Your national budget for 2008 was $2,979,000,000,000.00. Approximately.

$18 million = 0.000006% of your national budget. I can understand that relatively small percentage going missing or being rorted/stolen.

$9 billion = NASA's entire budget. Seriously, how the feck do you lose that?

How are they even comparable in terms of oversight or credibility? Not only not in the same ballpark, not on the same planet. A low-level govt official being conned or in cahoots with a contractor to rort $18 million and then maybe trying to cover it up is nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever even close to resembling NASA's entire budget disappearing off the books with no track of where it went or who took it. The first can be done by one person fiddling paperwork, the second required a literal army of people (and that's just to physically carry it as it was all in cash).

[Zombie Acorn]

When you have big budgets with tens of thousands of people assigned to disperse it, it's hard to keep track of it all. So you're always going to get some contractors trying to take advantage of that and rort the system. So yes, I do expect to lose some of it through theft or genuine error. Even banks lose track of money or don't put the decimal point in the right place occasionally.

Your national budget for 2008 was $2,979,000,000,000.00. Approximately.

$18 million = 0.000006% of your national budget. I can understand that relatively small percentage going missing or being rorted/stolen.

$9 billion = NASA's entire budget. Seriously, how the feck do you lose that?

How are they even comparable in terms of oversight or credibility? Not only not in the same ballpark, not on the same planet. A low-level govt official being conned or in cahoots with a contractor to rort $18 million and then maybe trying to cover it up is nothing, absolutely nothing whatsoever even close to resembling NASA's entire budget disappearing off the books with no track of where it went or who took it. The first can be done by one person fiddling paperwork, the second required a literal army of people (and that's just to physically carry it as it was all in cash).

By your logic I should be able to rob my local convenient store because overall it doesn't play that much into total robberies.. I mean cmon.. its only liek .000006% that I am stealing out of what gets stolen a year :rolleyes:

[awmazz]

By your logic I should be able to rob my local convenient store because overall it doesn't play that much into total robberies.. I mean cmon.. its only liek .000006% that I am stealing out of what gets stolen a year :rolleyes:

At no point ever did I ever say it was okay to do so. Just expected. Both are crimes, but unlike you, I make a distinction between petty crime and grand larceny (to give an example of different scales for theft crimes).

If I had a local convenience store, I expect you to shoplift from my store. And guess what, people do shoplift from convenience stores. Happens every day everywhere actually.

What I would never expect is for you to steal the whole store while I'm standing in it. I mean the shelves, the counter, the floor tiles, the roof, the walls. Stealing the whole store from around me, without me having any idea how you did it, is X-Files territory. Almost as X-Filish as you believing this is equal to shoplifting a packet of crisps.

$18 million is indeed grand larceny. $9 billion is so freaking massive a theft, there isn't even a name to accurately describe it. What's a (legal or otherwise) adjective for 500 times bigger than 'grand'?.

[j/k/Andy]

END THE FED (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#)

at least audit the Fed (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207)

[Rodimus Prime]

At no point ever did I ever say it was okay to do so. Just expected. Both are crimes, but unlike you, I make a distinction between petty crime and grand larceny (to give an example of different scales for theft crimes).

If I had a local convenience store, I expect you to shoplift from my store. And guess what, people do shoplift from convenience stores. Happens every day everywhere actually.

What I would never expect is for you to steal the whole store while I'm standing in it. I mean the shelves, the counter, the floor tiles, the roof, the walls. Stealing the whole store from around me, without me having any idea how you did it, is X-Files territory. Almost as X-Filish as you believing this is equal to shoplifting a packet of crisps.

$18 million is indeed grand larceny. $9 billion is so freaking massive a theft, there isn't even a name to accurately describe it. What's a (legal or otherwise) adjective for 500 times bigger than 'grand'?.

And you know what you still are playing into the hands of what is wrong with american politics.

you-- LOOK LOOK "Bush losses 9 billion" to cover up the fact that Obama debt spending is making what Bush spent look like chump change. Come up with BS excuses and no one wants to answer the question of massive debt spending.

[mactastic]

By your logic I should be able to rob my local convenient store because overall it doesn't play that much into total robberies.. I mean cmon.. its only liek .000006% that I am stealing out of what gets stolen a year :rolleyes:
No, what he's saying is that if you are the local police force, and someone reports an $180 robbery from a liquor store, and someone else reports a $90,000 from a bank vault, you best allocate your resources appropriately. Otherwise you just look like a dope.

[awmazz]

And you know what you still are playing into the hands of what is wrong with american politics.

you-- LOOK LOOK "Bush losses 9 billion" to cover up the fact that Obama debt spending is making what Bush spent look like chump change. Come up with BS excuses and no one wants to answer the question of massive debt spending.

You can't read. At no point whatsoever did I ever even come close to saying anything like that. I was never talking about Bush or Obama, I was talking about the people who pass judgement on them.

I'll try rewriting it so it's easier for you to understand, here in one sentence + three words -> if the good citizenry didn't give a flying ******* about someone stealing $9000 last year, then they don't give a flying ******* about someone stealing $180 this year. It's fake outrage.

Ditto applies to media pundits and news etc who didn't think it even worth reporting *then* but do *now*. Its all fake. They all had their chance to be outraged before when it really *was* outrageous, so it's just blatantly obvious they're faking their outrage now.

The only people who can genuinely criticise Obama now with any shred of credibility at all for either thefts or deficits are those who criticised it happening under Bush. Those who failed to criticise it under Bush, and even supported it, have not one shred of credibility.

I think both should be fully investigated and the money recovered and people sent to prison. If I was to pass judgement, 900 consecutive life sentences for each individual directly involved for the $9 billion theft and 180 months for each individual for the $180 million rort.

Or maybe they're not pretending, and it really is genuine outrage. Bit not over the $180. It's outrage that the other side thinks it has a right to do what their side did and it just makes them so freaking angrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry. Sort of like being angry at a black person sitting at the front of the bus, but being totally fine with it if it's a white person.

And PS; Most of the deficit is Bush spending. Again, if you really cared about massive deficit spending, the time to be outraged about it was October 3 last year when they actually approved all that deficit spending, before Obama was even elected. I hope you did vent your anger back then at Bush and actually voted for Obama.

[Rodimus Prime]

And PS; Most of the deficit is Bush spending. Again, if you really cared about massive deficit spending, the time to be outraged about it was October 3 last year when they actually approved all that deficit spending, before Obama was even elected. I hope you did vent your anger back then at Bush and actually voted for Obama.

If you think most of the massive debt spending is BUSH fault. Please tell me why from White houses own numbers in 2 years the massive debt spending by Obama STILL makes Bush look like chump change and then from there it only gets worse.

Sorry but you are still doing the "LOOK LOOK" actions. I bitch about Bush debt spending but now Obama is making it look like chump change.

[IntheNet]

And PS; Most of the deficit is Bush spending...

Uh... No...

http://i49.tinypic.com/2utqj5f.jpg

[hulugu]

One of the things that I think is interesting from all these variations of CBO charts is how Bush took a $236.2 billion surplus and left with $400 billion deficit, a significant change.

Secondly, on the notion that it will take "generations" for the US to pay back its deficit, this seems—at least based on historical precedent—completely untrue. According to the CBO, the deficit will reach an apotheosis of 14 percent of GDP and then will lower to between 6 and 4 percent of GDP by 2015. It's worth noting that during WWII, we ran a deficit as high as 120 percent of our GDP.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/US_Federal_Debt.png/350px-US_Federal_Debt.png

During a period in which we are engaged in two counter-insurgency conflicts, not to mention more than a dozen ancillary conflicts and peace-keeping efforts world-wide, as well as a massive recession, it would seem reasonable that we would maintain some amount of debt. It seems actually ahistorical to expect we wouldn't, considering we've managed to maintain at least some measure of public debt since the Civil War.

Obviously, there are worth critiques of the administration's use of the money, including the failures at Recovery.gov, however, I find it fascinating that many conservatives just discovered we've been running a public debt for a century.

[mactastic]

We would do well to remember a couple of other points as well. The first being that the Obama administration voluntarily removed several of the accounting gimmicks that previous administrations have used to make the deficit look smaller. The second is that a public option being included in the HCR pacakge will reduce the deficit by some $100 million.

[Ugg]

We would do well to remember a couple of other points as well. The first being that the Obama administration voluntarily removed several of the accounting gimmicks that previous administrations have used to make the deficit look smaller. The second is that a public option being included in the HCR pacakge will reduce the deficit by some $100 million.

A lot of people forget about the accounting gimmicks and it would behoove the administration to trumpet that fact.

[mactastic]

A lot of people forget about the accounting gimmicks and it would behoove the administration to trumpet that fact.
One could even call the previous administrations accounting to be a "trick" used to "hide" the true deficit number.

Just sayin...

[Rodimus Prime]

One could even call the previous administrations accounting to be a "trick" used to "hide" the true deficit number.

Just sayin...

Just would like to point out that those are actural numbers and the accounting "tricks" us to "hide" the numbers also is what showed the "surplus" from Clinton.

[hulugu]

Just would like to point out that those are actural numbers and the accounting "tricks" us to "hide" the numbers also is what showed the "surplus" from Clinton.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK, the surplus was a real number—okay based on a projection, but real enough for budgetary uses—which is why the Republicans decided a tax cut was so viable and necessary.

Regardless, the Obama administration needs to make the argument about the necessity and meaning of the spending, as well as remind the public that this budget doesn't hide spending on our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Sdashiki]

Are you sure about that? AFAIK, the surplus was a real number—okay based on a projection, but real enough for budgetary uses—which is why the Republicans decided a tax cut was so viable and necessary.


Yea...what did YOU do with your $300? :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

Yea...what did YOU do with your $300? :rolleyes:

Blackjack and hookers. You?

[mactastic]

Just would like to point out that those are actural numbers and the accounting "tricks" us to "hide" the numbers also is what showed the "surplus" from Clinton.
I'm well aware of that. But the point is, a portion of that graph that everyone is worshipping comes from these revised accounting methods that are a much more honest way to look at the deficit. Obama deserves credit for being willing to take those lumps. He could cook the books just as easily as the rest have, but he's not.

Blackjack and hookers. You?
One $300 hookerbot, or 300 $1 hookerbots? :p

[hulugu]

...


One $300 hookerbot, or 300 $1 hookerbots? :p

I split the difference.

[Counterfit]

10 $30 hookerbots?

[hulugu]

10 $30 hookerbots?

Hey, I don't judge.

[Iscariot]

Blackjack and hookers. You?

With this handy flow chart:


Hookers?------------------->yes
...^.|------>no..............|
...|..........|..............|
...|.......Get money........Blackjack?
...|_________|.^.............|......\
...............|.............no.....yes
...............|_____________|.......|
..................................Financial Success!

you step off my material you son of a bitch.

[hulugu]

you step off my material you son of a bitch.

Unless you're John DiMaggio* bring it. Son.







*If you're John DiMaggio, the genius behind Bender Bending Rodriguez, I sincerely apologize and hope that once you're crowned Pope as the prophecy says, you will not have me executed for my flagrant disregard for your ultimate authority.