The Risk of Runaway Defecits

[jreeves]

A lot dismissed them because they largely sat by quitely while their guy Bush, who inhereted a surplus, ran the debt up to $11 trillion and it was only after a Democrat took office, inhereting a trillion dollar deficit and an economic catastrophe, that they suddenly took this great interest in the debt. Cricitism is less effective when it is smothered in the stench of hypocrisy.

Just so everyone understands....
Budget Deficit Likely Doubled for Fiscal '08 - WSJ.com
The Congressional Budget Office said the U.S. budget deficit for fiscal 2008 -- $407 billion -- will be more than double the deficit for 2007, hit by the wars and a weak economy, and predicted it is likely to rise further in fiscal 2009.
U.S. Budget Office offers darker economic and deficit outlook | Reuters
The Congressional Budget Office forecast a record $1.8 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30 under Obama's budget proposal -- or 13.1 percent of gross domestic product.

 

[editec]

Yes the deficit will increase.

It will increase if Obama spends money and it will increase if he doesn't.

Tax REVENUES will be down because the economy is down.

The question really is: ARE these SPENDING PROGRAMS and TOXIC DEBT GUARANTES that BUSH II did and now OBAMA are doing going to recharge the nation's economy?

More importantly, will they recharge the American MIDDLE CLASS' economy?

 

[jreeves]

Yes the deficit will increase.

It will increase if Obama spends money and it will increase if he doesn't.

Tax REVENUES will be down because the economy is down.

The question really is: ARE these SPENDING PROGRAMS and TOXIC DEBT GUARANTES that BUSH II did and now OBAMA are doing going to recharge the nation's economy?

More importantly, will they recharge the American MIDDLE CLASS' economy?

So these kinds of deficits are customary for recessions? Really, when was the last time our debt was 13% of our GDP?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Yet many of the conservative citizens of this country have always complained about wasteful spending, running deficits, and all that stuff, NO MATTER WHO WAS PRESIDENT....

Did the REP representatives act poorly?? Yep.. and I support getting them out of office, to be replaced with true conservatives, and have for a while now

What true conservatives where? You asses stood and cheered the fiscal policies that led to this mess. You have no credibility. President Obama may fail in his policies. You people have already shown us a degree of failure and incompetance previously unseen. Now you are lecturing us on fiscal policy

Absolutely. Obama is Bush X3. Bush was a huge overspender, the biggest in history. Obama is 3X WORSE than Bush in that regard. If you hated Bush fiscal policy, Obama is doing the SAME EXACT THING only many times as much as Bush did! He's not raising taxes in any meaningful amount but he is spending at a rate that DWARFs Bush spending.

Obama's current policies will fail, they have no chance at all to work. You simply cannot spend to prosperity. It has never worked and never will. All that will happen is a massive round of inflation that will choke off and kill any recovery, once all this stimulus and bail out money finally hits the street. Add to that, China is about tapped out.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with this. However, if you are a Republican and you weren't banging you hand on the table and screaming at the top of your lungs that the Bush White House was running needless deficits, then you don't have much credibility.

Competent fiscal policy is to run surpluses in good times and deficits in bad. You run surpluses so you have some firepower to deal with the bad times. Yet the Bush ran not only deficits in good times - remember, according to the Veep, "deficits don't matter" - but Bush cut taxes while embarking on what is so far the third most expensive war in the history of the nation. Bush should have been running surpluses and paying for the Iraq war as we went.

With the exception of maybe Ron Paul, pretty much the entire Republican party cheered the White House on while Bush wracked up debt during a time of economic expansion. This is why the Republican party has no credibility on this issue.

I was against Bush running up deficits. Many republicans in Congress were against it but they didn't have the balls to cross party lines.

Unfortunately there weren't many conservatives like you. Most steadyfastly supported his tax cuts, which drove huge deficits. Few objected that he shouldn't cut taxes unless he cut spending too.

 

[Iriemon]

Yet many of the conservative citizens of this country have always complained about wasteful spending, running deficits, and all that stuff, NO MATTER WHO WAS PRESIDENT....

Did the REP representatives act poorly?? Yep.. and I support getting them out of office, to be replaced with true conservatives, and have for a while now

What true conservatives where? You asses stood and cheered the fiscal policies that led to this mess. You have no credibility. President Obama may fail in his policies. You people have already shown us a degree of failure and incompetance previously unseen. Now you are lecturing us on fiscal policy

Absolutely. Obama is Bush X3. Bush was a huge overspender, the biggest in history.

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.

Obama is 3X WORSE than Bush in that regard. If you hated Bush fiscal policy, Obama is doing the SAME EXACT THING only many times as much as Bush did! He's not raising taxes in any meaningful amount but he is spending at a rate that DWARFs Bush spending.

For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.

Obama's current policies will fail, they have no chance at all to work. You simply cannot spend to prosperity. It has never worked and never will. All that will happen is a massive round of inflation that will choke off and kill any recovery, once all this stimulus and bail out money finally hits the street. Add to that, China is about tapped out.

You can only hope, eh?

 

[jreeves]

What true conservatives where? You asses stood and cheered the fiscal policies that led to this mess. You have no credibility. President Obama may fail in his policies. You people have already shown us a degree of failure and incompetance previously unseen. Now you are lecturing us on fiscal policy

Absolutely. Obama is Bush X3. Bush was a huge overspender, the biggest in history.

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.

Obama is 3X WORSE than Bush in that regard. If you hated Bush fiscal policy, Obama is doing the SAME EXACT THING only many times as much as Bush did! He's not raising taxes in any meaningful amount but he is spending at a rate that DWARFs Bush spending.

For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.

Obama's current policies will fail, they have no chance at all to work. You simply cannot spend to prosperity. It has never worked and never will. All that will happen is a massive round of inflation that will choke off and kill any recovery, once all this stimulus and bail out money finally hits the street. Add to that, China is about tapped out.

You can only hope, eh?

What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

This will definitely save us from a depression....then he has the nerve to talk about tax breaks for the rich....

 

[Zoomie1980]

What true conservatives where? You asses stood and cheered the fiscal policies that led to this mess. You have no credibility. President Obama may fail in his policies. You people have already shown us a degree of failure and incompetance previously unseen. Now you are lecturing us on fiscal policy

Absolutely. Obama is Bush X3. Bush was a huge overspender, the biggest in history.

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.

Obama is 3X WORSE than Bush in that regard. If you hated Bush fiscal policy, Obama is doing the SAME EXACT THING only many times as much as Bush did! He's not raising taxes in any meaningful amount but he is spending at a rate that DWARFs Bush spending.

For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.

Obama's current policies will fail, they have no chance at all to work. You simply cannot spend to prosperity. It has never worked and never will. All that will happen is a massive round of inflation that will choke off and kill any recovery, once all this stimulus and bail out money finally hits the street. Add to that, China is about tapped out.

You can only hope, eh?

Outside of WWII, the highest the deficit has been as a percentage of GDP has been about 8% during the height of the Reagan defence build up that toppled the Soviet Union. Bush ran between about 4-6% and only pushed toward's 8% in his last year.

Obama in his first year???? 13%.....

 

[editec]

Yes the deficit will increase.

It will increase if Obama spends money and it will increase if he doesn't.

Tax REVENUES will be down because the economy is down.

The question really is: ARE these SPENDING PROGRAMS and TOXIC DEBT GUARANTES that BUSH II did and now OBAMA are doing going to recharge the nation's economy?

More importantly, will they recharge the American MIDDLE CLASS' economy?

So these kinds of deficits are customary for recessions? Really, when was the last time our debt was 13% of our GDP?

Deficit spending has been happening in good times and in bad times.

In these bad times, even if the government's spending remained status quo, the deficit would grow because tax revenues will be down.

The question is: will any of this additional deficit spending actually recharge the economy to get it growing again?

Clearly throwing a trillion dollars at the banking community has helped them, but will they help the USA?

So far, the answer is no.

They're not lending to consumers at the rate they were because they are trying to pay off their TARP money so that they government gets out of their board rooms.

Additionally, I suspect they are not lending because they are fearful that the borrowers can repay their debts because unemployment is growing.

Given that 2/3s this economy is driven by consumers, and people are either not buying because they are broke or because they are afraid of losing their jobs, I do not think this depression is going away anytime soon.

In fact, I would not be surprised to see us go into another nose-dive as it becomes apparent that this stimulus plan is not working.

 

[Iriemon]

Absolutely. Obama is Bush X3. Bush was a huge overspender, the biggest in history.

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.



For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.

Obama's current policies will fail, they have no chance at all to work. You simply cannot spend to prosperity. It has never worked and never will. All that will happen is a massive round of inflation that will choke off and kill any recovery, once all this stimulus and bail out money finally hits the street. Add to that, China is about tapped out.

You can only hope, eh?

Outside of WWII, the highest the deficit has been as a percentage of GDP has been about 8% during the height of the Reagan defence build up that toppled the Soviet Union. Bush ran between about 4-6% and only pushed toward's 8% in his last year.

Obama in his first year???? 13%.....

People keep asking about Obama's first year, as if they haven't heard there was a financial meltdown and sever recession.

What are Obama's projected % in 3-5 years? Less than Reagan's and probably Bush's. A $500 billion deficit with a $15 trillion economy is only about 3.5%. Not that I support a $500 billion deficit.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes the deficit will increase.

It will increase if Obama spends money and it will increase if he doesn't.

Tax REVENUES will be down because the economy is down.

The question really is: ARE these SPENDING PROGRAMS and TOXIC DEBT GUARANTES that BUSH II did and now OBAMA are doing going to recharge the nation's economy?

More importantly, will they recharge the American MIDDLE CLASS' economy?

So these kinds of deficits are customary for recessions? Really, when was the last time our debt was 13% of our GDP?

Deficit spending has been happening in good times and in bad times.

In these bad times, even if the government's spending remained status quo, the deficit would grow because tax revenues will be down.

The question is: will any of this additional deficit spending actually recharge the economy to get it growing again?

Clearly throwing a trillion dollars at the banking community has helped them, but will they help the USA?

So far, the answer is no.

They're not lending to consumers at the rate they were because they are trying to pay off their TARP money so that they government gets out of their board rooms.

Additionally, I suspect they are not lending because they are fearful that the borrowers can repay their debts because unemployment is growing.

Given that 2/3s this economy is driven by consumers, and people are either not buying because they are broke or because they are afraid of losing their jobs, I do not think this depression is going away anytime soon.

In fact, I would not be surprised to see us go into another nose-dive as it becomes apparent that this stimulus plan is not working.

You think the economy would be the same as it is not without the bailout if they'd let the financial system collapse lase winter?

Just because the economy hasn't started growing yet doesn't mean it couldn't have been much worse.

 

[jreeves]

Yes the deficit will increase.

It will increase if Obama spends money and it will increase if he doesn't.

Tax REVENUES will be down because the economy is down.

The question really is: ARE these SPENDING PROGRAMS and TOXIC DEBT GUARANTES that BUSH II did and now OBAMA are doing going to recharge the nation's economy?

More importantly, will they recharge the American MIDDLE CLASS' economy?

So these kinds of deficits are customary for recessions? Really, when was the last time our debt was 13% of our GDP?

Deficit spending has been happening in good times and in bad times.

In these bad times, even if the government's spending remained status quo, the deficit would grow because tax revenues will be down.

The question is: will any of this additional deficit spending actually recharge the economy to get it growing again?

Clearly throwing a trillion dollars at the banking community has helped them, but will they help the USA?

So far, the answer is no.

They're not lending to consumers at the rate they were because they are trying to pay off their TARP money so that they government gets out of their board rooms.

Additionally, I suspect they are not lending because they are fearful that the borrowers can repay their debts because unemployment is growing.

Given that 2/3s this economy is driven by consumers, and people are either not buying because they are broke or because they are afraid of losing their jobs, I do not think this depression is going away anytime soon.

In fact, I would not be surprised to see us go into another nose-dive as it becomes apparent that this stimulus plan is not working.

Now come on I asked you a specific question and you completely ignored it. When was the last time our national debt exceeded 13% of our gross domestic product? I mean if recessions caused huge deficits then you should be able to tell me without hesitation.

 

[jreeves]

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.



For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.



You can only hope, eh?

Outside of WWII, the highest the deficit has been as a percentage of GDP has been about 8% during the height of the Reagan defence build up that toppled the Soviet Union. Bush ran between about 4-6% and only pushed toward's 8% in his last year.

Obama in his first year???? 13%.....

People keep asking about Obama's first year, as if they haven't heard there was a financial meltdown and sever recession.

What are Obama's projected % in 3-5 years? Less than Reagan's and probably Bush's. A $500 billion deficit with a $15 trillion economy is only about 3.5%. Not that I support a $500 billion deficit.

Sorry you must have missed this.
The Risk of Debt - Megan McArdle
The president also talks of cutting the deficit in half from this bloated level. But even after the recession ends and the troops return home, he'd still run $1 trillion deficits -- compared to President Bush's $162 billion pre-recession deficit. In other words, the structural budget deficit (which excludes the impacts of booms/recessions) would more than quintuple.

 

[Maple]

yes the moderate reps ran up too much debt, that's why they lost the house and the senate, Obama is quadrupling that debt. It's high time we get another Ronald Reagan in there to straighten this mess out. 2010 and 2012 is going to be that time. Bring on the tea parties.

 

[Iriemon]

yes the moderate reps ran up too much debt, that's why they lost the house and the senate, Obama is quadrupling that debt. It's high time we get another Ronald Reagan in there to straighten this mess out. 2010 and 2012 is going to be that time. Bring on the tea parties.

Who says Obama is quadrupling the debt. I've never seen that assertion by any reliable source. A number of folks have posted it tho.

Ronald "increased the debt 180%" Reagan to "clean up"? That's a joke.

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for 91% of the entire National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[jreeves]

Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for 91% of the entire National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org

This spam has been sponsored by Chrissypants international....

 

[Zoomie1980]

As a percentage of GDP, Reagan spend more every year than Bush did.



For different reasons. Bush did it to build up the military, fight unnecessary wars, and pork.

Obama is doing it currently to save the economy from depression.



You can only hope, eh?

Outside of WWII, the highest the deficit has been as a percentage of GDP has been about 8% during the height of the Reagan defence build up that toppled the Soviet Union. Bush ran between about 4-6% and only pushed toward's 8% in his last year.

Obama in his first year???? 13%.....

People keep asking about Obama's first year, as if they haven't heard there was a financial meltdown and sever recession.

What are Obama's projected % in 3-5 years? Less than Reagan's and probably Bush's. A $500 billion deficit with a $15 trillion economy is only about 3.5%. Not that I support a $500 billion deficit.

I wish the deficit was $500 billion.....try 1.8 TRILLION....and that's just THIS YEAR, it is expected to be even HIGHER in the coming years as the bulk of the "stimulus" actually get appropriated.

 

[Zoomie1980]

yes the moderate reps ran up too much debt, that's why they lost the house and the senate, Obama is quadrupling that debt. It's high time we get another Ronald Reagan in there to straighten this mess out. 2010 and 2012 is going to be that time. Bring on the tea parties.

Who says Obama is quadrupling the debt. I've never seen that assertion by any reliable source. A number of folks have posted it tho.

Ronald "increased the debt 180%" Reagan to "clean up"? That's a joke.

...Uhh.... try the CBO.... Obama's budget deficit as a % of GDP is almost TWICE what Reagan's was at the height of the defence build-up. And the main spending hasn't even kicked in....

 

[Chris]

Reagan and the Bushes are responsible for 91% of the entire National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org

This spam has been sponsored by Chrissypants international....

Can't handle the truth?

That's why you are a Republican.

The figures on that website come straight from the Department of the Treasury. There is even a link provided.

Busted again!