Deficit Denial?

[SFC Ollie]

Don't you folks get it? It doesn't matter one bit what caused this debt. I don't even care what Obama has added so far. But it is time to start fixing it. Place blame after we solve the problem..........

 

[merrill]

Don't you folks get it? It doesn't matter one bit what caused this debt. I don't even care what Obama has added so far. But it is time to start fixing it. Place blame after we solve the problem..........

We're going to have to borrow to fix the problem. Investing it properly should help pay it back.

Government borrowing is NOT a new concept. Some debt is always going to be part of the deal.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Borrow from Peter to pay Paul? That's part of what got us into this.....

Stop spending more than we take in..... We have a spending problem.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Correction...

--- This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers 124.6 billion $$$$, in addition to millions of job losses, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance which could substantially increase the cost to taxpayers.

Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal

The scandal was more than just "Reagan/Bush".
Whitewater and Madison Guaranty cost the taxpayers $73 million, after all.

 

[merrill]

The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying. Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Meanwhile the GOP continue their efforts to destroy the USA economy over new economic growth.

Congress in general has ways to reduce obligations that are safe and would not endanger the recovery.

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

2. Place all US government employees and Vets on Medicare for ALL Single Payer Insurance = about $250 billion annual savings

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

6. Stop forcing taxpayers to be the insurance arm for coal and nuke power plants

Plus 10 other reasonable,prudent and fiscally responsible options:
10 Ways to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones

 

[SFC Ollie]

No thank you, they already forced this vet onto Medicare. After promising me free medical care for life.

My medical expenditures are well over $3000 a year... A far far cry from the agreement i had with the American people...

And most of that stuff has little to do with the GOP.

 

[jwoodie]

If it were available it would be there. Obama’s impact on the rise of the debt, as it was not just spending, but a decline in revenue that is responsible for the sharp rise in federal budget deficits. Obama has proposed policies to help reduce the deficit and it seems strange to suggest he has done nothing about it.

Who's saying it is a problem?

The deficit is over exaggerated as a problem.

If it were available it would be there.

He made a claim with no available backup?
That's funny.
Pretty weak for a professor of economics.

YOU certainly cannot prove him wrong.

YOU don't understand that the burden of proof lies with the person making the affirmative assertion. (That would be YOU.) In addition, your repetitive entries indicate an inability to organize your thoughts in a coherent manner. Finally, you present "facts" that you know or should know to be false. For example, the National Debt was approximately $10 trillion when GWB took office and $14 trillion when he left. Simple arithmetic shows this to represent an average deficit of $500 billion over 8 years, not over $ 1 trillion as you you stated. I am no GWB fan, but why the need for revisionist history?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
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
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

 

[SFC Ollie]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying. Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Meanwhile the GOP continue their efforts to destroy the USA economy over new economic growth.

Congress in general has ways to reduce obligations that are safe and would not endanger the recovery.

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

2. Place all US government employees and Vets on Medicare for ALL Single Payer Insurance = about $250 billion annual savings

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

6. Stop forcing taxpayers to be the insurance arm for coal and nuke power plants

Plus 10 other reasonable,prudent and fiscally responsible options:
10 Ways to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

Neither source had any detail about this.

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

Didn't Obama already do this?

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

Huh?

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

When is the last time we built a nuke plant in this country?

Tell you what would save real money, now, end the ethanol mandate.
End all "green energy" boondogles.
Open up drilling in ANWR. Stop trying to kill fracking and drilling in the gulf.
Start sunsetting ridiculous regulations instead on constantly piling on new ones.
End the sugar tariffs and import restrictions.
End boutique gasoline blend requirements.

 

[jwoodie]

Sorry, I was using GDP numbers. Same result, though.

 

[merrill]

What impact would the converting of Social Security to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion.

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy
under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

 

[merrill]

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor.

While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things.

In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme.

The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current “Great Recession.”

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

 

[merrill]

The bottom line borrowing money to make money is smart business.

Borrowing money to cover the cost of money holes is reckless spending thus wreckanomics.

Americans love to borrow money to make money or invest in their homes or invest in a small
business or invest in a garden tiller. It is simply American.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What impact would the converting of Social Security to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.

This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion.

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy
under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor.

While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things.

In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme.

The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression. And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current “Great Recession.”

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if Social Security private accounts replaced the current system?

People investing their savings in the real economy will increase investment and grow GDP.

Government investing our savings in government spending will grow government and leave future taxpayers on the hook to pay future Social Security benefits.

I think the first option is better. Which do you prefer?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy
under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

Bullshit. Use a real source, like right from the Government instead of some BS site you want to use. I already posted it for you once... Or don't you read official numbers?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

 

[Underhill]

Nobody with a financial background, either inside or outside government, actually wants the United States Treasury to pay off all its debt.

For one thing, having no debt would mean being completely unable to issue any type of government bond, which would not be at all good for anyone's economy. For another, a certain level of debt is inevitable when there has to be recovery from things like natural disasters.

That doesn't mean that the debt should be anywhere as high as it is, of course. Only that the focus has to be on managing it instead of paying it off.

I would agree with that. But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Our debt levels are too high and should be at least half (as a percentage of GDP) what they are now.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Yeah, that Fannie and Freddie scam was awful. Cost us over $125 billion in taxpayer money so far. Damn Republicans. Oh, wait, that was the Democrats, never mind.

no, you were right, it was bush.
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003

or more accurately the republicans attitude of weak oversight that let banks run amok, taking piles of garbage, and dividing it into traunches so that it could be sold as triple A.

The Subprime Mortgage Primer

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf?attempt=2

There really is no such thing as the Bush tax cut for the very wealthy.
All tax payers received a tax cut.The middle class as well.
The proof of this comes from Obama and the Dems themselves.
Just recently the Libs were bitching if the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts were to go away the Middle class would lose the benefit of .....you guessed it kiddies.
The Bush tax cut...

One for me and a million for you isnt exactly a square deal. Im not sure why you are so gung ho to crush the working class with taxes, but the rich can afford to pay for the services America provides them, which allow them to create their wealth.

This GOP ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.[/B]
That's an interesting claim. You have any proof?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9G8XREyG0Q]Why Obama Now - YouTube[/ame]

Borrow from Peter to pay Paul? That's part of what got us into this.....
Stop spending more than we take in..... We have a spending problem.......

What revisions to our spending policy are you advocating?

 

[Underhill]

The repub party declared the day Obama was elected their primary function would be to make Obama a one term president. They are still trying. Consequently their millions of NO votes became the disastrous campaign against women,The USA and jobs for Americans.
Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Meanwhile the GOP continue their efforts to destroy the USA economy over new economic growth.

Congress in general has ways to reduce obligations that are safe and would not endanger the recovery.

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

2. Place all US government employees and Vets on Medicare for ALL Single Payer Insurance = about $250 billion annual savings

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

6. Stop forcing taxpayers to be the insurance arm for coal and nuke power plants

Plus 10 other reasonable,prudent and fiscally responsible options:
10 Ways to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff | Mother Jones

1. Recall the $1.6 billion tax rebate from Goldman-Sachs

Neither source had any detail about this.

3. Stop the war thus halting the numbers of disabled vets = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

Didn't Obama already do this?

4. Cut off special interesting financing of all elections = trillions of tax $$$$$$ savings

Huh?

5. Stop forcing taxpayers to guarantee construction costs of nuke and coal power plants = billions of tax $$$$$ savings

When is the last time we built a nuke plant in this country?

Tell you what would save real money, now, end the ethanol mandate.
End all "green energy" boondogles.
Open up drilling in ANWR. Stop trying to kill fracking and drilling in the gulf.
Start sunsetting ridiculous regulations instead on constantly piling on new ones.
End the sugar tariffs and import restrictions.
End boutique gasoline blend requirements.

I agree with some of that, but fracking is a dangerous process. I live 20 miles from the fracking sites in North Western PA, where people can turn on their water faucet and set it on fire...

And when it comes to domestic drilling, I am diametrically apposed to it.

In fact, I would say we should stop all drilling if we really want what is best for our countries long term health. And it has nothing to do with green initiatives (as I think we will end up drilling in all these places eventually anyway).

But import all our oil. Let the rest of the world diminish their reserves. Then our oil will be worth exponentially more. Why force the issue now? It's like pulling money out of your 401k. It will be worth much more later if we don't.

And we really don't need it. It will have a negligible impact on anything if we drill now. That may not be the case if we keep those reserves available in the future.