Obama and his new budget: Debt will surpass total US Economy

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Amazing that we have pulled out of other recessions without the government throwing Billions and billions at it. How did we ever manage as a country to survive?

LOL...and this chart is meaningful how? I mean, it doesn't even answer your own question which implies there's a huge disconnect in your thinking

This is a more appropriate chart because a billion in 1940 is not the same as a billion in 2011...I'm confidant you know this and are not as silly as your post.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...and this chart is meaningful how? I mean, it doesn't even answer your own question which implies there's a huge disconnect in your thinking

This is a more appropriate chart because a billion in 1940 is not the same as a billion in 2011...I'm confidant you know this and are not as silly as your post.

The chart I posted had the recessions and the deficits graphed against each other. I liked that reflection that the Government rarely has spent us out of a recession, which seems to be President Obama's basic premise on many of his speeches (I am sure many Republicans have said similar things since 2000).

The question I asked was simply a sarcasm aimed towards the trillions of dollars we have spent that were supposed bring us out of recession, along with a heavy dose of my cynicism towards big government.


Your chart tells a very different, and more bleak, picture, IF De Tocqueville is to be believed.

Originally Posted by Alexis de Tocqueville

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

by your chart, up until the 1940's the Federal debt as a pct of GDP was normally well under 50%. Since the mid 40's our debt even at it's lowest points were higher,or close to, then the highest debt the period from 1800 to 1930. And as we add a trillion plus per year, it would look to be that we are going to hover well over 100% of GDP for the next several years.

What do you think earmarks are, other than "bribing the public with public money"?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The chart I posted had the recessions and the deficits graphed against each other. I liked that reflection that the Government rarely has spent us out of a recession, which seems to be President Obama's basic premise on many of his speeches (I am sure many Republicans have said similar things since 2000).

The question I asked was simply a sarcasm aimed towards the trillions of dollars we have spent that were supposed bring us out of recession, along with a heavy dose of my cynicism towards big government.


Your chart tells a very different, and more bleak, picture, IF De Tocqueville is to be believed.

by your chart, up until the 1940's the Federal debt as a pct of GDP was normally well under 50%. Since the mid 40's our debt even at it's lowest points were higher,or close to, then the highest debt the period from 1800 to 1930. And as we add a trillion plus per year, it would look to be that we are going to hover well over 100% of GDP for the next several years.

What do you think earmarks are, other than "bribing the public with public money"?

It doesn't even do that though. If you zoom in you will see a different picture for all the other recessions. Plus your the money in your chart has no relative value.

Additionally you might want to look at the last budget proposal by Bush which was the first trillion dollar budget deficit (1.3 trillion to be exact) that everyone neglects in their equation. The truth is that man hid all the cost and left it to next guy to come along. Now I will give you Obama is not helping himself getting out of this mess.

This is the real picture of the deficit in the last 7 years which is the biggest contributor to debt:

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...and this chart is meaningful how? I mean, it doesn't even answer your own question which implies there's a huge disconnect in your thinking

This is a more appropriate chart because a billion in 1940 is not the same as a billion in 2011...I'm confidant you know this and are not as silly as your post.

...

Also, I first meant that chart as a response to dmek's note about Bush's spending, and I am pretty confident 400Billion in 2003 was roughly equivalent to 400Billion in 2011.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Also, I first meant that chart as a response to dmek's note about Bush's spending, and I am pretty confident 400Billion in 2003 was roughly equivalent to 400Billion in 2011.

Nope, $400 billion today is equivalent to $328 billion in 2003's dollars.

There's been 8 years worth of inflation since 2003, about 2.5% per year.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Nope, $400 billion today is equivalent to $328 billion in 2003's dollars.

There's been 8 years worth of inflation since 2003, about 2.5% per year.

Fair enough, what would 1.65 trillion be in 2003 dollars?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Fair enough, what would 1.65 trillion be in 2003 dollars?

~1.35 trillion.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

~1.35 trillion.

So, when I used the chart as a simple way to highlight the difference between Bush's outrageous spending, and Obama's Outrageous spending in response to dmek, it reasonably demonstrated my point.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, when I used the chart as a simple way to highlight the difference between Bush's outrageous spending, and Obama's Outrageous spending in response to dmek, it reasonably demonstrated my point.

It doesn't because it is deceptive. For one thing it is meaningless and secondly like I stated in my previous post Bush's last budget proposal was ~1.3 trillion dollars. These budgets aren't as disjoint as your "point" would have you believe.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Also, I first meant that chart as a response to dmek's note about Bush's spending, and I am pretty confident 400Billion in 2003 was roughly equivalent to 400Billion in 2011.

See that's the thing, it isn't. When you factor in inflation there's a huge difference. The rate of inflation change since 2003 is roughly 18.5%. 400 billion then is ~474 billion in 2010.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...and this chart is meaningful how? I mean, it doesn't even answer your own question which implies there's a huge disconnect in your thinking

This is a more appropriate chart because a billion in 1940 is not the same as a billion in 2011...I'm confidant you know this and are not as silly as your post.

This really is the best chart to look at because it expresses the debt as a % of GDP. The limitation is that the graph doesn't show what will happen in 2011 and beyond; Obama's budget is projecting the blue to spike above the 100 line, the only other time that happened was the 1940s and WW2.

Shortly following that time our economy boomed in the 1950s, but that was a different world. Economies are globalized now, the US has a great deal more competition than in the 1950s.

We won't be able to grow our way out of debt, we're going to have to do it through very hard spending cuts.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This really is the best chart to look at because it expresses the debt as a % of GDP. The limitation is that the graph doesn't show what will happen in 2011 and beyond; Obama's budget is projecting the blue to spike above the 100 line, the only other time that happened was the 1940s and WW2.

Shortly following that time our economy boomed in the 1950s, but that was a different world. Economies are globalized now, the US has a great deal more competition than in the 1950s.

We won't be able to grow our way out of debt, we're going to have to do it through very hard spending cuts.

It most certainly won't. Cuts in spending alone won't cut it, the rich will have to cough up some dough too.


Going above 100% GDP is definitely going to be problematic. The wealth of a nation can't be spent on paying your debt.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

It most certainly won't. Cuts in spending alone won't cut it, they rich will have to cough up some dough too.

Why the rich how about the 40 plus % that pay nothing.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Why the rich how about the 40 plus % that pay nothing.

I agree, screw the large catholic families and take away their child tax credit. 25% flat tax across the board anyone?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I agree, screw the large catholic families and take away their child tax credit. 25% flat tax across the board anyone?

25% seems high. That means I have to work 3 months for the goverment. I'll revert back to tis post I made earlier.

F them all because they all spend too much money. Even back when Newt/ Clinton had a surplus they were still spending too much money. This is not a party problem this is a goverment problem which starts with the federal goverment all the way down to city goverment. F them all.