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

[GMScud]

Surprised this hasn't surfaced yet on here:

Federal deficit on track for a record this fiscal year - Washington Times

White House Expects Federal Deficit to Spike to $1.65 Trillion - WSJ.com

Geithner Quietly Tells Obama Debt-to-GDP Cost Poised to Increase to Recor - Bloomberg

NationalJournal.com - What Could You Do With $3.73 Trillion? - Monday, February 14, 2011

Obama's FY2012 Budget:<br> Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes

[dmek25]

GM you have any threads started the 8 years W was spending like there was no tomorrow?

[Alvin Walton]

LOL....another who cares what the Chosen One does wrong because Bush did it too.

[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?

[CRedskinsRule]

I figure this is a good place to put a reminder that all spending bills must originate in the House. The President's budget (and every President's budget) literally isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I think that is an important fact and is very important to see that the budget was best brought into balance from 94-2000, when the Republicans held the House and Clinton was in the office. Hopefully this Republican house, and Democratic president can work together to achieve the same type of success. Unfortunately, I think Gingrich/Clinton was to govt as Tagliabue/Upshaw was to the NFL, and that Boehner/Obama will be like Goodell/Smith are to the current NFL.

Hopefully, everyone in politics will realize that is an unsustainable debt model.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

GM you have any threads started the 8 years W was spending like there was no tomorrow?

I'm not sure why that's relevant. We're in a hole and we need to dig out.

[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.

[saden1]

Obama is a dummy...he is spending money needlessly by feeding wars beasts. This country could use some belt tightening but with a congress whose "success" predicated on getting the bacon home there is no hope.

We're not going to solve these budget issues by maintaining the current tax rates and spending nor will we by cutting taxes and spending.

[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"?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Obama is a dummy...he is spending money needlessly by feeding wars beasts. This country could use some belt tightening but with a congress whose "success" predicated on getting the bacon home there is no hope.

We're not going to solve these budget issues by maintaining the current tax rates and spending nor will we by cutting taxes and spending.

Whoa, Lord O might not like you talking like dat!

So in your solution we must raise taxes and do what with spending?

[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.

[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:

[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

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.