welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

man, he really doesn't get the problem with deficits
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: man, he really doesn't get the problem with deficits Reply with quote

from nytimes
Quote:
ugust 17, 2006
Deficit to Rise After Drop, Budget Office Predicts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that the federal deficit will decline to $260 billion this year but will increase to $286 billion next year.

The agency estimated total deficits over the next decade at $1.76 trillion.

The $260 billion forecast for the current budget year, which the CBO previewed earlier this month, would represent an improvement from last year's actual deficit of $319 billion.

However, the detailed CBO report released Thursday showed that the improvement will be temporary with deficit expected to swell to $1.76 trillion over the next decade.

The new CBO report updates estimates made in March, when the CBO projected that the deficit for this year would be $111 billion higher. The improvement reflected strong gains this year in federal tax collections, reflecting an improving economy.

But in the new report, the CBO projected that the deficit for the next budget year, which begins Oct. 1, will climb to $286 billion, then decline slightly to $273 billion in 2008 before rising for the next two years.

The Bush administration points to the improved deficit outlook for this year as evidence that the president's first-term tax cuts worked to get the economy out of the 2001 recession and have led to stronger economic growth and tax revenues.

However, Democrats said the new CBO estimates were evidence of the failure of the administration to get control of the deficit.

"The administration's supporters may wish to paint this deficit as progress, but a deficit of $260 billion falls far short of the $236 billion surplus booked in 2000 and the $305 billion surplus predicted for this year when the Bush administration took office," said Rep. John Spratt, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

The CBO projects that the deficit will total $1.42 billion from 2007 through 2011 and will total $1.76 billion from 2007 through 2016.

That is based on an assumption that the deficits will shrink dramatically beginning in 2012, reflecting the fact that Bush's first term tax cuts will have all expired by that time. The president is working to get Congress to make those tax cuts permanent.


in other words, not satisfied with record deficits during his own administration, our dear leader is determined to ensure that there will be record deficits for all times.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Black Kitty



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 704
Location: Under your bed.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where does he expect the money to come from...?
_________________
Live to laugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Egregius



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Check the debt clock.

8.4 trillion is an insanely high number. And it's only getting higher at a record pace. Things can't go on like that, right? One day, the whole thingamajig needs to come crashing down, right?

Well, almost. Wiki has some interesting arguments for and against relieving the debt.

For one thing, every attempt of trying to pay off the debt was followed by a recession, reasoned to stem from a lack of available money. Every US Gov-debt-dollar is basically an extra dollar that's circulating and being spent/invested in the economy. So Bush' insane spending, it can be argued, actually does help the economy.

(Argh, I suspect I'm already being labeled a Bush supporter again, and henceforth outright dismissed Confused Sad)

Of course, Bush is still on a crash course, since the US gov can only create debt up to the level it is believed can be repayed in the future. The whole western economy floats on fiducy, and once that faith is hurt, things come crashing down. There's still a bit of stretch left of course, but only as long as the major oil producing countries keep dollar accounts instead of euro accounts. <conspiracy> Being a dollar-economy helps if every country in the world wants dollars to buy oil (and thus, making debt is relatively sustainable compared to some other countries). Sidenote: Iraq wanted to switch from oil-for-dollars to oil-for-euros, like Iran already has. </conspiracy>

Anyway, to come back to the wiki link: I found it interesting to see the height of the US debt compared to national GDP actually compares quite favorable to some European and Asian countries.

But still: those 360 billion spent each year on interest could be spent in better places. The thing I find disturbing is how easily congress gives the OK to new debt ceilings. It's been raised like, what, 4 times during the Bush administration now?

I'm also disturbed to see how bad republican presidents fuck up the national debt each time. And they keep talking about lowering the tax-burden..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, that's the thing. if the republicans would not insist on giving tax breaks to really really rich people who can more than afford to pay their taxes, we wouldn't be looking at these kinds of debt levels.

and the bad thing about the debt is, that's not imaginary money. we borrowed that money from somewhere - a very great deal of it from china.

now, we have to ask ourselves - do we really want to owe china all that money? are we totally confident that china will continue to loan us money, and not ever call in the debt? china, the country that is now using more and more oil? a country now competing with us in many areas?

i think bush/cheney's desire to keep their rich buddies from ever having to pay taxes is mortgaging us to a country that is really, truly, deep down, not our friend. and which will screw us over when it will be to its benefit. it's just really, really, stupid - and it's not even for a good cause.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kilgore



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2833
Location: Portland, Or

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Black Kitty wrote:
Where does he expect the money to come from...?


We take out loans and then just pay the interest. It used to be that those loans were largely financed by the American people, in the form of bond sales. Back then the deficit wasn't necessarily a huge deal, becuase it was basically money we owed ourselves in the future. Nowadays, Japanese and Chinese financial institutions are financing a lot of our debt, which is a bit more worrysome.
_________________
"Whatever afflicts thee, their asses I shall kick"

-Slick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
now, we have to ask ourselves - do we really want to owe china all that money? are we totally confident that china will continue to loan us money, and not ever call in the debt? china, the country that is now using more and more oil? a country now competing with us in many areas?


even more troubling than china or any other debtee nation calling in the loans are the thought that these donors are increasingly well-armed to leverage the debt and the threat of calling it in against political 'favors' that are in their national interest, but not ours...


...bush would sell california and call it "encouraging our strong economy"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Mytton



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 607

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Egregius wrote:
I'm also disturbed to see how bad republican presidents fuck up the national debt each time. And they keep talking about lowering the tax-burden..

Well, all republicans before reagan except for Ford lowered the national debt...

Although there is the point that all Democratic presidents have lowered the national debt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jinx



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3639
Location: America, fuck yeah!

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not inclined to go look up that statistics right now, but I don't believe that.

If those statements were true, then we would not have had a national debt before Ford, except for what had been incurred by the last non-Democrat & non-Republican, which would be going back quite a ways.

Again, without looking up stats, I'm pretty sure FDR, a Democrat, drastically increased the national debt.
_________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
- Charles Darwin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 10:51 am    Post subject: worrp Reply with quote

Quote:
For one thing, every attempt of trying to pay off the debt was followed by a recession, reasoned to stem from a lack of available money. Every US Gov-debt-dollar is basically an extra dollar that's circulating and being spent/invested in the economy. So Bush' insane spending, it can be argued, actually does help the economy.


The Donald Trump effect is in play, as well. A little debt will put you under the foot of the loaning party. But if you hold enough debt, you have more authority over the terms of the repayment than the debtee does. Big debt is an advantagous situation.

Especially so now, since if the US economy tanks, it takes the rest of the world with it. Our creditors, I've heard it said, are left in the position of not being able to let us default without killing themselves.

Our debt, though, is not strategic. It's the haphazard result of 'strategic appropriations' from a majority party that went giddy under the sweeping pen of a rubber-stamp president. I remember that about '04, Bush had managed to borrow more foriegn money than all the other presidents combined. Was that adjusted for inflation? Jesus christ, I hope not, but it's bad either way. The way we run these deficit appropriations makes it so that it, in combination with trade deficits, will create a five to ten year period of natural stagflation, as the economy rebounds from a period of artificial debt flotation. Herbert Hoover would use a rubber band to describe it via analogy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jinx wrote:
I'm not inclined to go look up that statistics right now, but I don't believe that.

If those statements were true, then we would not have had a national debt before Ford, except for what had been incurred by the last non-Democrat & non-Republican, which would be going back quite a ways.

Again, without looking up stats, I'm pretty sure FDR, a Democrat, drastically increased the national debt.

JohnMytton:
War presidents tend to do that.
You can't expect to fund something like presence in WWII without debt increase, surely.

EDIT: I'm so not excusing the debt because of Iraq here. One, I wanted us to stay the hell out. (Typical of someone who lived in London at the time, fyi. I wanted BOTH of my countries to stay out of there.) Two, much of the debt, as has been said before, is because of the top-heavy tax cuts. That is all.
Back to top
Egregius



Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Mytton wrote:
Egregius wrote:
I'm also disturbed to see how bad republican presidents fuck up the national debt each time. And they keep talking about lowering the tax-burden..

Well, all republicans before reagan except for Ford lowered the national debt...

Although there is the point that all Democratic presidents have lowered the national debt.


Oops, you right. But if you compare subsequent presidents, those republicans before Reagan always seemed to bring down the debt less than the Democrat presidents; in other words, turn a trend. E.g. Kennedy-Johnson -8.3%/-8.3%, Nixon/Ford -3%/+0.2%, and Carter -3.3% again.

Marik is right btw. Nothing scary about China and Japan having most of the debt. They didn't want to buy it up, knowing the dollar was busy slowly devaluing, even with them buying the dollars. But they had to bring the value up, or their economies, which depend on exporting to the US, would buckle. Japan got plenty of backlash from it's population for making such a 'bad investment' (buying billions of dollars only to see it decrease in value 5%).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bun bun wrote:

EDIT: I'm so not excusing the debt because of Iraq here. One, I wanted us to stay the hell out. (Typical of someone who lived in London at the time, fyi. I wanted BOTH of my countries to stay out of there.) Two, much of the debt, as has been said before, is because of the top-heavy tax cuts. That is all.


the tax cuts are one reason iraq is different from all other wars. i don't believe any other president has tried to fight a war and cut taxes at the same time. in wwii, not only were people's taxes not being cut, they were subject to rationing (of gasoline, among other things), there was a lot of volunteer effort in support of the war - people were asked to make sacrifices.

bush asked people to shop. and he cut their taxes, and he hasn't done anything to rein in our use of oil - which is pouring billions of dollars into the coffers of countries that support terrorists. it's a completely idiotic (not to say economically unrealistic) plan.

and as to china holding so much debt - it's not so much that they will compel us to repay - it's that the threat of how much more they are willing to hold, and the leverage it gives them over us in international relationships. how much have you heard about human rights in china from the bush administration? the chinese haven't gotten any nicer - but we've really lost a lot of our ability to compel them to cooperate on things - because if we get too difficult, they can tighten up on what they are willing to lend us. just not a real bright position for us to be in.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still find this little list amusing/appalling. Rank order of 150 countries by account balance (generally 2005 estimates). Yep, the US is number 150, twelve places below Iraq and an order of magnitude further into the red than the number 149.

Oh, and five points to the first person to know where I got that from.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amilam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 922

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
I still find this little list amusing/appalling. Rank order of 150 countries by account balance (generally 2005 estimates). Yep, the US is number 150, twelve places below Iraq and an order of magnitude further into the red than the number 149.

Oh, and five points to the first person to know where I got that from.


Shocked

That scares the hell out of me
_________________
"And then the sea was closed again, above us."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12256
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So if massive debt is power, we're the most powerful nation on Earth!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group