Just how big is the debt?

[Caffeine]

What is driving our deficit the most is the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. They are in need of reform. The baby boom generation did not have enough children to support their retirement benefits from the government.

John Stossel has written a few articles, along with producing TV specials about what is going to bankrupt us, turn American into another Greece, without reforms.

"Tonight's Show: Bankrupting America (FBN @ 9pm ET)"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/st...ica-fbn-9pm-et

[food4thought]

Interesting. Under Bill Clinton there was a balanced budget and then your hero Dubya came along, gave tax breaks to billionairs and fought two unnecessary wars and put it on a credit card. Where were these GOPigs back then?

We also can’t underestimate the amount of debt/deficit propelled by the Medicare drug benefit ‘charge’.

IOW, the spending is awesome, wonderful, and necessary, and will immediately cease to be the instant Romney is elected this fall.

Just like it did during the fiscally responsible aughts, right? Hopefully none of us will experience the havoc returning to a Rebublican presidency would wreak, at least not until the economy and Republicans have regained their soundness.

It's certainly necessary, and unfortunate that it is, but that's what we get for tolerating the electoral college system despite its almost fatal flaws. The voters knew better, and system failed them.

Amen.

At least the Europeans are showing us now, at their expense, that this is the worst possible time for austerity measures. There's no reason for us to make that same mistake after already knowing that it's a bad idea and then seeing it in action.

As I've noted multiple times, if the overspending was REALLY just about getting us out of the Obama Recession, we would see budgets going back down as the economy improves. We're not. …

That's my point. There is NO long term picture that shows spending coming back down after getting us out of the Obama Doldrums. If you have one, please post it, because I haven't seen any. All I've seen are never ending budget bloat.

The repubs see ‘austerity’as their only way to try to keep those taxes for the 1% low (no skin off - austerity affects the common man far more than the Congress man), and they also use it as part of their whole “we’re the party of tough choices and fiscal responsibility” bull-crap schtick. How ‘bout those Bush years, when they kept the taxes for the 1%+ low AND spent like drunken fools - the worst possible scenario. That is why we’ve been in the Bush Doldrums. Bush & Friends’ policies (Medicare, wars, tax cuts, etc.), which led to the Bush Recession, will continue to negatively impact this country’s ‘budget’ for years to come. So be patient hadit, we’ve had to be.

So you want to fight a 12 year old battle instead of trying to fix the situation today? That explains a lot, especially when you have to pretend Bush wasn't criticized for overspending. Of course, criticizing Bush for overspending while ignoring Obama's is like complaining that you stepped in dog poop while a circus elephant is crapping in your lap.

Actually, it’s the Republican Elephant crapping in our collective lap.

You're not making any sense, just pouting about supporting an unsupportable position.

Au contraire. My position is correct. At some point, you're going to have to let go of the fantasy that the government has an inexhaustible supply of wealth (not money, they can just print that) with which it can continue paying hundreds of billions (soon to be trillions) in interest on the debt while simultaneously providing ever increasing goodies to an increasingly entitlement minded populace. My position leads us out of the situation after some pain. Yours simply delays and makes much worse the really big pain.

In a Center for American Progress (CAP) analysis, reported by Media Matters last April:

“As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency … reduc[ed] government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government [paid] 218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

"Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent--despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

"The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). ..."

A CBPP analysis:

"[V]irtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was most recently updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers." The report noted:

“Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”

Over-taxation + Austerity = Stalled Economic Growth
Under-taxation + Austerity = Stagnant Economic Growth
Under-taxation + Overspending = Bush-style Economic Disaster
Balanced Taxation + Strategic Spending = Higher Revenues + Job Creation = Sustainable Economic Growth

[hadit]

Just like it did during the fiscally responsible aughts, right? Hopefully none of us will experience the havoc returning to a Rebublican presidency would wreak, at least not until the economy and Republicans have regained their soundness.

Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.

The repubs see ‘austerity’as their only way to try to keep those taxes for the 1% low (no skin off - austerity affects the common man far more than the Congress man), and they also use it as part of their whole “we’re the party of tough choices and fiscal responsibility” bull-crap schtick. How ‘bout those Bush years, when they kept the taxes for the 1%+ low AND spent like drunken fools - the worst possible scenario. That is why we’ve been in the Bush Doldrums. Bush & Friends’ policies (Medicare, wars, tax cuts, etc.), which led to the Bush Recession, will continue to negatively impact this country’s ‘budget’ for years to come. So be patient hadit, we’ve had to be.

This, despite being repeatedly shown that you can't tax the budget into balance. We can't get out of the Obama malaise by raising taxes alone.

Actually, it’s the Republican Elephant crapping in our collective lap.

Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.

In a Center for American Progress (CAP) analysis, reported by Media Matters last April:

“As for the deficit's cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush's legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency … reduc[ed] government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government [paid] 218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.

"Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent--despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.

"The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies--fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping--contributed mightily to the nation's current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). ..."

A CBPP analysis:

"[V]irtually The Entire Deficit Over The Next Ten Years" Due To Bush Policies, Economic Downturn." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) published an analysis of federal deficits in December 2009, which was most recently updated on June 28, 2010, titled, "Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years: Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers." The report noted:

“Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush's policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade -- that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies. Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”

Over-taxation + Austerity = Stalled Economic Growth
Under-taxation + Austerity = Stagnant Economic Growth
Under-taxation + Overspending = Bush-style Economic Disaster
Balanced Taxation + Strategic Spending = Higher Revenues + Job Creation = Sustainable Economic Growth

Baloney. Obama didn't have to pile useless spending on top of Bush's already bad spending record. On top of that, Obama had unchallenged power for 2 solid years and got done what he wanted to get done. It's his baby now. I don't know why you want to keep yelling "But Bussshhhh, but Busssshhh" anyway. He's already been rightly criticized for overspending. What you really should be worrying about is the spender in office right now. Now I'm going to repeat myself.

Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.

[Chachma v'Oz]

You're owned, hadit. Can't spin that.

[food4thought]

Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.



This, despite being repeatedly shown that you can't tax the budget into balance. We can't get out of the Obama malaise by raising taxes alone.



Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.



Baloney. Obama didn't have to pile useless spending on top of Bush's already bad spending record. On top of that, Obama had unchallenged power for 2 solid years and got done what he wanted to get done. It's his baby now. I don't know why you want to keep yelling "But Bussshhhh, but Busssshhh" anyway. He's already been rightly criticized for overspending. What you really should be worrying about is the spender in office right now. Now I'm going to repeat myself.

Obama makes Bush look like a pennypincher. You can't spin that.

Show me numbers/facts. I'll show you some:

As reported by Bruce Bartlett in Forbes.com, Bush's Medicare drug benefit was a "pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

"Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

[hadit]

Show me numbers/facts. I'll show you some:

As reported by Bruce Bartlett in Forbes.com, Bush's Medicare drug benefit was a "pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

"Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

Pure fallacy. There will be no spending cuts that will pay for Oh-crap! care. There is no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers, only gasseous promises that future Congress will cut spending and raise taxes. Sorry, that ship sank at the dock.

[food4thought]

Pure fallacy. There will be no spending cuts that will pay for Oh-crap! care. There is no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers, only gasseous promises that future Congress will cut spending and raise taxes. Sorry, that ship sank at the dock.

And you know better than the CBO. I see.

[hadit]

And you know better than the CBO. I see.

The CBO operates with the numbers the administration gives it, which means Obama can input whatever fantasy numbers he wants. But hey, feel free to point out the tax increases and spending cuts Obama has already made to pay for Oh-crap! care. Also feel free to deal with his little trick of pulling in revenue for 10 years and paying out benefits for less.

And let's not even get started on how the estimated cost of Oh-crap! care have significantly gone up once real world numbers kicked in.

[Chachma v'Oz]

And you know better than the CBO. I see.

All the facts in the world won't sway a true believer (in public, at least; in their hearts they know they're wrong, but they're too committed now to backpedal).

[hadit]

All the facts in the world won't sway a true believer (in public, at least; in their hearts they know they're wrong, but they're too committed now to backpedal).

Like I said, feel free to point out the tax increases and spending cuts Obama has already made to pay for Oh-crap! care.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Exactly. When Bill Clinton left office the Congressional Budget Office projected that the budget surplus would grow at an annual rate of 13% and in ten years would total $2.5 trillion.

Dumbass. If there really was a surplus the national debt wouldn't have risen every year that Clinton was in office. Liberals are some gullible bastards.

[Chachma v'Oz]

The budget reflects current spending. It's different than the national debt, which is the accumulation of excess spending during all previous administrations.

You'll learn all about this when you're old enough to take civics class. At least, they'll teach it. You may not learn a thing.

[Freedom&Liberty]

My god you're a fucking gullible idiot. If we take this slow enough, maybe you'll catch on. At the end of every fiscal year, the budget deficit becomes part of the national debt. Why do you suppose the national debt went up every single year Clinton was in office? Do you think it could be because there really wasn't a budget surplus? Do you suppose maybe congress borrowed more money from Social Security than they needed to cover the budget and if you closed one eye and squinted the other one real hard it kinda looked like a surplus. Nah, that couldn't be it.

[Chachma v'Oz]

When you get out on your own and have to deal with both a budget and, knowing you, debt, you'll begin to see how they differ.

Debt will increase on its own if principal isn't paid off and interest accrues. It's up to you when you establish your budget whether it includes principal payments on your debt, or enough interest payments to keep it from growing. If it does, the debt will go down but the budget will be larger than it would otherwise be in order to accommodate those larger payments. If you don't choose to pay down principal or keep up with accruing interest, your budget will be more manageable, but your debt will grow.

Now we look at your income. If your income exceeds your budget expenditures, you have money left over at the end of year, a surplus. If you budget expenses exceed your income, you'll experience a budget deficit. The only connection with your debt is how you chose to address your debt in your budget, how much you chose to pay towards it.

It may look scary, all these new terms and concepts, but you can start now with the way you handle your allowance. If you take an advance on your allowance, you will incur debt. If you take many advances on your allowance, that debt will grow, even though at the end of any week or series of weeks you still have money left over you haven't spent, That is your current surplus even though your debt gets bigger and bigger. Get it?

Don't worry. They generally don't get into this in school until most students are at an age where they have the capacity to understand a level of conceptual thinking. It's nothing you'll have to concern yourself with for quite a while. Meantime, it's being taken care of by adults who do understand it, at least now and in approximately alternate election cycles.

Oops, more new terminology. Sorry.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Why do you insist on being an idiot?