Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2079183/

Topic: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-14 16:07:41 and read 2913 times.

Straight from your hero's mouth liberals:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...7&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide

"Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”


The President is merely repeating things the tea party movement has already said dozens of times while being told by liberals all over that their ideas were "irrelevant". Funny that their hero is now echoing the same ideas now too, (only he's still WAY behind the curve) isn't it?

As I've said countless times, the tea party movement and the opposition ARE the moderates now, and they won't budge an inch from their position and will sit back and watch as the public and the President run over to where they are (at least if he wants a chance at re-election).

Now, with that said, if you read through this article, Obama seems to place the vast majority of the blame on the public at large (in part, a fair point), while seemingly oblivious to the fact that his administration amasses trillions in debt every single year. This reflects his cluelessness and inability to actually run anything. What would one expect, given that he's never run a thing in his life?

So the President will either move to the opposition's position and significantly reduce the deficits, or he will be landslided in 2012, as Carter was in 1980, despite many of the same claims then that the Republicans were dead and buried only 4 years earlier. "It took a Carter to get a Reagan" as they say.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-14 17:50:09 and read 2881 times.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
The President is merely repeating things the tea party movement has already said dozens of times while being told by liberals all over that their ideas were "irrelevant". Funny that their hero is now echoing the same ideas now too, (only he's still WAY behind the curve) isn't it?

You're late. Obama has always said that even during the campaign. Which is why the "teabaggers" didn't have a real point in this either.

The current emergency measures have always been thought of as such and not as long-term policies.

I've been trying to explain the difference to you and your fellow campaigners for quite a while now, and it seems that at least bits and pieces have begun to sink in at long last.

[Edited 2009-05-14 17:51:20]

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-14 18:08:58 and read 2873 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
The current emergency measures have always been thought of as such and not as long-term policies.

I've been trying to explain the difference to you and your fellow campaigners for quite a while now, and it seems that at least bits and pieces have begun to sink in at long last.

His words don't mean much at this point minus some actions. His own projections assume a 1 trillion dollar deficit in 2019. Hard to blame that on Booooosh.

And I'd consider 2019 a "long term policy", as in, his policies create trillion dollar deficits every year for a long term.

It's nice that his rhetoric is at least acknowledging the issue, but that doesn't do much when he's going full steam ahead with all of his various spending proposals with no end in sight. I'd prefer actions to words.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: StarAC17
Posted 2009-05-14 18:24:30 and read 2858 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 2):
And I'd consider 2019 a "long term policy", as in, his policies create trillion dollar deficits every year for a long term.

In 2019 he won't be in power (unless you fear Obama becoming a dictator). In 2012 or 2016 a Republican president could simply issue a spending freeze and drastic cuts if they wanted to, with congressional support of course.

Also true long term thinking IMO is at the minimum the length of one generation, not 10 years. Measures taken after the great depression were long term actions and the actions taken in the last 25-30 years by the government and the private sector all had pretty much all been designed for short term gains.

As I have gotten older I have become convinced that if anything has the power to destroy human civilization it is our collective short sightedness which often leads to selfish and greedy behaviour.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-14 18:31:29 and read 2853 times.

"I want this economy fixed by 3pm this afternoon, or else!!"

Signed,

The Republicans, Endangered Species.



What's that you say? It's getting old?!



Freequentflier, why don't you 1) find an alternative, and 2) tell Obama about it. Your whale-chasing on this board can't possibly actually be helpful, unless you just find it therapeutic.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-14 18:49:58 and read 2838 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
Freequentflier, why don't you 1) find an alternative, and 2) tell Obama about it. Your whale-chasing on this board can't possibly actually be helpful, unless you just find it therapeutic.

Those of us who are critics of the administration have repeatedly laid out alternatives. They have been predictably ignored by the administration. His supporters then label us as irrelevant. Problem is, when you make such pronouncements, you presume to have infinite wisdom on the fixes and thus own all of the problems that ensue from your "fixes".

So any problems henceforth, are entirely your own fault and that of the party you support. You can't have it both ways my friend. You want this president to have absolute power, then here's another absolute for you. His critics will absolutely point out his unending list of errors along the way.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-14 18:52:30 and read 2833 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 6):
Those of us who are critics of the administration have repeatedly laid out alternatives. They have been predictably ignored by the administration.

Probably because "don't do that" is not an alternative.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 6):
So any problems henceforth, are entirely your own fault and that of the party you support.

Then sit back, and enjoy their fall. Your constant reposting of practically the same thing every few hours is really just getting silly.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-14 18:55:33 and read 2832 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 6):
Those of us who are critics of the administration have repeatedly laid out alternatives.

Simply doing nothing as a response to an existential crisis looks like an extremely bad idea to almost everyone, experts of all stripes included. It's a deer-in-the-headlights reaction to something one can't possibly grasp.

No wonder that this point of view has trouble drumming up even a decent "teaparty" these days, let alone an actual majority.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Yellowstone
Posted 2009-05-14 20:50:14 and read 2800 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
while seemingly oblivious to the fact that his administration amasses trillions in debt every single year

"Every single year"? Huh? He's been in office less than 4 months!

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-14 22:11:10 and read 2781 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
Then sit back, and enjoy their fall. Your constant reposting of practically the same thing every few hours is really just getting silly.

DLX, you said in another thread recently that you wanted a candidate who was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If this is indeed true, then I'm not sure what your disagreements are with me and classical liberalism. Likewise, I'm not sure how you continue to defend an administration that is anything but fiscally conservative (unless you seek to change the definition of such a term to the point where it is meaningless) and opposes federalism on issues like gay marriage. He sounds quite the opposite of what you've stated you favor.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
No wonder that this point of view has trouble drumming up even a decent "teaparty" these days, let alone an actual majority.

No one is drumming up a decent tea party because no one is trying to. The next round of nationwide protests are on the 4th of July.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
Simply doing nothing as a response to an existential crisis looks like an extremely bad idea to almost everyone, experts of all stripes included. It's a deer-in-the-headlights reaction to something one can't possibly grasp.

Hard to test that given that it was never even considered. We have sure done a whole lot of "something" though, and Chrysler is in bankruptcy anyway with GM sure to follow. Chrysler bondholders were thrown under the bus by the administration, who in doing so, broke hundreds of years of historical contract law. That may be trivial to you, but who in their right mind would lend money to this government or any of its client companies at this point? GM is as good as dead now. Unsurprisingly, its stock is pretty much worthless now:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gm

Seems like as the government "fixes" problems, it's creating a whole host of new ones. As it fixes those, it creates more. Continue this to its logical conclusion and the result is not good for the country or the world.

Many of us of classical liberal persuasion argued that GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy with government as the lender of last resort. Instead we wasted tens of billions of dollars on bailing them out, only to see them enter bankruptcy anyway.

We were right.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-14 23:18:14 and read 2760 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 10):
If this is indeed true, then I'm not sure what your disagreements are with me and classical liberalism.

Fiscal conservatism doesn't just mean lowering taxes and lowering spending. Those are goals, those are not means to achieve those goals. That's also an ideology, and ideology has never solved a problem. Not a one. Which should be a tautology, because a problem is inherently a situation out of the normal that requires an action to return to normalcy.

We are not in normalcy right now. The economy is in utter shambles because no one is spending. We're too afraid we're going to lose our jobs, and other reasons. To revert to the ideological goal of reduced spending would exacerbate this depression. It is the exact wrong thing to do. Fiscal conservatism in this case would dictate spending in order to get out of the recession. And because the previous administration spent all the money, if we have to spend (which I believe we do), then we have to borrow it. Borrowing money is abhorrent to the ideals of fiscal conservatism, but I liken it to having your boiler blow up in the middle of winter in Massachusetts right after you got laid off. (Happened to a friend of mine.) You can't afford to pay cash, but you can't afford to freeze to death either. So you have to put a new boiler on credit. That's the fiscally conservative position considering the circumstances.

Now, we can certainly argue about how much spending is right. But you have steadfastly maintained that this amount of spending is inherently purposeless, and inherently wasteful merely because it is large. You regurgitate your cute little chart time and time again without acknowledging that the spending is necessary, because you believe that the solution is to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, that's the same as chancing it in the middle of a Massachusetts winter with no boiler, and it's a nonsensical choice.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-05-15 06:47:51 and read 2707 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Your whale-chasing on this board can't possibly actually be helpful, unless you just find it therapeutic.

Fair is fair D L X there was no graph this time. On the other hand without a graph, how could we fly into a proper panic? Our lot NEED the US and the UK so we can point to how awful it would be if we were elsewhere, not of course pausing for a moment to wonder how awful it really would be if we suddenly inherited the economy, let alone the politics of Pakistan. As they say, be careful what you wish for.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Seb146
Posted 2009-05-15 07:58:20 and read 2693 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
The President is merely repeating things the tea party movement has already said dozens of times while being told by liberals all over that their ideas were "irrelevant".

No. What is really "funny" (sad, if you ask me) is thses same sentaments were conveyed for years under Bush and Reagan from the "liberals" but we were told our ideas about deficit spending and borrow and spend were "stupid" and "irrelivant." Now that a Democrat is in the White House and Democrats are in control of Congress, the "liberals" are still hated and the "liberals" are the ones being told "I told you so." Well, get over yourselves. WE told YOU first.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Slider
Posted 2009-05-15 08:44:26 and read 2683 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
The current emergency measures have always been thought of as such and not as long-term policies.

There is nothing so permanant as a temporary government fix.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-16 02:22:13 and read 2624 times.

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
There is nothing so permanant as a temporary government fix.

That is really nonsense in this case. These emergency measures are obviously and factually unsustainable to be repeated even in the medium term. They are a shot in the arm to prevent a total economic collapse at the beginning of the crisis, but Obama has always maintained that the core of his economic policy has to be the re-creation of a competitive economic basis which is sustainable in the long run.

The USA (like Britain and a few others) has neglected sustainability and even the entire real economy to a large degree during the years of the hollow financial boom; It will take time and quite a bit of effort to rebuild it.

Of course that's not easy to do, but he knows that it's without alternative.

[Edited 2009-05-16 02:23:04]

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-05-16 07:30:36 and read 2604 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
The USA (like Britain and a few others) has neglected sustainability and even the entire real economy to a large degree during the years of the hollow financial boom; It will take time and quite a bit of effort to rebuild it.

Some comparisons between Norway, UK and US in this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?_r=1
Thriving Norway Provides an Economics Lesson

OSLO --- When capitalism seemed on the verge of collapse last fall, Kristin Halvorsen, Norway's Socialist finance minister and a longtime free market skeptic, did more than crow.
As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway's $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion --- or about 23 percent of Norway 's economic output


Yes, well that will happen if you plan ahead!

Or as Bill Emmott puts it

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/few-br...ral-era-20090515-b603.html?page=-1
An era of laissez-faire ideas prevailing has ended. Most commentators consider it to have lasted 30 years, since those dinosaurs Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher roamed the earth.

But something odd then happens. If you press for elaboration on what it will entail, you find a largely content-free zone. Regulation of financial services firms will be tighter, everyone says. But beyond that? There is not just a lack of consensus but remarkably few ideas.


Just as well for Norway they thought about it quite some time ago?

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-16 08:14:14 and read 2593 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
But something odd then happens. If you press for elaboration on what it will entail, you find a largely content-free zone. Regulation of financial services firms will be tighter, everyone says. But beyond that? There is not just a lack of consensus but remarkably few ideas.

Simply because what's needed is not a new ideology but the construction of a more realistic and better working framework from ideas which the two opposite ideologies had taken to the extreme.

As viewed from the USA, Britain and Ireland this might entail a move closer towards the current central european model of a (regionally individual) balance between regulation and state involvement on the one hand and an open market on the other, with a mix of regulation and competitive market forces which needs to be readjusted from time to time.

Even here we've not been consistent and prudent enough to let the recent excesses pass us by completely; So we'll have to rein in several deregulations as well and continue to improve efficiencies while re-improving our social systems.


I think the main impact of this crisis should be that we've now seen pretty much all major ideologies implemented in practice and all of them have failed on their own, even though every one of them has obvious merits as well.

It would be so convenient if we just had to adopt one specific ideology, implement it in its pure form and be done with it for all times. Much of the most heated political debate seems to run under this false assumption.

But in reality it obviously takes a lot more hard work in carving out the best ideas from each ideology and building a functioning economy (and society) from these pieces.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2009-05-16 10:45:21 and read 2564 times.

As usual, FF, you're title is very misleading. I was listening, to all things, FOX News Radio on the way to work today, and what the President said was that the long-debt load is unsustainable until we get a grip on health care costs.

Next time, give the whole picture, not part of it? Thanks.

Oh, and also, stop quoting figures from 2019, which is a decade a way, and are wholly irrelevant.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-16 16:03:08 and read 2551 times.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
As usual, FF, you're title is very misleading. I was listening, to all things, FOX News Radio on the way to work today, and what the President said was that the long-debt load is unsustainable until we get a grip on health care costs.

Next time, give the whole picture, not part of it? Thanks.

Yes, that's the point and I actually referenced that in my original post if you re-read it. He's lecturing people on deficit spending, but he continues to go full speed ahead on his own deficit spending!

Newsflash: What happens if health care spending DOESN'T reduce overall spending? It hasn't anywhere else in the world, now has it? If you make something "free" (read: someone else is paying for it), people will demand more of it.

And if that's the case, we're trillions of dollars poorer with little to show for it. And he's lecturing the nation on deficit spending. It would be hysterical if the consequences weren't so tragic.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Ual777
Posted 2009-05-16 18:32:48 and read 2528 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 4):

Freequentflier, why don't you 1) find an alternative, and 2) tell Obama about it. Your whale-chasing on this board can't possibly actually be helpful, unless you just find it therapeutic.

Here is a novel idea: Cut spending.

I ran the numbers recently and if I recall correctly, the deficit is roughly 10% of the total budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2007spendingbycategory.png

Using the numbers from the above pie chart if we cut 10% from Social Security, Medicare, Medicate, and Defense we would run a surplus. If the U.S. then ran a 2.5% surplus every year, we could pay down debt at a rate of roughly $60 billion per year. We could pay off the national debt in roughly 166 years!

Debt service is nearly 10% of the budget! That is rediculous! That is 216 BILLION every year!

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-05-17 00:24:54 and read 2503 times.



Quoting Ual777 (Reply 19):
Using the numbers from the above pie chart if we cut 10% from Social Security, Medicare, Medicate, and Defense we would run a surplus. If the U.S. then ran a 2.5% surplus every year, we could pay down debt at a rate of roughly $60 billion per year. We could pay off the national debt in roughly 166 years!

Debt service is nearly 10% of the budget! That is ridiculous! That is 216 BILLION every year!

Does that add up correctly?

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-17 07:54:50 and read 2480 times.



Quoting Ual777 (Reply 19):
Here is a novel idea: Cut spending.

That's the exact opposite of what you should do in a depression. Both parties agree on that.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-17 08:16:02 and read 2476 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 21):

That's the exact opposite of what you should do in a depression. Both parties agree on that.

Well unless you expect the recession to last until 2019, you're defending massive spending increases with money we do not have all the way into 2019 under the Obama budget projections. (Yes I KNOW he can't be President then, but his budgets assume a certain amount of money will be spent. And there's nothing more permanent than "temporary" government programs).

DLX, for someone who is a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, you sure seemed to have bastardized the term quite a bit to where it no longer has any meaning. Fortunately, you and Andrew Sullivan seem to be the only two remaining "fiscal conservatives" defending this administration's budget left.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-17 08:38:34 and read 2470 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 22):
DLX, for someone who is a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, you sure seemed to have bastardized the term quite a bit to where it no longer has any meaning.

Well, I could easily say then that you've simply drank the Republican Kool Aid on what fiscal conservatism is, in that it does not allow you to adapt to the realities of a troubled economy.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 22):
Well unless you expect the recession to last until 2019, you're defending massive spending increases with money we do not have all the way into 2019 under the Obama budget projections

I don't know how long the depression will last (don't trivialize it, if you're the economist you claim you are, you know that four consecutive quarters of retraction is a depression, not a recession). That's not the point. Cutting spending at this time would exacerbate the depression.

Fiscal conservatism means spending when you must, and being judicious when you have options.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-19 17:28:03 and read 2414 times.

Now it's Robert Samuelson's (not exactly a right-winger) turn to notice that the Obama deficits are bankrupting the nation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/05/17/AR2009051701728.html

"Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he's labeled "irresponsible"? Well, apparently much more than the massive amounts envisioned by President Obama. The final version of his 2010 budget, released last week, is a case study in political expediency and economic gambling.

Let's see. From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 percent, up from 41 percent in 2008. That would be the highest since 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 percent.

But wait: Even these totals may be understated. By various estimates, Obama's health plan might cost $1.2 trillion over a decade; Obama has budgeted only $635 billion. Next, the huge deficits occur despite a pronounced squeeze of defense spending. From 2008 to 2019, total federal spending would rise 75 percent, but defense spending would increase only 17 percent. Unless foreign threats recede, military spending and deficits might both grow.

Except from crabby Republicans, these astonishing numbers have received little attention -- a tribute to Obama's Zen-like capacity to discourage serious criticism. Everyone's fixated on the present economic crisis, which explains and justifies big deficits (lost revenue, anti-recession spending) for a few years. Hardly anyone notes that huge deficits continue indefinitely."



So much for your claim of fiscal responsibility DLX. You are simply apologizing for what most economists realize is nothing less than the bankrupting of America.



"At best, the rising cost of the debt would intensify pressures to increase taxes, cut spending -- or create bigger, unsustainable deficits. By the CBO's estimates, interest on the debt as a share of federal spending will double between 2008 and 2019, to 16 percent. Huge budget deficits could also weaken economic growth by "crowding out" private investment.

At worst, the burgeoning debt could trigger a future financial crisis. The danger is that "we won't be able to sell [Treasury debt] at reasonable interest rates," says economist Rudy Penner, head of the CBO from 1983 to 1987. In today's anxious climate, this hasn't happened. American and foreign investors have favored "safe" U.S. Treasurys. But a glut of bonds, fears of inflation -- or something else -- might one day shatter confidence. Bond prices might fall sharply; interest rates would rise. The consequences could be worldwide because foreigners own half of U.S. Treasury debt.

The Obama budgets flirt with deferred distress, though we can't know what form it might take or when it might occur. Present gain comes with the risk of future pain. As the present economic crisis shows, imprudent policies ultimately backfire, even if the reversal's timing and nature are unpredictable.

The wonder is that these issues have been so ignored. Imagine hypothetically that a President McCain had submitted a budget plan identical to Obama's. There would almost certainly have been a loud outcry: "McCain's Mortgaging Our Future." Obama should be held to no less exacting a standard. "

Sorry DLX, that dog won't hunt. If you defend this administration's budget, you are NOT a fiscal conservative.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-19 17:41:34 and read 2408 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 24):
So much for your claim of fiscal responsibility DLX. You are simply apologizing for what most economists realize is nothing less than the bankrupting of America.

Alternative?

Until you have one, you don't have an argument.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-19 17:47:01 and read 2432 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 25):
Alternative?

Until you have one, you don't have an argument.

I've said it a thousand times. Stop spending money we do not have! There's at least a defensible position for deficits this year and next, but there is NO reason to have trillion dollar + deficits in 5-10 years from now.

Don't play dumb, you are smarter than this.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-19 17:53:24 and read 2430 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 26):
I've said it a thousand times. Stop spending money we do not have!

And we've said it to you at least as often: "do nothing" is not an alternative.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Yellowstone
Posted 2009-05-19 18:04:23 and read 2426 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 26):
I've said it a thousand times. Stop spending money we do not have! There's at least a defensible position for deficits this year and next, but there is NO reason to have trillion dollar + deficits in 5-10 years from now.

Actually, your position is more like, "Stop suggesting we might spend money we do not have." Yes, I find the size of the budget deficits Obama has projected in the future troublesome. But we are not in the future yet. Let's get through this downturn first, then when the economy is running well again we can come back and discuss how we'd like to go about addressing the deficit problem.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-19 18:07:12 and read 2426 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 27):
And we've said it to you at least as often: "do nothing" is not an alternative.

See, you're still intentionally playing dumb, even though I even threw you a lifeline.

Even AFTER I said deficits in the next couple of years are at least defensible, you're still defending trillion dollar deficits in 2019. Do you expect this financial crisis to be with us for the next 10 years?

And if not spending the country into trillions of dollars of debt each and every year during normal economic times was possible during the past 200 years, what make that impossible 1 year from now? 2 years from now? 5? 10?

And the answer is of course it's not impossible. It's not even hard. But you're playing dumb and throwing up straw men galore. Here's a solution: Don't spend money we do not have! It's something we've been doing (to at least moderate success) for the past 230 years!

You may be many things, but a fiscal conservative is not one of them. Please don't try to bastardize the term. Some of us proclaim to be fiscal conservatives and most of us mean it.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-19 18:22:36 and read 2422 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 29):
Even AFTER I said deficits in the next couple of years are at least defensible, you're still defending trillion dollar deficits in 2019.

No I'm not. I don't know what's going to happen in 2019. I'm hoping that the economy will recover and we can change those projections. But you're saying that because something might happen 10 years from now, we shouldn't do it now, regardless of whether we need it or not. (I mean, you won't even admit that we need spending now of any sort to quell the depression.)
SO I ask again: what is YOUR alternative?

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 29):
Don't spend money we do not have! It's something we've been doing (to at least moderate success) for the past 230 years!

Malarkey. Reagan was a master deficit spender. Bush was VERY masterful at spending money we didn't have. (Your cute little chart even says so.) So, you can argue about Obama's plan, but you really lose credibility when you say things like this, that others didn't ring up the national debt.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 29):
You may be many things, but a fiscal conservative is not one of them.

You may have whatever opinion you want if it makes you sleep well at night. But don't think you have a monopoly on opinions. You haven't shown anything to suggest pragmatism yet, and I think that means that you aren't actually a fiscal conservative, but rather more closely a tax-abolitionist.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-19 18:48:56 and read 2421 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 30):

No I'm not. I don't know what's going to happen in 2019. I'm hoping that the economy will recover and we can change those projections. But you're saying that because something might happen 10 years from now, we shouldn't do it now, regardless of whether we need it or not. (I mean, you won't even admit that we need spending now of any sort to quell the depression.)
SO I ask again: what is YOUR alternative?

My alternative, as I have said countless times is to get the budget under control! If not this year or next, then at least in 3 and certainly in 5! If you want specifics, let's start with means-testing Social Security and Medicare, cutting food stamps, agricultural subsidies, all earmarks, outdated defense, the Department of Education etc etc.

Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
You may have whatever opinion you want if it makes you sleep well at night. But don't think you have a monopoly on opinions. You haven't shown anything to suggest pragmatism yet, and I think that means that you aren't actually a fiscal conservative, but rather more closely a tax-abolitionist.

I'm a big believer that words mean things. You, DLX can proclaim yourself to be anything you want - it's a free country and I can't stop you. But if you go around claiming to be pro-life while supporting government policies that subsidize abortions or if you claim to be anti-war but support war as a first resort, your words don't really mean much of anything.

Likewise, you can claim to be a fiscal conservative, but if economists repeatedly point out that policies of this administration will inevitably lead to bankruptcy, you can't continue to defend those policies.

Take a chill pill. I'm not asking you to hate the President or even oppose him in general. But since you likely voted for him, you'd be smart to at least express concern to him (by way of email or form letter or whatever - they do read) that maybe they should take a second look at the budget. By your refusal to accept trillion dollar deficits every year as given, you are not displaying anything resembling what most would consider fiscal conservatism. And it's not a phrase I intend to let you steal the meaning of, me being an actual fiscal conservative.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Flighty
Posted 2009-05-19 20:09:16 and read 2399 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
No I'm not. I don't know what's going to happen in 2019.

Uhhhhh. Well, OK. But the USA is a reeeeaaally big country with a huuuge economy. It moves slowly. We know very well what will happen from 2010-2019. And we need to plan for it.

Married couples often make plans for 10, 20 or even more years out. They ask things like, "honey, will we have enough money for Junior to attend college..."
"honey, should we buy this house with a mortgage of $3,200 per month for 360 months?"
"honey, in 15 years, will we be able to retire, or will it be in 17 years?"

Even an average family is pretty sophisticated. There are ways to know you are (a) definitely on track, (b) maybe on track, and (c) definitely off track, financially speaking. If you live in a 300,000 dollar house, and you make $425,000 per year, you are definitely on track. If you make only $22,000 per year, you are definitely off track. And so on.

So, yes Obama should be planning for 2019 and 2029. That's his whole job description, IMO. In 4 years, almost nothing will change. The country is too big and too slow. These changes will play out over decades, and it's Obama's job to not poison us right now. He's beginning to realize he will be judged on that. He is intelligent enough to adjust to this new fact. I think he'll change his tune.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-20 06:32:35 and read 2354 times.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 32):
And we need to plan for it.

Very true, and I've never said anything to suggest that we shouldn't plan. For the first time (ever?) the presidential budget is a 10 year plan, while previous administrations have been considerably shorter. So Obama clearly agrees that we should plan. However, these are forecasts - things will change, legislation will pass, wars will be fought and ended, etc. that will affect how things run 10 years out that we simply cannot know at this point in time. So to say that we _know_ what will happen in 2019 is a leap.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 32):
We know very well what will happen from 2010-2019.

No. I place a lot of blame on W for the way things are right now, but I never expected him to be clairvoyant. Few people saw this depression coming in 1999.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Flighty
Posted 2009-05-20 06:57:27 and read 2351 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Few people saw this depression coming in 1999.

Well, that is true, but I think we are coming down on 2 hard sides where there is some good middle ground. I like to flaunt extremes on here so I'm not really 100pct serious all the time, even though I act like it.

So yeah, we don't know everything about 2019.... you are right. But we do have some idea of some benchmarks. We know population, GDP to within +/- 10% or so, and from there on down, we can make a set of rules. Pentagon should be 3% of GDP, Medical should be 10%, and so on. That can get us to a plan designed for the long haul. It's actually a "budget," yes, as you mention. But the government seems to act emotionally, never truly "budgeting" anything. That is crazy. Families don't know their income thru 2019 either. But they can guess. And they do so.

Anyway, I think Obama is just pushing a needed tightening of the belt, longer into the future. He is opening us to new vulnerabilities in the future, just so we can have some "pop" right now today. Gee, that is like the risk profile of junk bonds. I still do not know if he sees the irony of criticizing bubble-loving investors, while refusing to budget the economy itself based on fundamentals. And half the time, he states that his #1 goal is to bring the bubble back, real estate prices, homeownership and the like. I really don't know what to think of this guy.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: UAL777
Posted 2009-05-20 18:19:08 and read 2317 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):

Does that add up correctly?

They are rough approximations because I didn't want to spend a great deal of time being precise, but they are very close.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):

That's the exact opposite of what you should do in a depression. Both parties agree on that.

Under they Keynsian model only.

The U.S. is quickly losing the luxury of taking on debt. We are not in a depression either, we are in a recession. Spending trillions is putting a diamond studded band-aid on the problem.

Quoting D L X (Reply 25):

Alternative?

Until you have one, you don't have an argument.

See my first post.

If the U.S. managed to pay off (or at least pay way down) its' debt, the strength of the dollar would be able to bludgeon energy prices down. Imports would also be cheaper, and provide fresh, real money for the economy.

Medicaid and Medicare have proven to be black holes for Federal dollars.

The U.S. government needs to make a serious effort to reverse the direction the dollar is heading. Without doing so, we are going to see unstoppable and suffocating inflation that will only be checked by huge interest rate hikes.

By reducing the debt in the long term, the U.S. can ease spending back into the budget as the debt service load is reduced eventually reaching a long-term equilibrium. This will lead to cheaper prices, a much stronger dollar, and eventually facilitate the transition to an intellictual/service based economy.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2009-05-20 20:54:01 and read 2297 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Thread starter):
The President is merely repeating things the tea party movement has already said dozens of times while being told by liberals all over that their ideas were "irrelevant".

Obama said this during the campaign, before the teabaggers even made a peep.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 32):
We know very well what will happen from 2010-2019. And we need to plan for it.

In 1999, the CBO projected huge surpluses for 2005-2009. Even the best plans rarely work.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 31):
If you want specifics, let's start with means-testing Social Security and Medicare, cutting food stamps, agricultural subsidies, all earmarks, outdated defense, the Department of Education etc etc.

Problem is that even if Obama introduced these cuts, few in Congress would accept them.

Republicans won't cut agriculture subsidies, defense spending or support means-testing for SS/Medicare.

Democrats won't support cutting food stamps, cutting the Dept of Education or support means testing of SS/Medicare.

You can blame Obama all you want, but Congress would have to support these cuts and they won't until all hell breaks lose.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: D L X
Posted 2009-05-20 21:31:29 and read 2288 times.



Quoting UAL777 (Reply 35):
We are not in a depression either, we are in a recession.

Four negative gain quarters in a row is a depression. We are in a depression. Let's not sugar coat this.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 35):
Quoting D L X (Reply 21):

That's the exact opposite of what you should do in a depression. Both parties agree on that.

Under they Keynsian model only.

And under what model is it a good idea to cut spending during a depression?

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 35):
If the U.S. managed to pay off (or at least pay way down) its' debt, the strength of the dollar would be able to bludgeon energy prices down.

That's a tricky balance. A strong dollar means we can't sell our goods overseas, and our biggest products are big based in no small part on their overseas exposure. That's arguably more important than being able to buy things from overseas, especially when we're trying to get out of a recession.

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 35):
By reducing the debt in the long term, the U.S. can ease spending back into the budget as the debt service load is reduced eventually reaching a long-term equilibrium.

I'm all for paying off the debt long term. But what do we do TODAY to end the depression as quickly as possible? Paying off the debt over the next 15-20 years is not going to get you a job, and i know very few people that can wait 15-20 years for the jobs to come back.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: UAL777
Posted 2009-05-21 08:44:30 and read 2256 times.



Quoting D L X (Reply 37):

And under what model is it a good idea to cut spending during a depression?

The money has already been spent. Do you suggest more and if so how much more?

Quoting D L X (Reply 37):

That's a tricky balance. A strong dollar means we can't sell our goods overseas, and our biggest products are big based in no small part on their overseas exposure. That's arguably more important than being able to buy things from overseas, especially when we're trying to get out of a recession.

A weak dollar and an ever increasing debt load means skyrocketing imports and commodity prices. What happens when foreign entities say "no mas" and we have to crank interest rates up to 10 or 15% just to get people to buy the damn debt? What happens when they stop buying it all together?

Quoting D L X (Reply 37):

I'm all for paying off the debt long term. But what do we do TODAY to end the depression as quickly as possible? Paying off the debt over the next 15-20 years is not going to get you a job, and i know very few people that can wait 15-20 years for the jobs to come back.

The economy will sort itself out. It always does. We are no longer talking about economic stimulation at this point. Even THINKING about new programs that could run into the TRILLIONS every year is insane!

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-21 09:52:29 and read 2249 times.



Quoting UAL777 (Reply 38):
The economy will sort itself out. It always does.

No, it doesn't. The current crash has shown that already. It takes competent economic policies to get it moving again and avoiding the most severe disruptions. Just letting it slide would land you in even deeper trouble.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Flighty
Posted 2009-05-21 12:30:48 and read 2230 times.

Well the CBO is trying to forecast what politicians will do to raise revenue and spend it. That's interesting, but it has nothing to do with our structural situation. It's just a comment on our government's behavior, something that is mostly alterable, seeing as the people have the power to change laws and basically have any policy.

In 1999, I would expect the government knew almost everything it knows today. Nothing much has changed since 99. China has risen, but we knew that in 99. Republicans are nuts, but we knew that in 99 as well. Since 89, thinks have changed a lot more... IMO. But the USA is still more or less the size and shape we would have expected in 89.

It just isn't that hard to create a long term budget I don't see any real excuse for going off track long term. It's like the 4,500lb gorilla in his prime crying oh, I am so weak. We believe that because the media and the 4 year (more like 6-month) politicians tell us that. It serves their interest to spread this message that we are in crisis. I think we have a wisdom crisis and an organization design crisis.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Slider
Posted 2009-05-21 12:56:41 and read 2221 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 39):
No, it doesn't. The current crash has shown that already. It takes competent economic policies to get it moving again and avoiding the most severe disruptions. Just letting it slide would land you in even deeper trouble.

History would disagree.

Then again, never before in history did we have such a corrupt Congress that blatantly was on the take from Fannie and Freddie, etc. either.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Klaus
Posted 2009-05-21 14:07:31 and read 2213 times.



Quoting Slider (Reply 41):
History would disagree.

Only if you heavily distorted it.

Quoting Slider (Reply 41):
Then again, never before in history did we have such a corrupt Congress that blatantly was on the take from Fannie and Freddie, etc. either.

Oh, sure...! Don't look at AIG, Lehmann, Bear Stearns, Bernie Madoff and all the other corrupt and fraudulent private players who created the financial bubble in the first place which blew up so spectacularly – it just can't be because all evils absolutely always come from the public sector while absolutely everything private is flawless.  Yeah sure

You're just discrediting yourself with denial that severe.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Yellowstone
Posted 2009-05-21 14:21:28 and read 2211 times.



Quoting Slider (Reply 41):
Then again, never before in history did we have such a corrupt Congress

Ever heard of the Gilded Age? Heck, the entire era is named after the fact that politicians were corrupt.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-05-22 00:29:36 and read 2185 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 42):
Quoting Slider (Reply 41):
Then again, never before in history did we have such a corrupt Congress that blatantly was on the take from Fannie and Freddie, etc. either.

Oh, sure...! Don't look at AIG, Lehmann, Bear Stearns, Bernie Madoff and all the other corrupt and fraudulent private players who created the financial bubble in the first place which blew up so spectacularly -- it just can't be because all evils absolutely always come from the public sector while absolutely everything private is flawless.

Presumably if Fannie and Freddie had not been privatised, they would not have been able to make payments to members of Congress???

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 43):
Ever heard of the Gilded Age? Heck, the entire era is named after the fact that politicians were corrupt.

Thanks Y, I had not heard of it but then there was no particular reason for me to know whereas ........ !!!!! Interesting I knew about the general run of activities but not that it had been accorded age "status". Everything would have been OK if we still had trusts well apart from"
http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-History-672/depression-1890s.htm
CAUSES: People attempted to redeem silver notes for gold; ultimately the statutory limit for the minimum amount of gold in federal reserves was reached and U.S. Notes could no longer be successfully redeemed for gold. The investments during the time of the Panic were heavily financed through bond issues with high interest payments (the most actively traded stock at the time) went into receivership as a result of its bankers calling their loans in response to rumors regarding the NCC's financial distress.

A series of bank failures followed, and the price of silver fell. The Northern Pacific Railway, the Union Pacific Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad all failed. This was followed by the bankruptcy of many other companies; in total over 15,000 companies and 500 banks failed (many in the west). About 20%-25% of the workforce was unemployed at the Panic's peak.


Must have happened because they knew those dreadful socialists were just waiting in the wings with their unions and the like but it was definitely the fault of the Democrats.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Slider
Posted 2009-05-22 08:29:29 and read 2165 times.



Quoting Klaus (Reply 42):

Only if you heavily distorted it.

Facts are facts, man! I’m not distorting anything…look with your eyes, sir.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 42):
Oh, sure...! Don't look at AIG, Lehmann, Bear Stearns, Bernie Madoff and all the other corrupt and fraudulent private players who created the financial bubble in the first place which blew up so spectacularly – it just can't be because all evils absolutely always come from the public sector while absolutely everything private is flawless.

You're just discrediting yourself with denial that severe.

Must I post the video or transcript of Barney Frank’s hearing of Fannie/Freddie in which he openly asked “Why are we here?” Congress’ direct lack of oversight set the stage for the abuses, get it? If you let them run free, they’re going to run free. Chris Dodd and Obama were the TOP TWO recipients of contributions from FM. In fact, our president became the second largest recipient EVER and he was a one-term US Senator…curious, isn’t it?

Let’s clear another thing up: I don’t espouse that the private sector is flawless. I wouldn’t dare to make that assertion. But in its natural state it will work more optimally than when regulated. And (here’s the critical piece, Klaus) if the regulations are not upheld, or are blatantly violated as in the case of much of the housing debacle, then it is the government’s job to step in. Teddy Roosevelt’s administration comes to mind as a landmark step in that direction; the downside is that it also set a precedent for Federal overreach and overregulation in many sectors, of which the remnants exist today. Government has broken up trusts and monopolies, yet today we allow gigantic conglomerates to control more market share than back then in some industries and it’s accepted---THAT is a direct failure of government and an intentional violation of their responsibilities.

The problem I have is that there exists a mechanism to allow companies to fail—it’s called bankruptcy. If they cannot survive, if they’ve violated the public trust, they deserve to die. They SHOULD go away and disappear. Once again, we have government intervention into what should be a Darwinian process.

Let us also not forget that there are tens of thousands of registered corporations in the USA. I don’t know what the full count is. But I guarantee that the majority of them—the overwhelming majority of them—are responsible corporate citizens that play within the rules, they adhere to the oft-onerous regulations, they provide returns to shareholders and operate ethically and dutifully and provide goods and services to our economy and people in the US and world.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 44):
Presumably if Fannie and Freddie had not been privatised, they would not have been able to make payments to members of Congress???

LOL! Wink, wink….sure….

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 43):
Ever heard of the Gilded Age? Heck, the entire era is named after the fact that politicians were corrupt.

If that was the Gilded Age, I am at a loss to come up with a proper term for this era in which government and big business have ever been so corrupt.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-22 17:31:44 and read 2140 times.



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36):

Problem is that even if Obama introduced these cuts, few in Congress would accept them.

Republicans won't cut agriculture subsidies, defense spending or support means-testing for SS/Medicare.

Democrats won't support cutting food stamps, cutting the Dept of Education or support means testing of SS/Medicare.

You can blame Obama all you want, but Congress would have to support these cuts and they won't until all hell breaks lose.

Solution: Replace Congress with people who will do these things!
 bigthumbsup   bigthumbsup 

And now it's Bill Gross (a big liberal in the finance world and big Obama donor) pointing out that the deficits are unsustainable and the US might lose its AAA credit rating, making it even harder to get ever get our debt under control.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...7&sid=au5M0WphL81g&refer=worldwide

I do love this quote from Tim Geitner:

“It’s very important that this Congress and this president put in place policies that will bring those deficits down to a sustainable level over the medium term,” Geithner said in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday. He added that the target is reducing the gap to about 3 percent of gross domestic product, from a projected 12.9 percent this year.

And he says as he provides blank checks for an administration putting the nation on a course towards bankruptcy. Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Baroque
Posted 2009-05-22 22:22:37 and read 2117 times.



Quoting Slider (Reply 45):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 44):
Presumably if Fannie and Freddie had not been privatised, they would not have been able to make payments to members of Congress???

LOL! Wink, wink….sure….

Are you telling me that state owned enterprises are able to make political contributions? I will be amazed if they can.

I know that Fed employees have to be damned careful with using envelopes owned by Uncle Sam to post material to fellow scientists.

Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 46):
And he says as he provides blank checks for an administration putting the nation on a course towards bankruptcy. Orwell is rolling over in his grave.

Are you forgetting that Eric Blair wrote "Wigan Pier"?

For a short account of how Wigan Pier relates to the present situation try
http://www.economicshelp.org/2009/03...lessons-from-great-depression.html
Inter alia.
6. Don't Balance the Budget in a Depression.

The neo-classical response to the depression was to attempt to balance the budget. In the 1931 UK budget, the Labour party was split as Ramsey McDonald followed treasury advice to increase taxes and cut unemployment benefits. This contributed to a further fall in aggregate demand, lower growth and ironically required higher borrowing. In 1932, Hoover increased the top rate of income tax from 24% to 63% in an effort to pay for his modest spending commitments. (thankfully the Republicans lost the US elections. Republican leaders have been calling for a balanced budget). More worryingly the 50 US states have been forced to cut spending to meet legal requirements for state budgets.

7. Fiscal Policy does Help.

Between 1929 and 1931, Japanese GDP fell by 8%. The Japanese Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo oversaw a genuine period of expansionary fiscal policy financed by government borrowing. This led to a remarkable turnaround in the Japanese economy; it became one of the first economies to experience lasting recovery.

People often point to the Roosevelt's New Deal as evidence of failed Fiscal Policy. But, the problem with Roosevelt is that he was actually reluctant to finance the New Deal by government borrowing. He wanted to raise taxes to finance it. In 1937, the US made an attempt to balance the budget, this harmed the recovery and was one factor in creating a recession within the depression (37-38).

8. Government Borrowing is not the End of the World.

People assume government borrowing is very damaging. But, in a depression, government borrowing helps to offset the rise in private sector spending. The US was reluctant to borrow until the start of the second world war, when national debt rose to 125% of GDP. It was only then unemployment fell to pre 1929 levels.


So Eric would be spinning in his grave at your post like as not but not at blank cheques in the present cirumstances.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-22 23:33:51 and read 2112 times.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 47):
So Eric would be spinning in his grave at your post like as not but not at blank cheques in the present cirumstances.

I feel like I've said this a dozen or so times (actually I know I have) and yet the Left isn't interested in admitting it: the trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, through 2019 and beyond. Is the financial crisis to blame for trillion dollar deficits in 2019?

You're beclowning yourself.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: Yellowstone
Posted 2009-05-22 23:43:37 and read 2111 times.



Quoting FreequentFlier (Reply 48):
I feel like I've said this a dozen or so times (actually I know I have) and yet the Left isn't interested in admitting it: the trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, through 2019 and beyond. Is the financial crisis to blame for trillion dollar deficits in 2019?

Also for the dozenth time, can we please wait until we get a bit closer to 2019 before we start complaining about the budget deficit in that year? Obama won't even be president then, and his successor's policies (which we have absolutely no knowledge of) will have a marked effect on the 2019 deficit.

Topic: RE: Obama: "Long Term Debt Load Unsustainable"
Username: FreequentFlier
Posted 2009-05-23 10:12:45 and read 2071 times.



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 49):

Also for the dozenth time, can we please wait until we get a bit closer to 2019 before we start complaining about the budget deficit in that year? Obama won't even be president then, and his successor's policies (which we have absolutely no knowledge of) will have a marked effect on the 2019 deficit.

What a joke. Considering every projection thus far has been on the low side (meaning deficits and unemployment have been higher than projected), why should we have to wait? And even if the projections are too pessimistic, suppose we have annual deficits of 600-700 billion a year instead of a trillion. Is this sustainable either? No of course not.

I used an analogy before and it's very appropriate: if I see two trains heading for each other along the same rail, do I "give them a chance" or "wait to see what happens"?


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/