Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion  
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/30/news/economy/deficit-2013-treasury/

Wow less than half of the deficit that George Bush's last budget left us with. Amazing.

  

How could we have accomplished this with higher taxes in 2013?
  

Seriously though, it isn't all the way back, but it is indicative of the coming recovery as revenues rise with better earnings. I expect 2014 to be even better on the back of the Stock Market Recovery.

Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

What will happen when interest on the debt rises, will the recovery cover it?


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 805 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

Cutting the deficit is the first step of many. This is heading in the right direction for sure. Back in 2008 I wrote a paper one why the housing crisis would cause 10 year stagnation of the economy. Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue. The unemployment rate has gone down, but the labor participation rate has stayed consistent over the past few years. When you see labor participation increasing is when you will start to see actual substantial growth. Until then we will remain relatively stagnant, or grow slow.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
What will happen when interest on the debt rises, will the recovery cover it?

Hard to say. We can look at what is happening and Europe and make some assumptions, but inherently our situation is a bit different. A lot of it depends on the monetary policy of the fed. Also, it depends on if we hit another economic "bubble". Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt. Basically there are tons of factors and the safest bet is to expect stagnation.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
US Budget Defecit Down To 680 Billion

And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.

It is amazing what happens when the economy improves and revenues increase (more tax revenue flowing in) and expenses decrease (less services needed such as welfare and food stamps and unemployment) etc. It is not that hard to balance a budget, it is just hard for people to agree on what the correct way is to do so. Lots of ways will work.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8436 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue.

Sub prime loans should be pretty well cleaned out by now. I can see that there might be a lot of home loans "underwater". We saw that in TUL during the Reagan years when oil patch went into an economic crisis. Home prices took a huge dive in values. A friend with one of those houses took the position that he had the same house with the same mortgage payment so he was just going to stop worrying about it. That was long enough ago that he's clear and can make a nice profit on the house.

In terms of subsidizing housing, when the wife & I moved into our first home (on the GI bill) there were families moving into the neighborhood on a "235 loan" program. This was 40+ years ago and that program was stable in our neighborhood. The difference, IMO, is that we had reputable people in the financial sector who ensured people could pay their mortgages.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
When you see labor participation increasing is when you will start to see actual substantial growth. Until then we will remain relatively stagnant, or grow slow.

I'm looking for a poverty level minimum wage to be effectively addressed.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Also, it depends on if we hit another economic "bubble". Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt.

We know how to fix that. The new student loan program from Obama should be extended to all student loans. Our risk of a bubble is based on the profit levels private lenders are pulling in. I don't believe that students should have to prop up profits in the financial sector. So let's refinance the loans to provide some stability and reduces changes of a bubble.

Maybe we can also put some responsibility on the universities, and for-profit colleges. Fail to deliver performance and the government gets a refund to reduce those loans.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1591 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
The new student loan program from Obama should be extended to all student loans.

Actually student loans are one thing I think need to be reigned in. At least somewhat. The low cost of them makes it too easy to borrow and means too many get too far into debt as the price for college education increases due the availability of cheap money.

The issue is similar to the sub-prime mortgage loans you don't like. Loans need rules on them to prevent deleterious effects.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 805 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Sub prime loans should be pretty well cleaned out by now.

They are still being offered, but the biggest difference is that they aren't tied into securities and sold on Wall Street. Lenders are willing to offer loans to people with poor credit history with larger down payments, but i fear that it is a slippery slope, because nothing really stops people from foreclosing again since they already have.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
The difference, IMO, is that we had reputable people in the financial sector who ensured people could pay their mortgages.

I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
Maybe we can also put some responsibility on the universities, and for-profit colleges. Fail to deliver performance and the government gets a refund to reduce those loans.

I think there are several problems here and you definitely hit the nail on the head for a few of them. Universities very much act like big businesses these days it seems. Also, we have a culture in which everyone is encouraged to go to college for some reason even when it is not needed, or appropriate. There needs to be a complete shift in the thinking that goes into giving out student loans. Perhaps for another thread.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3):
I'm looking for a poverty level minimum wage to be effectively addressed.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...es/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400, which is well under minimum wage. A household size of 2 level for poverty is 15500, which slightly above minimum wage.

I agree that we need to tie minimum wage to inflation/CPI, but I don't think it needs drastic adjustments.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1492 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Many of those issues including offering sub prime loans or subsidizing housing loans have not been solved and that it a big issue.

They have been solved a bit. I think fear is a good thing, and I think a lot of areas have it. However there is a big issue in the fact that before the "crisis" a lot of people made a lot of money on flipping houses. The 100% loans are a scary thing, and I don't think they adequately address risk for the lender in many situations. Flippers draw in folks that want a home, and the whole thing may repeat. The cycle however may be shorter or more suspect than in the past.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
The unemployment rate has gone down, but the labor participation rate has stayed consistent over the past few years

I am not sure we escape this , especially after my father retired at such a young age, and the fact that my wife is staying home with the kids due to Preschool costs and and time vs value equations . That is a thread for a later date.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 1):
Some are predicting a student loan "bubble", which would be adversely affected by raising interest rates on the debt

If interest rates go up, it will be a double whammy for the students that road out the crisis by getting more school in careers that don't pay dividends on the investment. Sanscrift scholars, MBA's , extra lawyers on the low tier. There is a crisis waiting to happen.

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
It is not that hard to balance a budget, it is just hard for people to agree on what the correct way is to do so. Lots of ways will work.

Lot's of ways work, but when certain parties are unable to use some of the tools in the toolbox it makes things more difficult for certain classes of people. Progressive taxes work well for a reason, and the Government should not be hesitant to use them when needed. The Government does also need to give a break to those that receive the burden when times are good though.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
but i fear that it is a slippery slope, because nothing really stops people from foreclosing again since they already have

Well hopefully those that foreclosed will not easily get an "easy" loan the next time around, but I do not know much about how careful banks are being in scrutinizing past loan failures. That is something that hopefully the banks are taking care of so as not to become more Countrywide's . Bank of America and Chase have a lot of loans from that mess, and I am sure they will be very wary of loaning it out. However that is not to say that another "Countrywide" will not show up.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

People do have that problem, but in most cases 30-40 year loans, people have accepted that he pay off is getting what you want now instead of later. Perhaps a bit more delayed gratification is in order and banks should require 10-20% down payments for purchases on houses or cards no matter what.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
. There needs to be a complete shift in the thinking that goes into giving out student loans. Perhaps for another thread

We need another thread for that one. I could offer some ideas. Engineers, doctors, teachers should all get subsidies. Politicians, Liberal Arts majors get no breaks unless they are acing the courses, and there is a true demand for their degree. Post doc students should qualify for progressive breaks based on major and class ranking . think this level of competition would make our schools better, and make our students better.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400, which is well under minimum wage. A household size of 2 level for poverty is 15500, which slightly above minimum wage.

11,400 seems awfully low to me, but as a single person in college I usually got by on less. But loans and family helped. The sad part of it is that a lot of those really in the poverty level are single mom's with kids. That is something that is really hard to address.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Wow less than half of the deficit that George Bush's last budget left us with. Amazing.

That's both factually incorrect and misleading. The last full year of Bush's term, the U.S. ran a deficit of $454 billion. Not that one year tells a complete picture. Over two terms, the Bush administration averaged a deficit of $250 billion dollars per year. That sounds quaint these days.

Even if you want to attribute the 2009 spending spree to Bush, he averaged $375 billion per year.

My biggest frustration with the Obama deficits is what the heck have we been getting? With all that massive spending with average deficits 3-4x bigger than Bush, you would think you could point to something tangible. The Bush deficits took place during:

- A mild recession following the dot.com bubble
- A major terrorist attack and drop in consumer confidence
- The subsequent creation of the Deptarment of Homeland Security
- Unprecedented (at the time) new regulations on public corporations
- Broad and deep tax cuts for all Americans
- A two front war
- Expansion of Medicare to include a new prescription drug benefit
- The bipartisan Bush-Pelosi stimulus package

And I still don't excuse spending an average of $250-375 billion dollars we didn't have.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
How could we have accomplished this with higher taxes in 2013?

1. Because taxes went up on a very small amount on very few people
2. Because the Democrats thought Republicans would cave on the sequester spending cuts and they didn't.

Republicans are no doubt losing the public relations battle, but they are quietly winning a budget war. In the last two to three years, we've seen the Bush tax rates made permanent. We've seen Republicans put defense spending on the chopping block with only a handful of wimpers. And in re-opening the government, the Democrats lost major leverage in restoring discretionary programs hit by the sequester.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter):
Any thoughts on how the recovery is going?

Slowly and steadily. There is a great deal of pent-up consumer demand waiting to be unleashed. People are still deleveraging consumer debt and playing it safe. The business climate ranges from uncertain to hostile with good pockets here and there.

I think we've shown we can avoid complete stagnation like Japan and the past few years in Europe, but it may be ten years before we have another 1982-2007 quarter century run of steady growth and light recessions.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9202 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
My biggest frustration with the Obama deficits is what the heck have we been getting

What are we getting? To me, we still have a functioning banking system. I still have my savings, along with millions more. We can still buy a house, cars, use credit cards. We are recovering, and people are not selling apples on the street corner. Every retired person can breath a little easier. People have money to spend. Not the wild old days, but we have a functioning slowly improving economy.. Now if the jobs came back, which a few are, things would get much better.

[Edited 2013-10-30 18:52:08]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 8):
What are we getting? To me, we still have a functioning banking system.

But according to the TARP proponents, we recovered ~97% of the funds used to bail-out and stabilize the banking system. So what have we achieved with the other $6 trillion in debt the Obama administration has amassed?


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
That's both factually incorrect and misleading.

Really :? How? Considering the fiscal year starts in October, and guess what, October of 2008 Bush signed the budget that allocated the spending based on expected revenue. In October of 2008 the market crashed, but the budget was already set. Far too many people, including yourself forget this fact. The same thing happened in 2012 and will happen in 2016. The 2013 and 2017 budgets will have been set, unless Cruz continues with his Green Eggs and Ham routing.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
- A mild recession following the dot.com bubble
- A major terrorist attack and drop in consumer confidence
- The subsequent creation of the Deptarment of Homeland Security
- Unprecedented (at the time) new regulations on public corporations
- Broad and deep tax cuts for all Americans
- A two front war
- Expansion of Medicare to include a new prescription drug benefit
- The bipartisan Bush-Pelosi stimulus package

And I still don't excuse spending an average of $250-375 billion dollars we didn't have.

All of which occurred during a housing bubble that paid for the these items, and that extra 250-375 could have been taken care of had bush not cut the taxes during the initial "Mild:" Recession. Those cuts left little wiggle room for the subsequent Major recession when the housing bubble crashed.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
1. Because taxes went up on a very small amount on very few people

A very "small" amount of people hold an awful big pile of the money in this country.
Watch the following. Very illustrative for those that do not understand the income and wealth inequity in this country.
3:50 for the inpatient, but the whole video is very illustrative. Pay attentions to the top 1% . They have 40% of ALL THE WEALTH.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
2. Because the Democrats thought Republicans would cave on the sequester spending cuts and they didn't.

The cuts needed to happen, and at the end of the day, the democrats won quite a bit more. The Republicans failed to negotiate on the sequester , and it cost a huge pile of the defense spending that the GOP holds dear for political purposes. It portends to issues highlighted recently of the fanatics vs pragmatic portion of the GOP.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
We've seen Republicans put defense spending on the chopping block with only a handful of wimpers. And in re-opening the government, the Democrats lost major leverage in restoring discretionary programs hit by the sequester.

The republicans have arguably lost a lot more. They do not deal in real numbers or science anymore . they deal in faith and superstitions.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 7):
I think we've shown we can avoid complete stagnation like Japan and the past few years in Europe, but it may be ten years before we have another 1982-2007 quarter century run of steady growth and light recessions.

I think things will move faster. Unlike Japan, Wall street is a very American entity, and used the world over. As the US shows growth, and a lack of standoffs in the government. World money will flow in. Japan did not have that advantage.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9202 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
But according to the TARP proponents, we recovered ~97% of the funds used to bail-out and stabilize the banking system. So what have we achieved with the other $6 trillion in debt the Obama administration has amassed?

I am not an expert for sure, but it seems to me that most of this debt was an ongoing attempt to avoid financial collapse, to prop up the staggering economy. I cannot answer for anyone but myself, but I and many millions were holding our breaths for a long time, we did not want to lose all we had worked for overnight. I took a pension check, two of my friends took a buyout. They invested with one of the big funds in this country. Very safe they were told. When the collapse came, they lost 50% of their money just like that. They are almost back after all this time. If they had lost it all, they would have had to go back to work, after 40 years of toil and saving their money. I think it has been worth the money myself. The problem to me is nobody went to jail.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6845 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1409 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.

What the Fed does is not spending, it's printing money. It has nothing to do with the budget, the Fed is not part of the government (in theory). The benefit is that the government can run huge deficits because the Fed buys its bonds no matter what. That's why your reforms are going nowhere, there is no incentive.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8436 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 4):
Actually student loans are one thing I think need to be reigned in. At least somewhat. The low cost of them makes it too easy to borrow and means too many get too far into debt as the price for college education increases due the availability of cheap money.

Motivating state universities to deliver quality education at a reasonable cost is probably the first step. Research funds are excellent motivators when you are looking to push college costs down - and that is the direction we need to go in.

Maybe we need to look at other costs also. Student fees used to fund athletics is a pretty rancid approach. If the NCAA cannot deliver a financially responsible program then maybe we need to take a hard look at both college athletics & the NCAA. There is plenty of TV money available to help clear out those costs without relying on student fees.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
I would agree, but my concern is that people in this country have a problem with spending huge amounts of money that they do not have without understanding the consequences of it.

Responsible home ownership can be an effective long term investment. Our first home was $19,200 and I thought that was a huge amount of money. Now we have a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood and it is fully paid for. That is a huge protection for the wife if I fall off the perch before her. She can sell the place, get a condo or smaller house that suits her needs and use the balance of the cash to provide funds when needed.

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 5):
According to this, unless it is wrong the poverty level for a household of 1 is 11,400

Where is that? Some small town in Kansas?

And how much government assistance does that require?

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
The Government does also need to give a break to those that receive the burden when times are good though.

Lobbyists have ensured that "they" are already taken care of. Money buys a lot of attention from politicians so "they" are well taken care of in the 70,000+ pages of the tax code.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
Engineers, doctors, teachers should all get subsidies.

Engineers should do well when they get a degree - and they really don't need subsidies not available to ll students.

Doctors? I strongly agree when those doctors fill specific needs, like being a GP, or working in areas that are short of doctors - like rural areas, or small towns.

Teachers? You bet I'd support that. Getting that teaching certificate is not cheap and continuing ed is required in many states. Lots of Masters & PhDs in school systems simply because of CE requirements.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
Politicians, Liberal Arts majors get no breaks unless they are acing the courses, and there is a true demand for their degree.

Politicians can come from any field. Our Senator Coburn is a Doctor - a pretty good indication that they can come from any where.

Liberal Art is different and I look to Steve Jobs for guidance there. He pushed Apple to be the "Intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts" and it's pretty hard to argue with the success that approach has delivered.

I also believe that we need to continue delivering Liberal Arts grads as that is where we get English and History teachers, among other things. Political Science is also a good background for those wanting to go into law, or government work.

I even go back to my Navy days where the CO of the destroyer I was serving on was not only an Annapolis grad, but had received a Masters in International Relations from Harvard. That degree was considered important as he would be taking ships he commanded into foreign ports. (The Navy is really big on international relations training for that simple reason.)

Sad to say, but Liberal Arts will (hopefully) continue to be a critical area of a normal university.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Politicians can come from any field. Our Senator Coburn is a Doctor - a pretty good indication that they can come from any where.

True enough, I should have said Poli sci majors. Too much evaluation of how one should act vs, doing the right thing.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Liberal Art is different and I look to Steve Jobs for guidance there. He pushed Apple to be the "Intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts" and it's pretty hard to argue with the success that approach has delivered.

I see where you are here, but Job's used and recognized talent where it was, and I am not arguing against that. My engineering degree was actually awarded through the liberal arts side of my University. However I took many classes within the engineering school.

But there are many degrees that have diminutive returns. Unfortunately their is a disproportionate attraction of students to degrees with little return for them, and the the US economy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Political Science is also a good background for those wanting to go into law, or government work.

I disagree, Many areas of law and government are as diverse as the economy. The lawyers and Government officials should be just as diverse.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 805 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
11,400 seems awfully low to me, but as a single person in college I usually got by on less. But loans and family helped. The sad part of it is that a lot of those really in the poverty level are single mom's with kids. That is something that is really hard to address.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Where is that? Some small town in Kansas?

And how much government assistance does that require?

According to the link I posted that is the level at which you would be in poverty for the federal government as a single person household. Keep in mind that a bunch of assistance programs kick in at higher than the poverty level and there are discretions by state on the income level that recieves assistance for program. Many times when you hear pundits and politicians throwing around numbers for income and poverty they usually relate to a household more than 1 or 2 because that is their target audience usually. I lived the past 2 years on 20-25k a year, but was fairly well off because it was just me. I know many people would scoff at 25k and say its pennies, but it is more than enough to support one person if one chooses to live wisely.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11768 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Better gather a committee. This is Obama's fault, after all. Find a scape goat that Obama appointed and blame him. This is Obama's fault and he should be held accountable for lowering the deficit. The same deficit that includes $24 billion run up by the tea people who shut down the government. It was Obama's fault.

give me strength and another beer.....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 16):
Better gather a committee. This is Obama's fault, after all. Find a scape goat that Obama appointed and blame him. This is Obama's fault and he should be held accountable for lowering the deficit. The same deficit that includes $24 billion run up by the tea people who shut down the government. It was Obama's fault.

While I'm sure there are gonna be a lot of Obama-less reasons for the lowered debt, I'm not going to automatically assume it was all his doing. It's very important to not be a cheerleader or a hater, just a rationalist and see what we did right to reduce debt. Good news, though. Once our economy picks up we'll be golden, hopefully



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1281 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 17):
While I'm sure there are gonna be a lot of Obama-less reasons for the lowered debt, I'm not going to automatically assume it was all his doing. It's very important to not be a cheerleader or a hater, just a rationalist and see what we did right to reduce debt. Good news, though. Once our economy picks up we'll be golden, hopefully

Well to be honest, there is a point to be made here. Most of our rampant right are quick to lay blame should a Government fart stink up the place. But then no credit when things go right ?   I would think the far right would be in here complaining that it could be so much lower since the tax revenue that closed the gap hindered "growth"



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6845 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

680 billion is about the budget of Canada or Spain, apparently.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 18):
But then no credit when things go right ?

Well I'm trying to ignore the extreme left and extreme right for a minute. I, of course, don't blame everything that goes wrong on the administration, but at the same time, I cannot automatically contribute any kind of growth to them. I'm not trying to be nice and fair, I'm trying to be practical--what worked? Is it just the market picking up? (Then continue paving the way for them!) Is it due to a program the administration did? (Then continue/expand those programs!) Was it due to the sequester? (Then perhaps cut some more!)

I'm not saying it's any of those three, but you get my point. It's natural for both sides to claim victory for growth, or at least dismiss the other side's claim, but again, I don't care who looks better, I want to have a better country



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4751 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1245 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 20):
I'm not saying it's any of those three, but you get my point. It's natural for both sides to claim victory for growth, or at least dismiss the other side's claim, but again, I don't care who looks better, I want to have a better country

No, I get that point, but as has been pointed out in many other threads, there is a level of blame leveled at Obama that I have never seen before.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 21):
No, I get that point, but as has been pointed out in many other threads, there is a level of blame leveled at Obama that I have never seen before.

Yeah, well, I just ignore them sometimes   I mean you know I usually give anyone's thoughts the light of day but sometimes even I shake my head at some of the things they blame the President for



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6912 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1234 times:

The level of economic literacy here sometimes is shockingly appallingly poor. I'm no expert, but people do realize there's a difference between deficit spending and debt, right?

The deficit spending cited above only refers to this current fiscal year. Now, let's consider that there hasn't been a budget passed since April 2009 and that the government has operated on a series of continuing spending resolutions that, have only added to deficit spending because they operate on planned increases in spending. Sequestration was a hardline reduction in spending--but it isn't cutting where it most needs, which is entitlement spending. Annual deficits are one thing--total debt is another.

Quoting tugger (Reply 2):
And wait to see what happens to it when the "Quantitative Easing" ends. That policy is spending $85 Billion a month to buy (and reissue) outstanding debt. That right there is $1T a year, so the deficit is about to get a lot better.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 12):
What the Fed does is not spending, it's printing money. It has nothing to do with the budget, the Fed is not part of the government (in theory). The benefit is that the government can run huge deficits because the Fed buys its bonds no matter what. That's why your reforms are going nowhere, there is no incentive.

In short, we're still borrowing money by the boatloads (hello China) to finance domestic spending levels that are unsustainable. You can't buy back debt with money that is reducing in value and think that's a winning game plan.

Monetary policy is being "gamed" to a ridiculous extreme and there is FAR too much over-reliance on it to solve what are larger economic issues: among them, no jobs, rampant government spending, reduction in manufacturing base, and a skyrocketing increase in number of disabled recipients, welfare recipients, food stamps, other entitlements that are creating a giant sucking action on the economy.

Moreover, because interest rates are ALREADY at record lows and remain so, we're not seeing increased lending taking place, which would naturally stimulate economic growth too. By a wink and a nod (or, with the Obama administration, I'm sure it's far more heavy-handed) to Bernanke, there has been an artificial hand at play to keep interest rates low. That's creating a serious optical problem that masks what are larger economic issues. In essence, it's just kicking the can. Again. And more. Now, it would be naive to think any POTUS doesn't take an active hand in Fed actions, some are just more subtle and some--very rarely--fall on the sword because they know there is a right and wrong action that has major repercussions.

(By contrast, the inflation we saw in the 1970s was also because of pumping money supply in the Nixon administration--that backfired dramatically and it was worsened by Ford and Carter. Finally, Paul Volcker--who ironically was appointed by Carter--was the one who helped get monetary policy in check. Monetary policy dictates inflation more than almost every other key lever. Reagan had to have some brass balls to not continue the same policies as Carter (although one could argue he didn't have a choice given the misery index) but the tight money policy by Reagan, that Volcker boldly continued with, reduced inflation dramatically. Right in the face of the Keynesians, I might add) Go back and look when that Nixon election was--1972, right? Fast forward 8 years. Look at what happened. We're now into what year of Obama? Think of the parallels here as to when the hammer will hit. And it will. It's inescapable. You can only game the system for so long--especially in today's global economy which is FAR more integrated and interdependent than it was 40 years ago.

The ultimate irony--and one that NO ONE really is the MSM even dares to talk about because having an intelligent discussion about economics makes people click off their TVs, turn off radios and not read articles--is that the very policies Obama has undertaken, and accelerated, are most harmful to low income and poor people whose financial resources, already limited, become less valuable in the marketplace. Money devalues, hyperinflation will result. Throw in the fact that unchecked debt--in the form of entitlement spending--has NO multiplier effect to the economy, it's like pouring money we don't have and have to borrow, down a bottomless pit. THEN, consider this: banks would normally borrow against savers to make reinvestment. This isn't happening much either because people are saving less and their money is worth less. So it really does become a race to the bottom. So if we're printing money and NOT getting investment out of it, where is it going? And why isn't the economy recovering? Ask the commercial bankers. And then kill em.

There's no capital investment even with low interest rates that, again, are being kept artificially low. QE and money printing is a trap and we're F'd by continuing to do it. Meanwhile, job creation is abysmal, Obamacare is already impacting the economy, and the oligarchs laugh it all off.

Now, back to your bread and circuses, people. Look, it's Miley Cyrus!


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7972 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1232 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 23):
The level of economic literacy here sometimes is shockingly appallingly poor. I'm no expert, but people do realize there's a difference between deficit spending and debt, right?

Yeah, our debt isn't going up quite as fast. We obviously have $680bil to go but it's a step in the right direction. I think there would be a lot more celebration if our debt was $680bil all of the sudden  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
25 Post contains links Slider : I don't know what you're looking at, but it is. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbo...-long-term-debt-warning-2013-09-17 CBO's own warnings show tha
26 seb146 : So there is no place in the military budget to be cut? Only "entitlements"? BTW, we all pay into entitlements. Like Social Security and Medicare. We
27 casinterest : Yet this is a misnomer. the policies that are causing the issue are already in place. Medicare and Social security. This blame it on Obama attitude i
28 Post contains images DfwRevolution : I did not forget. The Obama administration still has the discretion to not spend appropriations. The Obama administration also signed supplemental ap
29 Stabilator : Awesome to hear that it is shrinking a little. What is the next step? How do we get to the point of a surplus?
30 WarRI1 : Keep the Democrats in power.[Edited 2013-10-31 11:19:13]
31 seb146 : Considering it was used to fund wars and Medicare D and tax breaks for the rich and corporations, yes. BTW, how much profit is Medicare part D runnin
32 casinterest : So you would have preferred the Government stopped spending to help out the economy? That would have left us in a depression. BS. The housing bubble,
33 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Um, if our deficit is higher, our debt is going to go up faster than if our deficit is lower... Our deficit is lower than what it was so it's not goi
34 Flighty : Institute modern management practices in government and health care. Fire most people in the govt and hire investigators to eliminate SSDI fraud. Con
35 Aesma : Yeah going the private route has proven so cheap with the military !
36 DeltaMD90 : It has in many cases. Blanket statements aren't usually 100% true. You're probably talking about mercenaries though, right?
37 casinterest : to be honest their are a lot of things the private sector charges the military an arm and a leg for. Just look at the defense budget, and those union
38 DeltaMD90 : I agree, never said otherwise Yes, it does in many cases. Go to an airfield, you'll see many non-military workers (and I'm excluding government worke
39 casinterest : It's not wrong when you are talking about items the government is intended to do. Bootcamp and other items are considered training . Just as a Privat
40 DeltaMD90 : Not fully understanding. Why wouldn't the military outsource? It can be cheaper and more efficient. Getting a fuel operation up and running might be
41 Flighty : Why would anyone save money, if their retirement and healthcare costs will be paid by the govt? Saving or investing would be senseless for them. As y
42 seb146 : But recall that, for the Iraq war, they had no-bid contracts. And, Cheney told us that "deficits don't matter". Those no-bid contracts ended up costi
43 DeltaMD90 : That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about though. I acknowledged in all of my last few posts that abuse does indeed happen, BUT, just like g
44 seb146 : Two things: 1. This was never an issue until Obama won the White House. 2. As you acknowledge, there are a million shades of grey. I believe Boeing h
45 DeltaMD90 : Well I'll try to make this the last time I say this because I've said it to you a bunch in the last couple days... I don't know why you keep thinking
46 seb146 : Separation anxiety. He set things in motion. The biggest expansion of government is Obama's fault because Bush started it. No one on the right cared
47 DeltaMD90 : Yadaya, do what you think is right no matter what names people call you. Do what is right even if you have to disagree with a candidate you like and
48 seb146 : And I do. And I am sick of it. And you and I do. Problem is: when we give our opinion, we are told we hate America. When we give our opinion, we are
49 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : Well if you're left leaning, you'll be called names by the right. If you're right leaning, you'll be called names by the left. And if you settle in t
50 Aesma : Yes I was talking about private armies and military purchases where somehow one zero is added to the price and one decade to the delivery date betwee
51 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : On a side note, and I am not saying I'm for or against them, but mercenaries are often to do things that US troops cannot do due to rules of engageme
52 casinterest : Things are always done " Cheaper" when you do them yourself. However their is the cost of time. Efficiency is making the determination that the priva
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Denies Airspace Access To Venezuela's President posted Thu Sep 19 2013 17:28:05 by Gonzalo
US Gun Crime Down ~50%, Few Know posted Tue May 7 2013 13:48:11 by mham001
Laptop Purchasing Help $500 US Budget posted Wed May 19 2010 18:52:42 by B7474
Driver Wrecks US Nuclear Sub Listening To IPod. posted Fri Apr 9 2010 23:09:12 by fxramper
US Army Says "goodbye" To Whoppers And DQ. posted Thu Mar 25 2010 10:32:45 by boeingfever777
US `Jihad Jane´ Linked To Murder Cartoonist posted Wed Mar 10 2010 00:32:27 by solnabo
If You Go Down To The Woods Today..... posted Sun Feb 28 2010 12:55:44 by GDB
World Wrestling CEO Steps Down To Run For Senate posted Wed Sep 16 2009 12:17:10 by September11
US Talk Show Host To Sue United Kingdom posted Wed May 6 2009 03:39:42 by RussianJet
US Citizens Are Taking To The Streets! posted Mon Feb 9 2009 13:05:31 by MadameConcorde