Who's To Blame For The Debt?

[ABM]

According to this guy, there's plenty of it (blame) to spread around.

Somewhat interesting read, nonetheless...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Who-t...4.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=

 

[STOMP]

"deficits don't matter"

pretty funny that one of the rotating ad banners now at the top of this 6 year old article speaks to joining Ron Paul in not letting the US raise the debt ceiling as that would be a betrayal

STOMP

 

[Denny Crane]

Deficits can matter and they can be a good thing. Companies use debt and run deficits all the time to invest in new equipment, facilities, or to fuel growth. Unfortunately, it's hard to see any of the government's deficit spending as an investment that is going to generate any kind of revenues to offset the deficits.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Deficits can matter and they can be a good thing. Companies use debt and run deficits all the time to invest in new equipment, facilities, or to fuel growth. Unfortunately, it's hard to see any of the government's deficit spending as an investment that is going to generate any kind of revenues to offset the deficits.

We should sell anchor babies and their families to China for slave labor.

 

[MARIS61]

Deficits can matter and they can be a good thing. Companies use debt and run deficits all the time to invest in new equipment, facilities, or to fuel growth. Unfortunately, it's hard to see any of the government's deficit spending as an investment that is going to generate any kind of revenues to offset the deficits.

That's because in this case most of the money spent was gifted to the banking industry with no strings attached on the assumption that they would invest it in America's recovery from the collapse they caused during the Bush/Cheney reign of graft.

Unfortunately, the banking industry has neither a sense of patriotism nor any moral fiber.

 

[Denny Crane]

The banks are lending money, they're just looking to make quality loans us all. Great credit and 20% down gets you a home loan, and FHA is even easier.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

America. For continuing to elect and stand for the bullshit in office.

 

[BrianFromWA]

America. For continuing to elect and stand for the bullshit in office.

This is closest, so far.

 

[blue32]

The House and Senate....imo.

 

[jlprk]

Here's an article from during the Bush Administration in which the annual deficit is announced, then the writer gives every excuse you can think of for why deficits don't matter.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/191032...rity-Lockbox?p=2640459&viewfull=1#post2640459

Now that a Democrat is President, suddenly the media cares again about deficits, and the excuses of the past 8 years (e.g. ratio of deficit to GDP hasn't changed) aren't permissible.

 

[Denny Crane]

Deficits matter, but it boils down to how much new debt you assume as a % of the national income (GDP).

Consider if you make $1M a year and borrow $10 a year. No big deal. But if you make $1M a year and borrow $150,000 a year, after 10 years your debt will be 1.5x what you make in a year.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

America. For continuing to elect and stand for the bullshit in office.

How true, how true.

 

[blazerboy30]

Here's an article from during the Bush Administration in which the annual deficit is announced, then the writer gives every excuse you can think of for why deficits don't matter.

http://sportstwo.com/threads/191032...rity-Lockbox?p=2640459&viewfull=1#post2640459

Now that a Democrat is President, suddenly the media cares again about deficits, and the excuses of the past 8 years (e.g. ratio of deficit to GDP hasn't changed) aren't permissible.

The media is so conservative!

 

[mobes23]

Deficits matter, but it boils down to how much new debt you assume as a % of the national income (GDP).

Consider if you make $1M a year and borrow $10 a year. No big deal. But if you make $1M a year and borrow $150,000 a year, after 10 years your debt will be 1.5x what you make in a year.

To an extent, I agree with that. The problem is that the federal budget doesn't easily ratchet up and down to match changes in the GDP. If you're running a decent size deficit when the economy is booming, the problem gets much worse when the economy tanks (which always happens sooner or later).

In an ideal situation (admittedly, this is absurdly pie in the sky), we'd run a small surplus in boom times and small deficit during bad times and it'd balance out over time.

 

[maxiep]

We're to blame. Until we start thinking about future generations instead of ourselves, we'll never get out of this predicament. We elect people who tell us what we want to hear, fully understanding that they're making promises someone else will have to pay.

 

[mobes23]

We're to blame. Until we start thinking about future generations instead of ourselves, we'll never get out of this predicament. We elect people who tell us what we want to hear, fully understanding that they're making promises someone else will have to pay.

True words - I totally agree with you.

 

[Denny Crane]

To an extent, I agree with that. The problem is that the federal budget doesn't easily ratchet up and down to match changes in the GDP. If you're running a decent size deficit when the economy is booming, the problem gets much worse when the economy tanks (which always happens sooner or later).

In an ideal situation (admittedly, this is absurdly pie in the sky), we'd run a small surplus in boom times and small deficit during bad times and it'd balance out over time.

I'm ok with them running a $10 deficit on $1M income forever. After a lot of years, the debt may rise to $14T like now, but GDP would be many many times higher than the $14T it is now, too. So it would still be like $10/$1M.

 

[Sug]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

[Denny Crane]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Your chart isn't right. The govt.'s fiscal year is September to September, so what your chart credits to Reagan's first year was Carter's last budget, etc.

So Carter left office with a deficit 2x what it was when he came into office. The deficit was 2x higher than that EIGHT years later when Reagan was done. Carter served four, you know.

And it's far more interesting to see who controlled congress during those years, since every one of the budgets Reagan submitted were declared DOA and never voted on. The constitution requires all spending bills (budget) start in the House.

One more thing, the Pelosi/Reid/Obama deficits are way off your chart. Put them on it and the rest become 1 pixel tall.

 

[barfo]

Your chart isn't right. The govt.'s fiscal year is September to September, so what your chart credits to Reagan's first year was Carter's last budget, etc.

So Carter left office with a deficit 2x what it was when he came into office.

What numbers are you using? I don't see how you get 2x for Carter from the chart, no matter where you start counting.

The deficit was 2x higher than that EIGHT years later when Reagan was done.

More like 2.5x

And it's far more interesting to see who controlled congress during those years, since every one of the budgets Reagan submitted were declared DOA and never voted on. The constitution requires all spending bills (budget) start in the House.

Uhm, ok. So Reagan didn't sign the bills?

One more thing, the Pelosi/Reid/Obama deficits are way off your chart. Put them on it and the rest become 1 pixel tall.

Of course, you aren't mentioning that the first year of Obama belongs to Bush, according to your first sentence. So 'them' is really 'it', because there has only been one year so far.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The deficit was $40b when Carter took office and $79b when he left. Close enough to 2x.

You're right that Reagan didn't have to sign those budgets. Until GHW Bush, Reagan held the record for most vetoes. You might remember his "never again!" speech where he brought out the Dems' omnibus spending bill to show it to us all. And he asked for the line item veto and balanced budget amendments - both good ideas then and now.

W rand about $400b deficits until the end. He spent half the tarp money, so his contribution would be about $800b his last year.

And congress passed no budgets at all under Pelosi, so the fiscal year didn't matter. Obama submitted a $600b bigger budget 1st thing and then rammed the $800b stimulus bill through on top of that. I know your kind insists on blaming W for everything, but those things are on O.

 

[mobes23]

Denny, you're doing an admirable job trying to explain that table, but it's kind of hard to argue against (people can disagree with me about it and that's fine.)

Assume (just for fun, even if you're hard to the right) it's pretty accurate to the way spending changes during D and R presidencies. I know it's a hard stretch for some of you lol, but if you make that assumption, then how do you explain it? One theory might be that the D's have a reputation for being free spenders and they don't like it. On the other hand, R's have a reputation for cutting spending that they generally like.

If that's true, then when a D is president they're doing what they can to prove the reputation wrong while the R's are hopping up on their soapbox talking about how good they are at cutting spending. In other words, they're both pre-disposed in the same direction of cutting expenses.

On the other hand, when an R president is in power, they're not trying to prove anything about spending and they run up the bill. The D's don't have as much of a dog in the fight and go along for the ride. Spending goes up.

Pretty much impossible to prove one way or another, but it's interesting to think about.

 

[Sug]

 

[STOMP]

7/21 CNN poll finds Americans blame Republicans for handling of debt crisis

STOMP

 

[barfo]

The deficit was $40b when Carter took office and $79b when he left. Close enough to 2x.

I don't see the number 40 anywhere on that chart. Or 79, for that matter. Am I missing something, or are you debating using your own set of books?

And congress passed no budgets at all under Pelosi, so the fiscal year didn't matter.

Huh?

Obama submitted a $600b bigger budget 1st thing and then rammed the $800b stimulus bill through on top of that. I know your kind insists on blaming W for everything, but those things are on O.

My kind thinks the stimulus was a good thing.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, you're doing an admirable job trying to explain that table, but it's kind of hard to argue against (people can disagree with me about it and that's fine.)

Assume (just for fun, even if you're hard to the right) it's pretty accurate to the way spending changes during D and R presidencies. I know it's a hard stretch for some of you lol, but if you make that assumption, then how do you explain it? One theory might be that the D's have a reputation for being free spenders and they don't like it. On the other hand, R's have a reputation for cutting spending that they generally like.

If that's true, then when a D is president they're doing what they can to prove the reputation wrong while the R's are hopping up on their soapbox talking about how good they are at cutting spending. In other words, they're both pre-disposed in the same direction of cutting expenses.

On the other hand, when an R president is in power, they're not trying to prove anything about spending and they run up the bill. The D's don't have as much of a dog in the fight and go along for the ride. Spending goes up.

Pretty much impossible to prove one way or another, but it's interesting to think about.

W was out to prove himself a compassionate conservative, and I guess that meant spending a lot. He is a republican, but not a conservative. His father wasn't a conservative either. Look at their first 100 days agendas. The first used his fresh political capital on an environmental bill (clean air act) and a civil rights bill (Americans with disabilities act). W used his on no child left behind and other lefty friendly social bills.

But if you'll indulge an alternate conspiracy theory... Democrats will do almost anything to destroy republicans' presidencies. The whole 2000 recount thing was to make W somehow illegitimate, as with many other personal attacks against him. While the deficits grew under Reagan, revenues doubled. There was none of his agenda to increase spending by triple. Democrats were insistent upon making GHW go against his "no new taxes" pledge, to the point of adding some new tax to every bill passed (which was then vetoed).

Yeah. To the point of sabotaging the economy.

GHW had like 200 vetoes. He ultimately was cornered into signing a bill with new taxes and got creamed in his reelection bid.

It seems to me the best times were had with the contract for America republicans running congress and writing the budgets, and a centrist democrat S president who was willing to adopt or co-opt good ideas from his opposition.

 

[mobes23]

It seems to me the best times were had with the contract for America republicans running congress and writing the budgets, and a centrist democrat S president who was willing to adopt or co-opt good ideas from his opposition.

Lol, believe it or not, I agree!!! Two different parties and just enough mutual respect to get things done. Sure wish we could get from there to here during Obama's presidency.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't see the number 40 anywhere on that chart. Or 79, for that matter. Am I missing something, or are you debating using your own set of books?



Huh?



My kind thinks the stimulus was a good thing.

barfo

And

Looks like the debt was shrinking as % of GDP under several republicans (Ike, Nixon, Ford)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

$53.9B deficit 1977
$79.9B deficit 1981
$152B deficit 1989

 

[barfo]

And

Looks like the debt was shrinking as % of GDP under several republicans (Ike, Nixon, Ford)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

$53.9B deficit 1977
$79.9B deficit 1981
$152B deficit 1989

Ok, glad you concede the point. Debt did not double under Kotter, not even close.

As for debt shrinking under republicans, let's note that Gerald Ford left office 30 years ago.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I've got a really simple question to ask. It seems that congress and Obama want to cut $3T or $4T or even more from the budget over 10 years. Why don't they just agree on a number and do it? The only thing stopping the Democrats from getting what they want (the budget cuts) is the Democrats insisting on something there isn't agreement on.