Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

3+ Trillion dollar deficit

honkerburger
Posts: 77
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 9:22:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh joy

Obama's job proposals would push government spending in 2010 to $3.72 trillion and increase that amount to $3.83 trillion in the 2011 budget year, which begins on Oct. 1.

The deficit in 2011 would total $1.27 trillion, the third straight trillion-dollar-plus imbalance. The deficit would fall to $828 billion in 2012 but would remain at levels surpassing any previous deficits through 2020.

The deficit for this year would be 10.6 percent of the total economy, a figure unmatched since the country was emerging from World War II. The administration does not trim the deficit below 3.6 percent of GDP for any year in the next decade, failing to meet its goal of lowering the deficit to 3 percent of GDP by 2015.

Full Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Discuss
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 10:58:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Change we can believe in.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 12:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2010 4:40:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 3:50:01 PM, IEUkillertofu wrote:
ITT Change we can believe in.

Fixed.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2010 12:09:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/1/2010 8:40:40 PM, IEUkillertofu wrote:
Come on volkov this thread is screaming at you. Provide a liberal defense.

We need more Democrats, liberals, and Obama supporters on this site.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 12:14:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Net deficit in National debt from the last budget signed by Dubya in 2008 for FY 2009:
$2,881.7 billion

Net deficit in national debt from the first budget signed by Obama in 2009 for FY 2010:
$1,588.8 billion (est.)

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov...:

What defense does there need to be? Modern economics (Keynesian) have it right, that the government should deficit-spend during recession because its the only entity that can afford to do so and power the economy.

As a % of GDP, our deficit (presently ~80% of GDP) could increase by 50% before entering record territory (~120+% during World War II).

If you'd like to see the deficit come down, talk to your senator and get them to pass a health care bill with a public option, as the Congressional Budget Office has determined that will reduce the deficit within ten years. http://www.cnn.com...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 12:32:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 12:14:22 AM, PervRat wrote:
Net deficit in National debt from the last budget signed by Dubya in 2008 for FY 2009:
$2,881.7 billion

Net deficit in national debt from the first budget signed by Obama in 2009 for FY 2010:
$1,588.8 billion (est.)

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov...:

http://blog.heritage.org...

You can't source a 339 page document and not give a page. My easy to read graph is statistically true, unlike your made-up numbers.

What defense does there need to be? Modern economics (Keynesian) have it right

Lol, no.

that the government should deficit-spend during recession because its the only entity that can afford to do so and power the economy.

Creating artificial wealth by printing money just gives a temporary artificial boost to the economy. The malinvestments should be liquidated, but no, the government feels like creating more malinvestments and creating another bubble. The boom will be shortly followed by a boost. Paul Krugman, Keynes' torch-holder, argued after the recession in 2001 to create a housing bubble. Well, the bubble was created. What has happened now? Oh yeah, another recession.

As a % of GDP, our deficit (presently ~80% of GDP) could increase by 50% before entering record territory (~120+% during World War II).

So...?

If you'd like to see the deficit come down, talk to your senator and get them to pass a health care bill with a public option, as the Congressional Budget Office has determined that will reduce the deficit within ten years. http://www.cnn.com...

Budget gimmicks, fun.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 12:46:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 12:32:05 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/8/2010 12:14:22 AM, PervRat wrote:
Net deficit in National debt from the last budget signed by Dubya in 2008 for FY 2009:
$2,881.7 billion

Net deficit in national debt from the first budget signed by Obama in 2009 for FY 2010:
$1,588.8 billion (est.)

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov...:

http://blog.heritage.org...

You can't source a 339 page document and not give a page. My easy to read graph is statistically true, unlike your made-up numbers.

You claim the white house's numbers are made up? Credibility failure there for you, dude.

For an easier reference, check the chart under http://en.wikipedia.org... (which uses the white house numbers).

To determine the increase of the national debt for a particular year (that is, the deficit), simple subtract the previous year from the year you wish to determin the deficit for.

For Fiscal Year 2009 (the last budget signed by Bush, since it was signed in 2008), its:
2009 National Debt: $12,867.5 billion (or $12.9 trillion)
- 2008 National Debt: $9,985.8 billion (or $10.0 trillion)
= Net loss (deficit): $2,881.7 billion

For Fiscal Year 2010 (the budget for which was signed in 2009, the first one signed by Obama), its:
2010 Nat'l Debt: $14,456.3 billion
- 2009 Nat'l Debt: $12,867.5 billion
= Defict: $1,588.8 billion.


What defense does there need to be? Modern economics (Keynesian) have it right

Lol, no.

Not funny and yes. Are you still stuck using proven-false 19th century economics theory?

that the government should deficit-spend during recession because its the only entity that can afford to do so and power the economy.

Creating artificial wealth by printing money just gives a temporary artificial boost to the economy.

How temporary was the gargantuan deficit spending by FDR? About 30 years or so.

If 30 years is "temporary," count me in.

The malinvestments should be liquidated, but no, the government feels like creating more malinvestments and creating another bubble.

Define mal-investment.

The boom will be shortly followed by a boost. Paul Krugman, Keynes' torch-holder, argued after the recession in 2001 to create a housing bubble. Well, the bubble was created. What has happened now? Oh yeah, another recession.

Creating a housing bubble is not Keynesian.

As a % of GDP, our deficit (presently ~80% of GDP) could increase by 50% before entering record territory (~120+% during World War II).

So...?

There's no reason to cry alarm over it.

If you'd like to see the deficit come down, talk to your senator and get them to pass a health care bill with a public option, as the Congressional Budget Office has determined that will reduce the deficit within ten years. http://www.cnn.com...

Budget gimmicks, fun.

Budget gimmicks running two expensive wars and not including them in your deficit reporting, like Bush did.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:20:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 12:46:09 AM, PervRat wrote:
You claim the white house's numbers are made up? Credibility failure there for you, dude.

I know, right. The White House said unemployment wasn't going to go over 8% with the stimulus but now it's over 10%. Pshhh, no biggie.

For an easier reference, check the chart under http://en.wikipedia.org... (which uses the white house numbers).

To determine the increase of the national debt for a particular year (that is, the deficit), simple subtract the previous year from the year you wish to determin the deficit for.

For Fiscal Year 2009 (the last budget signed by Bush, since it was signed in 2008), its:
2009 National Debt: $12,867.5 billion (or $12.9 trillion)
- 2008 National Debt: $9,985.8 billion (or $10.0 trillion)
= Net loss (deficit): $2,881.7 billion

For Fiscal Year 2010 (the budget for which was signed in 2009, the first one signed by Obama), its:
2010 Nat'l Debt: $14,456.3 billion
- 2009 Nat'l Debt: $12,867.5 billion
= Defict: $1,588.8 billion.

How does that prove anything? That just proves that Obama added $2881.7 billion to the deficit in one year. Obama signed the FY 2009 budget fyi. Obama has increased, says the wiki, the debt by 20% of GDP since he took office.

Not funny and yes. Are you still stuck using proven-false 19th century economics theory?

Austrian Economics. Keynesian economics is the proven failure.

How temporary was the gargantuan deficit spending by FDR? About 30 years or so.

Huh? Worst President in history says what?

If 30 years is "temporary," count me in.

You're going to have to elaborate.

The malinvestments should be liquidated, but no, the government feels like creating more malinvestments and creating another bubble.

Define mal-investment.

mal-investment
- refers to investments of firms being badly allocated due to artificially low cost of credit and an unsustainable increase in money supply, often blamed on a central bank

Creating a housing bubble is not Keynesian.

Our economic system is Keynesian. Paul Krugman is Keynesian. Krugman called for a housing bubble, like other Keynesians, to offset the recession of 2001.

There's no reason to cry alarm over it.

Except we're not in the biggest World War in history. And the debt from then still lingers.

Budget gimmicks running two expensive wars and not including them in your deficit reporting, like Bush did.

I don't like Bush either.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 1:34:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/8/2010 1:20:21 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/8/2010 12:46:09 AM, PervRat wrote:
You claim the white house's numbers are made up? Credibility failure there for you, dude.

I know, right. The White House said unemployment wasn't going to go over 8% with the stimulus but now it's over 10%. Pshhh, no biggie.

That's where the budget forecasting is.

For an easier reference, check the chart under http://en.wikipedia.org... (which uses the white house numbers).

To determine the increase of the national debt for a particular year (that is, the deficit), simple subtract the previous year from the year you wish to determin the deficit for.

For Fiscal Year 2009 (the last budget signed by Bush, since it was signed in 2008), its:
2009 National Debt: $12,867.5 billion (or $12.9 trillion)
- 2008 National Debt: $9,985.8 billion (or $10.0 trillion)
= Net loss (deficit): $2,881.7 billion

For Fiscal Year 2010 (the budget for which was signed in 2009, the first one signed by Obama), its:
2010 Nat'l Debt: $14,456.3 billion
- 2009 Nat'l Debt: $12,867.5 billion
= Defict: $1,588.8 billion.

How does that prove anything? That just proves that Obama added $2881.7 billion to the deficit in one year. Obama signed the FY 2009 budget fyi. Obama has increased, says the wiki, the debt by 20% of GDP since he took office.

FALSE, -BUSH- signed the FY 2009 budget in the year 2008. Obama didn't take office until 2009.

Fail again, Nags.

Not funny and yes. Are you still stuck using proven-false 19th century economics theory?

Austrian Economics. Keynesian economics is the proven failure.

Keynesian economics was proven right, especially under Roosevelt. Lasseiz-Faire economics was proven a failure every single time "trickle-down" was attempted.

How temporary was the gargantuan deficit spending by FDR? About 30 years or so.

Huh? Worst President in history says what?

You consider FDR the worst president in history? You must love Bush and what he did to the economy and the deficit.

If 30 years is "temporary," count me in.

You're going to have to elaborate.

On what? The economy dd well from FDR until the 1970s or so. Two decades of crap, then the 1990s we did pretty well again ... and of course, 2000s more trickle-down economics with an extra blessing from lousy-unfair Bush to export jobs to Chinese forced unpaid labor political prisons.

The malinvestments should be liquidated, but no, the government feels like creating more malinvestments and creating another bubble.

Define mal-investment.

mal-investment
- refers to investments of firms being badly allocated due to artificially low cost of credit and an unsustainable increase in money supply, often blamed on a central bank

Ah. I can invent terms, too here's one: immoral investment -- refers to investments of firms cicumventing all human rights and environmental laws by putting production in countries that have lax or no such protective laws. See: Any company that moved production to China.

Creating a housing bubble is not Keynesian.

Our economic system is Keynesian. Paul Krugman is Keynesian. Krugman called for a housing bubble, like other Keynesians, to offset the recession of 2001.

Our economic system is /far/ from Keynesian. We have been through major periods of trickle-down regimes, especially Reagan and both Bushes. Trickle-down is not Keynesian.

The theory that a society does well when there are masses of people unable to meet their basic needs has never held water.

There's no reason to cry alarm over it.

Except we're not in the biggest World War in history. And the debt from then still lingers.

We're in two wars and those are huge drains on the deficit. They are already near a trillion dollars, and they will definitely go over a trillion even if we packed up and left Afghanistan and Iraq tomorrow thanks to the very long-term costs in things like veteran's benefits.