RE: 'Exploding Deficits'

RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 5:30:36 PM)
Obama avoids another depression and the stock market is up but he gets no credit. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 5:38:38 PM)
Obama avoids another depression and the stock market is up but he gets no credit. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32558145

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 5:53:36 PM)
cbo Stimulus Is Helping Economy WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The $787 billion stimulus package passed in February will fuel a recovery in the moribund U.S. economy this year, Congress' non-partisan budget watchdog said on Tuesday. "Economic activity will begin to rebound in the second half of 2009, largely the result of fiscal stimulus," the Congressional Budget Office said in its assessment of the federal budget and U.S. economy. The stimulus has become a political hot potato amid record budget deficits and public concern over federal spending. Congressional Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against the stimulus package, have portrayed it as a pork-laden boondoogle that has done little to counter the effects of the worst economic downturn since World War Two. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the stimulus money should be diverted to reduce the budget deficit, which the White House and the CBO estimate will reach a record $1.6 trillion for this fiscal year that ends on September 30. Democrats, with an eye on next year's midterm congressional elections, have been eager to highlight the effects of the stimulus money as it makes its way to the public. "The Recovery Act, even while it added to the short-term deficit, staved off catastrophe and is bringing this recession to an end," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said after the CBO released its report. The government had paid out about $80.9 billion in stimulus funds as of August 14, according to the White House. The stimulus act's impact on the economy will grow through the end of the year and peak in the first half of 2010, the CBO said, though estimates are difficult because there is no way to know for sure how the economy would have performed without it. The stimulus will boost gross domestic product between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 and between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010, the budget experts said. By the end of 2013 its effect will be minimal. The package will cost the government a total of $185 billion this fiscal year when the cost of temporary tax cuts is added to the spending, CBO said. Most of the spending so far has been in four areas, CBO said: Medicare health coverage for the poor; unemployment benefits; one-time $250 payments to retirees; and grants to states for education and other government expenses. Spending on housing and transportation projects is going more slowly than anticipated, CBO said. Read Full Story at reuters.com http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE57O5V720090825

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 6:04:58 PM)
Ex-Wives and Others Eagerly Await the UBS Tax-Cheater List - Yahoo! News http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090821/us_time/08599191782900

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 6:19:42 PM)
July New Home Sales Blast Past Expectations NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -Sales of newly constructed homes leaped unexpectedly in July to hit their highest level since last September. New homes sold at an annualized rate of 433,000 during the month, according to a joint report issued by the Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development. That far exceeded analysts' forecasts and was up 9.6% from the revised 395,000 rate recorded in June. A consensus of industry experts surveyed by Briefing.com had predicted July sales of 390,000. The news followed other positive housing market reports earlier this month, including a spike in existing home sales, home prices and affordability. http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/26/real_estate/July_new_home_sales/index.htm?postversion=2009082610

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 6:33:56 PM)
BBC NEWS \| Business \| Recession in Britain 'at an end' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8217122.stm

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 7:09:18 PM)
Stocks and Bonds - S.&.P. Rises Over 1,000 on Optimism About Growth - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/business/04markets.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

OrionTheWolf -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 7:09:32 PM)
So now that the private sector seems to be recovering better, when do you propose we clean up and stop the red ink in the government spending area? Rather than post a news story, how about an original comment that is actually related to the topic.

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 7:34:35 PM)
All the articles I posted are related to the topic. And to answer your question why does the Republican Party always recommend tax cuts as a solution to every problem?

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 7:36:13 PM)
Averting the Worst By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: August 9, 2009 So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all. What saved us? The answer, basically, is Big Government. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?th&emc=th

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 7:42:39 PM)
Whatever happened to being a fiscal conservative? George Bush didn't veto one spending bill and the first bill he vetoed was stem cell research, well, I don't believe embryos have souls.

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 8:44:19 PM)
Paulson Urges Americans to Be Patient on Economy - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/business/economy/23econ.html?ref=business

OrionTheWolf -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/26/2009 8:55:46 PM)
To every problem? That seems a bit dramatic, and shows an agenda. Not sure how that plays into the discussion as some tax cuts have assisted in increasing tax revenues and others have proven to be loopholes for some corps to reduce their taxes. So if the tax cuts were continued by a Democrat, would it make those tax cuts okay? Maybe if you added comments, and made conclusions how they relate, then a dialogue and discussion might occur. As far as being fiscally conservative, I am not sure anyone has fit that description at the federal level in several decades. There have been a very small percentage of Congressmen and Senators that have fit that description, but the longer they are in office the more they are lured into just following the status quo. So the current deficits compared to past deficits, would show what kind of trend? You allude that cutting taxes is a bad thing, so that would mean less revenue coming in, correct? Will if less revenue coming in is a bad thing, is not more expenditure going out an equally bad thing? You cannot have it both ways, unless there is some proven ROI (return on investment) for it. quote: ORIGINAL: Brain All the articles I posted are related to the topic. And to answer your question why does the Republican Party always recommend tax cuts as a solution to every problem?

Brain -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 12:59:02 AM)
For virtually every problem the solution is a tax cut for Republicans, I’d like to know when the Republican party advocated raising taxes to balance the budget? I really didn’t think I had to add comments, and make conclusions how they relate because for me it was pretty obvious how the articles related to the topic of the deficit. I did not think I had to elaborate. However, to summarize, most of the articles relate to the topic of the deficit in terms of stimulating the economy and preventing another depression like occurred in 1929. I understand how people can be concerned about significant deficit spending but this is not the time to be concerned about deficits. Deficits don’t matter when you’re trying to prevent a depression because there is a significant gap in spending in the private sector and the only entity that can fill this significant void is the government. Of course you can do nothing except cut taxes, which is what the Republican Party wanted to do, and the economic pain would continue. I must say I find it really nauseating and hypocritical that right wingers are so concerned about the deficit now. Where were you guys when George Bush was spending $1 trillion in Iraq on a war that has accomplished nothing? And now Republicans are so concerned about the deficit, sorry but it is all quite disingenuous to me, it’s really all about attacking Obama so Republicans can get re-elected, what was it that Jim DeMint said about Obama’s Waterloo? It’s not surprising to me that the deficit is out of control with the nonsense going on with lobbyists as described in the article below and all the money spent on war. Of course Zell Miller would never cut any defense spending, do you remember the speech he gave about John Kerry always being against defense spending? The Defense Industry's Secret Weapon How a top Pentagon official—and former Raytheon lobbyist—is undermining vital reform at the DOD. —By Winslow T. Wheeler and Pierre M. Sprey Mon August 24, 2009 4:00 AM PST In July, to great fanfare, the Obama administration finally killed the F-22 fighter jet—an underperforming, overpriced Cold War relic that has never flown a combat mission over Iraq or Afghanistan. But all the breathless talk of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' "sweeping reforms" obscures an unpleasant truth. While the rare defeat of congressional porkmongers offers a ray of hope, real reform will require a far more ambitious, persistent effort. And standing in the way is the Pentagon's No. 2 civilian official—handpicked by Gates and coming directly from a lobbying job for the giant defense contractor Raytheon. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/08/defense-industry-secret-weapon

OrionTheWolf -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 5:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I understand how people can be concerned about significant deficit spending but this is not the time to be concerned about deficits. Deficits don’t matter when you’re trying to prevent a depression because there is a significant gap in spending in the private sector and the only entity that can fill this significant void is the government. This is where you make a mistake, and you never addressed my ROI comment. If spending works to bring about an upturn in the economy then that is exactly what is needed, but your comment "but this is not the time to be concerned about deficits." is the same irresponsible line being used by porkers right now. It is an idiotic statement, that seems to show that only one thing she be concentrated on, while all others are ignored. We should always be aware of the defecit while it exists, and make sure the money is being put to good use. That is called being fiscally responsible, which very few polticians are, and no wonder if they have constituents like yourself that are telling people to not be concerned about the deficit. quote: Of course you can do nothing except cut taxes, which is what the Republican Party wanted to do, and the economic pain would continue. You never answered the direct question about the tax cuts that Obama has 1) Continued from the republican admin and 2) The new ones he created. Personally some tax cuts for business to keep or bring jobs back to the US, that have been moved outside the US seems like a great idea right about now, but it must not be with your blanket statement and attitude. I also believe that increased taxes on revenues made by US companies outside the US would be in order also, and this would include whether the funds were brought back into the US or not. quote: I must say I find it really nauseating and hypocritical that right wingers are so concerned about the deficit now. Where were you guys when George Bush was spending $1 trillion in Iraq on a war that has accomplished nothing? I was opposed, and I am still opposed to that money being spent. So where were Democrats with control of Congress and the purse strings? You see it is not just a Republican or Democratic problem, and to bring it to that detracts from the actual issue of huge deficits and government waste. You are contributing to the problem by making it an "Us vs. Them" argument, when the us is the American people and the them is actual the politicians. quote: And now Republicans are so concerned about the deficit, sorry but it is all quite disingenuous to me, it’s really all about attacking Obama so Republicans can get re-elected, what was it that Jim DeMint said about Obama’s Waterloo? You need to wake up, it is always about getting elected or re-elected. Open your eyes and see that the point is about keeping the power, not utilizing it in a responsible fashion. quote: It’s not surprising to me that the deficit is out of control with the nonsense going on with lobbyists as described in the article below and all the money spent on war. Of course Zell Miller would never cut any defense spending, do you remember the speech he gave about John Kerry always being against defense spending? You obviously did not look at the government waste link I posted, or you would see that polticians from both parties contribute, and that defense spending set aside, John Kerry is a large porker along with many others. This story you have posted focuses on a single issue, and not on the root problem. Kind of like having a flooring issue with a home, and you decide to rearrange the furniture.

tazzygirl -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 5:40:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl In '98, we had a huge surplus. by '02, we were in the red again. 08' almost 500 million in the red, and facing an economic melt down. according to the graph in this mornings pittsburgh post gazette. and they wonder why we will be further in the red? Memory tells me we had no surplus during, or after, the Clinton administration. I recall there was a projected surplus, not an actual surplus. Uncle Nasty unless im reading this wrong.... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09238/993238-84.stm

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 8:42:40 AM)
More than 13 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage are either behind on their payments or in foreclosure as the recession throws more people out of work. This is a record high, up from about 6% during the "blame the deadbeat who bought too much house" game that was common at the start of the crisis. How many of these defaulting mortgages were previously sold to Wall St and bundled into mortgage-backed securities? When those mortgages default, more derivative (unregulated insurance) payouts are triggered. When more of these derivatives are triggered, the sound of AIG and other Wall St firms sucking at the taxpayer tit increases in volume. The total value of that unregulated insurance outstanding that can be called upon to be made payable is $700 trillion, or 70 times the GDP of this country, or 7 times the GDP of this earth. In other words, impossible to cover. Thanks to the bankers, we would need 7 more planets in this solar system, each with an economy equal to our earth's, all contributing 100% of their economic output to us, simply to cover the debts of the unregulated insurance these bankers created in just 10 short years. Phil Gramm authored the legislation that made this fiasco possible during a Republican controlled congress, Bill Clinton signed it as he was walking out the door, and Bush refused to stop it over 8 years (6 years with a Republican congress, and 2 years with a democrat congress who didnt stop it once they gained control because they wanted to accellerate the Republican crash). And yes, this was the same Phil Gramm that candidate John McCain turned to for economy-related answers after admitting he didnt know anything about economics. Yes, it was the same Phil Gramm whose wife sat on the Board at Enron and crafted this very legislation over that very connection, with Enron becoming the first casualty of derivatives (energy related, rather than mortgage related). Yes, it was the same Phil Gramm that architechted this disaster, and then called Americans a "bunch of whiners" regarding their loss of living standards. Ken Lay went to jail not for imploding Enron, but only for hiding his losses from energy derivatives from unsuspecting investors in those dummy corporations. He became an unfair scapegoat for the larger issue, the legislation that enabled the corporate implosions (Enron first, then the investment banks now) that was crafted by Gramm and signed by Clinton. So, I am inclined to think that when Obama spends $1.5 trillion of Chinese money to stabilize the economy in an attempt to stop the foreclosures, he's not participating in the exercise because he's a spend-happy leftist. He is doing it to keep more of that $700 trillion in liabilities from triggering, in order to save your collective asses, even the asses of his biggest critics here on CM. I'm not saying this because I like Obama, and I may not agree with the general concept of spending our way to stability, but I DO understand why he is doing it, which is far more than the majority of tea-partiers and Rush fans understand. I do acknowledge that this IS the predicament that unregulated capitalists and previous politicians have left this country in. Bitching about doubling the deficit when we really do face a spend-now-or-game-over situation is just a waste of oxygen. I think its funny that most who bitch about Obama's spending have made absolutely no acknowledgement over how Wall St types "own this problem" far more than Fannie or Freddie or the underqualified homebuyer do. And even if Obama successfully arrests the decline, we will live with these financial WMD's hanging over our heads for all eternity. You can be damn sure a recovered Wall St won't use their proceeds to defuse these bombs they built. They will be used to pay additional dividends to shareholders while the circus is still in business. Me, I prefer to bitch over the retirement generation of today that built the $10 trillion debt that has become Obama's starting point. That $10 trillion amounted to a "stimulus" that was injected into the economy over the past 25 years creating the various bubble economies that have produced a very comfortable retirement for today's retirees whose 401Ks are stuffed with money belonging to other generations. Unlike Obama's projected $10 trillion deficit that is critical to saving our asses, this $10 trillion was built on fluff issues, just so one generation could experience a more comfortable retirement.

rightwinghippie -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 9:25:46 AM)
Tazzy, thats not really a definitive chart. We are talking Gov numbers here, so there actually is no such thing as the "deficit". It is scored in many different ways. " The annual government deficit refers to the difference between government receipts and spending. Logically, the deficit is equal to annual increase in the debt. However, there is certain spending (supplemental appropriations and the surplus tax receipts in the Social Security program) that add to the debt but are excluded from the deficit." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt There is also a chart there showing the difference between the "public "debt and the Gross debt. Its significant To be honest Bushes numbers used the same split ("off book spending") so his numbers are worse than published. And the trends go in a positive direction Durring part of Clintons term. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf This has a lot of info on it. We can score the deficit/debt/?? in many different ways to get the results we want. Off Book On book.... But as I read the data on pg 120-121 In real gross terms, every single year of Clintons (and both Bushes). The USA added to its Debt. There were no positive years, in gross actuall terms. Statistically things can of course be scored and massaged to get most any result wanted

Mercnbeth -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 10:23:43 AM)
quote: I think its funny that most who bitch about Obama's spending have made absolutely no acknowledgement over how Wall St types "own this problem" far more than Fannie or Freddie or the underqualified homebuyer do. DD, Your assessment is correct but wouldn't it, at minimum, point to complicity? Why is one "far more" when neither could pull off the scam without the other? Although I don't put the dupes, who rationalized themselves into a situation which required believing in a 15% annual property appreciation to work, into the conspiracy; the bankers needed Congressional assistance to make it payoff. quote: And even if Obama successfully arrests the decline, we will live with these financial WMD's hanging over our heads for all eternity. Stipulating to the "if" why isn't there any focus on the "how"? Which, if any, action addresses this key issue now or in any future foreseeable by our grand-children's kids? How does bailing out failings businesses and industries address this problem. You speak of the courage it has taken to go down this path. What courage does it take to initiate action which only postpones the situation you identify as "stabilizing" the economy by borrowing from the Chinese? A courageous action would be to address the situation now, handle it internally, let the failures fail, and let the successes lead us to future that wasn't mortgaged to foreign investors. quote: You can be damn sure a recovered Wall St won't use their proceeds to defuse these bombs they built. They will be used to pay additional dividends to shareholders while the circus is still in business. Agreed - you're seeing this now; which is why I don't understand why anyone in support of this Administration would point to Wall Street as a positive indicator of the economy improving. The increased value of the Stock Market has one cause - YOU, me, and every other tax payer own all the liabilities incurred by the Congress/Wall Street scheme. Take away all the losses and the Banks are doing GREAT! Best part for them is, they don't have to lend to any of the "deadbeat" dupes because Barney Frank isn't yelling at them anymore to do so. quote: That $10 trillion amounted to a "stimulus" that was injected into the economy over the past 25 years creating the various bubble economies that have produced a very comfortable retirement for today's retirees whose 401Ks are stuffed with money belonging to other generations. Unlike Obama's projected $10 trillion deficit that is critical to saving our asses, this $10 trillion was built on fluff issues, just so one generation could experience a more comfortable retirement. Would love to know how the commitment to an unprecedented $10 Trillion deficit is "critical to saving" your ass. That position can only come from the "entitlement generation". Now that we've gotten that out of the way. No segment of the country was more negatively affected by the Banking Bubble bursting than those retired or getting ready to do so. They worked all their lives and had two places for investment; their house, and their 401k. Housing can reach a depreciation level of 25% compared to 2007. Some 401ks lost over 50% of their value which may not be recovered. Here's one of these villains: "Will this deter us from an early retirement? Oh, yeah," says Katherine Watson, 53, of Bloomington, Ill. "Will I be likely to gamble on the stock market by purchasing an individual stock? No way." There's an ominous piece of the puzzle that I think you missed. Ms Watson's position about stock, is the shared by many. Without investment there is no growth. Without growth there is no jobs. Without jobs there is not tax revenue generated. Without tax revenue the US will be unable to pay back the $1.5 Trillion borrowed from the Chinese. Should we can expect them to be more, or less as understanding then the Corlione Family? I know personally of many business owners who have adopted the same attitude regarding business investment; me for one. I can't wait to see how the entitlement generation turns that around once they realize that without private sector investment there is no possible recovery.

DedicatedDom40 -> RE: 'Exploding Deficits' (8/27/2009 12:43:44 PM)
Personally, I believe the entitlement generation IS the retirement generation of today. Retirees of today are the experts at wealth redistribution. They even took the "scorched earth" route, forcing their own kids to compete with chinese slave labor rates, just so that wealth bubble could grow a little bit higher. And yes, its true, some have since lost 50% of their STOLEN MONEY in their 401Ks. As we speak, I'm crying a river over the bubble popping prematurely for some. http://qa.politicswest.com/local_western_politics/7626/crime_century Secondly, you won't fix our economy and create jobs that will allow us to survive under the shadow of these financial WMDs until we fix capitalism. We do not have true capitalism today. We have rigged capitalism. We have capitalism that privatizes the profits, and socializes the risk. Capitalism that actually writes the Prescription Drug Bill, hooking up the government's medicare money pipeline directly to Big Pharma. Capitalism today has made it more trendy to buy and sell a barrel of oil 47 times before it gets sold to a refinery. Why? Because today its all about "profits from paper", as it was with derivatives and daytrading. Profiting from paper is more chic today than actually having to build a factory (and pay the taxes on the land) and hire a workforce (and deal with labor laws) to make a product (protecting yourself from consumer liability) and then compete with other similar product manufacturers under the umbrella of capitalism. More importantly, IT WOULDN'T MATTER if we streamlined government all you wanted, and essentially "gave away the store" in tax breaks and the like, it still wouldn't create an economic environment that builds factories and adds jobs, because making physical goods for profit still represents "the long way around" to profits when compared to "profiting from paper", or from daytrading, or from buying and flipping a piece of property. I am rightly weary of folks who seem to think everything glorious comes from cutting business taxes and abolishing unions and demanding tort reform, all the while they go about making a living "profiting from paper", selling derivatives, and flipping barrels of oil 47 times. Its a distraction. Its a con. You won't recover anything until you bring ethics back to capitalism, and de-emphasize, re-regulate, (or tax into oblivion) the "paper players". Under capitalism, it must become more trendy to actually make physical products (that requires factories, workers, and professional services) once again. If that never happens, then we cannot blame the arrival of socialism for everybody else (and not just for the corporations that have it today) on anyone but ourselves.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02