How Debt Can Help Save America

[mawilson 2,133]

Exactly. So where did the rest come from? What other huge expenditures did he make that weren't a carry over from the Bush Administration?

You really want me to give you a spending breakdown by department? This information is readily available, but if you're too lazy to look it up, let me know and I'll post it here.

[mawilson 2,133]

2007:

[+] Pensions 628.3

[+] Health Care 641.8

[+] Education 102.0

[+] Defense 652.6

[+] Welfare 262.1

[+] Protection 41.2

[+] Transportation 72.9

[+] General Government 19.8

[+] Other Spending 71.1

[+] Interest 237.1

[+] Total Spending 2,728.9

[+] Federal Deficit 161.0

[+] Gross Public Debt 8,950.8

2008:

[+] Pensions 659.8

[+] Health Care 671.4

[+] Education 101.8

[+] Defense 729.6

[+] Welfare 322.3

[+] Protection 47.1

[+] Transportation 77.6

[+] General Government 20.8

[+] Other Spending 99.3

[+] Interest 252.8

[+] Total Spending 2,982.5

[+] Federal Deficit 458.6

[+] Gross Public Debt 9,986.1

2009:

[+] Pensions 728.2

[+] Health Care 784.2

[+] Education 91.7

[+] Defense 821.7

[+] Welfare 403.4

[+] Protection 53.3

[+] Transportation 94.3

[+] General Government 23.1

[+] Other Spending 855.2

[+] Interest 142.7

[+] Total Spending 3,997.8

[+] Federal Deficit 1,841.2

[+] Gross Public Debt 12,867.5

2010:

[+] Pensions 746.0

[+] Health Care 846.8

[+] Education 149.5

[+] Defense 871.9

[+] Welfare 427.7

[+] Protection 55.7

[+] Transportation 106.9

[+] General Government 25.6

[+] Other Spending 225.2

[+] Interest 135.9

[+] Total Spending 3,591.1

[+] Federal Deficit 1,258.4

[+] Gross Public Debt 14,456.3

2011:

[+] Pensions 772.4

[+] Health Care 874.4

[+] Education 148.6

[+] Defense 830.9

[+] Welfare 417.1

[+] Protection 54.5

[+] Transportation 88.9

[+] General Government 25.8

[+] Other Spending 147.6

[+] Interest 254.5

[+] Total Spending 3,614.8

[+] Federal Deficit 929.4

[+] Gross Public Debt 15,673.9

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'll ask again, what other huge expenditures did he make that weren't a carry over from the Bush Administration?

See, this the crux of the whole issue surrounding the debt as well as pointing out the obvious hypocrisy by the Republicans. Aside from the stimulus, the Obama Administration has NOT spent any more money than what the previous administration was spending.

So basically, had McCain been elected into office and not changed anything and lets assume he didn't push for a stimulus, 3 trillion dollars would been added to the debt.

This really isn't about the debt, it's about trying to pin the unsustainable course that the Bush Administration put us on, onto President Obama. There was no so-called Tea Party until Obama got into office. In fact, the only ones talking about the debt ceiling were Democrats. What the Democrats have said all along, is that during economic good times, is when to bring down the debt. Deficit spending is really a Republican centerpiece. They like to spend. They just don't like to pay for it. What a joke.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'll ask again, what other huge expenditures did he make that weren't a carry over from the Bush Administration?

Who says it's something "huge"? If there was one huge thing, it would be easy to eliminate. There's nothing huge - just lots of small budget increases for almost every government department and federal program. And the entitlement programs, of course.

Aside from the stimulus, the Obama Administration has NOT spent any more money than what the previous administration was spending.

Not spent any more money??? Are you trying to piss me off or are you BLIND? What the fuсk do you think this is:

2007 Total Spending: 2,728.9

2008 Total Spending: 2,982.5

2009 Total Spending: 3,997.8

2010 Total Spending: 3,591.1

2011 Total Spending: 3,614.8

The stimulus was a one-off thing, listed under "Other Spending" in 2009. It's not JUST the fuсking stimulus - it's everything else combined.

it's about trying to pin the unsustainable course that the Bush Administration put us on, onto President Obama

Obama needs to recognize that we're on an unsustainable course first. So far he hasn't offered any real solutions (i.e. entitlement reforms and spending cuts) other than his usual "tax the rich" class warfare BS.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Waite until Obama gets his "Dream Act" passed and then watch the entitlement spending go up,up and up.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock.

The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

Edited September 11, 2011 by DFH

[NickD 203]

In the early 70's, our government was giving the Japanese 10% for everything they exported to us, killed our electronic industry, but most important, the IRS cannot tax a buck that leaves this country. For our allies from WW II, they charged them a tariff, while the Japanese were paid tariffs instead of paying them.

But they got greedy in the late 80's, I did work for the Japanese for a brief period of time along with thousands of other American engineers in the automotive field, but only long enough to get our brains picked when they elected to get into the automotive market. We could compete with them again and make drastic improvements in our domestic vehicles. But that didn't last long, Clinton brought in China, escalated dramatically by both the Bush and the Obama administrations.

Chicago use to be the electronic headquarters of the world, can only find a Radio Shack store there now. No repair business for this Chinese #######, all throwaway, with screaming put on to us for recycling their #######. We could survive the Chinese market for 13 years, but they did learn how to do things a little better and we lost bids. Not talking about dollars here, just a fraction of a cent per unit cost is all it took.

If we have traitors in this country and to the American people, look no further than Washington DC, it is they that determine our trade policies, nobody else, but yet they tell us to buy American. Like what? Everything is made in China. Is the likes of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama protecting America? Hell no, more interested in other Asian countries than us. Can only conclude all these presidents are working for the same guy, and certainly not the American people. Not only huge trade deficits, but a huge debt as well. IRS cannot tax a buck that leaves this country.

My high paying engineering job left this country four years ago. Returning to how I lived as a dirt poor kid looking for old unwanted boards to build something. But barely getting by and still debt free. Sure getting robbed by my tax assessor, but can't take him to court for charging me for services I am not nor ever have received.

Chinese can make their own stuff for what they need, and so can we. Never heard about these huge debts after WW II, Korean, or Viet Nam wars. That is because the buck stayed here. And if you don't know it, the IRS gets a hundred per cent of it back with a progressive tax system.

Don't need new solutions, just go back to the way this country was. Was a great country once when a dirt poor kid like me could study and make a good life for himself and family.

[B_J 2,752]

...based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. It demonstrates the utter incoherence of being very concerned about a structural federal deficit but ruling out of consideration the policy that was largest single contributor to that deficit, namely the Bush-era tax cuts.

An additional significance of the chart: it identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks -- like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. Those external events make a big difference in the deficit, and they are the major reason why deficits have increased faster in absolute terms during Obama's first two years than during the last two under Bush. (In a recession, tax revenues plunge, and government spending goes up - partly because of automatic programs like unemployment insurance, and partly in a deliberate attempt to keep the recession from getting worse.) If you want, you could even put the spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category: those were policy choices, but right or wrong they came in response to an external shock.

The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why we call them "shocks." Governments can control their policies. And the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. You could argue that the stimulative effect of those cuts is worth it ("deficits don't matter" etc). But you cannot logically argue that we absolutely must reduce deficits, but that we absolutely must also preserve every penny of those tax cuts. Which I believe precisely describes the House Republican position.

http://www.theatlant...ceiling/242484/

It always bothers me when a tax cut is considered a cost.

[Pooky 3,787]

Waite until Obama gets his "Dream Act" passed and then watch the entitlement spending go up,up and up.

Haven't you noticed? He's basically done so anyway in spite of Congress.

[웃 910]

It always bothers me when a tax cut is considered a cost.

They are a cost.

"Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame major legislation adopted in 2008-2010 — the stimulus bill and other recovery measures and the financial rescues — for today's record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted some years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO's and other organizations' budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [7] By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — nearly $10 trillion — of the $20 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies.[8] (The Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 also will substantially increase deficits and debt, but we are unable to quantify these impacts due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues, which will account for less than $2 trillion (less than 10 percent) of the debt at that time. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers.

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[9]"

LOL @ this:

Edited September 11, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It always bothers me when a tax cut is considered a cost.

Then don't think of it that way. It's lost revenue and if you slash revenue without slashing expenditures like what the Bush Administration did, you add to the debt. With the case of the Bush Tax Cuts, that was the single biggest contribution to increasing the debt. That's not opinion - that is fact. Many Republicans have long fantasized about starving Medicare and Social Security and this was one way to do it through the back door. Give the rich a tax windfall, create a 'debt crisis' and then tell the American people we have to make sacrifices by cutting Medicare and Social Security. Brilliant. This is the same kind of thing that's happened in the state of California where the Republican concocted Prop 13 made increasing taxes near impossible. The Democrats then supported subsequent propositions that ensured the allocation of money towards public education and that is one of the big reasons why that state is so deep in the hole.

Look, it's understood that many Republicans don't want to pay for things, but short of specifics as to what those things are, cutting out revenue or blocking any chance of increasing taxes is fiscal recklessness. And it's nothing but extremism to think that we should starve government services. This is Ayn Rand's ideology fully realized and it's taking our country down a path of destruction. While we should as a country always work towards efficiency, cutting off our nose in spite of our face makes no sense except to the those who adhere to Rand's ideology like a religion. Even Alan Greenspan, a real life apostle of Rand's, conceited that the government has an expanded role in protecting its citizens, not only from enemies, foreign and domestic, but from economic peril at the hands of the few and powerful.

[mawilson 2,133]

I see a trillion dollar increase in spending under Obama which is 100 percent unpaid for.

If the deficit was around 500 billion dollars per year under Bush, it is now 1.5 trillion dollars per year under Obama.

[웃 910]

I see a trillion dollar increase in spending under Obama which is 100 percent unpaid for.

If the deficit was around 500 billion dollars per year under Bush, it is now 1.5 trillion dollars per year under Obama.

Did you count the $126 billion in defense 'savings' under Obama

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I see a trillion dollar increase in spending under Obama which is 100 percent unpaid for.

If the deficit was around 500 billion dollars per year under Bush, it is now 1.5 trillion dollars per year under Obama.

Obama squandered the expiring of the Bush Tax Cuts and I think that was reckless on his part. He should not have bargained it away just so he could get unemployment benefits extended. That will go down as one of his administration's biggest blunders. But don't mistake that as Obama not understanding that the current course is unsustainable. He's been trying to raise revenue but the Republicans refuse to consider raising taxes to balance the budget.

[mawilson 2,133]

Did you count the $126 billion in defense 'savings' under Obama

What defense savings? There were none.

Edited September 11, 2011 by mawilson