IT'S OFFICIAL: The Government Has Shut Down, And Here's The GOP's Next Move

[Karee 4,191]

Not good for the Kenyan or not good for the Hawaiian?

It's kind of a running joke here. There's one member that only refers to him as "the Kenyan"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/457592-its-official-the-government-has-shut-down-and-heres-the-gops-next-move/?p=6552606

Those numbers talk about the deficit, not the debt. Focus. The debt numbers make clear that Obama is by far not the worst of them.

[Karee 4,191]

Those numbers talk about the deficit, not the debt. Focus. The debt numbers make clear that Obama is by far not the worst of them.

Jesus. I figured you would be the one person here who would understand the relationship between debt and deficit. Guess I was wrong.

If the government runs a deficit one year of 1.5 billion and a deficit the next year of 2.5 billion, that equals a principle debt of 4.0 billion not including the interest on that debt.

One way to think about the debt is as accumulated deficits.

Here, go and learn something:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Jesus. I figured you would be the one person here who would understand the relationship between debt and deficit. Guess I was wrong.

If the government runs a deficit one year of 1.5 billion and a deficit the next year of 2.5 billion, that equals a principle debt of 4.0 billion not including the interest on that debt.

Here, go and learn something:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/pressroom_bpd08052004.htm

Relative to GDP, Reagan increased the national debt from 32.5% to 51.9% (up ~20%). Bush increased it from 56.4% to 83.4% (up ~25%). On the current path, the debt is projected to reach slightly over 100% by the end of Obama's second term (up ~20%). So Obama would be in Reagan territory and would fare better than Bush Jr.

You can slice this any way you want but the case you're trying to make just doesn't hold.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist07z1.xls

[Karee 4,191]

Relative to GDP, Reagan increased the national debt from 32.5% to 51.9% (up ~20%). Bush increased it from 56.4% to 83.4% (up ~25%). On the current path, the debt is projected to reach slightly over 100% by the end of Obama's second term (up ~20%). So Obama would be in Reagan territory and would fare better than Bush Jr.

You can slice this any way you want but the case you're trying to make just doesn't hold.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist07z1.xls

I see you're still not getting it. There's debt and there's deficit. The total debt number can rise and fall based on many things, mostly running deficits or surpluses year over year. There's also interest and other things to take into account.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Obama is running a higher annual DEFICIT every year as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Bush or Bush Jr. ever has. That's the number that matters! Unless you start lowering DEFICITS, there's no way the debt will decrease. It will increase. There was already existing debt there when all 3 of the presidents were sworn in. Obama has done an outstanding job of running a higher annual DEFICIT as a percentage of annual GDP than any president in decades thus raising the total DEBT to astronomical levels.

Here it is again:

Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan

1981-88 4.2 %

1982-89 4.2

Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush

1989-92 4.0

1990-93 4.3

Average 4.2

Bill Clinton

1993-2000 0.8

1994-2001 0.1

Average 0.5

George W. Bush

2001-08 2.0

2002-09 3.4

Average 2.7

Barack Obama

2009-12* 9.1

2010-12 8.7

Average 8.9

*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

[Novembro 1,763]

Of course, but Boehnercare is what they wanted. They got it. Our government has a 100% reliable history on using anything the people want as a pawn in their chess game. Actually they gave up chess about 1952 as it was far over their mental ability, switched to checkers and in 2009 started playing Chutes and Ladders

Who here believes that ONLY large corporations, unions and congress should get a 1 year waiver on Boehnercare payments and the rest of you need to pay up? Raise your hands!

All the Democrats have to do to end this nonsense is agree to give everyone the same thing they gave to Walmart, the United Auto Workers and themselves.

Do you really believe Walmart should not have to pay...but YOU should?

I'm 12 and what is this?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see you're still not getting it. There's debt and there's deficit. The total debt number can rise and fall based on many things, mostly running deficits or surpluses year over year. There's also interest and other things to take into account.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Obama is running a higher annual DEFICIT every year as a percentage of GDP than Reagan or Bush or Bush Jr. ever has. That's the number that matters! Unless you start lowering DEFICITS, there's no way the debt will decrease. It will increase. There was already existing debt there when all 3 of the presidents were sworn in. Obama has done an outstanding job of running a higher annual DEFICIT as a percentage of annual GDP than any president in decades thus raising the total DEBT to astronomical levels.

You first wanted to talk about the debt that's been racked up by various Presidents. So we were talking about debt rather than deficits.

But since you're into blaming things on past administrations, look up the total debt in 8 years for Reagan and compare it to Obama. When you're finished with that, go look up the total debt for Bush jr. and compare it to Obama.

If you add 6 trilion to 10 trillion you have 16 trillion. So while adding 6 trillion to 10 trillion is not actually doubling or tripling anything, I'd argue that add 6 trillion in debt is worse than doubling a smaller number.

Obama inherited a deficit at roughly 10% of GDP. The economy was in freefall, tax revenues sunk to historic lows. That makes deficit reduction extremely difficult. They tried the austerity route in Europe and those economies still haven't recovered to pre-recession levels not have they done any better in their debt reduction efforts than the US has - the opposite happened, actually. It was clearly the wrong medicine.

Now, the deficit for FY 2013 will come in at roughly $650 billion which is about 4.0% of GDP. The deficit is expected to fall further over the next couple of years so that by 2015, the deficit is projected to come in at 2.1% of GDP. So the deficit has already been cut in half and it is projected to be cut in half again over the next couple of years. That will change, however, when the Republicans willfully blow up the full faith and credit of the United States of America later this month. Once they've done that, they will have succeeded in their relentless quest to sink the world into the next Great Depression. Maybe then you will be happy.