Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 No, you're not allowed to get away with that BS Magox. Saying that it only accounts for 8% and brushing it aside is accounting like Obama saying that the healthcare plan is deficit neutral. 8% is a lot of !@#$ing scratch and I want it back in my !@#$ing pocket, or at least not pouring into the Iraqi sand and Afghan mountains where it will not take root. Whoaa there! How do you figure that I was brushing it aside? Exiled implictly stated that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had "everything" to do with the cause of the deficit, and I corrected his fallacious statement. To even call it hyperbole does injustice to the word. I understand that you are against the premise of the war, but that doesn't change the fact of my statement.
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 It's only 8% if you count only the supplemental expenditures and exclude the budget items wrapped into the the funding of different government departments (Defense, State, Justice - probably DoE and DHS, as well). The funding for "resetting" the military - refurbishing and replacing worn equipment, at a minimum - is a good chunk of current DoD funding, a good chunk of future funding, and in any sane accounting system would be "charged" against the wars. Not that it's all that possible to point to a given dollar of federal spending and say "THAT'S deficit spending right there!" anyway. But saying the wars are "less than 8%" of the deficit is specious, at best. You may be correct, but I wouldn't add even a whole percentage point to that number. If it's not 8%, then maybe 8 1/2% remember, each percentage point accounts for approximately $140 Billion. But, that is besides the point, let me ask you this, do you believe that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are the sole reason for our Deficits, or even the main contributing factor?
Taro T Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 You may be correct, but I wouldn't add even a whole percentage point to that number. If it's not 8%, then maybe 8 1/2% remember, each percentage point accounts for approximately $140 Billion. But, that is besides the point, let me ask you this, do you believe that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are the sole reason for our Deficits, or even the main contributing factor? The budget deficit is $14 Trillion?
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 The budget deficit is $14 Trillion? who said "budget deficit"?
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 who said "budget deficit"? You did. "Deficit" is the gap between annual expenditures and annual tax income. Perhaps you mean "debt"?
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 You did. "Deficit" is the gap between annual expenditures and annual tax income.Perhaps you mean "debt"? you're right, I did mean "debt", and in that example you listed above is that of the primary deficit, not the total deficit. However in fairness, I was dumbed down by this statement: Nothing. Has everything to do with causing the deficit... Maybe we shouldn't have thrown the baby out with the bathwater with regard to the war. apples to apples kind of thing.
keepthefaith Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 The budget deficit is $14 Trillion? This is one issue where you think both parties would agree with the numbers being what they are. Stop the fuc$ing spending!!!
drnykterstein Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Well, we all know who I blame for the debt: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (note: spending spikes to get us out of great depression, and great recession)
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 Well, we all know who I blame for the debt: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html(note: spending spikes to get us out of great depression, and great recession) So according to this logic, Jimmy Carter was the most fiscally responsible president in U.S modern times; FDR and Obama the least. Here is some of his scintillating commentary regarding deficit spending: Of course after the war, we had to pay off a huge national debt, but during that time, from 1946 to 1980, the economy was mainly quite prosperous. We hit a bad recession when Reagan took office, and his early deficit spending made sense (though he didn't know it). But then he continued to drive up the debt through the boom years that followed. That didn't make any sense. We are now headed into the worst slump since 1938, and you better hope Obama can fix it because that was not a pretty time. Unfortunately, as in the Great Depression, the extreme conservatives would rather trash the country than have our government succeed. They are much worse than Bush. The main thing to remember is that, with consumer spending going down, business is going to lay people off—not hire them. You can't blame business for this. It's just a vicious cycle that the economy gets into. And you can't blame consumers for not spending in bad times. The only way out of this, if we don't want to wait 10 years, is for the government to spend, pay unemployment insurance, or give tax breaks to people who will spend (not the rich).
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Well, we all know who I blame for the debt: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html(note: spending spikes to get us out of great depression, and great recession) Because everybody knows the first productive step to solving a problem is knowing who to blame
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 Because everybody knows the first productive step to solving a problem is knowing who to blame It's as if a 12 year old wrote that piece.
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 It's as if a 12 year old wrote that piece. Welcome to "journalism" in today's world.
John Adams Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Whoaa there! How do you figure that I was brushing it aside? Exiled implictly stated that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars had "everything" to do with the cause of the deficit, and I corrected his fallacious statement. To even call it hyperbole does injustice to the word. I understand that you are against the premise of the war, but that doesn't change the fact of my statement. 8% is a LOT of damn spending and you know he was just pointing out what a waste of money it is. By the way, 2010 federal spending will be 40% financed by borrowing. How scary is that? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU0O...DhkNjM4ZWE1NGE=
Adam Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 It's ridiculous. This is why I chose to go in the direction that I did for a living. I knew that we were in a lot of trouble, fiscally speaking, a couple years ago. The Bush administration was one of the worst in modern day history in regards to budgeting the national debt. Now that the Obama administration is in charge, he makes Bush relatively akin to appear as Ebenezer Scrooge. I don't subscribe to hardly any of the alarmist arguments, but I am telling everyone: THE DOLLAR WILL NO LONGER BE THE WORLD'S RESERVE CURRENCY SOMETIME IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. I opened up my own precious metals advisory brokerage a couple years ago, and it was the best financial decision I have ever made. If you think that keeping your dollars in the bank is the safest thing to do, I would urge people to at least diversify some of those funds into something tangible like Real Estate, precious metals or at least convert some of it into foreign currencies, preferably where there is growth. And the next administration will spend more- that's the pattern
John Adams Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 And the next administration will spend more- that's the pattern Hard to spend much more. Almost half of this group's spending is borrowed.
Adam Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Hard to spend much more. Almost half of this group's spending is borrowed. It will happen- take it to the bank....after we bail the bank out.
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 It will happen- take it to the bank....after we bail the bank out. I doubt it, the pendulum has swung rapidly to the left because of Bush, and will swing rapidly right back to the right because of BO. My guess is that by the time BO leaves office, most Americans will be starving for someone who gives a damn about fiscal responsibility, and I have faith that the next president will be uberconscience of reducing the national debt as one of his top priorities.
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 8% is a LOT of damn spending and you know he was just pointing out what a waste of money it is. By the way, 2010 federal spending will be 40% financed by borrowing. How scary is that? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU0O...DhkNjM4ZWE1NGE= To add to that article, we are paying extremely low interest rates for the $12 trillion debt we have, wait until inflation expectations start to go up, which of course means higher treasury borrowing rates. Right now, inflation expectation are super low, basically at deflationary expectation for a few years out, but that will change once the job market starts to actually create more jobs than lost. Right now we are paying roughly $260 Billion in interest payments, there is a good chance that treasury rates will double from where they are within the next 3 years, and according to the W.H our National Debt will increase to approximately $16 trillion, which would mean with the increased borrowing rates that I forsee us having would mean that our interest payments would be somewhere between $500-$600 Billion a year. That is going to be monstrous, and extremely difficult to climb out of, and I fully expect somewhere during this timeframe, we will be seeing the ratings agency downgrading our US Treasury Bills, which would have a cascading effect on the capital markets, through out the world. This could possibly lead to mass exit of treasuries which of course would lead to even higher rates, and even higher interest rates, not just for us as a country but for each individual consumer.
drnykterstein Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 Because everybody knows the first productive step to solving a problem is knowing who to blame I don't know about the first step. But sure, it's probably an important step in making sure mistakes are not repeated.
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 I don't know about the first step. But sure, it's probably an important step in making sure mistakes are not repeated. Of course, that works better if you blame the right person first. Hint: it's not the president.
Recommended Posts